Three weeks ago, we published evidence from Freedom of Information requests showing that geotechnical testing plans explicitly mapped a "maximum building footprint" for the Vancouver Aquatic Centre extending well beyond the current structure — directly contradicting City officials' claims that expansion was "not feasible."

Today, we can report an even more damning discovery: newly discovered RFEOI (Request for Expression of Interest) procurement documents prove the City spent twelve months systematically validating expansion to 135,000 square feet through technical studies, committed to that expansion in official procurement documents, then reversed course and told Park Board commissioners the opposite — without explanation and without disclosing the evidence.

The linguistic evolution documented in these procurement records tells the story of systematic deception. In January 2023, the City used tentative language stating that 135,000 square feet "is contemplated" when hiring architects to assess feasibility. One year later, by January 2024 after technical studies confirmed both renovation and expansion were viable, the City's Construction Manager procurement document stated definitively that the facility "will expand to approximately 135,000 square feet." Yet thirteen months later at the February 24, 2025 Park Board meeting, the same architects hired to deliver that feasibility assessment claimed it was "not feasible" — while withholding all evidence of the validation process from commissioners.

This is not a story about changing project circumstances. This is documented proof of a deliberate bait-and-switch: commission studies, validate alternatives, commit to expansion in procurement documents, then suppress all evidence and present decision-makers with a false binary choice. The procurement documents don't lie. The technical studies don't lie. And the timeline proves intent to deceive.

January 2023: "An Expanded Program of 135,000 Square Feet Is Contemplated"

When the City of Vancouver sought to hire architects ("Industrial Design Consultant") for the Vancouver Aquatic Centre project in January 2023, the procurement documents used appropriately tentative language for an early-stage project: expansion to 135,000 square feet "is contemplated." This reflected the City's desire to explore whether such expansion was technically and financially feasible. See page 3 below.

But the procurement documents reveal something far more significant than just the building size under consideration. The scope of work explicitly required the winning architectural firm to deliver:

Feasibility study with cost estimates to determine viability of renewal options that may include expanding the footprint of existing Vancouver Aquatic Centre, major renovations with retention of existing major structural elements and other building components, and complete replacement of the facility.

Let's be absolutely clear about what this means: Acton Ostry Architects were explicitly contracted to deliver a comparative feasibility study of THREE distinct options according to the RFEOI:

1. Expanding the footprint of the existing facility to 135,000 square feet
2. Major renovations with retention of existing major structural elements and other building components
3. Complete replacement of the facility

The procurement documents also specified that bidding firms needed demonstrated experience with:

• "Major renovations of existing buildings"
• "Projects demonstrating creative re-use of existing elements/building components"
• Structural sub-consultants with "significant experience with structural and seismic upgrades of existing buildings"

These requirements weren't arbitrary. They reflected a City genuinely interested in exploring all viable paths forward—renovation, expansion, or replacement—with evidence-based analysis to inform decision-making.

The architects were not hired to present a single predetermined option. They were not hired to claim alternatives were "not feasible" without rigorous analysis. They were hired to conduct comprehensive comparative assessment and present commissioners with the evidence to make an informed choice.

February 17, 2023: The Ausenco Rehabilitation Report

While the Infrastructure Design Consultant RFEOI was issued in January 2023, the City was simultaneously commissioning independent engineering assessments of the existing facility. The Ausenco rehabilitation study, dated February 17, 2023, definitively answered the question about "major renovations with retention of existing major structural elements"—exactly one of the three options the RFEOI required architects to assess.

The Ausenco study concluded:

Based on two site visits and review of existing reports, Ausenco's expectation is that retaining and remediating key existing concrete elements is feasible and practical.

As part of this comprehensive assessment, Ausenco commissioned Acuren Group Inc. to perform non-destructive testing (NDT) on the facility's steel roof structure in November 2022. The Acuren steel corrosion assessment employed ultrasonic thickness testing and magnetic particle testing to evaluate the condition of the steel trusses—critical structural elements supporting the facility's iconic roof.

