Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

If a very similar Bus market Tendering procedure to ours,in Singapore,can manage to lay bare the entirety of the situation then surely our equally Democratic Republic can,at least provide the Public with the operational elements,without the safety & security of the State being compromised.

In case you are not aware, Singapore is not a country which is part of the European Union so European Union regulations do not apply to them, bringing in a country which is not even in same continent let alone subject to the same tendering and contractual rules makes what has happened in Singapore somewhat of a red herring in my book.

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's noteworthy that the NTA itself,in it's publicity makes no reference to an EU requirement to keep schtum....

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-transport-services/bus/

The page details Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann's contracts which are direct award net costs and therefore must have the contracts shown publicly because of the fact they were awarded the contract automatically without giving anyone else a chance to bid for said contracts. It has absolutely no relevance to a discussion about tendering in my book, since no tendering was run for said contracts.

I am bemused that none of these folk can see how important it is to begin this process in an open and frank manner,as it will decide the integrity or otherwise of the entire BMO process in the Public mind.

There have been two contracts formally awarded and signed under the Bus Market Opening system and what perplexes me a little bit is that people who are calling for the publication of the Go-Ahead won Dublin contract and talking about integrity, do not call for the same or have the same fears about the contract that Bus Eireann won under the same system.

From what I understand from my own experiences of tendering in other sectors in the past and what GM228 has posted here, I don't see any real problems as the lack of publicly available contract is normal for competitive tenders and the NTA has consistently applied the same rules to both BE and GA in the two signed Bus Market Opening contests so far.

devnull

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What EU regulation determines whether contracts should be available for the public to view or not?

From what I understand (from working in another sector) there is a requirement that all contracts that are directly awarded have to be published in the public domain because of the absence of a competing bidding process means that the commercial sensitivities aspect no longer applies and the closed shop nature of these awards.

antoinolachtnai

devnull wrote: »

In case you are not aware, Singapore is not a country which is part of the European Union so European Union regulations do not apply to them, bringing in a country which is not even in same continent let alone subject to the same tendering and contractual rules makes what has happened in Singapore somewhat of a red herring in my book.

What about London then? They seem to publish lots of details about their contracts? (for example http://content.tfl.gov.uk/metroline-bus-contract.pdf)

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

In case you are not aware, Singapore is not a country which is part of the European Union so European Union regulations do not apply to them, bringing in a country which is not even in same continent let alone subject to the same tendering and contractual rules makes what has happened in Singapore somewhat of a red herring in my book.

I never suggested that EU regulations applied,even if,on reflection,perhaps the EU might learn a bit from the Singaporean methodology ?

I use the Singaporean example only because the entirety of their situation has many similarities to our own.

Although 13 years younger,our NTA performs largely similar duties regarding Public Transport sourcing & provision.

https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/about-lta.html

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is a statutory board under the Ministry of Transport, which spearheads land transport developments in Singapore. As the agency responsible for planning, designing, building and maintaining Singapore’s land transport infrastructure and systems, we aim to bring about a greener and more inclusive public transport system, complemented by convenient options to walk and cycle from their homes or to their destinations. We leverage technology to strengthen our rail and bus infrastructure and provide exciting options for future land transport.

Not very much different to our NTA I suggest ?

I fully expect some pithy rejoinder about my fixation with the Singaporean model,to which I shall plead guilty,as it's ongoing progress in respect of Public Bus Services contains incredibly similar ingredients to our own.

The page details Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann's contracts which are direct award net costs and therefore must have the contracts shown publicly because of the fact they were awarded the contract automatically without giving anyone else a chance to bid for said contracts. It has absolutely no relevance to a discussion about tendering in my book, since no tendering was run for said contracts.[/QUOUE]

Obviously we sing from different hymn books,which is'nt the end of the world.
Tendering,Franchising,Contracting....call it what you will,is but one constituent of the far broader experiment in Bus Market Opening,and therefore totally relevant to the issue under discussion here.

There is on the face of it,nothing to be gained for most contrbutors,from attempting to restrict or short-circuit broad based discussion and enquiry into the current situation.

There have been two contracts formally awarded and signed under the Bus Market Opening system and what perplexes me a little bit is that people who are calling for the publication of the Go-Ahead won Dublin contract and talking about integrity, do not call for the same or have the same fears about the contract that Bus Eireann won under the same system.

