- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Poor planning' cost NORAD overhaul millions
Projected $93-million price tag jumps to $156-million for air-surveillance system originally slated for completion in 2001
GLORIA GALLOWAY
OTTAWA -- Updates to a NORAD radar system in Central Ontario will cost nearly twice as much as forecast, have been plagued by delays and have failed to produce any of the cost savings that defence officials had predicted.
The overhaul of the North American Aerospace Defence system in North Bay, which began more than a decade ago, was estimated in 1997 to cost $93-million and was to have been completed by 2001.
But Auditor-General Sheila Fraser said in a report yesterday that the final bill for the new air-surveillance system, and an above-ground building to house it, will be about $156-million. Because of poor security during construction of the new building, some of the system had to remain in the old underground facilities that have now been declared a heritage site.
The problems have been "poor planning, poor management," Ms. Fraser said at a news conference.
"The people working on the site did not have security clearances, the plans were available publicly and there was no control over access to the site as the construction was ongoing."
Canada and the United States agreed in 1985 to modernize the radar systems at North Bay and share the costs and the decision making. But by October, 1999, the United States halted the work, citing cost projections that were triple the original estimates.
Canada's Defence Department continued alone, arguing that the move to the new above-ground facility from a Cold War underground bunker would save about $16-million a year in operating costs and reduced personnel.
That plan was halted in 2004 when problems developed in the surveillance system being developed in Canada, and the U.S. asked the Canadian Forces to participate in the creation of another system it had been working on south of the border.
The Auditor-General found that decisions were made about the project without any real understanding of how the promised savings would be achieved and that the risks were not adequately portrayed to the decision makers.
The project would have been better managed if it had been designated early on as a large, high-risk project and subjected to more rigorous reporting to government, Ms. Fraser said.
The Defence Department suggested to the Treasury Board in 1998 that the reclassification would be helpful, but it did not happen. And when members of the auditor's staff asked Treasury Board officials for documents related to the decision, they were refused on the basis that it was a matter of cabinet confidence. Then they were told that working papers on the topic simply didn't exist.
Meanwhile, the Defence Department is proceeding with the modernization of its air-surveillance system without ever having an analysis of the risks and benefits - and without making provisions for major disruptions, the auditor said.
"National Defence intends to continue with upgrades to the new system," Ms. Fraser said. "But first it needs to resolve the problems we found in this audit. The government also needs to ensure that these large high-risk projects are subjected to better oversight."