The Ausenco findings, incorporating the Acuren NDT results, were unequivocal:

Major Structural Elements Recommended for RETENTION:

• Steel truss superstructure
• All 40-inch square concrete columns
• East and west diving towers
• Seven main precast concrete roof girders
• Bleachers and washroom structures
• Exterior concrete walls

Key Technical Findings:

• Acuren NDT testing (November 2022): Steel roof structure showed "no significant material loss" with less than 15% thickness loss even in the most corroded areas
• Magnetic particle testing: No cracking indications found in steel members
• Maximum thickness loss: Only 12% in the northwest corner where past roof leaks had occurred—well within acceptable limits
• Detailed plans for remediation with seismic retrofit
• Vs30 soil testing could reduce seismic upgrade requirements by 24% to 43%

The report specifically documented contractor consultation with Scott Construction Group, which confirmed: "Retaining and remediating the noted concrete elements is feasible, given that the noted testing and investigations confirm that remediation is suitable to provide another 50-year life to those components, with subsequent regular inspection and maintenance."

Seismic upgrades can often be completed in less than a year, limiting facility closure time, and at a mere fraction of the cost to taxpayers of the complete $175 million rebuild. Confirmation alone, to validate the building could provide at least 50 additional years of service life, would have cost a mere $50,000, as referenced in the report.

This wasn't speculative or theoretical. This was a definitive professional engineering assessment, backed by rigorous NDT testing performed by specialized testing contractor Acuren, concluding that Path #1 (major renovation with structural element retention) was both technically feasible and practical (potentially capable of delivering decades of additional service life).

The Smoking Gun: Architects Were Contractually Required to Receive This Report

Here's where the story becomes even more interesting. The Infrastructure Design Consultant RFEOI — the very document through which Acton Ostry was hired — contains this critical statement:

A 'Structural Study of Options for Rehabilitation and Retrofit' report providing an analysis of existing major structural components is in progress and will be provided to the successful Respondent.

The Ausenco rehabilitation study, completed in February 2023, was the report referenced in the RFEOI. It was supposed to be provided to Acton Ostry Architects (who won the contract and was formally awarded the RFP on September 13, 2023) to inform their feasibility analysis. The procurement contract explicitly stated this.

Two scenarios exist, both damning:

Scenario A: The City provided the Ausenco report to Acton Ostry as contractually required when the firm was formally engaged in September 2023.

• Result: The architects received definitive evidence—including professional NDT testing by Acuren—that major renovation with structural retention was "feasible and practical," yet they suppressed these findings and presented Park Board with a complete rebuild design while withholding knowledge of renovation being a viable path. This constitutes professional negligence and potential fraud.

Scenario B: The City failed to provide the Ausenco report to Acton Ostry despite the RFEOI contract requiring it.

• Result: The City deliberately withheld critical technical information—including independent third-party NDT testing results—from their own architects to prevent proper assessment of the renovation option. This constitutes sabotaging your own consultant to engineer a predetermined outcome.

It is worth noting, that at the February 24th, 2025 Park Board hearing when Commissioner Tom Digby specifically asked City staff and architects regarding the seismic condition of the building, “does it meet building code standards for seismic strength?”, architects huddled off-mic for 15 seconds until a non-answer simply referencing “the building codes of the time” was given, at which point Commissioner Digby concluded: "All right, so by that I assume that it means if there's a big earthquake, we're likely to lose this facility.” At no point during this exchange — an opportunity by City staff and architects to inform of the detailed seismic upgrade path documented in the Ausenco report, was any notification, mere mention, or attention even given to the fact of its very existence.

Either way, the process was corrupted. By February 2023—eight months before Acton Ostry was formally awarded the architectural contract—Path #1 was validated as feasible through rigorous engineering analysis and professional NDT testing. Yet this validation was never presented to Park Board commissioners two years later when they were asked to approve the scaled-down design.

October 2023: Geotechnical Testing

As we reported in our October 14 investigation, TetraTech conducted comprehensive geotechnical bore-hole testing in October 2023 that strategically assessed soil conditions throughout an expanded footprint area. The testhole location plans explicitly labeled this area "maximum building footprint"—terminology that makes perfect sense when you understand the City was validating whether 135,000 square foot expansion was technically feasible.

