This Web page has been archived on the Web.

1991 Report of the Auditor General of Canada

Main Points

6.1 The real estate portfolio of the Government of Canada is estimated to be worth $60 billion, a significant percentage of the net national debt (paragraph 6.11).

6.2 In this first assessment by our Office of the quality of these assets, two general-purpose office buildings were examined on a pilot basis to develop and test methodology (6.17 and 6.18).

6.3 The methodology developed and field-tested can be employed, with few modifications, in the future audit of buildings and building condition reports forming part of the Department of Public Works and other departments' asset management plans (6.18).

6.4 Both buildings were found to be generally designed and constructed to commercial standards commonly in effect at the time (6.21 and 6.78).

6.5 Breaches of the National Fire Code in both buildings audited raise questions about their design, construction, inspection, commissioning and operational management (6.21 to 6.23, 6.59 to 6.67 and 6.87 to 6.92).

6.6 There is no complete fire safety plan for either building (6.67 and 6.92).

6.7 Large precast concrete panels in the uppermost part of the envelope of one building are cracked, and the panel anchors are corroding (6.26 and 6.49).

6.8 Both buildings have features that make accessibility for the handicapped unnecessarily difficult and do not fully comply with the government's policy on ease of access (6.21, 6.24, 6.25, 6.68 to 6.72 and 6.93 to 6.95).

6.9 The heating, ventilation and air conditioning of one building cost $5.9 million more than other more economical and efficient systems available at the time of construction (6.28 and 6.29).

6.10 Air quality, lighting, acoustics and functional deficiencies exist in both buildings (6.50 to 6.54, 6.56, 6.58, 6.68 to 6.74, 6.83 to 6.86 and 6.93 to 6.96).

General Background

6.11 Since the value of the real estate assets of the federal government is approximately $60 billion, we considered it important to determine the quality of these assets. Did the government get what it paid for as defined by the project requirements and specifications, building regulations and its own declared policies?

6.12 Past audit findings with respect to the acquisition, quality and materiel management of major capital assets indicated the need for the Office of the Auditor General to develop a methodology for examining and reporting to Parliament on quality in constructed projects.

6.13 The National Capital Region of the Department of Public Works (DPW) is responsible for 48 Crown-owned, 145 leased and 5 so-called lease-purchased office buildings. A rough estimate suggests that the owned property alone is worth approximately $4 billion today.

6.14 In addition to the capital cost, the Department has a significant, but as yet unquantified, implicit commitment of future expenditures to repair and modernize these buildings to meet current demands for an adequate working environment and for access by the handicapped staff and members of the public served. For the purposes of this audit, quality has been defined as the durability of a building and its ability to satisfy the given needs of its users, including ensuring their health and safety and providing an environment that is conducive to maximum productivity. Quality depends on the building structure, the exterior envelope, acoustics, air quality, lighting, fire safety, and internal layout and function.

6.15 Serviceability and durability are partially defined by general standards of public safety, standards and costs of actual performance, and the environmental adequacy of working conditions. (See Exhibit 6.1 )

6.16 Although the design is only about two percent of the total cost of ownership of a typical office building, inadequate concern with quality and performance characteristics during design and construction will raise operating costs throughout the working life of the building.

Audit Objectives

6.17 The objectives of this audit were to determine whether the Government of Canada obtained specified quality at reasonable value for money in its acquisition of two general-purpose office buildings and to develop a methodology for future audits of this nature.

Audit Scope

6.18 In the absence of a generally accepted methodology for this type of audit, we sought the advice of the Institute for Research in Construction of the National Research Council, whose professional staff developed the "protocols" or assessment procedures. In accordance with OAG normal practice, we contracted specialists from the private sector to test this new audit approach on a small sample of buildings. To make doubly sure that our approach was valid and workable, the individual technical reports were reviewed by the professionals from the Institute for Research in Construction. (See Insert )

6.19 As this was a pilot audit, only two buildings were examined. These were selected by DPW from the National Capital Region portfolio. One was Phase IV of Place du Portage in Hull, a 15-storey reinforced concrete building completed in 1979, with a gross floor area of 112,000 square metres accommodating 4,000 public servants, including the headquarters of the National Capital Region of DPW. The other was the Lionel Chevrier Building in Cornwall, a 3-storey reinforced concrete building completed in 1984, with a gross floor area of 10,000 square metres accommodating some 300 public servants.

Criteria

6.20 The quality -- serviceability and durability -- of the buildings relates to three different levels of performance.

Level 1. The minimum legal level of performance or standard practice in regard to health, safety and structural integrity required to satisfy building codes and standards in force at the time of construction.

