Ontario has no shortage of infrastructure ambition. With $94 billion earmarked for transportation infrastructure over the next decade, the province has laid out plans for new and expanded highways, transit, bridges, and other critical infrastructure. Turning those plans into completed projects, however, will require more than capital.
As projects grow in scale and complexity, the way they are planned, procured, and delivered is evolving. Across the province, project owners are expanding their delivery toolkits, bringing contractors into the process earlier, reconsidering how risk is allocated, and building more collaborative relationships among the organizations responsible for getting projects built.
“No single organization will deliver Ontario’s infrastructure ambitions alone,” said Jeff Parker, chief strategy officer at Infrastructure Ontario (IO). “Success will depend on strong partnerships, ongoing dialogue, and a shared commitment to finding better ways to build.”
The right model for the right project
Finding better ways to build doesn’t mean abandoning traditional delivery models. Instead, owners are broadening their procurement approaches to better match the delivery model to the size, complexity, risks, and market conditions of each project.
IO’s portfolio includes major projects such as the Ontario Line, GO Rail Expansion, the QEW Garden City Skyway Bridge Twinning, and the Yonge North Subway Extension, among other critical initiatives. While the agency has relied primarily on public-private partnership (P3) models such as design-build-finance (DBF) and design-build-finance-maintain (DBFM) for major projects in the past, changing market conditions have prompted it to broaden its procurement approaches.
“As infrastructure projects became larger and more complex, we also saw significant market shifts, including reduced bidder participation on some projects and a growing reluctance among industry partners to accept certain risks,” said Parker. “Today, our focus is not on any single delivery model, but on selecting the right model for the right project. We continue to adapt our delivery methods based on market feedback, project experience, and the need to deliver infrastructure faster, more efficiently, and at the best value for Ontarians.”
One good lesson learned is the saying ‘invest early or pay later.’
Jeff Parker, Infrastructure Ontario
IO is also looking beyond the delivery model itself to how major projects are packaged, including breaking some mega-projects into smaller, more manageable components to broaden bidder participation and distribute risk. Progressive design-build (PDB) and construction manager general contractor (CMGC) are among the models gaining traction. Both are structured to bring contractors into the process earlier, allowing owners, designers, and builders to work together on design, risk, cost, and constructability before construction begins.
IO is using PDB for the first time on its QEW Garden City Skyway Bridge Twinning project, while the Toronto Pearson (Pearson) is relying on the model for Accelerator, the first major program under its multi-billion-dollar LIFT capital program to modernize Toronto Pearson Airport.
“We selected a progressive design-build approach for our first program, Accelerator, because it brings owners, designers, and builders together at the onset,” said Bill Fullerton, Pearson’s chief infrastructure officer. “In a complex airport environment, this approach helps identify issues sooner, improves constructability, and creates more certainty around cost, schedule, and delivery. It also gives projects room to adapt as work progresses, while keeping teams accountable.”
David Colle, executive vice president of integrated infrastructure solutions with Green Infrastructure Partners (GIP), has seen the approach from the contractor side through GIP’s work on major infrastructure projects, including the Garden City Skyway and expansion work at Toronto Pearson Airport.
“It’s about working all together from the start,” he said. “You hire an engineer, combine your design-build teams, discuss and assess risk together, and work with the owner throughout the design process. You discuss risks together, and you assess risks together.”
Through Pearson LIFT, we are planning ahead to ensure our infrastructure can meet future passenger demand well before capacity constraints emerge.
Bill Fullerton, Toronto Pearson
That doesn’t mean traditional models have outlived their usefulness. “There’s definitely still a space for traditional tendering methods,” said Colle. “There’s nothing wrong with them, but on these multi-year jobs, like these four- or five-year projects that are north of three, four, or $500 million, the collaborative model has really become the way you have to go.”
The result is a broader range of delivery options, giving owners greater flexibility to match the procurement approach to the needs of the project.
Moving risk upstream
Choosing the right delivery model is only part of the equation. As Ontario’s transportation program grows in size and ambition, project owners are also moving more decisions upstream, bringing contractors, designers, and other specialists into the process while there is still time to change course.
“Early planning and stakeholder alignment and a clear long-term vision are essential,” said Fullerton. “Major infrastructure projects take years to plan and deliver, so it is important to bring airlines, government partners, contractors, and airport stakeholders together early around shared priorities. This helps support better decision-making and creates a clear path from planning to procurement and construction.”
Owners also need to look beyond the projects immediately in front of them. At Pearson, the LIFT program is advancing the infrastructure needed today to meet the passenger demand expected in the years ahead, where annual volumes are projected to exceed 65 million.
“Through Pearson LIFT, we are planning ahead to ensure our infrastructure can meet future passenger demand well before capacity constraints emerge,” said Fullerton.
For IO, moving decisions upstream also means doing more of the investigative work needed to understand risks before a project reaches the market. Parker points to utility relocations, land requirements, and geotechnical investigations as areas where greater due diligence upfront can reduce uncertainty later.
“One good lesson learned is the saying ‘invest early or pay later,’” he said. “Performing due diligence to a substantive level, whether establishing land needs or conducting geotechnical investigations, de-risks the project and enables proponents to submit competitive and better-quality bids.”
Earlier involvement also allows cost and constructability issues to be addressed as the design develops. Rather than locking in a price before the project is fully understood, project teams can work toward a target price while addressing cost pressures, testing assumptions, and resolving constructability issues before shovels break ground. Owners also gain earlier access to practical knowledge about sequencing, materials, and site conditions, giving project teams an opportunity to identify how design, scheduling, cost, constructability, and other constraints may intersect before they become problems in the field.