Whoa there now!.....Where are ye getting this contrarian stuff from ?

I fully expect the NTA to make public,at the earliest point,the Bus Eireann Waterford contract. I do not accept that ANY difference exists,once,as you point out those contracts are formally awarded.

From what I understand from my own experiences of tendering in other sectors in the past and what GM228 has posted here, I don't see any real problems as the lack of publicly available contract is normal for competitive tenders and the NTA has consistently applied the same rules to both BE and GA in the two signed Bus Market Opening contests so far.

Well then,in the interests of maintaining their integrity and the integrity of the greater BMO project,the NTA might be well advised to review what relevance that definition of "normal" now bears in this new and,as yet,unproven situation.

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

I fully expect some pithy rejoinder about my fixation with the Singaporean model,to which I shall plead guilty,as it's ongoing progress in respect of Public Bus Services contains incredibly similar ingredients to our own.

But it's a completely different country, in a completely different regulatory system, in a completely different continent, that is not part of a political and economic union of other member states in the way Ireland is.

Obviously we sing from different hymn books,which is'nt the end of the world. Tendering,Franchising,Contracting....call it what you will,is but one constituent of the far broader experiment in Bus Market Opening,and therefore totally relevant to the issue under discussion here.

Comparing a direct award net cost contract with a tendered gross cross conduct is the very essence of comparing apples with oranges because they are completely different things and are not the same on a number of levels and to state they are is simply plain incorrect.

All of the apples have been treated the same way as each other and all of the oranges have been treated the same way as each other as has been explained earlier in the thread by GM228. You'd have a good point if some apples were treated different to other apples, but they weren't, so you don't in my view.

Well then,in the interests of maintaining their integrity and the integrity of the greater BMO project,the NTA might be well advised to review what relevance that definition of "normal" now bears in this new and,as yet,unproven situation.

So far I have seen no sign that there has been any breach of integrity since every example of a direct award net cost contract has been treated the same as every other example of the same and every tendered gross cross conduct has also been the same as every other tendered gross cross conduct.

Can you show me an example of where two contracts of exactly the same type (direct award / tender) and cost basis (gross/net) have been treated differently to support your questioning of the integrity of a state body?

end of the road

any contracts which are awarded by a public body and which are paid for out of public money should be availible to view. it's absolutely wrong that these contracts can be kept secret just because they are tendered. if information is genuinely commercially sensitive then fair enough if it's redacted but it should be kept to an absolute minimum. the contracts should be availible for public viewing and scruteny once awarded as we are paying for them after all.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What EU regulation determines whether contracts should be available for the public to view or not?

The "PSO Regulation" (Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) and the "Procurement Directives" (Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU).

Competitive tender contracts must be awarded in accordance with the conditions of the Procurement Directives which allow for non publication due to commercial sensitivity, however direct award contracts are specifically exempted from this and must be made availible to the public in accordance with the PSO Regulation.

antoinolachtnai

The procurement directives specify nothing of the sort. The confidentiality does not obviously extend to terms of a contract.

GM228

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/world/not-so-much-goahead-as-back-to-a-flawed-uk-model-36718588.html

Interesting article in todays Indo about GA.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

The "PSO Regulation" (Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) and the "Procurement Directives" (Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU).

Competitive tender contracts must be awarded in accordance with the conditions of the Procurement Directives which allow for non publication due to commercial sensitivity, however direct award contracts are specifically exempted from this and must be made availible to the public in accordance with the PSO Regulation.

Firstly,it's great to have some knowledgable posters contributing.

I am not for a moment challenging either GM228 or Devnull's knowledge of the NTA's BMO Tendering Process.

That said,I continue to fundamentally disagree with their interpretations of the current situation.

I note from GM228's above post an inference that the wordings of both the EU Regulation (1370/2007) and the Directives (2014/24 & 2014/25) "allow for" non-publication due to commercial sensitivity.

Is it the contention here then,that the quoted EU documents expressly forbid making public the provisions of Public Service Contracts, to the Public on who's behalf the contracts have been framed and entered into ?