Level 2. The level of performance specified in the design objectives or accepted current practice. This performance level was stated in the DPW project control documents.

Level 3. The level of performance achieved in the occupied building.

General Observations and Recommendations

6.21 We found that the two buildings audited were generally designed and constructed to commercial standards commonly in effect at the time in most urban centres in Canada. However, two areas of concern need to be addressed in the immediate future:

  • Breaches of the National Fire Code (NFC)
  • Accessibility for the handicapped
6.22 Breaches of the NFC. These breaches raise questions about the process of design and review, inspection of construction, commissioning or acceptance inspection, and even ongoing building management. The most serious findings were in Place du Portage, Phase IV, where a fuel pipe connecting the emergency generator with the fuel storage tank passes through an exit stair. The lack of explosion relief provisions for the electrical equipment vaults, fire dampers in the stairwell pressurization ducts, and a vestibule for the fuel tank room, plus the presence of electrical and mechanical services in stairwells and gaps in corridor walls, create a potentially life-threatening situation.

6.23 DPW referred these observations to Labour Canada (the successor to the Dominion Fire Commissioner), which gave general support to the audit findings. DPW took immediate action on the breaches to the NFC. DPW plans to take phased action on other findings or to investigate them. We have been assured that Labour Canada will ensure compliance with the Codes.

6.24 Accessibility for the handicapped. Both buildings were found to have features that impede accessibility for the handicapped, whether employees or clients of the government, and breached not only the National Building Code (NBC) in effect at the time of construction but also the subsequent Treasury Board directives for improving accessibility in existing government buildings, specifically with respect to wheelchair ramps, washrooms, door hardware, wayfinding and car parking.

6.25 DPW has indicated that it will take action on the audit findings to improve accessibility for the handicapped and is presently implementing the Treasury Board's revised policy on accessibility, which requires the Department to complete improvements by July 1994.

6.26 The assessment of the building envelope audit of Phase IV revealed two problems. Many of the 79 large (30 ft. x 5 ft.) precast concrete panels enclosing the two uppermost floors of the building are cracked and bowed; the precast panel anchors along the parapet are corroded.

6.27 We recommended that DPW conduct a detailed examination of the design and condition of these panels, and this has been undertaken by the Department's structural engineers. The engineers have recommended sealing the panel cracks and monitoring the situation, which they believe does not constitute a problem with respect to the structural integrity of the panels.

6.28 The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system of Phase IV was not designed for economy and efficiency. The dual-duct system, when compared with alternative systems available at the time of project design, resulted in increased capital costs of $2 million, additional floor space requirements of over 5,000 square metres at a cost of $3.9 million, and a 24 percent increase in energy consumption. The air-conditioning system in the atrium, a public area, cannot be used because it interferes with the airflow between Phase IV and Phase III.

6.29 The DPW engineer's analysis did not support the selection of the dual-duct design, as indicated in the following response to the audit observation:

"After extensive review and debate, the Department accepted the consultant's recommended dual-duct system, with modifications to improve performance and operating costs, because the consultants carried the professional/legal liability provided in the Province of Quebec. This is one of those rare instances where the consultant's recommendation is not consistent with the Department's position and the Department feels compelled to concede to the consultant's responsibility in the face of concerns about jurisprudence in similar situations."
6.30 DPW should examine the dual-duct system installed in Place du Portage, Phase IV, with the objective of modifying the system's operations to achieve greater economy.

6.31 No life-cycle cost analysis had been done for either building; nor could we obtain any evidence that professional staff with experience in commissioning and operations had considered the serviceability of the building components at the design stage.

6.32 DPW should ensure that proper life-cycle cost analyses are prepared, as called for in the Treasury Board Administration Policy Manual, before any significant investments are undertaken. This recommendation has been made in several reports by this Office.

6.33 DPW should obtain advice from commissioning or building operation staff at the initial design stage on the serviceability of building components.

6.34 DPW should obtain an independent review of design with respect to building function and choice of major building services (for example, heating, ventilating and air conditioning) before accepting a final design, especially when the Department's professionals disagree with the prime consultant appointed for the project.

6.35 The finished buildings are inadequate with respect to acoustic design, for example, in the computer rooms and studios.

6.36 DPW should consider involving acoustics specialists in the initial building design stages.

6.37 No formalized long-term plans for capital requirements to replace major building components and services exist for either building.

6.38 DPW should prepare long-term repair and replacement plans for building components and structures on the basis of life-cycle cost analysis.