Ten strategic bore holes positioned across the expansion area tested ground conditions to depths of 9 to 17 meters below existing grade. The findings:

• Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values of 43-50+: Indicates excellent bearing capacity in dense glacial till
• Bedrock at manageable depths: Sandstone encountered at 13-17 meters—entirely standard for Vancouver waterfront construction
• No geotechnical obstacles identified: Soil conditions throughout the expanded footprint area were confirmed suitable for construction

Professional engineers don't map "maximum building footprint" boundaries and conduct expensive multi-site geotechnical investigations as academic exercises. They do so because the client has provided a specific expansion plan requiring ground condition assessment for construction feasibility.

The TetraTech investigation validated Path #2—expanding the facility footprint to accommodate 135,000 square feet was technically viable from a geotechnical perspective. Combined with the Ausenco study validating Path #1 (major renovation), the City now possessed evidence that both alternatives instead of complete replacement were technically feasible.

The testing also opened the door to Path #3—a hybrid approach retaining and renovating major structural elements (Ausenco) while expanding the footprint for additional programming (TetraTech soil validation suitable). This combined approach could have delivered the voter-approved 50-meter pool while preserving taxpayer investment in the existing structure.

By October 2023, the City had technically validated multiple viable paths forward. All were later systematically suppressed.

January 2024: "The Facility Will Expand to Approximately 135,000 Square Feet"

After twelve months of technical validation, something remarkable happened: the City's language shifted from tentative to definitive. When procuring Construction Manager services in January 2024, the City's procurement document stated:

Following the renewal project the facility will expand to approximately 135,000 square feet in total with approximately 125,000 square feet allocated to support VanSplash aquatic objectives, and approximately 10,000 square feet of childcare space if determined to be feasible.

This linguistic evolution is critical evidence:

January 2023: "An expanded program of approximately 135,000 square feet is contemplated"

• Translation: We're considering this—let's validate feasibility through technical studies

January 2024: "The facility will expand to approximately 135,000 square feet"

• Translation: Feasibility validated—this is the committed plan

This is not aspirational language. This is not "under consideration" or "if feasible." This is a definitive statement in an official procurement document issued by the City of Vancouver, instructing construction management firms to submit qualifications for delivering a facility 80% larger than the existing 75,000 square foot building.

Construction Managers responding to this RFEOI prepared their submissions based on:

• Staffing requirements for project management of an 80% larger facility
• Insurance and bonding capacity for the substantially higher construction value
• Project management approaches specific to the larger scope and complexity
• Fee structures and overhead allocations calibrated to the 135,000 square foot project

The progression is unmistakable:

1. January 2023: Commission architects to assess whether 135,000 sf expansion is feasible ("contemplated")
2. February 2023: Ausenco validates renovation path is feasible
3. October 2023: TetraTech validates expansion soil conditions are suitable
4. January 2024: City commits to expansion with definitive language ("will expand")

This was the City's formal plan as of January 2024, documented in official procurement materials issued to pre-qualify construction managers. Not speculation. Not theoretical. A formal project scope requiring contractors to demonstrate qualifications for this specific scale of work.

The Construction Manager RFEOI also specified "125,000 square feet allocated to support VanSplash aquatic objectives"—an aquatic program of this size is MORE than enough to accommodate a 50-meter competition pool, the very facility configuration promised to voters in the 2022 plebiscite.

February 24, 2025: The Unexplained Reversal—"Expansion Not Feasible"

Thirteen months after the City stated the facility "will expand to 135,000 square feet" in formal procurement materials, the February 24, 2025 Park Board meeting presented an entirely different narrative.

Craig Crawford (Director, Facilities Planning):

they quickly realized that an expansion from the existing footprint was not going to be feasible... It's simply the site is too constrained, too small for a 50 meter pool.

