N8/N25/N40 - Dunkettle Interchange [under construction]

blindsider

...not 100% sure - but think it was 96 or C103...

Cork Trucker

Well i'll be pessimistic and say we all know what looks likely to happen here.

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Delays-in-Cork-infrastructure-projects-can-threaten-the-economy-eb6379a8-674b-47e3-8b55-aad69392b35a-ds

The Construction Industry Federation (CIF) has hit out at delays in the delivery of projects across the region including the Dunkettle Interchange, the M20 and M28 motorways and the Event Centre.

“Strategic infrastructure projects such as Dunkettle, the M28 and the Events Centre underpin further private sector investment and at this stage, a number of very significant private sector projects are delayed or facing delays as a result of stalled public sector infrastructure investment.”

Idbatterim

Absolute farce if it’s dejayed for eighteen months over a total irrelevance of a few euro. They’ll be hoping for the next economic collapse and prey they themselves don’t bring it about , Blame it on brexit etc. they can the decimate infrastructure spending again to prop up the outrageous welfare and public service pay bill !

Idbatterim

blindsider wrote: »

...thought I heard a snippet on the radio this morning, which hinted strongly at an 18 month delay. (THis suggests a re-tender...?)

More good news for Cork! :rolleyes:

While tender prices are increasing. It’s laughable ! I’m a dub but drove through this intercamge the other day. The amount that has been spent on questionable motorways , while schemes like this the m20 , Dublin metro haven’t been delivered, is a total disgrace !

road_high

Well it’s not going to get any bloody cheaper is it? Our administrations have such a disastrous short term approach to spending on infrastructure. And it’s getting worse from what I can see. If fairly basic projects like this that have been needed for over a decade can’t get off the ground what hope for the big ticket stuff like Dublin metro which are just as badly needed.
Meanwhile they’ll waste hundreds of millions on yet more welfare and pen pushers in the public services. Crazy stuff

Cork Trucker

The latest installment from the Echo

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/No-decision-yet-on-stage-two-of-Dunkettle-Interchange-Project-58fee675-09ed-43d6-9dad-105833857bcd-ds

There has been no decision as yet on the possible retendering of stage two of the Dunkettle Interchange Project, The Echo can reveal.

In recent weeks, doubts were raised as to whether the Dunkettle Interchange Project will be finished on time amid rising costs and possible delays to stage two.

Jayuu

Idbatterim wrote: »

Absolute farce if it’s dejayed for eighteen months over a total irrelevance of a few euro.

Depends how "few" the euro is. The problem now is that after the Children's Hospital debacle I reckon any infrastructure project that indicates a major increase in cost is going to get re-evaluated.


I'm not saying I agree with the decision but clearly the last thing the government want is another set of "infrastructure costs spiral" headlines.

marno21

Jayuu wrote: »

Depends how "few" the euro is. The problem now is that after the Children's Hospital debacle I reckon any infrastructure project that indicates a major increase in cost is going to get re-evaluated.


I'm not saying I agree with the decision but clearly the last thing the government want is another set of "infrastructure costs spiral" headlines.

Indeed, costs do need to be controlled as you say. But it’s important to remember that if the costs for Sisk have increased due to adverse ground conditions then they will also increase for any other contractor if retendered. Obviously a balance will have to be found here.

The other issue is that a 12-18 month delay is 12-18 months of more congestion at Dunkettle, which has major implications for Cork and it’s surroundings. A minor cost increase wouldn’t be the end of the world if it meant finally getting this done

Jayuu

marno21 wrote: »

Indeed, costs do need to be controlled as you say. But it’s important to remember that if the costs for Sisk have increased due to adverse ground conditions then they will also increase for any other contractor if retendered. Obviously a balance will have to be found here.

The other issue is that a 12-18 month delay is 12-18 months of more congestion at Dunkettle, which has major implications for Cork and it’s surroundings. A minor cost increase wouldn’t be the end of the world if it meant finally getting this done

I guess the question is how much is the potential cost increase? Has there been any figure quoted?

Pete_Cavan

marno21 wrote: »

But it’s important to remember that if the costs for Sisk have increased due to adverse ground conditions then they will also increase for any other contractor if retendered.

This is not necessarily the case. Sisk are arguing that ground conditions are worse but this is their interpretation of surveys and it hardly surprising that they would be putting forward the worst possible interpretation. As they will be taking on most of the risk, they want to be covered for the worst case scenario.

There is also no competition at this stage to keep things honest. Retendering the project as a standard employer designed project, or even a design and build, would mean the project could be priced based on what is known now and more reasonable assumptions. The competition between contractors would mean they have to be reasonable in their pricing in order to win the contract.

I have no doubt that retendering under a different procurement route would result in much lower bids. There would be more risk of costs increasing during construction but I would be surprised if they got anywhere near the cost Sisk are currently talking about.

tonc76

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

This is not necessarily the case. Sisk are arguing that ground conditions are worse but this is their interpretation of surveys and it hardly surprising that they would be putting forward the worst possible interpretation. As they will be taking on most of the risk, they want to be covered for the worst case scenario.