6.39 There were some 108 reportable findings in the audit of the major building elements, services and functions, 15 of which were considered in need of immediate attention. DPW took immediate action on these findings, has planned remedial action on 40 of them, and will further investigate the remaining findings for possible action or incorporation into new construction projects.

Department's response: The Department agrees with all the recommendations in the report. Public Works has taken action, or plans to do so, on most of the observations raised in the report.

Case Study #1: Place du Portage, Phase IV, Hull, Quebec

Background

6.40 Place du Portage is a complex of four buildings erected to meet the government's objective of locating 25 percent of its office accommodation in Hull. Phase IV of the complex was built in 1979 at a cost of $80 million.

6.41 Phase IV is a 15-storey, reinforced concrete, framed structure of 112,000 square metres, providing office accommodation for 4,000 public servants. (See photograph )

6.42 Standards for the base building were determined by the requirements of the applicable codes, the Treasury Board standards for accommodation, a DPW design brief and supplementary instructions. NBC provisions for the handicapped were to be followed throughout, except in service and storage areas.

6.43 An energy conservation analysis was performed by DPW's Energy Analysis Group, which examined building services alternatives with the "Meriwether Model", a computer program developed in the private sector with DPW sponsorship.

6.44 The project was completed under DPW's Project Management design and construction procedures. This comprehensive process of establishing the requirements, preparing the preliminary designs, drawing up the contract documents and constructing the building was compressed into overlapping stages for a total approved sum of $80 million. Design and inspection services were performed by the private sector under contract with DPW.

6.45 On completion, Phase IV was commissioned by DPW in accordance with the DPW Project Delivery System. The commissioning report stated that the building was well designed and constructed.

6.46 Appropriate practising professionals conducted our audit, following the protocols developed by the Institute for Research in Construction. It involved document review (pre- and post-occupancy), user survey, physical inspection, and the employment of portable, non-destructive testing equipment.

Observations

Building structure
6.47 An isolated area on the 10th floor is used for storage. The imposed load on this floor is greater than the design live load. Heavy loads in the printing room have caused cracks in the floor slab.

6.48 Water leaking through the expansion joint in the basement between Phases III and IV may cause corrosion of the reinforcing steel.

Building envelope
6.49 Some precast panel anchors at the parapet level are corroding, and some of the precast panels on the top floor are cracked and bowed.

Acoustics
6.50 Acoustical design goals, such as speech privacy in open offices, conference rooms, and executive offices, were not fully considered in the design briefs for the building.

6.51 Background sound levels measured in the television studio were found to be at RC35, well above acceptable levels of RC20 to RC25, thereby reducing its utility. The noise level of 80 dBA measured in the computer room was also found to be above acceptable levels.

Lighting
6.52 Deficiencies in measured lighting levels were found in high-density work stations and enclosed offices. Additional task lighting is required in some areas.

6.53 The location of light switches in central areas preclude their easy use to reduce perimeter lighting when it is not needed.

6.54 Lack of automatic lighting controls prevents potential energy savings by tighter scheduling of off-periods, particularly after working hours when cleaners are not present on every floor.

Ventilation
6.55 Ventilation is provided by five major dual-duct systems.

6.56 Lack of ventilation in the atrium, a public area, is compounded by the concentration of cooking odours and cigarette smoke. The main air- conditioning system cannot be activated because of its interference with air transfer to Phase III of the complex.

6.57 The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning units that serve floors 2 to 6, the first floor and the mall are not capable of handling the ever-growing cooling load required with the increasing use of personal computers and computer terminals.

6.58 The dual-duct system installed in this building (separate cold-air and hot-air distribution systems) is less economical to build and operate than a conventional single-duct system, due to simultaneous heating and cooling and higher fan capacities required.

Fire safety
6.59 Phase IV is a group "D" major occupancy building under the NBC. It has a sprinkler and fire-alarm system. The following deficiencies were noted during the audit:

6.60 Architectural elements. Several factors contravene the Building Code. Air supply ducts for stairwell pressurization are not properly fire-separated and do not incorporate fire dampers. The exit from one stairway is through the main mall area to an exterior door. The escape route to the exterior of the building is too close to an adjacent window (less than three metres) to provide safe egress. The parking garage is not separated from the remainder of the building by the required 1 1/2-hour fire separation provision. Several exit stairways contain mechanical and electrical equipment serving other areas.

6.61 Mechanical elements. Although most of the building is sprinklered, the following areas are not: beneath suspended stairs; elevator machine rooms; top landing of stairs; electrical rooms; elevator lobby at level 02; and concealed spaces beneath the raised floors, which are considered combustible. Labour Canada excludes halon-protected raised floors and suspension stairs from sprinkler requirements. Some sprinkler heads in the parking garage were positioned less than six feet from one another. No baffles are present between sprinkler heads. This arrangement does not ensure adequate fire protection.

