Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from and get an exclusive discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

N5 - Ballaghaderreen to Scramoge [construction to commence shortly]



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    No, it's evidence. That's the key difference. 🙃

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,730 ✭✭✭ markpb

    It's hard when people with inside knowledge want to share that information but aren't in a position to verify it. That doesn't mean we should blindly trust everything we read online.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,978 ✭✭✭ roadmaster

    As far as i know its fully true. I had mentioned here a few months back i had heard they where in trouble and that they struggled to raise a bond for the job. There was a story in the british times two weeks ago they where looking for investors. They are millions in debt. I have had dealing with them in the past and they are a wonderful company hopefully they find a buyer to save them

  • Registered Users Posts: 560 ✭✭✭ Aontachtoir

    Good call hondar! You got the scoop out before the journal of record.

    People sharing inside info not available to those of us outside the industry is one of the things I like most about this forum.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,408 ✭✭✭ mayo.mick

  • Registered Users Posts: 284 ✭✭ lotusm

    Hopefully they can save the jobs as its put into a receivership. Does that now mean the project has to retendered now or do they go back to the unsuccessful bidders ?

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,145 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan

    That's the tender award notice for the project. I think it will have to be retendered as awarding the contract would end the procurement process so I don't think that they would be able to go back and award the contract again from an already closed procurement process.

    Even if they can award from the same procurement, they may have to ask the next tenderer to extend the validity of their bid as it is likely beyond the period set. With the inflation, particularly in fuel costs, since tenders were submitted, the other tenderers may be happy for it to be retendered and bid again based on today's costs.

  • Registered Users Posts: 429 ✭✭ DumbBrunette

    The receivers may decide to continue trading, or to sell the company as a going concern. It isn't a certainty that Roadbridge won't be building this scheme.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 48 hondar

    hopefully it doesn't go back to re-tender,that will push it back by a year or more,it’s time for that clown of a transport minister Eamon Ryan to step in.

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Éamon Ryan cannot change the tendering and procurement rules. This is an unprecedented situation. Roadbridge won the tender, signed the contracts and should have been starting or already started this project. Éamon Ryan signed off on this project without any fuss or qualms. Quit the jibes and unrealistic expectations of his role in this. This constant bitching about the Greens or their policies on this forum says more about those moaning than it does about the Greens.

  • Registered Users Posts: 48 hondar

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,078 ✭✭✭ prunudo

    Would there be small print in the tender that they have reneged on the t&c's by going into receivership so their tender automatically becomes null and void or would a new entity still be able to procede as Roadbridge mkll.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,145 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan

    Thats not even small print, you can read the contract here:


    12.1 Termination on Contractor Default 12.1.1 The Employer may, without limiting any other right or remedy, terminate the Contractor’s obligation to complete the Works by notice to the Contractor if any of the following occurs:

    (11) any of the following insolvency events occur:

    (a) a petition is presented to wind up the Contractor and is not dismissed within 10 working days of presentation

    (b) any meeting of creditors or members of the Contractor is convened or held for the purpose of considering a resolution to wind up the Contractor

    (c) any arrangement or composition with or for the benefit of its creditors [including any compromises or arrangements entered into under sections 201 to 204 of the Companies Act 1963] are proposed or entered into by or in respect of the Contractor

    (d) a liquidator, supervisor, receiver, administrator, administrative receiver, trustee or encumbrancer takes possession of or is appointed over the Contractor or any of its assets, or any distress, execution or other process is levied or enforced, and not discharged within 10 working days, on the Contractor or any of its assets

    (e) the Contractor ceases or threatens to cease carrying on business, or is, or is regarded by law or by a court to be, or declares itself to be, insolvent or unable to pay its debts as they fall due

    (f) a petition is presented to appoint an examiner to the Contractor, or an order is made appointing an examiner to the Contractor

    (g) the Contractor, being an individual, becomes bankrupt

    (h) any event similar to the above insolvency events occurs in respect of the Contractor in any jurisdiction in which it is incorporated or has a place of business

    And even if someone tries to argue semantics of that, part 5 of the same clause states they can terminate if "the Starting Date has not occurred or the Contractor has not started work under the Contract within 6 weeks of the date the Contract requires" so plenty of grounds for termination.

    It would be incredibly reckless to not terminate the contract and allow them to commence work. There is a good chance they may later default and that would create a lot more problems. We should be thankful that Roadbridge haven't done any actual work yet, if they had, the tender documents would have to be changed to reflect the works done. Depending on the works done, they may have to be undone and then done again as asking a new contractor to standover the works done by the original contractor can create all sorts of problems.