There is also no competition at this stage to keep things honest. Retendering the project as a standard employer designed project, or even a design and build, would mean the project could be priced based on what is known now and more reasonable assumptions. The competition between contractors would mean they have to be reasonable in their pricing in order to win the contract.

I have no doubt that retendering under a different procurement route would result in much lower bids. There would be more risk of costs increasing during construction but I would be surprised if they got anywhere near the cost Sisk are currently talking about.

It appears to me that the ground investigation issued to tendering parties was not robust enough as GI that has been undertaken since has apparently shown the conditions to be much worse than anticipated.

I may have missed this but was the cost that Sisk are currently talking about mentioned, other than the €160m or so figure mentioned by Micheal Martin a few weeks ago?

Also the cost that Sisk are due to submit will be final cost whereas if procured under a different contract type there would be no certainty on final cost which on projects in years past amounted to massive additional cost.

Gunner3629

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Sounds like this will be cancelled then, having already screwed up the tree cover and landscaping around the junction too.

Total mess.

The worst possible scenario is that it will be re-tender, no way it will be cancelled completely - it has to go ahead.

As for the tree cover and landscaping, I'm more concerned about another half decade of commuter hell and the impact it has on the Cork economy. Should have been done years ago.

Gunner3629

Jayuu wrote: »

I guess the question is how much is the potential cost increase? Has there been any figure quoted?

They are worried about a few million when the Childrens hospital was 100's of millions over budget.

If it was Dublin it would have been done a decade ago like the Red Cow and Newlands Cross. Just get it done.

Markcheese

Gunner3629 wrote: »

They are worried about a few million when the Childrens hospital was 100's of millions over budget.

If it was Dublin it would have been done a decade ago like the Red Cow and Newlands Cross. Just get it done.

Is it only a few million?
I assume tii have a budget too..
I don't really buy the if it was Dublin thing.. There's projects in Dublin that are looking for cash too... (and I say that as someone who's often stuck on the the N40)

Gunner3629

Markcheese wrote: »

Is it only a few million?
I assume tii have a budget too..
I don't really buy the if it was Dublin thing.. There's projects in Dublin that are looking for cash too... (and I say that as someone who's often stuck on the the N40)

Its ultimately the Governments decision whether the project goes ahead now or is delayed - down to Shane Ross and Cabinet.

There has been a need for this upgrade even before Sarsfield & Bandon Rd Roundabouts were by-passed with flyovers, and that was 2013.

Jayuu

Gunner3629 wrote: »

They are worried about a few million when the Childrens hospital was 100's of millions over budget.

If it was Dublin it would have been done a decade ago like the Red Cow and Newlands Cross. Just get it done.

But is it only "a few million"? Where are you getting this figure from?
If the increase was something like 5-10 million then I'd agree with you completely. If it's 50-100 million then it's a bigger problem.


I think the majority of people would be in favour of progressing with the scheme from an infrastructure point of view. However if the cost increase is vast then clearly that presents an optics problem for the Government once again and they are likely to shy away from it. That's just reality.

SeanW

If it goes back to tender, is there anything to be gained by breaking the project up into chunks?

For example, the slip road from the N8 East to the M8 North is mostly a re-use of an old road, I'd imagine these ground issues are less of a factor there or that this should be one of the easier parts. If the project is to be re-tendered, then could Sisk be told "go ahead and build that slip road, the rest will be re-tendered"? Or would the government have to tender that slip road as well?

I ask because it seems like it might a quick-win to take some of the traffic off the roundabout, if the overall scheme gets delayed.

Pete_Cavan

tonc76 wrote: »

It appears to me that the ground investigation issued to tendering parties was not robust enough as GI that has been undertaken since has apparently shown the conditions to be much worse than anticipated.

I may have missed this but was the cost that Sisk are currently talking about mentioned, other than the €160m or so figure mentioned by Micheal Martin a few weeks ago?

Also the cost that Sisk are due to submit will be final cost whereas if procured under a different contract type there would be no certainty on final cost which on projects in years past amounted to massive additional cost.

Much of the results of the ground investigation comes down to interpretation, two engineers could look at a borehole log and make a case for two very different solutions needed. If the engineers on TII's side do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the engineers on Sisk's side, this process should be scrapped. Sisk have nothing to lose here and will be looking to squeeze everything they can out of TII, who will suffer a lot of reputational damage and bad PR if the project doesn't go ahead.


The cost that Sisk are due to submit may be the final but it will be inflated with premiums for risk. Costs not rising from the contract award sounds good but not if you are paying over the odds to begin with. Cost increases which are justified and verified, based on actual quantities and tendered rates are better than contract price jacked up before any work is done based on "what if".

Pete_Cavan

SeanW wrote: »

If it goes back to tender, is there anything to be gained by breaking the project up into chunks?