6.62 The halon discharge nozzle locations in the central alarm and control facility will not provide adequate dispersal of the extinguishing agent within the room because of numerous penetrations above the ceiling into the adjacent electrical room to accommodate pipes, cables and ducts. The halon effectiveness of the computer room cannot be assured because of the perforated openings in the raised floor panels. Protection is provided above the raised floor only by a ceiling level sprinkler system. Labour Canada has no testing requirements for existing halon-protected facilities.

6.63 Centralized record keeping is required for all fire safety systems in order to ensure that the appropriate inspections, maintenance procedures, tests and checks are conducted in accordance with the National Fire Code. We could find no records to indicate that pump tests required by the NFC had been performed within the previous 12 months.

6.64 The transformers in the vault contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Explosion venting is required to conform with the 1990 National Building Code. No explosion relief provisions are in effect for the electrical equipment vaults. The Department will need to consult the Department of the Environment and Labour Canada, which have separate jurisdiction in this matter.

6.65 Electrical elements. Fuel piping between the emergency generator and the storage tank passes through an exit stairway. This piping should not be located within the stairway enclosure. In addition, access to the fuel storage tank is directly from the stairway instead of through a vestibule.

6.66 No smoke detectors are installed in public areas at draft stops or at the perimeter of interconnected floor spaces. Where a floor area exits to a stairwell, a manual pull station should be located adjacent to the exit door, not within the stairwell, as found in one case.

6.67 Fire safety plan. There is no single document that consolidates fire safety planning, training, inspection and test procedures, and record keeping for fire protection systems and equipment.

Function
6.68 Special attention was paid to the needs of the mobility, visually, hearing, developmentally and situationally impaired as well as the average able-bodied user.

6.69 A basic limitation of the building design from the user point of view is the general complexity of the building form and the size and configuration of the various floors. Most of the upper floors are laid out utilizing the open-office concept with five-foot-high divider screens. While this does not represent a basic building problem, this divider system has added to wayfinding dilemmas, particularly for the visually impaired, due to the frequent re-configuration of office and work space layouts and their variation from floor to floor.

6.70 Another complexity can be tied to the exterior wall profile and floor plan configuration. Many perimeter work spaces have had to be adjusted from the traditional rectangular form to a triangular form. Typically, a 90-cm-wide walking space is being maintained at external walls, which has resulted in a considerable loss of usable area.

6.71 The needs of the mobility-impaired were considered in all primary circulation routes and staff support areas. However, a number of shortfalls relate directly to the NBC. For example, ramps that provide primary access to the building are not directly visible, nor do they meet the requirements for handrails. Accessible washrooms have toilet stall doors that open out but do not lie flat against the wall and therefore are a hazard to the visually impaired. Basins in accessible washrooms are inappropriate. In some cases the knee space below the counter is insufficient. Certain vestibules are of insufficient depth to allow free movement between the doors by wheelchair users. There are no accessible parking spaces in the parking garage or at either of the two entrances for disabled users arriving by personal vehicle or special transportation. Staircase handrails do not extend sufficiently beyond the top and bottom risers, and in exit stairs only a central handrail is provided. Doors at the bottom of exit stairs are locked or not usable, except in an emergency situation (for security reasons).

6.72 Deficiencies revealed in the building structure, building envelope, acoustics properties, lighting quality and ventilation systems, as well as NFC breaches and functional shortcomings with respect to areas for the handicapped, should be examined and remedied by DPW.

6.73 The acoustical characteristics of buildings would be improved by including an acoustics specialist on the design team, setting out design goals, developing a well-integrated acoustical design methodology and adequately executing details of the design.

6.74 The design brief provided minimum references for the base building lighting, with no reference to the fit-up of work stations and tenant activities. Co-ordination at the design stage, between the design group and the potential user, where identified, would minimize future shortcomings of this nature.

Case Study #2: Lionel Chevrier Building, Cornwall, Ontario

Background

6.75 The 1.27-hectare parcel of land on which the Lionel Chevrier Building stands was acquired from the City of Cornwall in June 1982 in exchange for 4.91 hectares of Crown land on the waterfront opposite Horovitz Park, which is now occupied by the Cornwall Civic Centre. DPW appraised the value of the Crown land at $275,000 and Horovitz Park (re-zoned by the City for the government office building) at $280,000.

