Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Go-Ahead Win 10% of Dublin Bus routes for tender
Options
Comments
-
dublinman1990 wrote: »Luckily enough; for some of you posters referencing the old DUTC tramyard at Newtown Avenue in Blackrock.
A developer submitted a planning application 6 months ago on building 9 houses & 42 apartments at the site with 67 underground car parking spaces.
This means that any chance of an outstation for Go-Ahead on this site will not be possible due to lack of space.
http://www.ossiansmyth.ie/new-plans-for-the-europa-site-in-blackrock/
Yes I have heard about that. Building a bus depot there would ridiculous anyway due to acess. A suitable site I would see now is the old ferry terminal in DL considering the 45a, 59, 63, 75 and 111 are all being tendered out to GA.0 -
But at the end of the day the unions have spent the best part of the last few years arguing that they should not have to move under any circumstances and it delayed the awarding of this tender by a long time whilst that was all worked out, if they turn their back on that now they've basically made the whole process take longer and cost more to conduct simply to backtrack when it doesn't go their way.
All this from a service that is supposed to be run for the benefit of the public, which we have to be realistic, at the end of the day the staff there will back whichever horse gives them the greater reward, consistency of their argument doesn't matter it seems as long as they don't lose out.
At the end of the day the public have to come first before any internal politics.
I know the unions were asking for this but I have seen nothing that suggests it is going to happen, although if you can find something to confirm that it will be happening from the relevant authorities who would be responsible for that it would be useful to settle this point.
The union spent the last number of years arguing that the bid should not solely be based upon cost and should include an element of quality of service, they appear to have got that, which may, if you believe the speculation in the press which is extremely vague, ironically have cost them the tender.
If that is the case it's a spectacular own goal.
You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between have to and choose to, the unions opposed their members being forced to move, but this is still a free country if people choose to move to a different employer that is their right. It is not that dissimilar to a union being opposed to compulsory redundancy but their members being allowed to choose to leave under voluntary redundancy.
The unions haven't turned their back on anything, and their members are free to choose who they believe will give them the best return as it should be, whats the problem with that ?
The unions did not bid for the tender the company did so the unions didn't lose any tender, if the bid was not purely decided on the low cost model then arguably the unions have won that argument, now it is up to the unions to seek to represent the workers at any new operator and seek the best possible terms and conditions for them.0 -
Yes I have heard about that. Building a bus depot there would ridiculous anyway due to acess. A suitable site I would see now is the old ferry terminal in DL considering the 45a, 59, 63, 75 and 111 are all being tendered out to GA.
But a rather ridiculous site for a bus service from Baldoyle to the Airport or Finglas to Killbarack or Swords to Balbriggan etc0 -
Needs to be an integrated over-arching brand if you ask me, the system needs to become more important than the operator, which unfortunately isn't the case now and is a symptom of a system that for a long time has acted as individual parts rather than a Transport for London style organisation.
This will be the NTA's biggest challenge, for the Transport for Ireland brand to become the main brand and encompass everything Transport for London style rather than having operators all doing their own thing in many areas, but I can't see DB for instance simply rolling over and agreeing to that very easily.
In an ideal world the operators would operate the buses and everything else will be left to TFI when it comes to information, apps, maps, journey planning, timetabling, ticketing etc, we need to stop this nonsense where companies do something that TFI have already done merely to have their own brand on something and control of something.
In London bus routes change over all of the time between operators but it makes no difference to the public because they just see it as a London Bus, it makes no difference in terms of information, timetables, apps etc because all of that is done through TFL as a full integrated system, mot people probably don't even know or even care who operates their routes.
What's it all for though?
Surely "operating" the buses is not rocket science what with automation supposedly being around the corner.
Let tfi buy buses and employ a few drivers.
Why bother with "bus operators" at all?0 -
brokenarms wrote: »Employing drivers that wish to suit them selves with regards shift patterns wont work with that many high frequency routes.
They will have to follow the same model as dublin bus and their own model in the UK which is similar.
What different labour model do you speak off? Why would they not want experienced drivers? Please explain .
The point I was making about shift patterns that suit them is what happens on the interurban routes. Lost of drivers work sub 40 hour weeks and work is often targeted to the driver. Some drivers may wish to work 3 day weeks, weekends only etc etc. The use of these type of drivers are not targeted by DB. Take retired DB drivers or retired people in general some may wish to work 1 or two days a weeks to supplement pension. You may have people that have other part time work etc as long as the workers are flexible it is easy to move shifts around.