For example, the slip road from the N8 East to the M8 North is mostly a re-use of an old road, I'd imagine these ground issues are less of a factor there or that this should be one of the easier parts. If the project is to be re-tendered, then could Sisk be told "go ahead and build that slip road, the rest will be re-tendered"? Or would the government have to tender that slip road as well?

I ask because it seems like it might a quick-win to take some of the traffic off the roundabout, if the overall scheme gets delayed.

What you describe sounds like a substantial change from the initial tender so retendering would be appropriate. No doubt Sisk would find other issues to throw in the mix when negotiating the value of that contract and TII will still be in the situation of having to accept Sisk's "best price" or walk away with nothing. Doing the works piecemeal would be more expensive.

tonc76

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Much of the results of the ground investigation comes down to interpretation, two engineers could look at a borehole log and make a case for two very different solutions needed. If the engineers on TII's side do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the engineers on Sisk's side, this process should be scrapped. Sisk have nothing to lose here and will be looking to squeeze everything they can out of TII, who will suffer a lot of reputational damage and bad PR if the project doesn't go ahead.


The cost that Sisk are due to submit may be the final but it will be inflated with premiums for risk. Costs not rising from the contract award sounds good but not if you are paying over the odds to begin with. Cost increases which are justified and verified, based on actual quantities and tendered rates are better than contract price jacked up before any work is done based on "what if".

Regarding the interpretation of the ground investigation results, testing has been ongoing throughout phase 2 of the tender so this is additional info that TII's engineers would not have had when estimating the scheme cost prior to the tender commencing. As a result couldn't it be possible that the estimate is off the mark as a result?

With this form of contract as I understand it, the majority, and if not all, of the risk lies with the contractor so a premium will be paid regardless. Cost increases which are justified and verified, based on actual quantities and tendered rates would possibly offer better bang for your buck but the cost could also spiral if the original construction cost estimate was off the mark.

I'd hate to see the project delayed and retendered as it is badly needed. If it does happen though it would be interesting to see the difference in construction cost between the "new" phase and the cost that TII and sisk are supposedly negotiating over at the moment.

highwaymaniac

tonc76 wrote: »

Regarding the interpretation of the ground investigation results, testing has been ongoing throughout phase 2 of the tender so this is additional info that TII's engineers would not have had when estimating the scheme cost prior to the tender commencing. As a result couldn't it be possible that the estimate is off the mark as a result?

With this form of contract as I understand it, the majority, and if not all, of the risk lies with the contractor so a premium will be paid regardless. Cost increases which are justified and verified, based on actual quantities and tendered rates would possibly offer better bang for your buck but the cost could also spiral if the original construction cost estimate was off the mark.

I'd hate to see the project delayed and retendered as it is badly needed. If it does happen though it would be interesting to see the difference in construction cost between the "new" phase and the cost that TII and sisk are supposedly negotiating over at the moment.

The Geology of Cork Harbour has been extensively studied and reported, in addition there is ground investigation information from the tunnel and original dunkettle interchange projects. The fake news that is being peddled that the ground conditions are worse than expected just does not stand up to scrutiny. It is a marine environment of tidal mudflats, with significant depths of alluvium with glacial deposits of gravel underneath. The ground conditions are poor there is no secret around that. Bridges will need to be piled, staged construction and surcharged embankments etc.

At this stage I can see this definitely being retendered. The issue here is that the initial cost estimate by TII was a guesstimate so they don't know by how much prooft and risk Sisk are applying.

Cork Trucker

What a fcuking joke, but not unexpected

https://twitter.com/JoeLeogue/status/1161940871086039040

Canyon86

Cork Trucker wrote: »

What a fcuking joke, but not unexpected

https://twitter.com/JoeLeogue/status/1161940871086039040

Crazy stuff!!

Gunner3629

Could have a new government by then. Very frustrating.

Cork Trucker

Gunner3629 wrote: »

Could have a new government by then. Very frustrating.

Another recession as well possibly, Germany's economy contracted by 0.1% in the last quarter, this & Brexit would mess things up here, throw a new government into the mix and it might not be their priority the same way the M20 and Northern Ring Road aren't for the current administration.

marno21

If this lark continues it’ll be Senator Simon Coventry at the opening

Cork getting short changed again as usual. Funny how the rules apply here but not to the Children’s Hospital or the Broadband Plan

Odelay

Drax wrote: »

Excellent news indeed... expect it in around 10 years. :pac:

Lol. Posted in April 2009

prunudo

Odelay wrote: »

Lol. Posted in April 2009

A lot of threads on here have start dates that long ago unfortunately, depressing state of affairs really.

Limerick74

https://www.tii.ie/news/press-releases/dunkettle-interchange-update/

Gunner3629

Limerick74 wrote: »

https://www.tii.ie/news/press-releases/dunkettle-interchange-update/

Who's the say that after re-tendering the cost will be any lower than what Sisk are quoting.

Even thought Children's hospital is a much bigger cost to the taxpayer, and ultimately spiralled out of all control, why was this action never taken there?