another government contract goes North...

the_dark_side

a Donegal based fruit and veg company had the contract of supplying the hospitals in the NW for the last good number of years. This contract was worth alot to the company, it has now been awarded to a company based in NI..... and yet we are being told by the Irish government to shop local, support local industry, and do our spending south of the border.
And yet, we do nothing... zero, zilch, zip nada

petes

Look, contract was up. Another company (doesn't matter where they are tbh) tendered for the contract and got it.

Nothing to see here.

themont85

the_dark_side wrote: »

a Donegal based fruit and veg company had the contract of supplying the hospitals in the NW for the last good number of years. This contract was worth alot to the company, it has now been awarded to a company based in NI..... and yet we are being told by the Irish government to shop local, support local industry, and do our spending south of the border.
And yet, we do nothing... zero, zilch, zip nada

Obviousely not enough to make a top bid for it.

WeeBushy

the_dark_side wrote: »

a Donegal based fruit and veg company had the contract of supplying the hospitals in the NW for the last good number of years. This contract was worth alot to the company, it has now been awarded to a company based in NI..... and yet we are being told by the Irish government to shop local, support local industry, and do our spending south of the border.
And yet, we do nothing... zero, zilch, zip nada

Of course that's going to happen. Going North for the contract = saving money for our empty coffers. Getting Irish people to shop local = more money for the economy.

Are you surprised by this?

Johnny Weasel

It's business. Get some perspective.

the_dark_side

Insurgent wrote: »

Look, contract was up. Another company (doesn't amtter where they are tbh) tendered for the contract and got it.

Nothing to see here.

so you dont find it hypocritical that our government will ask the public not to do something, but yet will go and do EXACTLY what they have asked us not to do,,,, this action will mean a small, Irish based company will take a large hit, may have to scale down/close, more people on the live register, more burden on government's social welfare bill... would it not have been smarter to keep the contract within the country, it would save the government money over time.... so I DO NOT agree with your remark "...nothing to see here" FFS!

Blazer

Don't you know that its "Do as I say not as I do" in relation to this Government???

Adamcp898

WeeBushy wrote: »

Of course that's going to happen. Going North for the contract = saving money for our empty coffers. Getting Irish people to shop local = more money for the economy.

Are you surprised by this?

Wouldn't it have also made sense to give the contract to the Irish company thus keeping the money within the Irish economy instead of giving it to a company from the north and thus injecting the money into the British economy which effectively means we've imported the service.

Robbo

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Wouldn't it have also made sense to give the contract to the Irish company thus keeping the money within the Irish economy instead of giving it to a company from the north and thus injecting the money into the British economy which effectively means we've imported the service.

And perhaps we should leave the Common Market, so this kind of thing could never happen again?

It's like someone took 10,000 volts to the corpse of De Valera...

Adamcp898

Robbo wrote: »

And perhaps we should leave the Common Market, so this kind of thing could never happen again?

It's like someone took 10,000 volts to the corpse of De Valera...

Not what I'm saying at all....

When you're trying to kick start your economy exporting is good but importing is very bad.

The irish government has taken the €1/1.5 million (forget which figure was quoted in the paper) and given it to another country's economy never to eb seen again wheras it could've injected it into it's own economy by giving it to an Irish company in which case the €1/1.5 million would have continued circulating within OUR economy and helped more than just the one company.

the_dark_side

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Not what I'm saying at all....

When you're trying to kick start your economy exporting is good but importing is very bad.

The irish government has taken the €1/1.5 million (forget which figure was quoted in the paper) and given it to another country's economy never to eb seen again wheras it could've injected it into it's own economy by giving it to an Irish company in which case the €1/1.5 million would have continued circulating within OUR economy and helped more than just the one company.

+1

Quint

Insurgent wrote: »

Look, contract was up. Another company (doesn't matter where they are tbh) tendered for the contract and got it.

Nothing to see here.

Except when the public are told not to spend money up north! (point already made)
During the elections all the printers were going ape because most peoples election posters were getting printed up north.
TD's - and now this John O'Donohue - thing are so out of touch and talk so much tripe it's unreal!

Ste.phen

Sounds like the guys in Donegal didn't put in a competitive tender tbh

Robbo

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Not what I'm saying at all....

When you're trying to kick start your economy exporting is good but importing is very bad.

The irish government has taken the €1/1.5 million (forget which figure was quoted in the paper) and given it to another country's economy never to eb seen again wheras it could've injected it into it's own economy by giving it to an Irish company in which case the €1/1.5 million would have continued circulating within OUR economy and helped more than just the one company.

I guarantee you that if it emerged that a contract was given to an Irish company, paying over the odds, when there was a cheaper tender on offer there would be an AH thread about same. You'd all be tilting at a different windmill and shaking your fists at an adjacent part of the sky but your impotent rage wouldn't be lessened.