“It’s always more beneficial to have everybody in the room working on a common goal than having everybody working in silos,” said Colle.
How risk is allocated can also influence who is willing to bid. Contractors remain eager to pursue major infrastructure work, but are becoming less willing to shoulder risks they cannot reasonably control – an important consideration for owners looking to maintain a competitive pool of bidders.
Moving forward, digital twins and AI technologies will be core components integrated directly into our procurement processes.
Jeff Parker, Infrastructure Ontario
“When you get everybody involved from the onset, and not just owners and contractors, but owners, designers, and everybody else, you eliminate a lot of the risk,” said Colle. “You eliminate a lot of the problems that really hold up the delivery of the projects. Contractors have a very good appetite. They’re willing to participate and deliver for clients – they’re just not willing to take all the risk on their own. That’s the difference.”
The risks that need to be addressed early also extend beyond construction itself. At Pearson, for example, infrastructure must be delivered while the airport continues to operate safely and reliably.
“One of the biggest priorities is ensuring operational continuity is accounted for from the start,” Fullerton said. “At Pearson, our investment programs will be delivered while keeping the airport safe and reliable for passengers, airlines, and airport workers. That means staying flexible, using data to inform decisions, and maintaining strong communication across partners.”
Understanding both sides
More collaborative delivery models are also changing the relationship between owners and their industry partners. Contractors and consultants are being asked to bring more than technical expertise to the table, including a deeper understanding of an owner’s objectives and constraints. In turn, owners need a better grasp of the commercial and operational realities facing the companies delivering their projects.
“It helps when the right mindset is present to engage in open, transparent conversations to deliver ‘best-for-project’ outcomes,” said Parker. “Continuous collaboration is essential across the entire lifecycle, from preliminary design through final commissioning, to maintain the alignment that’s needed to navigate complex, multi-year projects.”
Making that collaboration work requires both sides to understand the pressures and constraints shaping the other’s decisions. For Colle, earlier and more sustained interaction with owners creates an opportunity for that understanding to develop.
“We have the opportunity to educate the government on being contractors and how we think and how we approach things and how things work, so they better understand our business, and we better understand their business,” he said. “We understand why they’re making decisions in a certain way, and what box they have to work in, and they understand what box we have to work in. We just combine those boxes and make sure that they work together.”
Better understanding won’t eliminate disagreements. Pricing, scheduling, and execution will inevitably create points of tension, while regulatory, operational, and public-sector constraints can shape an owner’s decisions. The challenge is addressing those tensions before they become barriers to delivery. Structured partnering sessions are one way project teams can surface concerns and work through difficult conversations before they escalate.
“Collaboration sessions turn into partnering sessions for authentic success,” said Colle. “Once the guards are down and everybody’s comfortable having those tough discussions with each other, that’s when the project starts heading in the right direction.”
A higher bar for delivery partners
More collaborative delivery models may give contractors and consultants an earlier voice in project decisions and a more balanced approach to risk, but they also raise expectations for what industry partners bring to the table. That includes bringing owners a delivery plan, not just a price. Contractors are increasingly being asked to demonstrate their execution strategy before work begins, including the people, equipment, sequencing, and contingency planning needed to get the job done. For GIP, which is currently involved in work at Pearson, that means walking the owner through exactly how it intends to execute.
“We’re sitting in the room and we’re basically telling them from front to back what our schedule is, and we’re walking them through it,” said Colle. “‘We’re going to do this. We’re going to set up plants here. We’re going to move materials here.’ We’re walking through the exact process and how we’re going to build that job out front before any contractors are in place.”
Contractors have a very good appetite. They’re willing to participate and deliver for clients – they’re just not willing to take all the risk on their own.
David Colle, GIP
That level of planning also requires contractors to be realistic about what they can take on. With a growing pipeline of work across the province, companies need to be selective about the projects they pursue and ensure they have the people, equipment, partners, and expertise to execute their plans. For Colle, that means pursuing work that aligns with GIP’s capabilities and protecting the trust that comes with delivering on its commitments.
“We have to pursue the projects that are the best fit for our organization and the best fit for our strengths, because we want to make sure that we’re delivering for the government, for the authorities,” said Colle. “We want to make sure we continue to deliver because the minute we stop delivering is a minute that removes trust and confidence with our owners.”
As project teams take on more complex work, timely information and the effective use of digital tools will also become increasingly important. IO is already exploring the use of generative AI in design, estimating, scheduling, and site coordination.
“Moving forward, digital twins and AI technologies will be core components integrated directly into our procurement processes,” said Parker.
Fullerton sees a similar shift in what will be required of project teams. “Over the next decade, infrastructure teams will need to be more integrated, technology-enabled and responsive to change,” he said. “Owners, contractors, and consultants will need to share information in a timely manner, make better use of digital tools and data, and build projects that can adapt as needs evolve.”
Ontario has laid out an ambitious transportation infrastructure program. Delivering it will depend on more than the scale of the investment or the number of projects in the pipeline. It will require owners, contractors, consultants, and other partners to keep adapting how projects are procured, planned, priced, and built – and to create the conditions that allow each side to deliver.
The investment may set the province’s infrastructure plans in motion, but how well the industry works together will help determine how successfully they make the leap from promise to project.
