The joys of the public procurement system...

oq4v3ht0u76kf2

Need buses to help out with the commuting problems caused by the railway bridge collapsing?

Sure, we'll have them up and running by October 2nd.

procure11

Eduardo Brief Rule wrote: »

Need buses to help out with the commuting problems caused by the railway bridge collapsing?

Sure, we'll have them up and running by October 2nd.

That is my field and I must confess ...it is very joyful.

back on topic..Considering the formidable challenge of this nature...that is quite reasonable indeed!!!

oq4v3ht0u76kf2

Well with a nick like procure11...

I've thought about expressing interest and starting the whole process on a couple of things over the last year or so related to the area I work in but the whole process seems to drawn out and bureaucratic... I know it's "our" money and all but still!

In my work in the private sector I've seen much bigger projects than a 3 month shuttlebus service brought from concept to completion incredibly quickly!

bug

Eduardo Brief Rule wrote: »

Need buses to help out with the commuting problems caused by the railway bridge collapsing?

Sure, we'll have them up and running by October 2nd.

Governed by the EU directives on Procurement due to the value of the contract.

They have no choice other than to follow the process or be open to litigation.

Nothing got to do with the public service. All got to do with the EU directives on tendering.

Unfortunately, in these circumstances we don't live in China.

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/legislation_en.htm

have a read. No seriously, until you gloss over. Those who undertake these projects in the P.S. have to know this **** inside out and backwards.

Yes, it stops me cousin down the road driving you in his customised hi-ace from A to B but its the other extreme.

I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to your EU rep.....

Manic Moran

I am reminded of the problem when the MacArthur Maze collapsed two years ago in California. A fuel tanker truck caught fire on one viaduct directly underneath a higher viaduct. The blaze melted the reinforcing steel, and the whole thing just collapsed.

http://cdn.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/mn_highway_collapse_caoak101.jpg

This is a major intersection for the San Francisco area, over a half-million cars per day were affected.

CalTrans' solution was to throw money at the problem. They set a target date of two months to get the viaducts open again. The bidding process took the weekend. They also put a bonus of $200,000 for every day ahead of schedule that the thing was fixed. The accident happened April 29th. All roads re-opened May 27th.

Now that's speed.

NTM

Biggins

In this particular case, the route is well, well covered already. The stations from Belfast down to Dundalk and Drogheda are running very regular buses - when you get to Dundalk and Drogheda they are every 30 minutes between 6 and 10.30 alone. Then they are running more than one bus at those times as well to cope with the sudden surge with the bridge failure.

Then there is a coach hire company called "Mathews" which is also well covering the same route just as regular (and cheaper) every day.

All are coping quite well, this is public expenditure far, far too wasted.

Hagar

If the buses are coping so well, why do we need a train?
Why spend the money fixing the line/bridge?

Just asking.

Long Onion

I think it's ridiculous that it takes over 5 weeks to tender for a 10 week contract that's actually needed today.

Be it a local or EU sh1theap, it's still a sh1theap nonetheless.

Biggins

Hagar wrote: »

If the buses are coping so well, why do we need a train?

The railway line was there already anyway heading the same direction.
It would not make sense not to make use of it as an alternative transport system for the public.
Giving the people choice?

Both methods of transport offer additional alternative routes at various stopping points as do all other transport systems.
For the route that they are now tendering out, there is seriously no need. Its well, well covered.
(I personally suspect it's to try and hit Mathews buses revenue who have tapped in big time to this route - they even give you free wifi net capability on their buses!)

Hagar wrote: »

Why spend the money fixing the line/bridge?

Simple (if only just because) it was/is a higher speed direct access to the capitals for freight and goods, from North to South and visa-versa.

Victor

Hagar wrote: »

If the buses are coping so well, why do we need a train?
Why spend the money fixing the line/bridge?

Just asking.

Try crying a few thousand tons of lead ore per week on buses.

lostexpectation

don't they have some sort of emergency procurement,surely your busiest trainline breaking is an emergency

Victor

How do you think they have been providing buses all week?

Hagar

How is the ore being moved now? From a a business pov which is better?

Biggins

Hagar wrote: »

How is the ore being moved now? From a a business pov which is better?

I'd guess the trucking business has gotten a bit of a small boost.

bug

Biggins wrote: »

The railway line was there already anyway heading the same direction.
It would not make sense not to make use of it as an alternative transport system for the public.
Giving the people choice?

Both methods of transport offer additional alternative routes at various stopping points as do all other transport systems.
For the route that they are now tendering out, there is seriously no need. Its well, well covered.
(I personally suspect it's to try and hit Mathews buses revenue who have tapped in big time to this route - they even give you free wifi net capability on their buses!)

As far as my limited knowledge of the subject is - I would assume the reasons are as follows, its

a) not in the interest of fairness/competetiveness to allow one company to have an entire contract which could at a minimum be a million euro's (from the contract notice estimation), over the time it takes for the bridge to be completed.
Spread the wealth etc. It's "responsible" procurement.
Its a framework tender, which afaik, (not an expert by any means), means many companies will have to compete with each other on a review period for pricing etc. Value for money etc.

b) They have to regulate health & safety of passengers, (I am not saying that the company doesn't have an impeccable record it just is outlined very specifically in the prequalification in the tender) ensuring that all companies are up to the standard of their industry.

c) Companies will have to prove their financial standing. i.e. they are not going to go bust over night and leave you standing in Drogheda complaining.

The process is actually very fair and transparant, but it does take a long time.

Even when the contract gets awarded they have to wait ten days i think before they can do anything on it to allow others who have been excluded to challenge the decision.

