THE ISSUE

• Ontario is investing significantly in infrastructure and construction projects that communities will depend on for generations.
• How successfully those projects are delivered depends not only on design and construction, but also on whether project teams have reliable information about schedule, cost, risk, change, progress, and emerging problems while there is still time to act.
•  📍 That is the role of Project Controls. Project Controls bring together the people, processes, systems, data, technology, and professional practices used to establish project baselines, measure progress, forecast outcomes, manage risk and change, maintain reliable project records, and support informed project decisions.
• 🚧 Yet project-specific Project Controls are often embedded within the Contractor’s construction price and treated as overhead.
• 🚧 When this occurs, the public Owner may have limited visibility into the Project Controls capability it is actually receiving — including the staffing, systems, reporting, analytics, data arrangements, integration, and technology that will be relied upon throughout construction.
• ⚠️ Competitive pricing pressure can also create an incentive toward a minimum compliant control environment, rather than encouraging Project Controls capability proportionate to the needs, complexity, and risks of the project.
• Project Controls are already funded through Contractor pricing, Owner resources, or both. The policy question is whether the project-specific capability and cost should be sufficiently visible for the Owner to understand what it is purchasing and approve an approach suited to the project.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 

THE PROPOSED REFORM

Stoneboy’s Improving Time and Cost Performance of Construction Projects in Ontario Through Innovative Project Controls Funding (Policy Letter No. 1) proposes a more transparent, intentional, and innovative approach.

✅ The proposal does not change how the construction Contractor is competitively selected. Instead, it changes how the project-specific Project Controls scope and budget are developed, approved, and funded. Under the proposed model:

1. Construction competition continues normally.

• Bidders continue to compete using the Owner’s disclosed procurement criteria, including price, capability, experience, technical compliance, and other stated requirements.
• During the competitive stage, bidders would confirm that they understand, accept, and can comply with the disclosed Project Controls Execution Plan (PCEP) process. They would not be required to incur the cost of developing detailed PCEP options while competing for the construction contract.

2. 💡 After the bidding process, the Preferred Bidder develops the detailed Project Controls approach after selection.
After the Preferred Bidder is selected, it would prepare at least two compliant PCEP options.

• Basic option -  Satisfies all mandatory Project Controls requirements applicable to the project.
• Advanced option - Satisfies the same mandatory requirements while providing additional project-appropriate capability through enhanced staffing, systems, reporting, analytics, integration, technology, or other appropriate measures.
• The Owner may also request or authorize reasonable revisions or additional alternatives where appropriate.

3. The Owner evaluates and approves the final approach.

• The Owner would evaluate the PCEP options against requirements and criteria disclosed in advance, require reasonable revisions where necessary, and approve a final PCEP and corresponding Project Controls Budget.
• The final PCEP could consist of one submitted option or an agreed combination of elements, provided that all mandatory requirements are satisfied.

4. 👍 The approved Project Controls scope and budget become more transparent.

• The approved project-specific Project Controls scope and budget would be separately identified, substantiated, approved, funded, monitored, and auditable.
• This would give the Owner greater visibility into the Project Controls capability being provided and its associated cost.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

WHAT WOULD NOT CHANGE
✅ This proposal does not remove or dilute the Contractor’s responsibility for delivering the construction project. The Contractor would remain responsible for:

• Construction means and methods
• Safety
• Quality
• Schedule
• Cost
• Performance
• Contractual compliance
• Implementation and maintenance of the approved PCEP.

✅ Ordinary estimating, construction planning, supervision, internal management, and internal controls would remain within the Contractor’s Construction Bid Amount.

✅ The post-selection PCEP process would be disclosed before bidding and would not constitute an undisclosed second competition.

✅ Owner review, approval, funding, monitoring, or audit of the PCEP would not transfer the Contractor’s responsibilities to the Owner.

⭐ More visibility for the Owner. No dilution of Contractor accountability. 

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

WHY THIS COULD MATTER

Construction projects are not identical. Different projects have different risks, interfaces, constraints, information needs, delivery challenges, and opportunities.

⚠️ Yet when Project Controls are treated primarily as overhead and competitive pressure rewards minimum compliance, there may be limited incentive to invest in better methods, stronger integration, improved analytics, automation, or technology.