    They also can't just pass the contract on to another company, if Roadbridge are gone then the contract goes with them.

  • Registered Users Posts: 896 ✭✭✭ greenfield21

    If they terminate the contract can they get the bond holder to pay out. I think they would try and get something out of this first before termination.

    Also interesting someone mentioned previously they had difficulties raising the bond, surely red flags for the clients here??

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,145 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan

    I doubt they would get anything from the bond, work hasn't even started on site yet. The bond is not going to cover the entire project.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,078 ✭✭✭ prunudo

    Its a shiitty situation all round. Shiitty for the people of Roscommon, shiitty for the employees and their families and shiitty for the subcontractors amd suppliers who will be left out of pocket. The banks and receivers are the only winners.

    Edit, another gripe about new boards, no matter the swear word, it's alway four ****

  • Registered Users Posts: 896 ✭✭✭ greenfield21

    The bond is there to protect the employer from any losses or damages... essentially in this case... New price minus old price add extras... that is what is owed to client. That's how I see it anyway.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 284 ✭✭ lotusm

    Has the minister for transport made any announcement in the media about it yet ?

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,200 ✭✭✭ MayoSalmon

    Too busy telling ye to slow down to reduce petrol consumption

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]

    Ah yes, sure keep at the oul digs at the Greens. They're an easy scapegoat for Ireland's unsustainable car dependancy caused by an Americanesque approach to public transport and worldwide inflation caused by war in Ukraine. Éamon Ryan is to blame for Roadbridge going under don't you know, sure that was his cunning plan all along. His signing off on the project in October and the sod turning by An Taoiseach were but a Trojan Horse for an insidious Green conspiracy.

    You really haven't a clue how these things work. The Minister for Transport cannot resurrect a company gone into receivership because of the N5 project. He or she cannot ignore procurement procedures just because "Mayo Salmon" wants a road built. Show us you don't have a clue without telling us you don't have a clue.

    A whole host of people on this forum need an education in public policy, political literacy, procurement procedures and cognitive dissonance awareness.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,285 ✭✭✭ paulbok

    You forgot being civil

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,277 ✭✭✭ serfboard

    An Americanesque approach to public transport maybe, but certainly a very Irish approach to planning ...

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,145 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan

    That's not how a performance bond works, the bond issuer will pay penalty amounts and other damages incurred. It has nothing to do with any other contracts which follow after, how could it? It wouldn't be possible to get such a bond, the bonding company would be committing to paying enormous sums and they have no idea how much it could be

    What you describe is closer to a bid bond where if the selected contractor retracts their bid, the project developer can claim the difference of the original bid and the next highest bid. I don't know if a bid bond was required here but it wouldn't matter anyway as Roadbridge didn't retract their bid.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,145 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan

    Hildegarde Naughton is Minister of State with responsibility for Road Transport, wouldn't it be more appropriate for her to comment?

    Roadbridge have been involved in site development for housing, undertaken all sorts of Local Authority projects and built water/wastewater infrastructure, presumably you are also expecting a comment from the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage? They have also done site development for data centres, manufacturing facilities and business parks, I await your call for comment from the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,730 ✭✭✭ markpb

    They are presumably also involved in numerous state tenders so the government will be very careful about saying anything that could in breach of the EU rules. They are also in a receivership process so there’s a small possibility that they will be rescued and continue this project. Or they might not and TIi might already be in discussion with the runners up. That conversation will be commercially sensitive.

    And if I’m wrong and the entire government have just decided not to bother addressing it, what difference does it really make? They have no say in either the receivership process or any alternative tender process. They sit and wait like you and I. Any statement they make is just noise for the sake of keeping people happy.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 450 ✭✭ KrisW1001

    Just a general point: receivership is not the same as liquidation. In receivership, the company still trades, but it is now under the control of a Receiver, a manager appointed by the company's creditors to make sure that its outstanding debts are repaid. Liquidation, on the other hand, is much more final: here, the business shuts down completely, and its assets are sold off to raise cash to pay the creditors. That’s not a great option for a construction company which usually has very little in the way of assets to sell.

    I expect that some contracts where no work has commenced will probably be dropped, and re-awarded to the next-best tender, but for work that is in progress, the receiver will usually try to bring these to completion wherever possible, as this is the best way of raising cash to pay off the debt. Once the debts are paid, then the company can attempt to exit receivership. This is rare, but it has happened in the past. The problem for a company like Roadbridge is that the reputational damage of the receivership itself will make it harder to win future business.