Biggins

bug wrote: »

As far as my limited knowledge of the subject is - I would assume the reasons are as follows, its

a) not in the interest of fairness/competetiveness to allow one company to have an entire contract which could at a minimum be a million euro's (from the contract notice estimation), over the time it takes for the bridge to be completed.
Spread the wealth etc. It's "responsible" procurement.
Its a framework tender, which afaik, (not an expert by any means), means many companies will have to compete with each other on a review period for pricing etc. Value for money etc.

b) They have to regulate health & safety of passengers, (I am not saying that the company doesn't have an impeccable record it just is outlined very specifically in the prequalification in the tender) ensuring that all companies are up to the standard of their industry.

c) Companies will have to prove their financial standing. i.e. they are not going to go bust over night and leave you standing in Drogheda complaining.

The process is actually very fair and transparant, but it does take a long time.

Even when the contract gets awarded they have to wait ten days i think before they can do anything on it to allow others who have been excluded to challenge the decision.

I know that (a) the present rival company is cheaper daily than the present service by Bus Eireann, other than on that section, I can't comment.

In regards to (b) the present rival buses are far, far superior in every every way. Safety on these (Mathews) buses is never an issue from what I've heard.

and (c) for Mathews - not a problem.

They would be a shoe-in to win any contract, have already gotten the routes known and organised as they are already running them! Getting paid again for what they are doing already would be the icing on the cake for them.

Stheno

Long Onion wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that it takes over 5 weeks to tender for a 10 week contract that's actually needed today.

Be it a local or EU sh1theap, it's still a sh1theap nonetheless.

Due to the value of the tender, once it exceeds approx €440,000 in the utility sector, it has to go via the EU tendering process, which is open to response by any Company in the EU who believe they are capable of providing the service specified.

Irish Rail are doing this the quickest way which is to invite expressions of interest and have them back by 11th Sept, which then allows them to invite a shortlist of candidates to submit a full response, which they will then shortlist further on the basis of various factors.

The timeframe (quoted below) is very very aggressive for a tender of this size, there tend to be guidelines/rules on response times based on the tender value, so it's possible they have gotten leeway due to the urgency of putting the service in place.

Close Expressions of Interest 10th September;

Despatch Tender Docs - 12th September;

Negotiations 23nd / 24rd September;

Contract commence - 2st October 2009;

bug

Biggins wrote: »

I know that (a) the present rival company is cheaper daily than the present service by Bus Eireann, other than on that section, I can't comment.

In regards to (b) the present rival buses are far, far superior in every every way. Safety on these (Mathews) buses is never an issue from what I've heard.

and (c) for Mathews - not a problem.

They would be a shoe-in to win any contract, have already gotten the routes known and organised as they are already running them! Getting paid again for what they are doing already would be the icing on the cake for them.

Well you never know what pricing might come out of a tender.

I'm sure Matthews offer a good service all round. Especially since a user like yourself is very happy with them.

Just giving some limited knowledge I have of the tender process.. and some possible reasonings for why it takes place.

Biggins

bug wrote: »

...Just giving some limited knowledge I have of the tender process.. and some possible reasonings for why it takes place.

Nouggatti makes some good and accurate explainable points.
I can understand why the tender is up due to the tender laws, etc.
In this case, they seem to be going to a lot of hassle for what will be a few (hopefully!) short months of disrupted train service.

Funbags Freddie

So many brains here have just no idea how difficult it is in this area.

the civil service is no fun anymore

Biggins

Funbags Freddie wrote: »

So many brains here have just no idea how difficult it is in this area.

the civil service is no fun anymore

It was fun at one stage? :eek:

Do tell...

Stheno

Biggins wrote: »

Nouggatti makes some good and accurate explainable points.
I can understand why the tender is up due to the tender laws, etc.
In this case, they seem to be going to a lot of hassle for what will be a few (hopefully!) short months of disrupted train service.

I've been involved in writing tenders, none of that size thankfully, and responding to them (some in excess of that size) and believe me, the work that goes into any large public procurement tender is significant. It's intended for many of the reasons that bug posted, and to be a fair and transparent system.

Also in the current economic climate, suppliers are very keen to get business and it's important to have a fair and impartial process and to be seen to abide by that full stop.

Funbags Freddie wrote: »

So many brains here have just no idea how difficult it is in this area.

the civil service is no fun anymore

Public procurement certainly isn't!

Funbags Freddie

Biggins wrote: »

It was fun at one stage? :eek:

Do tell...

If you were not there it was. We were paid well and it was all good. Just like the private sectr.

Biggins

I've done tenders myself at time and I know they can be an absolute nightmare, a fcuking paperchase at the best of times and a very frustrating experience to say the least.
The amount of "red tape" that one has to go though with the governmental procurement systems is unreal and at times I found myself angry as hell.

There would want to be serious profit margins on this route to advocate one wanting to chase up this potential catch. However looking briefly at the profit and loss ratio off the top of my head, unless I was seriously set-up in this area (territory-wise alone) I'd be lacklustre to chase this contract.

Stheno

Biggins wrote: »

There would want to be serious profit margins on this route to advocate one wanting to chase up this potential catch. However looking briefly at the profit and loss ratio off the top of my head, unless I was seriously set-up in this area (territory-wise alone) I'd be lacklustre to chase this contract.

Yet people will respond, and even more time will be spent reading responses, weighting them etc etc in line with the process, even if they score 5/100!

It might be something that bus companies who previously provided backfill for Bus Eireann would be interested in though. At the end of the day Irish Rail can only award a contract to the best respondant