Such workers could work 10 hours driving days provided they do it no more than twice a week. It may suit drivers such as these to work the maximum hours they can legally can do during a single shift to minimize the no of days worked and maximize a daily rate. It may suit other drivers to work 4-6 hours shifts 3-5 days a week etc etc.Slava Ukrainii
0 -
Advertisement
-
On the surface, it does sound more like it was awarded to "anyone-BUT-DB" to save face after all the pomp and ceremony alright.
If GA decide to pull out, or the tender falls through for another reason, it'll be hard to justify letting DB carry on regardless.
Or not.. this is Ireland after all, where things like this cause a stir in the media for a day or two and then it's all forgotten.
It would be hard to justify letting the operator that is exceeding all targets set by the NTA and whose bid was the cheapest from continuing to operate the services ? Really ?
it would be an embarrassment to the NTA no doubt, all that malarkey to achieve nothing, but that looks like the exact reason why DB lost anyway any mickey mouse operator ( not suggesting GA is) would have won just to justify the whole point in having this tender.0 -
Voipjunkie wrote: »But a rather ridiculous site for a bus service from Baldoyle to the Airport or Finglas to Killbarack or Swords to Balbriggan etc
Having a bus depot in Finglas or Swords is rather useless for a bus serving Dun Laoghaire or Bray also. Thats why I honestly don't see how tendering out a bus service is going to improve it.0 -
Bass Reeves wrote: »The point I was making about shift patterns that suit them is what happens on the interurban routes. Lost of drivers work sub 40 hour weeks and work is often targeted to the driver. Some drivers may wish to work 3 day weeks, weekends only etc etc. The use of these type of drivers are not targeted by DB. Take retired DB drivers or retired people in general some may wish to work 1 or two days a weeks to supplement pension. You may have people that have other part time work etc as long as the workers are flexible it is easy to move shifts around.
Such workers could work 10 hours driving days provided they do it no more than twice a week. It may suit drivers such as these to work the maximum hours they can legally can do during a single shift to minimize the no of days worked and maximize a daily rate. It may suit other drivers to work 4-6 hours shifts 3-5 days a week etc etc.
There are dangers in following that course, in that you end up with people working other jobs and driving buses when really they are not fit to be driving buses. Flexible rotas are fine as long as they are not forced flexible rotas with basically zero hour contracts, you end up with employees with commitment to 2 or more employers.
Where an employee is with one employer it is easy to ensure the employee is getting the required rest and break periods, not so when the employee is on call and working for other people.0 -
Having a bus depot in Finglas or Swords is rather useless for a bus serving Dun Laoghaire or Bray also. Thats why I honestly don't see how tendering out a bus service is going to improve it.
Absolutely I made that point yesterday, also without knowing where the depot ot depots will be it is impossible to give an accurate tender because you have no idea how far each bus will be from it's depot.0 -
Voipjunkie wrote: »The unions haven't turned their back on anything, and their members are free to choose who they believe will give them the best return as it should be, whats the problem with that ?
At the end of the day the unions wasted ages delaying the process which meant running the process cost the state more money to get a certain opt-out that the staff created enough protest about because none of them wanted to transfer or so we were led to believe, only to want to leave anyway in some attempt to main control over an industry or the wages being paid by other employers?Voipjunkie wrote: »It would be hard to justify letting the operator that is exceeding all targets set by the NTA and whose bid was the cheapest from continuing to operate the services ? Really ?
it would be an embarrassment to the NTA no doubt, all that malarkey to achieve nothing, but that looks like the exact reason why DB lost anyway any mickey mouse operator ( not suggesting GA is) would have won just to justify the whole point in having this tender.
The thing is though right at the start of the article the author claims he understands which normally means someone is not 100% sure but they think that they are right, nobody who has total confidence in their statement uses the term "understands" they simply say it is.
As I pointed out in the last posts there are a number of the sections of the current contract between Dublin Bus and the National Transport Authority that Dublin Bus appear not be be delivering on and surely any tendering authority worth it's salt will take into account past records of co-operation and delivering in all areas of the contract that the contractor was obliged to do so.0 -
Advertisement
-
How does TFL manage for depots in London does anyone know? Are they all shared by the various operators or individually owned/leased or what.0
-
What's it all for though?
Surely "operating" the buses is not rocket science what with automation supposedly being around the corner.
Let tfi buy buses and employ a few drivers.
Why bother with "bus operators" at all?
Spoken like a man who has no idea whats involved, the NTA could just operate themselves but then they would actually just be Dublin Bus, thats the model we had before CIE was the NTA.0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »How does TFL manage for depots in London does anyone know? Are they all shared by the various operators or individually owned/leased or what.