6.76 Seven developers submitted bids for the building, including its design. The proposals were evaluated by DPW. The successful developer commenced construction in June 1983 and completed the project in May 1984 at a base cost of $9.6 million. With fit-up, costs totalled $10.4 million. The building was occupied in June 1984.

6.77 The Lionel Chevrier Building is a three-storey reinforced concrete, framed structure, covering 9,364 square metres. (See photograph )

Observations

6.78 DPW established a team to monitor this project, while the developer was given the responsibility to manage and co-ordinate the work. Quality control was defined through specifications, standards and policies in effect at the time, and inspection services were contracted by the developer. The building was completed within schedule and budget and is considered to be well designed and constructed.

6.79 In accordance with the contract, construction records were retained for only two years following completion of the project in 1984. Thus no inspection reports were available for the audit.

6.80 The technical audit of the Lionel Chevrier Building was conducted in accordance with the protocols developed by the Institute for Research in Construction.

Building structure
6.81 No major issues arose from the audit.

Building envelope
6.82 No major issues arose from the audit.

Acoustics
6.83 Speech privacy of open-plan offices was found to be inadequate, largely because of the ceiling tile and the acoustic reflection from ceiling light fittings and the ventilation diffusors. Lack of careful acoustic design of the conference rooms has resulted in poor oral communication.

6.84 The sound studio acoustics are below the standards specified; the major tenant cannot use the studio for its intended purpose and is obliged to do audio-visual work in another building.

Lighting
6.85 The extensive use of partitions to create small work stations puts the level of illumination below design specifications. A secondary cause of light loss is the maintenance practice of spot-relamping, in which lamps are allowed to gradually burn out rather than being replaced on a regular basis.

Ventilation
6.86 Many areas of the building suffer from lack of air distribution. This shows in both high ambient temperatures and poor air quality. Normal practice with tenant space reorganization would be to modify air distribution to satisfy changing cooling loads followed by air system balancing to ensure efficiency. This does not occur. For example, one tenant department has one person per 6.5 square metres, twice the normal occupancy density. Also, included in this space are eight computer terminals and other heat-generating equipment.

Fire safety
6.87 Architectural elements. The Lionel Chevrier Building is a group "D" major occupancy building under the NBC. Firestopping measures appear to be incomplete on the north exhaust duct penetration. Construction materials are being stored under Stairwell 4, which is a violation of the NBC/NFC.

6.88 Mechanical elements. The sprinkler layout in certain areas was rendered inadequate by the addition of new partitions. Also, the minimum requirement of 18 inches in clearance is not maintained between the ceiling sprinkler deflectors and the top of the floor-to-ceiling storage racks in most laboratories.

6.89 Electrical elements. The fire alarm drawings do not reflect the actual conditions. The pull station located on the north wall of the entrance corridor should be relocated at a required exit. A pull station should be installed at the penthouse exit to the roof area, which is considered the second required exit from the penthouse.

6.90 One stairwell does not have a smoke detector. No duct detectors are provided for shutting down recirculating air handling systems. Smoke detectors are located near exhaust ducts in the parking garage. However, these are not duct detectors.

6.91 During testing of the fire alarm system, one bell on the second floor did not operate properly because the bellhousing was touching the moulding on the wall. The sound pressure level of audible devices was generally acceptable, except in the shipping/receiving area.

6.92 Fire safety plan. There is no approved fire safety plan encompassing emergency procedures, maintenance and testing, or training of those occupants who have, or should have, specific fire safety duties. Fire protection equipment is not being regularly serviced. Inspections are not being performed, and no records are available.

Function
6.93 The functional requirements of the Chevrier Building are governed by the 1977 NBC. In general, all functional requirements have been met, except that washroom toilet stall doors do not lie flat, creating a hazard to the visually impaired; vestibules are too shallow for independent wheelchair access; the number of designated accessible parking spaces is insufficient; handrails are lacking and those in place do not have adequate extensions.

6.94 Several deficiencies exist with respect to current accepted practice and standards, including poor lighting in washroom vestibules and the front entry lobby. High-gloss waxed floors in the lobby and circulation areas, originally matte finished, present a problem for the visually impaired. Door hardware is a type that certain handicapped persons find difficult to grasp. As well, door windows that disclose individuals approaching from the other side are too high for wheelchair users or people below average height. The size and layout of the approach space to the front door prevents access by wheelchair users.

6.95 Wheelchair circulation is also impaired by the narrowing of interior hallways resulting from frequent reorganization of partitions and furnishings. In addition, clear locational and wayfinding signage for the visually, mobility, and developmentally impaired is deficient, particularly as related to emergency exiting routes.