Given Winnipeg's City Hall cancelled contract "A" after it was exposed that it was handed out through a shoddy process, shouldn't people examine contract "B" if it was handed out through the same shoddy process?

Most people would probably say "yes," but there doesn't seem to be much examination of how contract "B" was awarded in local media.

I've simplified the situation immensely, but if you want to learn more keep reading...

SHODDY PROCESS - In 2008, the City of Winnipeg conducted a “request for qualifications” bid process for commercial real estate work. At the time, the city told the real estate industry that they wanted to build a short list of firms to go to for future real estate work over the next two years instead of tendering each project.

The city noted in the tender that it wanted help with various types of real estate transactions in the future, but when it came to asking for rates, the city only specifically asked bidders for rates that they would charge the city for helping to sell city properties. Consider what the city noted in its 2008 tender instructions - 

"The Applicant shall provide their proposed fee schedule which will include their anticipated commissions on Commercial Properties sold for the City."

When it was all said and done, no firm provided rates for property management work yet the city claimed that process allowed them to give a contract worth about $150,000/year for property management work at the old Canada Post building to Shindico as it had the best rates for other real estate transactions.

That would be like the city deciding to have all oil changes for its police cars at a local garage because that garage offered the best price for replacing engines. Just because a business has a good price for one service, doesn't mean it has the best price for another. Plain and simple, the city should have put the property management contract out for tender.

In October 2012, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and public policy guru Brian Kelcey raised this concern at the city's Property and Development committee and they cancelled the property management contract with Shindico at their next meeting. The committee agreed it was a poor process.

CONTRACT B - Media stories recently noted how Shindico was paid $804,000 for assisting the city with aquiring the same former Canada Post building on Graham. Winnipeg Free Press reporter Bartley Kives tweeted that the funds were for "commissions and due dilligence work." 

Metro News included the following comments by Mayor Katz about the commission - 

“The due diligence, they did all of that. They also organized all of the professionals, the engineers, the architects, etc., to do all of the work that had to be done,” said Katz following the meeting, adding that Canada Post used a brokerage firm as well.

So the key question of course is - how was Shindico selected for the $804,000 worth of work? 

As I didn't see any mention in media coverage about how Shindico was chosen, I asked the city. They told me Shindico was given the contract because they finished first in that 2008 tender - the one I referred to earlier as the "shoddy process."

When I asked the City how many firms provided consulting rates in that 2008 tender I was told - 

“Firms provided fees for commercial reality services (commission rates). It is not the City’s practice to share information regarding all of the applicants.”

In other words - a non-answer. My question was clear - I wasn't asking for confidential information like the actual rates each firm bid, just how many firms provided rates for the type of work Shindico provided? Clearly the work ultimately provided wasn't a case of selling a property (as the tender contemplated), but doing "due dilligence" work and as the mayor said - "organizing professionals."

How many firms provided rates for providing that type of work? If no firms did then this is just like the CONTRACT A situation - handing a contract to a firm just because it had the best bid for another type of service.

Hopefully media decide to follow-up on this one. Taxpayers deserve answers...just to make sure all the I's and T's are dotted and crossed.

JANUARY 2 UPDATE: After a couple back and forth emails with the city, they have indicated that Shindico was given the contract due to the 2008 tender. However, the city refuses to explain how many firms provided quotes for the type of work Shindico did in that tender. I have since filed an information request to find out the number but that will take at least a few more weeks.

I realize this can be confusing so perhaps this example can explain things easier.

If the city handed out the $804,000 contract in the same manner as the property management contract mentioned above, it would akin to asking Jennifer Jones (the curler) to represent Canada at the Olympics in bobsledding as well even though she only won the competition to represent Canada in curling.

Again, the city has twice refused to answer the question, but given how they dealt with the property management contract, this could be another case of a poorly administered deal.