The sooner these quisling ****s cop on and submit competitive tenders, the better for our entire economy.

Victor

Adamcp898 wrote: »

The irish government has taken the €1/1.5 million (forget which figure was quoted in the paper) and given it to another country's economy never to eb seen again wheras it could've injected it into it's own economy by giving it to an Irish company in which case the €1/1.5 million would have continued circulating within OUR economy and helped more than just the one company.

Its called the Common Market.

Now, where do you think all the government computers in the North get their computer chips? Perhaps from Intel in Kildare?

If we say we won't buy their veg, they'll say they won't buy our chips.

Fratton Fred

My knowledge of Public Sector procurement is a bit sketchy, but my understanding is that all EU Government bodies have to include "Non Local" suppliers in their tenders. If a supplier based in your own country is selected purely on the basis that they are "Local" the government agency could be fined by the EU.

the idea is that everyone gets a fair crack at the whip and governments don't favour their own country. supposedly Irish suppliers should be able to compete for contracts in the north and elsewhere in europe on the same basis, but the rediculously high minimum wage is stopping Irish companies being competitive.

themont85

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Not what I'm saying at all....

When you're trying to kick start your economy exporting is good but importing is very bad.

The irish government has taken the €1/1.5 million (forget which figure was quoted in the paper) and given it to another country's economy never to eb seen again wheras it could've injected it into it's own economy by giving it to an Irish company in which case the €1/1.5 million would have continued circulating within OUR economy and helped more than just the one company.

Whilst this makes sense in the short term is doesn't in the long. It is that idea which led to protectionism which has and would continue to economic stagnation for a sustained period as per Ireland between the 30s and late 50s. If every governement took that attitude we wouldn't have Intel or any other multinational contracts here.

IF the company needed the contract so badly they could have cut costs and put in a competative bid. You cannot just hand a contract to somebody because they are Irish, if they start doing that see costs rise everywhere.

Adamcp898

Victor wrote: »

Its called the Common Market.

Now, where do you think all the government computers in the North get their computer chips? Perhaps from Intel in Kildare?

If we say we won't buy their veg, they'll say they won't buy our chips.

I'm aware of what the common market is.

And it doesn't mean we HAVE to give a contract for fruit and veg to the north for fear of losing an exporting contract. We already import plenty of things from Britain for this not to mean that much, it's not as if we're announcing an embargo on British goods for God's sake :rolleyes:

This was a pish move by our government both from an economics stand point and most simply because of the fact they have been advocating shopping here instead of up north just "to do your bit" for the economy.

WeeBushy

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Wouldn't it have also made sense to give the contract to the Irish company thus keeping the money within the Irish economy instead of giving it to a company from the north and thus injecting the money into the British economy which effectively means we've imported the service.

You seem to think our government is sensible.

ScumLord

Unless the price difference was huge making it laughable to go with the Irish company the gov. should definitely kept the money in the country. It's an easy way to ensure Irish jobs. If they keep this kind of thing up they'll have no defence when they start claming to be doing everything in their power to promote jobs in the country (which they will undoubtedly do).

I don't think claiming that their trying to save government money really floats either as there are many, many areas where they could save the difference if they where prepared to put in the work and make a bit of self sacrifice.

fintonie

well its like everything else the cheaper the quote the more money saved,

if the company that was doing the original contract are that local just set up over the border to avail of the cheaper running costs.

ejmaztec

Robbo wrote: »

And perhaps we should leave the Common Market, so this kind of thing could never happen again?

It's like someone took 10,000 volts to the corpse of De Valera...

That'd make him dance at the crossroads.

Adamcp898

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My knowledge of Public Sector procurement is a bit sketchy, but my understanding is that all EU Government bodies have to include "Non Local" suppliers in their tenders. If a supplier based in your own country is selected purely on the basis that they are "Local" the government agency could be fined by the EU.

the idea is that everyone gets a fair crack at the whip and governments don't favour their own country. supposedly Irish suppliers should be able to compete for contracts in the north and elsewhere in europe on the same basis, but the rediculously high minimum wage is stopping Irish companies being competitive.

Wasn't aware of EU directives on public service contracts, would make a little more sense if it was for that reason tbh

themont85 wrote: »

Whilst this makes sense in the short term is doesn't in the long. It is that idea which led to protectionism which has and would continue to economic stagnation for a sustained period as per Ireland between the 30s and late 50s. If every governement took that attitude we wouldn't have Intel or any other multinational contracts here.

IF the company needed the contract so badly they could have cut costs and put in a competative bid. You cannot just hand a contract to somebody because they are Irish, if they start doing that see costs rise everywhere.

I know a prolonged attitude like this could lead to a country cutting itself off economically but it's one contract. Surely the difference wasn't massive.