Huh? When did they "quickly realize" expansion wasn't feasible? Sometime between January 2024 (when procurement documents committed to expansion) and February 2025 (when they claimed it was impossible). No documentation exists explaining this reversal.

What Park Board Commissioners Were Never Told

❌ Expansion to 135,000 square feet was the documented plan as of January 2024 in the Construction Manager RFEOI

❌ Ausenco engineering study confirmed major renovation with structural element retention was "feasible and practical"

❌ TetraTech geotechnical investigation confirmed soil conditions throughout the expansion footprint were entirely suitable for construction

❌ The architects were contractually required to deliver comparative analysis of three options (expansion, major renovation, complete replacement) but presented only one

❌ 125,000 square feet of aquatic space was planned—more than sufficient to accommodate the 50-meter pool promised in the plebiscite

❌ Construction Managers were procured based on delivering the 135,000 sf facility, not the scaled-down existing footprint design

Instead, commissioners were presented with:

• A single design option constrained to the existing footprint with a 25-meter pool
• Claims that exploring alternatives would cause schedule delays and put funding at risk
• Assertions that expansion wasn't feasible—with no technical analysis supporting this claim
• Artificial time pressure demanding immediate approval without proper due diligence

This is textbook material misrepresentation—the deliberate withholding or misstatement of facts that would reasonably influence a decision-maker's judgment. Park Board commissioners made a $175 million generational decision based on systematically incomplete and misleading information.

The Procurement Law Crisis: Material Scope Changes Without Re-Bidding

The documented reduction from a committed 135,000 square foot facility (January 2024) to the existing 75,000 square foot footprint (February 2025) represents a 44% scope reduction. Under competitive procurement law, material changes to project scope typically require re-bidding to ensure fair competition.

Infrastructure Design Consultant Contract

Original Scope (Jan 2023): Assess feasibility of 135,000 sf expansion with three-option comparative analysis Delivered Scope (Feb 2025): Single option at existing 75,000 sf footprint

Question: When architects fundamentally changed from assessing expansion to recommending existing footprint only—without authorization and without delivering the contracted three-option analysis—should the contract have been terminated and re-bid?

Construction Manager Contract

Procurement Scope (Jan 2024): "Facility will expand to approximately 135,000 square feet" Actual Project (2025): Existing 75,000 square foot footprint (44% reduction)

Question: Was the Construction Manager contract re-bid after this material scope change, or are taxpayers paying CM fees, overhead, and profit margins based on the larger project while receiving a substantially smaller facility?

Other construction management firms who might have bid differently—or charged less—for a 75,000 square foot project were excluded from competing for the actual work. They were told they'd be managing a 135,000 square foot facility. That's what they bid on. That's not what's being built.

This may constitute procurement fraud if the RFP uses the same language—obtaining contracts through material misrepresentation of project scope, resulting in unfair competitive advantage and potential taxpayer harm.

The Professional Ethics Crisis

Architectural Standards

The Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC) Code of Ethics requires architects to provide competent professional services, act with integrity, and provide full disclosure of relevant information to clients and decision-makers.

Acton Ostry Architects were contracted to deliver a comparative feasibility study of three options. They delivered one option while claiming—without supporting analysis—that alternatives weren't feasible. They were provided (or should have been provided per contract) the Ausenco study confirming major renovation was feasible, yet presented no renovation analysis to Park Board.

This warrants investigation by AIBC for potential violations of professional standards, including:

• Failure to deliver contracted scope of work
• Misrepresentation of technical feasibility without supporting analysis
• Withholding material information from decision-makers

The Pattern of Systematic Deception

The totality of evidence proves that three technically viable paths forward existed—all capable of delivering the voter-approved 50-meter pool, all systematically validated through professional studies, all deliberately suppressed from Park Board commissioners:

Path #1: Major Renovation with Structural Element Retention

• Evidence: Ausenco Engineering Study (Feb 17, 2023)
• Status: "Feasible and practical" - 50-year service life achievable
• Cost: Fraction of $175M complete replacement
• Disclosure to Park Board: ❌ Never mentioned despite being what architects were contracted to assess

