RE:RE:RE:RE:Nuclear - valuation of division On the CGL bid: You do not sign a construction contract without a periodic (12 months) price adjustment clause based on a construction price index. If the owner does not offer this elementary protection in the administrative conditions of contract, you openly raise this abusive issue during the Q&A period (thereby openly denouncing it), making sure this is reported in construction magazines which is equally perfectly legal, and raise this through your contractor association which for reference is perfectly legal, and ultimately no one bids because you all have the same very serious concerns against such abuse. That is how this is done and I am not impressed or proud by how we did it.
On the CGL execution: You keep excellent records of all what has happened (COViD effects, uprising of local residents against the project, supply issues) and document them very thoroughly. There was big gaps here and this is very clear to me simply because we had to accept a lousy settlement.
On the CGL settlement: I heartfully supported this right after the press release and obviously still do, because of the risks (associated to the aforementioned blunders) and detailed in my analysis here: https://stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard?symbol=t.are&postid=36112660
On Eglinton and Finch West: These were very tough contracts and the risk committee should have raised equally serious concerns during the Q&A. First red flag: There is no independent engineer (a firm with knowledge and understanding with an expert's pool the size of WSP) that is drafting the tender documents and preventing abusive clauses. Second red flag: A closed-end contract with so many unknowns is senseless, we saw the money but not the risks. Third red flag: Contractors were not consulted before the tenders were out. There should have been a market outreach and consultation event.
I fully agree with you with the rest. Thank you for all your feedback and your posts.