And maybe the company wasn't able to submit what the government deemed to be a competitive contract because of the high taxes, wages possibly, insurance policies etc. it has to pay compared to the northern company simply because it's Irish.

ejmaztec

Wouldn't this contract pale into insignificance, if the loss to the economy was compared with the cost to the Irish tax-payer of propping up the GFA/cross-border agencies etc.?

luckylucky

Hmm interesting debate this one, some valid and some not so valid points on both sides imo.

Johnny Weasel wrote: »

It's business. Get some perspective.

Well raw capitalism led to a lot of the problems that are happenimg right now. So perhaps the OP has got some perspective.

Victor wrote: »

Its called the Common Market.

Now, where do you think all the government computers in the North get their computer chips? Perhaps from Intel in Kildare?

If we say we won't buy their veg, they'll say they won't buy our chips.

Very good point imo.

ScumLord wrote: »

Unless the price difference was huge making it laughable to go with the Irish company the gov. should definitely kept the money in the country. It's an easy way to ensure Irish jobs. If they keep this kind of thing up they'll have no defence when they start claming to be doing everything in their power to promote jobs in the country (which they will undoubtedly do).

I don't think claiming that their trying to save government money really floats either as there are many, many areas where they could save the difference if they where prepared to put in the work and make a bit of self sacrifice.

Excellent Post imo. Most improved poster on Boards methinks

dresden8

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/pubprocguidejuly04.pdf

Educate yourself.

2.2 In general, a competitive process carried out in an open, objective and transparent manner can achieve best value for money in public procurement.

This is in line with EU Treaty principles and EU Directives on public
procurement. Essential principles to be observed in conducting the
procurement function include non – discrimination, equal treatment,
transparency, mutual recognition, proportionality, freedom to provide service
and freedom of establishment. The Directives impose legal obligations on
public bodies in regard to advertising and the use of objective tendering
procedures for contracts above certain value thresholds – see Appendix I for
thresholds.

2.3 Even in the case of procurement which might not be subject to the full
scope of the Directives, such as the ‘non – priority’ services (see appendix
IIB) or service concessions, the EU Commission and European Court of
Justice (ECJ) have ruled that the Treaty principles of non - discrimination,
transparency, freedom of movement, freedom to provide goods and services,
must be observed. ECJ case law implies a requirement to publicise and
advertise such contracts of significant value to a degree which allows parties in other Member States the opportunity to express an interest or to submit
tenders.

I think the last thing we want is FF giving out contracts "in the national interest"

the_syco

Adamcp898 wrote: »

The irish government has taken the €1/1.5 million (forget which figure was quoted in the paper) and given it to another country's economy

Instead of taking €2 million and paying for the exact same, or possibly lower standard to a company in the republic. Where would that extra half a million to a million come from? Our pockets. How could the company be kept afloat for so long on high prices? The publics taxes were paying for it, so I doubt if they were all that comptitive.

the_dark_side wrote: »

this action will mean a small, Irish based company will take a large hit, may have to scale down/close

Tough f**king sh|t. If theire prices weren't so high, they wouldn't have been closed down.

Fratton Fred

dresden8 wrote: »

http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/publications/other/pubprocguidejuly04.pdf

Educate yourself.

I think the last thing we want is FF giving out contracts "in the national interest"

That's what i was talking about. the Government must conduct these tenders publicly (The UK's ones can be found here, make a bid if you like http://www.publictenders.net/) and must not discriminate against companies from other member states.

If the Government turned around to a supplier in the North and told them that, despite offering a better, cheaper servce they couldn't have the contract because they were the wrong sode of the border, they would have left themselves open to an EU fine.

This is a bit difficult for us island dwellers to comprehend, but it happens quite frequently on mainland europe.

Adamisconfused

Southern companies keep saying that their tenders are higher because their expenses are considerably more. Expenses are higher, but not to the extent that warrants such large differences in tenders.
A lot of businesses, including builders, in the Republic are short of work and rather than lower prices, they try to rob their remaining customer because they are unsure where the next contract is coming from. Tough titties to them.
The boom is gone. Live with it you greedy ********.

ScumLord

Adamisconfused wrote: »

Southern companies keep saying that their tenders are higher because their expenses are considerably more. Expenses are higher, but not to the extent that warrants such large differences in tenders.
A lot of businesses, including builders, in the Republic are short of work and rather than lower prices, they try to rob their remaining customer because they are unsure where the next contract is coming from. Tough titties to them.
The boom is gone. Live with it you greedy ********.

There is a good bit of that happening but I don't think it'll change until they can make savings in other areas. It's difficult for smaller companies to make drastic changes to their prices. Big companies can work with smaller margins due to the volumes they produce and not giving a flying fig about their employees.