There is a Vast difference between "allowing for non-publication" and "prohibiting publication" in this case,and I am suggesting that it is most certainly in the Public Interest,that ALL of the NTA's contractual documents in respect of the BMO process are available for Public Scrutiny.

howiya

AlekSmart wrote: »

Firstly,it's great to have some knowledgable posters contributing.

I am not for a moment challenging either GM228 or Devnull's knowledge of the NTA's BMO Tendering Process.

That said,I continue to fundamentally disagree with their interpretations of the current situation.

I note from GM228's above post an inference that the wordings of both the EU Regulation (1370/2007) and the Directives (2014/24 & 2014/25) "allow for" non-publication due to commercial sensitivity.

Is it the contention here then,that the quoted EU documents expressly forbid making public the provisions of Public Service Contracts, to the Public on who's behalf the contracts have been framed and entered into ?

There is a Vast difference between "allowing for non-publication" and "prohibiting publication" in this case,and I am suggesting that it is most certainly in the Public Interest,that ALL of the NTA's contractual documents in respect of the BMO process are available for Public Scrutiny.

A contract is between two parties. Both would have to agree to publication where non-publication is allowed for.

markpb

howiya wrote: »

A contract is between two parties. Both would have to agree to publication where non-publication is allowed for.

That's not an insurmountable problem. When the NTA are writing the tender, they specify that elements of the resulting contract will be public. Ta da, problem solved!

Of course, there's a risk that some companies might not want to tender with a clause like that. Who's the know if that's the case or not.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The procurement directives specify nothing of the sort. The confidentiality does not obviously extend to terms of a contract.

Yes they do allow for non-publication of contract details on grounds of commercial sensitivity.

howiya

markpb wrote: »

That's not an insurmountable problem. When the NTA are writing the tender, they specify that elements of the resulting contract will be public. Ta da, problem solved!

Of course, there's a risk that some companies might not want to tender with a clause like that. Who's the know if that's the case or not.

Agree it's not an insurmountable problem but it might also be the NTA's choice not to publish either. We simply don't know.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

That said,I continue to fundamentally disagree with their interpretations of the current situation.

What "interpretations" have I made that you disagree with?

AlekSmart wrote: »

I note from GM228's above post an inference that the wordings of both the EU Regulation (1370/2007) and the Directives (2014/24 & 2014/25) "allow for" non-publication due to commercial sensitivity.

Is it the contention here then,that the quoted EU documents expressly forbid making public the provisions of Public Service Contracts, to the Public on who's behalf the contracts have been framed and entered into ?

Your inference is correct, I didn't state that EU law forbids publication, I simply said that what is done is in accordance with EU law which allows for non-publication.

AlekSmart wrote: »

There is a Vast difference between "allowing for non-publication" and "prohibiting publication" in this case,and I am suggesting that it is most certainly in the Public Interest,that ALL of the NTA's contractual documents in respect of the BMO process are available for Public Scrutiny.

Should the same also apply to any contract involving public services? For example should we ask the HSE to publish all contracts concerning the provision of public medical treatment? Should AnPost publish details of any contracts it has for the provision of postal and other services it operates for the public? Should DB, M&A, IE and BE also publish any sub-contracts it has aswell as contracts with suppliers etc.

The reality is very few companies (private or public) will release details of any of their contracts for commercial sensitivity reasons. If it was not a legal requirement the direct award contracts would not be availabe either.

GM228

markpb wrote: »

That's not an insurmountable problem. When the NTA are writing the tender, they specify that elements of the resulting contract will be public. Ta da, problem solved!

Of course, there's a risk that some companies might not want to tender with a clause like that. Who's the know if that's the case or not.

Such a provision would fall foul of the rules for tendering as a right not to publish the details is afforded under the rules of tendering.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/world/not-so-much-goahead-as-back-to-a-flawed-uk-model-36718588.html

Interesting article in todays Indo about GA.

You can say that again...... :eek:

( I'm assuming that the writer is not the Dr John Lynch,former CIE Chairman )

Definitely bound to stir a bit of response cross a wide area....

Alarmingly, to this end, it has been hiring well-paid UK consultants to replicate the London Bus model, a concept that many think is old-hat.

The UK bus market is declining, due to the removal of road space for cyclists.

It plans the elimination of all existing brands, like Dublin Bus, replacing them with its own NTA brand.

The big question remains: is this the discredited London Bus Authority drama being played out for an Irish audience? One hopes not.

It plans to generate 15-20pc of its revenues from international activity within five years. Some commentators are sceptical, given its track record in the US and Sweden, both of which it entered and exited.

I'm off to my local Lidl to get some popcorn and dips.....:P

Stevek101

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cies-controversial-chairman-to-stay-in-239000ayear-post-26651499.html

Seems to be the author?

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

What "interpretations" have I made that you disagree with?

Your inference is correct, I didn't state that EU law forbids publication, I simply said that what is done is in accordance with EU law which allows for non-publication.

Should the same also apply to any contract involving public services? For example should we ask the HSE to publish all contracts concerning the provision of public medical treatment? Should AnPost publish details of any contracts it has for the provision of postal and other services it operates for the public? Should DB, M&A, IE and BE also publish any sub-contracts it has aswell as contracts with suppliers etc.

The reality is very few companies (private or public) will release details of any of their contracts for commercial sensitivity reasons. If it was not a legal requirement the direct award contracts would not be availabe either.

Interesting how this thread is progressing on a tangent not initially envisaged,but one which,I suspect,will now be somewhat more thoroughly covered.

My interpretation,which may be incorrect,is that yourself and Devnull have no issue with,and see no value to,the details of the BMO Contrats being made Public ?

My view is that the current NTA policies in regard to the BMO Contracts now require explicit re-stating that any and all details of such Contracts will be kept confidential.

This then invites further questions as to the length of such Confidentiality clauses and the lack of public awareness that the NTA was implimenting such a policy from the outset,at pre-qualification stage perhaps ?

Will we now have to wait for Investigative Journalists to pursue FoI requests,and perhaps head to the Courts to secure,what is very obviously Publicly relevant Information ?

One can argue for US style redaction of certain details,but at this juncture,a very basic principle of Openess and Transparency is an absolute requirement,if the NTA and the State itself are to maintain their integrity.

It does not have to be this way ! :mad:

AlekSmart

Stevek101 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cies-controversial-chairman-to-stay-in-239000ayear-post-26651499.html

Seems to be the author?

I was posting tongue-in-cheek !!!!!!

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

You can say that again...... :eek:

( I'm assuming that the writer is not the Dr John Lynch,former CIE Chairman )

Yes he's the same John Lynch.

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

One can argue for US style redaction of certain details,but at this juncture,a very basic principle of Openess and Transparency is an absolute requirement,if the NTA and the State itself are to maintain their integrity.

I will state what I have said before in relation to this, which is that I haven't seen any sign that there has been any breach of integrity as every example of a tendered gross cost contract has been treated the same as every other tendered gross cost contract and every direct award net cost contract has been treated the same as every other direct award net cost contract.

You seem unable, or unwilling to support your questioning of the integrity of a state body by giving me an example of where two contracts of exactly the same type and cost basis are treated different from one another, therefore I assume that you agree that the NTA has treated all winners of certain types of contracts, the same as other winners of the same types of contract?

My view is that the current NTA policies in regard to the BMO Contracts now require explicit re-stating that any and all details of such Contracts will be kept confidential.

This then invites further questions as to the length of such Confidentiality clauses and the lack of public awareness that the NTA was implimenting such a policy from the outset,at pre-qualification stage perhaps ?

In my experience of tenders it is generally the case that commercially sensitive information is not published. This has been the case in every tender I have been involved with in some shape or form for the reasons that GM228 has outlined previously.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

My interpretation,which may be incorrect,is that yourself and Devnull have no issue with,and see no value to,the details of the BMO Contrats being made Public ?

I'm not sure how you come to that view as I never stated one way or the other my views on the matter or weather or not they should be made public and if there was any value in such, I simply stated why they were not public in reply to that question.

AlekSmart wrote: »

My view is that the current NTA policies in regard to the BMO Contracts now require explicit re-stating that any and all details of such Contracts will be kept confidential.

Don't forget the NTA are dealing with private companies, I have yet to come accross a private company willing to publish any contracts they hold, why assume the NTA dictate they be confidential?

AlekSmart wrote: »

This then invites further questions as to the length of such Confidentiality clauses and the lack of public awareness that the NTA was implimenting such a policy from the outset,at pre-qualification stage perhaps ?