💡 A more transparent PCEP process can create a structured opportunity for the Preferred Bidder to propose project-appropriate improvements while still satisfying the mandatory Project Controls requirements established for the project.

💡 This can create a positive cycle:

• Greater transparency →
• Room for better Project Controls →
• Innovation in methods, systems and technology →
• Better information and decision-making →
• Stronger project delivery →
• Lessons for future projects

Better Project Controls cannot eliminate every delay, cost increase, claim, or dispute.

• ⭐ But they can help project teams identify emerging issues earlier, understand them more clearly, forecast their consequences more reliably, maintain stronger project records, and make better-informed decisions while outcomes can still be influenced.
• ⭐ Project Controls innovation and project-delivery innovation can reinforce each other.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

WHAT ARE WE ASKING THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO TO DO

We are asking the Government of Ontario to:

1. Review the policy concern and the proposed Project Controls funding model.
2. Bring together relevant government, public-sector, construction, procurement, legal, commercial, Project Controls, labour, data, and technology stakeholders.
3. Develop an Ontario-appropriate framework with appropriate procurement, contractual, funding, governance, data, and accountability safeguards.
4. When suitable projects and implementation capacity are available, test the model through a controlled program of suitable Ontario public-construction projects.
5. Measure implementation costs, project outcomes, and stakeholder experience.
6. Independently evaluate the evidence before considering broader adoption.

The Government of Ontario can begin by reviewing the policy concern, consulting affected stakeholders, and developing an appropriate framework without committing immediately to province-wide implementation.

• Policy review, stakeholder consultation, procurement and legal analysis, and framework development can begin before the first pilot project is selected.
• The pilot program is intended to be an evidence-building pathway, not an all-or-nothing condition for considering the policy proposal. The detailed Policy Letter recommends a controlled program of up to 10 suitable projects, but implementation can proceed gradually as readiness develops.

⭐ Measure before scaling. Evidence before broader adoption.

The first step is simply to examine the issue carefully and determine whether there is a better way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

READ THE FULL POLICY LETTER NO. 1
This petition provides a concise public explanation of Stoneboy’s:

Improving Time and Cost Performance of Construction Projects in Ontario Through Innovative Project Controls Funding (Policy Letter No. 1).

• The full Policy Letter contains the detailed Policy Proposal and supporting appendices addressing the proposed procurement process, PCEP requirements, funding approach, safeguards, proportionality, data and governance considerations, pilot pathway, frequently asked questions, and illustrative implementation provisions. Read the Full Policy Letter No. 1 on Stoneboy’s website →

We encourage anyone considering signing this petition — including government officials, public-sector Owners, Contractors, consultants, Project Controls professionals, industry organizations, academics, labour representatives, technology providers, and interested members of the public — to review the full proposal and form their own view.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

ABOUT THE INITIATIVE

Policy Letter No. 1 is the first in a planned series of Stoneboy policy letters intended to advance practical ideas for improving construction processes, project delivery, accountability, productivity, and industry performance.

The Policy Letters and Petitions effort forms part of Stoneboy’s broader Construction Process Optimization Initiative, built around our Statement of Purpose:

• To eliminate inefficiencies from Construction (processes, projects, and the industry) - step by step, one by one.

✅ The proposal does not recommend Stoneboy, Novologic, or any particular consultant, Contractor, software product, technology provider, methodology, data structure, or proprietary solution. The proposed framework is intended to remain vendor-neutral, technology-neutral, outcome-based, and competitively procured.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

PLEASE READ, SIGN, AND SHARE

Ontario’s construction and infrastructure investments are too important for project-specific Project Controls capability and cost to remain difficult for public Owners to identify, understand, and evaluate.

If you believe the Government of Ontario should examine whether greater transparency, more intentional Project Controls funding, and greater room for project-appropriate innovation could help strengthen construction project delivery:

Please read the full proposal, sign this petition, and share it with others in Ontario’s construction, infrastructure, public-sector, professional, business, and wider community. Read the Full Policy Letter No. 1 →

Your signature is not an endorsement of a particular software product, consultant, commercial provider, or predetermined province-wide mandate. 

• ⭐ It is support for something much simpler: Study the idea. Engage the people who build and manage these projects. Test it carefully. Measure the results. Then let the evidence decide what comes next.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -