Go-Ahead Win 10% of Dublin Bus routes for tender

amcalester

liger wrote: »

What I am saying is that unless you have access to both submissions then you are guessing, but Ireland isn't know for being transparent.

Why would the give it to GA... well there is something to be said for going through the process and then leaving it with DB looking bad and a waste of time and money by the NTA.

DB have exceeded all standards set out by the NTA, Have existing infrastructure in place to serve these orbital routes without as much wasted mileage as GA will suffer so yes, it just looks like The NTA wanted to break DB hold on the network.

I understand what you're saying, and you're right but I think it's safe to assume that GA were cheaper than DB based on the high marks being awarded on price.

As you say DB exceeded all standards set by NTA (I'm taking your word for that, I don't know) and still didn't achieve a higher score.

That would make me think that both DB and GA scored full or close to full marks on the non-price section of the tender with the result that GA were awarded the tender based on their lower price.

If the NTA went rogue and awarded it to GA, depsite DB having a better overall score, just to break DB's monopoly on Dublin routes then DB would be able to legally challenge this, which they don't seem to to be doing.

So again we can conclude that GA were the cheaper tender.

LeinsterDub

Dravokivich wrote: »

The only issue I have with the process is that Dublin Bus are prevented from operating in the same way as Go-Ahead.

In what ways are they prevented from operating in the same ways as GA?

Voipjunkie

amcalester wrote: »

There would have been very little between the 2 scores on the service and quality aspect of the tender, most companies would expect to get full marks on these sections.

That leaves price as the only differentiation.

You simply don't know that, it is possible that Go Ahead had some innovative ideas in customer service area that DB didn't have and that is what separated the two companies, all we do know is that it was a 65/35 split between cost and service is how they were marked.

Voipjunkie

amcalester wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, and you're right but I think it's safe to assume that GA were cheaper than DB based on the high marks being awarded on price.

As you say DB exceeded all standards set by NTA (I'm taking your word for that, I don't know) and still didn't achieve a higher score.

That would make me think that both DB and GA scored full or close to full marks on the non-price section of the tender with the result that GA were awarded the tender based on their lower price.

If the NTA went rogue and awarded it to GA, depsite DB having a better overall score, just to break DB's monopoly on Dublin routes then DB would be able to legally challenge this, which they don't seem to to be doing.

So again we can conclude that GA were the cheaper tender.

You cannot deduce that, it is only 24 hours since the preferred bidder was announced, it took years before we even knew there may be a problem of the second mobile phone license never mind have enough information to allow for it to be challenged in court.

I doubt DB know how they were scored let alone how Go Ahead was scored or where their bid was deficient compared to Go Ahead as that information would still be commercially sensitive as no contracts have been awarded or signed yet.

Voipjunkie

Just wondering does anyone think it is reasonable and feasible prospect that land can be acquired, planning permission sought and granted and construction completed on at least one new bus depot in Dublin in the next 18 months ? When contracts for the tender have not even been signed yet ?

devnull

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Just wondering does anyone think it is reasonable and feasible prospect that land can be acquired, planning permission sought and granted and construction completed on at least one new bus depot in Dublin in the next 18 months ? When contracts for the tender have not even been signed yet ?

It is possible and perhaps GoAhead already have had something in mind when signing the tender - I guess time will tell at the end of the day and I'm sure further details will follow and be known in due course but it's a bit early to expect every detail to be out there

Also there is a prospect of using outstations as well if required, something that is very common in Bus operations in the UK and also within Europe where a central depot does maintenance but vehicles are garaged overnight in a number of locations, even in Ireland now privates rent land to store vehicles away from their depots.

If Go-Ahead didn't believe they could do it they wouldn't have agreed to.

LeinsterDub

devnull wrote: »

If Go-Ahead didn't believe they could do it they wouldn't have agreed to.

If Go-Ahead don't deliver they will be sued and possibly even stripped of the tender. GA are accountable for the service they deliver

Voipjunkie

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In what ways are they prevented from operating in the same ways as GA?

Well under the proposed new contract GA, similar to Luas operator transdev will be insulated from government cut backs, and drops in passenger numbers, unlike Dublin bus whose budget each year is at the whim of the DOT and the NTA. It is a clear advantage where for example DB had to make cuts to service, and employees terms and conditions, Transdev never had to (bar cuts to cherrywood extension which was allowed under the first year of operation in the contract) make cuts and indeed paid wage increases in the years employees at DB were suffering wage cuts.

Dravokivich

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In what ways are they prevented from operating in the same ways as GA?

Dublin Bus are expected to fund their operation from the Fare Box.

devnull

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Well under the proposed new contract GA, similar to Luas operator transdev will be insulated from government cut backs, and drops in passenger numbers, unlike Dublin bus whose budget each year is at the whim of the DOT and the NTA.

And if Dublin Bus won the contract they would also have been insulated from government cut backs and drops in passenger numbers on the routes in the tender because of the fact they would have signed the same contract too.

The tender is a first tender based on a new contracting system, whenever a contracting system is changed there will always be people who are on legacy deals until they expire and are changed over to the new system.

But there's an easy way to resolve that - simply tender everything on the same basis as soon as possible to get rid of every single legacy contract that you claim is unfair on DB - doubt they'll agree to that though.

Dublin Bus have used the old system to their advantage for donkeys years and never kicked up a fuss until now, unfortunately things change from time to time and some people lose and some people gain, however at the end of the day the public gain from this and the public are the whole point of public services. It is great that we are now moving from an operator/staff focused public service to one that focuses on the public.

Voipjunkie

devnull wrote: »

It is possible and perhaps GoAhead already have had something in mind when signing the tender - I guess time will tell at the end of the day and I'm sure further details will follow and be known in due course but it's a bit early to expect every detail to be out there

Also there is a prospect of using outstations as well if required, something that is very common in Bus operations in the UK and also within Europe where a central depot does maintenance but vehicles are garaged overnight in a number of locations, even in Ireland now privates rent land to store vehicles away from their depots.

If Go-Ahead didn't believe they could do it they wouldn't have agreed to.

They haven't agreed to it, there is NO contract yet they have been awarded the preferred bidder status that is all, I think the 18 month time scale is pie in the sky tbh, that is nothing new for the NTA this whole 10% was proposed over 4 years ago and was meant to have been up and running las year but we have only got to the preferred bidder stage.


They can undoubtedly do it, I just don't think they can have a depot never mind a depot and outstations ready to roll in the next 18 months. Planning permission alone can take years in this country.

devnull

Voipjunkie wrote: »

They haven't agreed to it, there is NO contract yet they have been awarded the preferred bidder status that is all, I think the 18 month time scale is pie in the sky tbh, that is nothing new for the NTA this whole 10% was proposed over 4 years ago and was meant to have been up and running las year but we have only got to the preferred bidder stage.

They can undoubtedly do it, I just don't think they can have a depot never mind a depot and outstations ready to roll in the next 18 months. Planning permission alone can take years in this country.

At the end of the day time will tell - no amount of me or you speculating either way is going to change the fact we're just going to have to sit it out and see what happens and then we'll see who is right.

There are numerous reasons for the delays in the process, not all of which are due to the NTA.

LeinsterDub

Dravokivich wrote: »

Dublin Bus are expected to fund their operation from the Fare Box.

Can you provide a link to this or anyone confirm. I've a feeling the NTA take DB's fare box now.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Dravokivich wrote: »

Dublin Bus are expected to fund their operation from the Fare Box.

Well they wouldn't be funding their operation from the farebox on these routes that were subject to tender.

Voipjunkie

devnull wrote: »

At the end of the day time will tell - no amount of me or you speculating either way is going to change the fact we're just going to have to sit it out and see what happens and then we'll see who is right.

There are numerous reasons for the delays in the process, not all of which are due to the NTA.

Sorry I thought this was a discussion forum in which people could express an opinion, I was expressing an opinion that the 18 month time frame to build a depot and have buses operating from it when contracts have not even been signed yet is unrealistic, a discussion would be where you counter that opinion with a different opinion based on an example of where infrastructure like this has been bought, planned, built and operational in that time frame.
I am fully aware that discussing it here will not change the outcome one way or the other.

Dravokivich

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Can you provide a link to this or anyone confirm. I've a feeling the NTA take DB's fare box now.

Don't have a link, but they would be receiving Operational Costs instead of a subsidy.

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Well they wouldn't be funding their operation from the farebox on these routes that were subject to tender.

Granted, however they are expected to operate the remainder of their business, against a model that'll potentially expand and compared to how they currently operate. Apples =/= Oranges.

devnull

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Sorry I thought this was a discussion forum in which people could express an opinion, I was expressing an opinion that the 18 month time frame to build a depot and have buses operating from it when contracts have not even been signed yet is unrealistic, a discussion would be where you counter that opinion with a different opinion based on an example of where infrastructure like this has been bought, planned, built and operational in that time frame.

I am fully aware that discussing it here will not change the outcome one way or the other.

As I said - if Go-Ahead didn't believe they could deliver the services they are contracted to do so, they wouldn't have made a commitment to operate all of the services, at the end of the day I'm sure that further details will come out in due course and either them or the NTA will outline their plans or more details will come forward.

Since building a depot of this size has not been done in the private sector in Ireland in history, since private companies have never been able to bid for such large public transport countries before, it's hard to draw comparisons with how this will go either way. Nobody knows for sure, that is my point and the only way we will find out is with time.

We'll see who is right in 18 months time at the end of the day.

devnull

Dravokivich wrote: »

Granted, however they are expected to operate the remainder of their business, against a model that'll potentially expand and compared to how they currently operate. Apples =/= Oranges.

In most industries it is common that tender and contracting processes change over time and those on the contracts that began a longer time ago may be different to ones which have been awarded more recently, that is part and parcel of being a company that is essentially in the industry of carrying out contract work, which is basically what the PSO network is.

Nobody forced Dublin Bus to sign the last Direct Award contract that was issued by the NTA, but they chose to do so and with any contract you sign for a set period there is always the danger something in said industry can change at the end of the day Dublin Bus chose to sign that contract and they are required to adhere to it just like Go-Ahead will be required to adhere to theirs until it expires no matter what.

Dravokivich

devnull wrote: »

In most industries it is common that tender and contracting processes change over time and those on the contracts that began a longer time ago may be different to ones which have been awarded more recently, that is part and parcel of being a company that is essentially in the industry of carrying out contract work, which is basically what the PSO network is.

Nobody forced Dublin Bus to sign the last Direct Award contract that was issued by the NTA, but they chose to do so and with any contract you sign for a set period there is always the danger something in said industry can change at the end of the day Dublin Bus chose to sign that contract and they are required to adhere to it just like Go-Ahead will be required to adhere to theirs until it expires no matter what.

Which is fair enough. But public perception is going to be unaware of that for the most part. They'll see Dublin Bus being kept running via Subsidy and not understand those differences between Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead. Wouldn't be surprised if it's used as a stick in the media too.

i was just voicing it as something that stands out to me and responded on it a bit more to those who asked about what I've said. I work in a managed services environment, so I'm familiar with some of the ideas behind what NTA are looking to achieve with this Tender.

tabbey

devnull wrote: »

building a depot of this size has not been done in the private sector in Ireland in history,

The tram sheds were built by the Dublin United Tramway Company, a private company.

One of these is Donnybrook (No. !?), another has developed into Clontarf bus garage.

Perhaps the Blackrock tramshed on Newtown Avenue might be used for buses as an interim solution, pending construction of a state of the art bus garage in Quarryvale, Tallaght or wherever.

The Blackrock tramshed has been vacant since the closure of Europa Motors about ten years ago, unless development has taken place very recently.

It is also possible that given the geographical spread of the franchised routes, it may be a number of small depots will suffice until Go-Ahead get a bigger share of the market. Skerries might be one, although a bigger premises would be needed for major servicing. Outsourcing of major work is a possibility, even in the UK.

seamus

There are lots and lots of empty yards all over Dublin currently being used for parking vehicles - like the old Tramshed in Blackrock. I wonder would PP even be necessary for some of these to be converted into bus depots.

amcalester

Voipjunkie wrote: »

You simply don't know that, it is possible that Go Ahead had some innovative ideas in customer service area that DB didn't have and that is what separated the two companies, all we do know is that it was a 65/35 split between cost and service is how they were marked.

You may be right actually, Paul Melia in the Independent is reporting that DB scored higher on price.

The Irish Independent understands that the State-owned company scored higher than UK firm Go-Ahead on price in a competitive tendering process overseen by the National Transport Authority (NTA), but ranked lower on technical aspects.

devnull

tabbey wrote: »

The tram sheds were built by the Dublin United Tramway Company, a private company.

One of these is Donnybrook (No. !?), another has developed into Clontarf bus garage.

Indeed but they were not built to be bus depots at the end of the day, they were later adapted and this is going to be a purpose build depot of which there was no example for previously in the private sector.

It is also possible that given the geographical spread of the franchised routes, it may be a number of small depots will suffice until Go-Ahead get a bigger share of the market. Skerries might be one, although a bigger premises would be needed for major servicing. Outsourcing of major work is a possibility, even in the UK.

And given the geographical spread of the routes it's quite possible they will do something similar, outstations are very common on reality, even if you look at the bigger privates such as Dublin Coach and Aircoach, both of them have main depots but also have a number of outstations for their vehicles to operate from different bases and staff from different places but with a central main depot.

devnull

amcalester wrote: »

You may be right actually, Paul Melia in the Independent is reporting that DB scored higher on price.

Interesting line, although there is the caveat of "understands that" rather than saying that they know it to be certain and disappointingly a complete lack of detail to back it up, such as what the technical aspects were, although of course they could be protecting a source.

Torcaill

devnull wrote: »

Interesting line, although there is the caveat of "understands that" rather than saying that they know it to be certain and disappointingly a complete lack of detail to back it up, such as what the technical aspects were, although of course they could be protecting a source.

His comments are accurate!!

amcalester

Torcaill wrote: »

His comments are accurate!!

Do you know where DB lost marks compared to GA?

devnull

Torcaill wrote: »

His comments are accurate!!

Ok - so if you believe that they are accurate, why don't you come and flesh it out a little and explain a bit more about it?

For example where did they lose points and how many and what was the kind of difference between the bids?

brokenarms

What do you think they are going to pay drivers to lure them in?

If its in line with aircoach they wont get any experienced DB drivers.. They pay 14 pound per hour in the UK so unless they increase that, they wont get any of the aircoach guys either.

If they start with a bunch 300 newbies it would be a mess. To say the least.


At the moment I doubt any drivers would even consider making the switch.. Leaving the the CIE fold to work with probably less benefits and no job security, no union protection.

Bass Reeves

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Just wondering does anyone think it is reasonable and feasible prospect that land can be acquired, planning permission sought and granted and construction completed on at least one new bus depot in Dublin in the next 18 months ? When contracts for the tender have not even been signed yet ?

It may not be necessary to build a depot. Even if it is if it is considered part of the national infracture it can be fast tracked through the planning process. Go-Ahead can rent/lease a tempory bus depot. As well I imgine that go-ahead will tender out maintenace of buses so no garage may be necessary.

The type of bus depot that DB or BE would expect/require could be well scaled back and multiple depots may be used. Long term a prived construction may build a depot or depots and lease it back to transport companies.

On the tender those taht mention issue with the mobile tender have to remember taht thsi took place over 20 years ago and that EU public tender rules have changed. It is unlikly taht any public would leave itself open to incorrectly awarding a tender. The last big case of this was where a County Council roads dept awarded a tender to a higher bidder and it cost them 3 million. Since then the NRA control all major roadway tenders and since then there has been no issue. I susp[ect taht the NTA is following a similar process.

Bass Reeves

brokenarms wrote: »

What do you think they are going to pay drivers to lure them in?

If its in line with aircoach they wont get any experienced DB drivers.. They pay 14 pound per hour in the UK so unless they increase that, they wont get any of the aircoach guys either.

If they start with a bunch 300 newbies it would be a mess. To say the least.


At the moment I doubt any drivers would even consider making the switch.. Leaving the the CIE fold to work with probably less benefits and no job security, no union protection.

First off I expect that they will not want experienced DB drivers. They will use a different labour model to DB just as the inter urban route operators do as compared to BE. They use hot swap at bus stops etc.

It is likly that they will use a different employee model where they will employ drivers that wish to work shift patterns that suit them and that in alot of cases are less than 40 hour weeks. It is often not the headline rate/hour that is the issue with legacy transport company's but rather work practices and shift timing.