Again why assume the NTA call the shots.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Will we now have to wait for Investigative Journalists to pursue FoI requests,and perhaps head to the Courts to secure,what is very obviously Publicly relevant Information ?

You would not get a FOI request too easily on a commercially sensitive contract as it can prejudice the commercial interests of the company involved. Such a request would be subject to a balancing test.

mickmmc

From John Lynch's article:

Go Ahead Bus has 24% of the London Bus market (190 routes) with revenues of £525m and only 8% of UK Regional market with £377m. He doesn't state the nos of passengers or routes for UK Regional

Can I infer from these figures (though limited) that the London Bus market is fiercely competitive?

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

I will state what I have said before in relation to this, which is that I haven't seen any sign that there has been any breach of integrity as every example of a tendered gross cost contract has been treated the same as every other tendered gross cost contract and every direct award net cost contract has been treated the same as every other direct award net cost contract.

You seem unable, or unwilling to support your questioning of the integrity of a state body by giving me an example of where two contracts of exactly the same type and cost basis are treated different from one another, therefore I assume that you agree that the NTA has treated all winners of certain types of contracts, the same as other winners of the same types of contract?

In my experience of tenders it is generally the case that commercially sensitive information is not published. This has been the case in every tender I have been involved with in some shape or form for the reasons that GM228 has outlined previously.

I am perfectly able to support my questioning of the reasons for keeping the new BMO Contracts secret.

We are not involving State Secrecy here,it is a contract for the provision of Public Bus Services,and I suggest the Public are better served if the Contractual requirements are in the Public Domain.

A simple Statement from the NTA,at the pre-qualification stage,that ALL subsequent Contractual details would remain confidential,would have allowed for some debate as to the Public Interest of this policy.

Using the term "Commercial Confidentiality"now, as some form of catch-all to prevent public dissemination of the agreed contracts,may be acceptable you you,and that's fine by me,but I remain wary of such secrecy clauses being invoked to prevent viewing of the terms under which our Public Bus Service will now be provided.

Secrecy,outside of wartime,rarely lasts long,and I can see a situation developing whereby the death-by-a-thousand-cuts process becomes the norm,as little by little,elements of the Contracts become public.

If this were the Freemasons or the Magic Circle I'd not be too concerned,but it's the NTA beginning a process,which could take decades to become fully accepted and operational.

Secrecy,in this instance does NOT benefit the Public.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

A simple Statement from the NTA,at the pre-qualification stage,that ALL subsequent Contractual details would remain confidential,would have allowed for some debate as to the Public Interest of this policy.

And then the NTA would be accused of pre-empting secrecy, they can't win can they.

mickmmc

On the Direct Award Model:

From reading the NTA document in the Fare Determination thread, the NTA has significant level of control over DB.

DB's profits are capped at €5m per annum; anything in excess of this amount will be taken by the NTA. Also, the issues of wage increases is discussed. The NTA could control DB pay increases in the future from my read of the document.

With regard to BE, the CEO stated in an interview last year that BE is not allowed make a profit on the PSO contract routes. He is certainly unhappy with the PSO contract.

Maybe DB & BE would be better off if 100% of the market is opened to tender?

The NTA are no push over reading that document and drive a hard bargain.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

And then the NTA would be accused of pre-empting secrecy, they can't win can they.

But it would have been sorted BEFORE the process began...which,to me,would be preferable to what is going on now.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

Secrecy,in this instance does NOT benefit the Public.

And openness may not benefit anyone either, especially the parties involved when commercial sensitivity is involved.

GM228

mickmmc wrote: »

On the Direct Award Model:

From reading the NTA document in the Fare Determination thread, the NTA has significant level of control over DB.

DB's profits are capped at €5m per annum; anything in excess of this amount will be taken by the NTA. Also, the issues of wage increases is discussed. The NTA could control DB pay increases in the future from my read of the document.

Not really, they only set a reasonable profit which is then used as part of the formula (known as the "net financial effect") to determine the PSO compensation payment, the PSO payment can't be above this net financial effect figure, but the actual profit can be above the reasonable profit figure, they are not the same (the unions like to spin this, but DB have made bigger profits in recent years).

The NTA can not dictate pay rises.