Path #2: Footprint Expansion to 135,000 Square Feet

• Evidence: Construction Manager RFEOI (Jan 2024) states "will expand"
• Status: Soil conditions validated suitable (TetraTech, Oct 2023)
• Capacity: 125,000 sf aquatic space—sufficient for 50-meter pool
• Disclosure to Park Board: ❌ Never mentioned despite being committed plan 13 months earlier

Path #3: Hybrid Approach

• Evidence: Combined Ausenco + TetraTech findings
• Status: Retain/renovate major structural elements + expand footprint for programming
• Benefit: Preserve taxpayer investment while adding needed capacity
• Disclosure to Park Board: ❌ Never assessed despite both components being validated

What Park Board received: A single option constrained to existing footprint with 25-meter pool, presented under artificial time pressure as the only viable path forward.

The linguistic progression proves this was systematic deception, not project evolution:

"Contemplated" (Jan 2023) → Technical validation → "Will Expand" (Jan 2024) → "Not Feasible" (Feb 2025)

This timeline doesn't show progressive discovery of obstacles. It shows progressive validation of alternatives followed by baseless reversal without technical justification or proper disclosure.

A Systematic Denial of Information:

• Technical studies confirmed both renovation and expansion paths could deliver the 50-meter pool
• City committed to 135,000 sf expansion in January 2024 construction manager procurement documents
• This plan was abandoned without public consultation, explanation, or transparency
• Park Board commissioners themselves were misled about feasibility when making their decision

Questions Demanding Immediate Answers

1. Was the Ausenco rehabilitation study provided to Acton Ostry Architects as required by the Infrastructure Design Consultant RFEOI? If yes, why did they suppress findings that major renovation was feasible? If no, why did the City withhold critical technical information from their own consultants?
2. Did Acton Ostry conduct the contracted feasibility analysis of three options (expansion, major renovation, complete replacement)? If yes, where is that analysis and why wasn't it presented to Park Board? If no, they failed to deliver contracted services.
3. Who made the decision to abandon the committed 135,000 square foot expansion plan documented in the January 2024 Construction Manager RFEOI? What technical analysis supported this reversal?
4. Was the Construction Manager contract re-bid after the project scope was reduced by 44% from 135,000 sf to 75,000 sf? If not, are taxpayers overpaying for services based on the larger project?
5. Why weren't Park Board commissioners informed that expansion to 135,000 sf was the City's documented plan as of January 2024—just 13 months before their decision?
6. Why did architects claim exploring alternatives would cause "significant schedule risk" when 13 months had elapsed between the "will expand" commitment and the Park Board meeting?
7. What procurement process authorized the fundamental change from three-option comparative analysis (contracted scope) to single-option presentation (delivered scope)?
8. Will the Architectural Institute of British Columbia investigate whether Acton Ostry breached professional standards by failing to deliver contracted work and misrepresenting technical feasibility?
9. Will Professional Engineers and Geoscientists BC investigate whether engineering work by TetraTech and Ausenco is being misrepresented to avoid disclosure of findings supporting alternatives?

What Happens Next

Amended Judicial Review Petition

We are working with our legal team at Bojm, Funt & Gibbons to file an amended petition in BC Supreme Court incorporating this procurement evidence. The amended petition will argue:

Material Breach of Contract: Architects contracted to deliver three-option comparative feasibility analysis instead presented single option while claiming alternatives "not feasible" without conducting required analysis.

Procurement Law Violations: Material scope changes from 135,000 sf to 75,000 sf implemented without required re-bidding, violating competitive procurement principles and potentially resulting in taxpayer harm.

Deliberate Misrepresentation: Park Board commissioners denied access to evidence showing expansion was technically validated and committed to in procurement, instead being presented with false claims of infeasibility under manufactured time pressure.

Systematic Suppression of Alternatives: Three viable paths forward (renovation, expansion, hybrid) all technically validated but deliberately withheld from decision-makers to engineer predetermined outcome.

Breach of Democratic Process: Voters approved borrowing for 50-meter pool; City validated this was deliverable through 135,000 sf expansion (125,000 sf aquatic space); plan abandoned without voter consultation or disclosure.