Individually owned afaik0 -
Voipjunkie wrote: »Spoken like a man who has no idea whats involved, the NTA could just operate themselves but then they would actually just be Dublin Bus, thats the model we had before CIE was the NTA.
CIE was not a regulator, they a were a parent company and there is a massive difference between the two.0 -
At the end of the day the unions wasted ages delaying the process which meant running the process cost the state more money to get a certain opt-out that the staff created enough protest about because none of them wanted to transfer or so we were led to believe, only to want to leave anyway in some attempt to main control over an industry or the wages being paid by other employers?
The thing is though right at the start of the article the author claims he understands which normally means someone is not 100% sure but they think that they are right, nobody who has total confidence in their statement uses the term "understands" they simply say it is.
As I pointed out in the last posts there are a number of the sections of the current contract between Dublin Bus and the National Transport Authority that Dublin Bus appear not be be delivering on and surely any tendering authority worth it's salt will take into account past records of co-operation and delivering in all areas of the contract that the contractor was obliged to do so.
Yet again no, the opposition was to forced migration to a different employer, the unions are still opposed to it, that doesn't mean employees can not choose to move should they wish to move. The unions didn't waste any time they sought clarification this was refused, the NTA as i remember refused to even engage on the issue until eventually forced to, then it was made clear no one would be forced to move and that DB would be grown to ensure if DB ended up with excess employees they would not be made redundant.
All that still remains the case, and does not preclude individual employees from moving if they so wish, for example Drivers in DB can be spare for up to 12 years at the moment if moving to an new employers shortened that period with little or no difference in pay etc perhaps some drivers may jump at the chance, what is the problem with that ?0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »How does TFL manage for depots in London does anyone know? Are they all shared by the various operators or individually owned/leased or what.
Before it was opened up to private operators in the mid 90s, the London Buses system had several business units and each of these were sold off one by one and had their own depots, vehicles and routes allocated to them as every business unit had it's own routes, depots etc.0 -
Voipjunkie wrote: »Yet again no, the opposition was to forced migration to a different employer, the unions are still opposed to it, that doesn't mean employees can not choose to move should they wish to move. The unions didn't waste any time they sought clarification this was refused, the NTA as i remember refused to even engage on the issue until eventually forced to, then it was made clear no one would be forced to move and that DB would be grown to ensure if DB ended up with excess employees they would not be made redundant.
You claim that it did not take any extra time because of this but you use words like "until eventually forced to" which suggests that it happened after a long delay, dispute, or series of problems, because that is what eventually means does it not?0 -
CIE was not a regulator, they a were a parent company and there is a massive difference between the two.
CIE and its subsidiaries were the defacto regulator and operator before the NTA came into existence, many of the functions of the NTA were performed by them such as service levels, tickets options, timetables, routings etc.0 -
You claim that it did not take any extra time because of this but you use words like "until eventually forced to" which suggests that it happened after a long delay, dispute, or series of problems, because that is what eventually means does it not?
No I claim the unions were not the ones responsible for it taking more time, the NTA and the DOT by not engaging on the reasonable issues and concers dragged it out.0 -
I have only looked at sections 13 and 14 and saw the following
13.1.2 (No Passengers charter on the Dublin Bus Website)
13.1.4 (No information provided on EC Regulation 181/2011)
13.1.5 (Non provision of details on how to escalate queries to the NTA)
14.2.1 (Non Intergration of National Journey Planner)
14.2.2 (Many contracted features not being supplied here)
Dublin Bus have signed a contract with with the NTA to get funding from the taxpayer to operate services in conjunction with the terms specified in the schedule and direct award contract that has been outlined.
Do you think maybe the fact that the NTA are paying Dublin Bus for such services but the company are not delivering all of the terms of the contract and schedule might well play into their scoring on non price aspects of the tender that they have lost?
i would hope not if the NTA aren't doing their bit to enforce the rules and terms and conditions of the contract.
the operator has an obligation to fulfill all terms rules and conditions of the contract but the NTA has an obligation to insure they are doing so, and enforcing as we are paying them to do, quite hansamly as well.The thing is though right at the start of the article the author claims he understands which normally means someone is not 100% sure but they think that they are right, nobody who has total confidence in their statement uses the term "understands" they simply say it is.
