As you will see in this blog post, back in October 2012, Brian Kelcey founder of State of the City Research, and I presented to the city of Winnipeg's Property and Development committee.

We expressed concern with the city's decision to essentially sole-source a property management contract for work at the former Canada Post building to local real estate firm Shindico. In 2010 that contract was worth $157,621.16.

The Property and Development committee agreed with our concerns and voted to direct the administration to cancel the contract "within 90 days" and issue a tender so that all firms could bid on the work. The latter would ensure all firms in the city had a chance to bid on the work.

In yesterday's blog post I raised some questions about what transpired since then - such as; why was Shindico was still doing property management work as of June 30, 2013? After all, 90 days from November 6 would have meant the contract expired in early February, 2013.

I also questioned why a contract awasn't awarded as a result of the property management RFP that closed in February, 2013?

Looks like some answers are in a report going to the city's Property and Development Committee meeting tomorrow. See report #23 - here.

SAVINGS - As you can see, the city isn't going to contract the work out anymore. It seems they can save over $349,000 over the next three years alone by doing the work in-house. The possibility of savings by doing the work in-house was something Brian and I both raised during our presentation back in November. Had we not stepped forward to question the contract, it's likely this savings would never have happened.

UNNECESSARY COST - If the city can do the work for a far lower price than contracting it out, why was it sole-sourced in the first place? Who will be held accountable?

ACCOUNTABILITY - While the administration was directed by a council committee to cancel the Shindico contract within 90 days, they kept it going for over 230 days. Why didn't the request for extension come back to a council committee for approval? Why didn't city staff take over the work after the 90 days were up? After all, they're doing the work right now - clearly they can handle it.

Who will be held accountable for defying such a direct order on a contraversial topic.

THANKS - shout out to an anonymous little bird who has been watchdogging these types of transactions closely and feeding me info over the years. A kudos to Brian Kelcey as well for his efforts on this file.

.