Additional Freedom of Information Requests

We have submitted new FOI requests seeking:

• The Industrial Design Consultant RFP (PS20230387-REFM-RFP) and any associated buyer attachments — pending since August 5th, 2025
• The Construction Manager RFP and any associated buyer attachments
• Internal communications between City staff, Acton Ostry, and consultants regarding why three-option analysis wasn't delivered
• Decision documents explaining who authorized abandonment of 135,000 sf expansion plan
• Records showing whether Ausenco report was provided to Acton Ostry as contractually required
• Communications with Park Board commissioners about technical feasibility, rehabilitation findings, and site constraints
• Construction Manager contract documents addressing whether scope change was processed

Call to Action: Demand Accountability

The evidence of systematic deception is overwhelming and irrefutable. This is about fundamental failures of transparency, procedural integrity, and democratic accountability in a $175 million generational infrastructure decision.

What You Can Do:

1. Share This Investigation Share through social media, community groups, and local representatives. Vancouver taxpayers deserve to know how decisions are being made.

2. Contact Your Elected Officials

• Park Board Commissioners – Demand answers about why they weren't provided with technical evidence showing renovation and expansion were feasible, or that expansion to 135,000 sf was the committed plan.

• City Council – Ask why City staff withheld evidence, committed to expansion in Jan 2024 then claimed it was "not feasible" in Feb 2025, and may have violated procurement law.

• Provincial Representatives – Request investigation into whether municipal procurement laws were violated and democratic processes corrupted.

3. File BC Ombudsperson Complaints The BC Ombudsperson investigates municipal government conduct. File complaints at bcombudsperson.ca demanding investigation into systematic suppression of alternatives.

4. Submit Development Permit Comments Development permit (DP-2025-00685) comment period is still open. Submit comments referencing this evidence and demanding the project be redesigned to explore the validated 135,000 sf expansion.

5. Support the Judicial Review Our legal challenge is the only formal accountability mechanism. Subscribe to our newsletter (at the bottom of this page).

6. Demand Professional Licensing Investigations

• AIBC: [email protected] - Request investigation into Acton Ostry's contract performance
• Engineers BC: [email protected] - Request investigation into misrepresentation of engineering work

Conclusion: The Evidence Proves Intent to Deceive

The progression from "contemplated" to "will expand" to "not feasible" provides irrefutable documentation of systematic deception:

January 2023: Tentative language when hiring architects – "an expanded program of approximately 135,000 square feet is contemplated"

February-October 2023: Technical validation – Ausenco confirms renovation feasible, TetraTech confirms expansion soil conditions suitable

January 2024: Definitive commitment – "facility will expand to approximately 135,000 square feet" in procurement documents instructing Construction Managers

February 2025: Baseless reversal – Same architects claim expansion "not feasible" without presenting contracted analysis or disclosing validation evidence while presenting only a single option

This is not project evolution responding to new information. This is deliberate misrepresentation.

The procurement documents don't lie. The technical studies don't lie. The timeline proves intent.

For months, critics have been dismissed as sensationalist. The evidence now proves we were right to demand:

• Transparent alternatives analysis
• Technical evidence for officials' claims
• Evidence-based decision-making
• Rigorous due diligence for $175M generational investment

This corrupted decision cannot stand. Accountability must follow. We will continue this fight in the courts and the public square until Vancouver gets the transparent, evidence-based governance its citizens deserve, and the 50m pool it deserves.

For technical professionals: The complete Ausenco rehabilitation study is available for review. We encourage engineers, architects, and construction professionals to examine and review the data.

For journalists: We are available for interviews and can provide additional documentation supporting these findings. Click here to email us.

For legal observers: We welcome analysis of the procedural issues identified in this investigation and the potential legal remedies available.

Last Updated: October 29, 2025
Next Update: Following submission of amended judicial review petition

This investigation is ongoing. Follow our website for updates as new information becomes available through FOI responses, legal proceedings, and public records requests.