But we don't know what the 35% quality criteria for the bid was judged on even if what the Indy is reporting is correct, so unless we know that is is impossible to know exactly what they may or may not have scored on the technical aspects of this part of the tender, it's impossible to judge the way someone scored a tender if you don't know what they were even scoring the bidders on.
As I pointed out in the last posts there are a number of the sections of the current contract between Dublin Bus and the National Transport Authority that Dublin Bus appear not be be delivering on and surely any tendering authority worth it's salt will take into account past records of co-operation and delivering in all areas of the contract that the contractor was obliged to do so.
but if there are sections of the contract the company aren't delivering on then they aren't exceeding their targets.
yet we are being told they are exceeding their targets.
something doesn't add up.
are the targets rather low? are the NTA not enforcing the terms of the contract in full? are the NTA excluding these aspects as part of the targets when they evaluate compliance? are they now changing things in terms of the new contracts and then judging the company on the previous terms of previous contracts which have different rules?
questions questions and more questions indeed.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Voipjunkie wrote: »CIE and its subsidiaries were the defacto regulator and operator before the NTA came into existence,
They were not a regulator whether you like to spin it any way you want, they were a parent company of the three state owned transport companies, that is completely different to being a regulator.
A regulator is an independent body that supervises a particular industry or business activity and CIE do not fit that definition as they do not supervise the industry, they simply are the parent company of their subsidiary and they are certainly not independent.many of the functions of the NTA were performed by them
One of the reasons that the NTA was formed was because it was seen that an independent regulator was needed because up until that point CIE had made only minor slow progress to many of the issues with public transport in this country and their record on integration considering how many years they had is laughable.
There are many functions and things the NTA have done in the last few years that were never done or thought of before by CIE when they had the chance to do so in the past and if you don't want to acknowledge that, be my guest but at the end of the day it doesn't stop it being the case.0 -
The quality element of a score in a public sector tender like this would not be based on the past performance of a company, no. It would be based on what each bidder has promised to do, and the extent to which that satisfies the bid marking criteria. Those promises would then become contractual obligations.You'd presume though that any decent tender review would also include researching the company and its performance/results elsewhere though?
Of course the bidders would have to demonstrate their ability to deliver on their promises, and they will probably have done so using evidence of their past performance. You would hope that there is also some mechanism for the NTA to disqualify a bidder if they've done something grossly incompetent or negligent elsewhere.
Given the degree to which the NTA is prescribing the way the service will work (timetables, fares, livery etc.) I'm a bit stumped as to what there is left for the bidders to tinker with, and thus I'm bit surprised that the quality element was given a weighting as high as 35%.Certainly (as someone who has managed/does tenders for IT hardware), I'd never take what is essentially just a sales pitch (usually written by someone not in the operations department) at face value without a lot of background research, especially where you're talking about having multiple years of dealing with the company and it's products/services.
Without wishing to sound dismissive, your experience of managing tenders is probably not very relevant to a public sector contract like this. All sorts of EU tendering rules (which I also know very little about) kick in, and it is thus not safe to make assumptions based on your perception of common sense.
I'm not sure about this tender, but very often there is also a pre-screening stage where all of the bidders will have demonstrated their basic competence to manage the contract, i.e. in this case the competition might have been restricted to companies that have a demonstrable track record of running a bus service. Then everyone is on a level playing field when it comes to the actual tender.0 -
Voipjunkie wrote: »No I claim the unions were not the ones responsible for it taking more time, the NTA and the DOT by not engaging on the reasonable issues and concers dragged it out.
So basically what you are saying if the Unions don't get their own way it's perfectly acceptable for them to hold out as long as they possibly can and any delay is not the fault of the unions defying authority but simply the fact that the other party just didn't give into their demands right left and center?
Sounds like defiance of authroity to me and people who are too used at getting their own way and when they don't get their own way throwing their toys out of the pram and saying it's not fair.end of the road wrote: »i would hope not if the NTA aren't doing their bit to enforce the rules and terms and conditions of the contract.
the operator has an obligation to fulfill all terms rules and conditions of the contract but the NTA has an obligation to insure they are doing so, and enforcing as we are paying them to do, quite hansamly as well.
But if the NTA micro managed every single terms and condition of the contract then you would have plenty of people moaning about that left right and center, some people are already doing that. If a party signs a contract they have agreed to adhere to it's terms, if they don't want to adhere to them they shouldn't sign the contract.but if there are sections of the contract the company aren't delivering on then they aren't exceeding their targets.
yet we are being told they are exceeding their targets.
something doesn't add up.
are the targets rather low? are the NTA not enforcing the terms of the contract in full? are the NTA excluding these aspects as part of the targets when they evaluate compliance? are they now changing things in terms of the new contracts and then judging the company on the previous terms of previous contracts which have different rules?
Targets are set metrics at the end of the day but there are also other things that companies will be judged on such as how rigidly they stuck to the contract that was previously signed, how co-operative they have been in the past and myrid of other things.
We don't know what the 35% quality criteria for the bid was judged on even if what the Indy is reporting is correct, so unless we know that is is impossible to know exactly what they may or may not have scored on the technical aspects of this part of the tender, it's impossible to judge the way someone scored a tender if you don't know what they were even scoring the bidders on.0 -
As I pointed out in the last posts there are a number of the sections of the current contract between Dublin Bus and the National Transport Authority that Dublin Bus appear not be be delivering on and surely any tendering authority worth it's salt will take into account past records of co-operation and delivering in all areas of the contract that the contractor was obliged to do so.
of course, but any authority worth it's salt would also insure the terms are being met in the first place, rather then simply awarding the contract and then doing nothing until it runs out, then deciding at the end the terms haven't been met and awarding it to someone else. if you award a contract you have an obligation in my view to insure the terms are being met while it runs as well as judging performance at the end.But if the NTA micro managed every single terms and condition of the contract then you would have plenty of people moaning about that left right and center, some people are already doing that.
but micro-managing is what the NTA are effectively doing, and it's what they are paid and expected to do. so why aren't they doing it. they are paid to regulate and that includes insuring contracts are being met.If a party signs a contract they have agreed to adhere to it's terms, if they don't want to adhere to them they shouldn't sign the contract.
i completely agree but i also expect the contractee to insure the contract is being stuck to. if i sign a contract with someone to provide me with a service i will be insuring the terms of it are being met while the work is being caried out, and if i find during the carying out of the work the contract isn't being stuck to i will terminate it. i won't simply walk away and come back when the work is fully done and decide that it hasn't met the standard then and decide not to award more work to that person or company, i will remove the contract the minute i find the work isn't being caried out to what i expected.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
It will be interesting to see if this new operator employs Irish drivers or will they just employ non nationals to keep costs down.0
-
-
end of the road wrote: »of course, but any authority worth it's salt would also insure the terms are being met in the first place, rather then simply awarding the contract and then doing nothing until it runs out, then deciding at the end the terms haven't been met and awarding it to someone else. if you award a contract you have an obligation in my view to insure the terms are being met while it runs as well as judging performance at the end.
but micro-managing is what the NTA are effectively doing, and it's what they are paid and expected to do. so why aren't they doing it. they are paid to regulate and that includes insuring contracts are being met.
i completely agree but i also expect the contractee to insure the contract is being stuck to. if i sign a contract with someone to provide me with a service i will be insuring the terms of it are being met while the work is being caried out, and if i find during the carying out of the work the contract isn't being stuck to i will terminate it. i won't simply walk away and come back when the work is fully done and decide that it hasn't met the standard then and decide not to award more work to that person or company, i will remove the contract the minute i find the work isn't being caried out to what i expected.
Lets be realistic though, as the sole company with the resources, vehicles, staff and facilities to be able to provide the full kind of services that Dublin Bus conduct, if the NTA were to terminate the contract what would happen at the end of the day? They wouldn't just suddenly all resume a few days later.
That's why monopolies are bad because however strong regulator you have and however good they do their job, the monopoly holder will have more of a say than an operation which is divided between several smaller companies because the operator knows that there is nowhere else the regulator can turn.
I've worked in industries where this is the case before, the bigger the monopoly that one company has on an industry, the less scared they are at a regulator, especially when they know that whilst the regulator in theory has power to take away their contract, in reality it's not practical and isn't going to happen because nobody will step into their shoes.0 -
-
Lets be realistic though, as the sole company with the resources, vehicles, staff and facilities to be able to provide the full kind of services that Dublin Bus conduct, if the NTA were to terminate the contract what would happen at the end of the day? They wouldn't just suddenly all resume a few days later.
That's why monopolies are bad because however strong regulator you have and however good they do their job, the monopoly holder will have more of a say than an operation which is divided between several smaller companies because the operator knows that there is nowhere else the regulator can turn.
I've worked in industries where this is the case before, the bigger the monopoly that one company has on an industry, the less scared they are at a regulator, especially when they know that whilst the regulator in theory has power to take away their contract, in reality it's not practical and isn't going to happen because nobody will step into their shoes.
Monopolies are not always bad we had far cheaper health insurance when we only had the VHI.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement