Is accountability alien to our public sector?

Buford T Justice

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're not a civil servant. You're a public servant.

But regardless, what have you done to address these problems? Have you reported them to the Board of Management? Or to the Patron? Or to the Department? Or to the Gardai, if you're alleging fraud?

If you have specific information, and you're not doing anything about it, you're part of the problem.

I've seen many people trip over the 'well I got a price from Dell' idea over the years. If the other tender includes associated services like installation or on site support, then you're comparing apples and oranges.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Considered by who? They're not civil servants. They're public servants.

And both civil and public servants have extensive protections under Protected Disclosure legislation. And if you don't fancy that, it is still remarkably easy to get information anonymously to a journalist or Garda. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Yeah, being a whistleblower worked out really well for Maruice McCabe didn't it? He did the morally right thing and look what happened to him. Why would anyone else want to do that to themselves?

Quandary wrote: »

Teachers are considered to be civil servants.

How do you think it would affect my teaching career if I actually went on a crusade to shine a light on these problems? I would have to be a complete idiot to do it. Independent audits into these areas need to be conducted by professionals.

Installation and configuration of the aforementioned laptops was done by me also.

You may not like what I posted but I can most certainly assure you that it is 100% true. Of course, I'm just an anonymous coward behind a keyboard so no need to take what I say as fact.

^^^ This. Says it all about why on one says a word

AndrewJRenko

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

I’d say he went in at around the average bid then upped his price after being rewarded the contract.

Have you the slightest clue about how public sector tendering, or indeed any tendering works? You don't get to go in at one price, and then up your price after being awarded the contract.


You tender at a price, and you supply at the tendered price. If you don't supply at the tendered price, at best you lose the contract and at worst you end up on the wrong end of a law suit for failure to perform.

Flyingsnowball

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you the slightest clue about how public sector tendering, or indeed any tendering works? You don't get to go in at one price, and then up your price after being awarded the contract.


You tender at a price, and you supply at the tendered price. If you don't supply at the tendered price, at best you lose the contract and at worst you end up on the wrong end of a law suit for failure to perform.

Or the fella who overlooks it all resigns and everybody carries on.
Then the fella that resigns gets a cushy new job running something else once the heat dies down.

This country is a toilet, but nearly every country is a toilet so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

AndrewJRenko

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what happened there. All the suppliers got together and agreed to let him be the only applicant at around the €900 mark. He then shared the profits with the rest of them.

All the suppliers in the world got together and agreed this? There wasn't one supplier in the UK or maybe in Poland who wasn't part of this cartel and who came in at a price no bigger than maybe 150% of the market price to steal the contract?


How credible is that, really? And how do the 5 or 10 suppliers manage to keep this cartel secret for all those years? No disgruntled employee to leak it to the Gardai or newspapers? No parent who noticed the doubled-price and asked questions?


How credible is that? It's just laughable how quickly people are to rush to conspiracy theories instead of looking at simple facts.


But if you do want to look at who falls for bid-rigging contracts, maybe you'd like to focus on how Google and Paypal were screwed by a private business, only to be caught by the public sector regulator.


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/company-director-fined-over-pricefixing-scam-that-targeted-top-firms-35776774.html

trellheim

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

I’d say he went in at around the average bid then upped his price after being rewarded the contract.

The point about a contract is that the prices are set. I don't know any pub procurement frameworks for , let's say, Weetabix, where you can vary the price of the Weetabix after you win the gig. Sure there may be a CPI inflation written in but thats about it

Quandary

Speaking of fortuitous tendering...

Doesn't Michael Healy Raes plant hire and haulage company receive a significant amount of state tendered contracts via Kerry Co. Council?

How this is permitted and cannot be seen as a conflict of interest is beyond strange.

Not surprising though.

AndrewJRenko

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

Or the fella who overlooks it all resigns and everybody carries on.
Then the fella that resigns gets a cushy new job running something else once the heat dies down.

This country is a toilet, but nearly every country is a toilet so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

Still avoiding going into any specifics on your claims, I see. If you do want to understand what happened at the Children's Hospital, take a look at this explanation from one of the top private sector quantity surveyors in the country.


https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/paul-mcneive-childrens-hospital-cost-overrun-can-be-explained-37742244.html

AndrewJRenko

Quandary wrote: »

Speaking of fortuitous tendering...

Doesn't Michael Healy Raes plant hire and haulage company receive a significant amount of state tendered contracts via Kerry Co. Council?

How this is permitted and cannot be seen as a conflict of interest is beyond strange.

Not surprising though.

Feeling a bit dirty at having to defend the Healy Rae's, but once they have no role in deciding and awarding the contract, and one their interests are declared in their ethics statement, there is no conflict of interest.

trellheim

Quandary wrote: »

Speaking of fortuitous tendering...

Doesn't Michael Healy Raes plant hire and haulage company receive a significant amount of state tendered contracts via Kerry Co. Council?

How this is permitted and cannot be seen as a conflict of interest is beyond strange.

Not surprising though.

Anything on the SIPO register about it ?

AndrewJRenko

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Yeah, being a whistleblower worked out really well for Maruice McCabe didn't it? He did the morally right thing and look what happened to him. Why would anyone else want to do that to themselves?



^^^ This. Says it all about why on one says a word

McCabe's issues happened long before the whistleblower legislation was brought in, and indeed was one of the major factors inspiring that legislation.


It's not true to say 'no-one says a word'. Those who put their career ahead of doing the right thing don't say a word.

BrianBoru00

The make up of that board , which I've no doubt is of a similar make up to most boards is astounding.
The "expertise" is made up of people who are highly qualified but not people at the coal face.
That board should at a minimum include (1) 2 parents (advocates) of children who regularly use the services of the childrens hospital or have been in the recent past (2) two staff including a staff nurse (3) one administrative staff member at lowest or next lowest level.


But that won't happen because those people "wouldn't have the expertise" .

They're the people who would ask the question "Hold on, we have major major parking issues in Crumlin not to mention Temple Street why are we building this in a city centre location when there is scope to build it on a far more spacious site?"

or "Why are we allowing consultants to dictate the location when there are far more stake holders here who will be more negatively impacted by the location"

or "Hold on, why are we awarding a contract without a penalty clause for late completion and which will state explicitly that any cost over runs is the responsibility of the builder"

Quandary

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Feeling a bit dirty at having to defend the Healy Rae's, but once they have no role in deciding and awarding the contract, and one their interests are declared in their ethics statement, there is no conflict of interest.

You are either naive or deliberately obtuse.

Which one is it?

Flyingsnowball

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Still avoiding going into any specifics on your claims, I see. If you do want to understand what happened at the Children's Hospital, take a look at this explanation from one of the top private sector quantity surveyors in the country.


https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/paul-mcneive-childrens-hospital-cost-overrun-can-be-explained-37742244.html

That doesn’t explain anything. Thats the second time I’ve clicked one of your links and it doesn’t do what you said it did.

It’s just random waffle. From my experience in the building trade I’d say a quote was given then a pile of extras were added. A slightly less obvious version of

“Oh you wanted running water mrs? Oh that wasn’t in the original price mrs? Ooooh that’ll be extra.

Now obviously it won’t be done on things as obvious as running water but say for example the air con units can’t fit where they are supposed to go because an rsj is blocking the ducting from connecting to it. Now sudddenly 400 units need to be moved 4 inches to the left. They may not even have been hung yet but it’s free money. Bill a half a day for each one that needs to be moved as an extra.

Nobody at the moment in the public could really know what went on but the extras are the first place I’d look.

trellheim

Nobody at the moment in the public could really know what went on

Did you do any research on etenders or OJEC , the committee transcripts, the Dail debates over the last 6 months, and a whole host of other sources, to make that statement ?

Take a look, for example at the M7 upgrade around Naas. Even though its an awful pain to drive around its looking like its on budget and likely to finish early - there's been multiple reports and its very closely examined even here in the Infrastructure forums. My point is that we can be very very good at capital works procurement when we want to be.

Johnnyhpipe

They’re afraid who’s names will actually come up if they determine who is “personally responsible”.

Keep the head down and keep pushing on lads...

Flyingsnowball

trellheim wrote: »

Did you do any research on etenders or OJEC , the committee transcripts, the Dail debates over the last 6 months, and a whole host of other sources, to make that statement ?

Take a look, for example at the M7 upgrade around Naas. Even though its an awful pain to drive around its looking like its on budget and likely to finish early - there's been multiple reports and its very closely examined even here in the Infrastructure forums. My point is that we can be very very good at capital works procurement when we want to be.

It’s all just spin and bluster. The person awarding the contracts could have been selected because he was trusted with awarding the right fella the contract.
The person writing up the contract could have been selected because he was trusted with writing the best contract for exploitation.
The person checking the contract and agreeing extras could have been selected because he did what he was told.
The people running the inquiries will probably be selected.

It’s a big swirling toilet bowl. I don’t really care about the state anymore and feel no identity with my country. If any other country headed over tomorrow and took us over nothing would change just another country exploiting the tax system to stick their heads in the pig feeder.

AndrewJRenko

Quandary wrote: »

You are either naive or deliberately obtuse.

Which one is it?

You tell me. If you have information or knowledge about the Healy Rae contracts, please share. If you want to cast aspersions about stuff that you really know nothing about, I'd suggest that you tread very carefully.


There are very strict ethics rules for Councillors, and they get pulled up on them by SIPO from time to time. These rules don't bar Councillors from doing business with the Council, provided they have no role in awarding contracts, and their interests are declared.


That's the law. If you've a problem with the law, go tell your local TD to change it.

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

The make up of that board , which I've no doubt is of a similar make up to most boards is astounding.
The "expertise" is made up of people who are highly qualified but not people at the coal face.
That board should at a minimum include (1) 2 parents (advocates) of children who regularly use the services of the childrens hospital or have been in the recent past (2) two staff including a staff nurse (3) one administrative staff member at lowest or next lowest level.


But that won't happen because those people "wouldn't have the expertise" .

They're the people who would ask the question "Hold on, we have major major parking issues in Crumlin not to mention Temple Street why are we building this in a city centre location when there is scope to build it on a far more spacious site?"

or "Why are we allowing consultants to dictate the location when there are far more stake holders here who will be more negatively impacted by the location"

or "Hold on, why are we awarding a contract without a penalty clause for late completion and which will state explicitly that any cost over runs is the responsibility of the builder"

Patient representation and staff representation would be great indeed. It was interesting to see the RSA including two parents of road death victims on their latest board.


But really, why would parking be the deciding factor in locating a facility like this. Do we want great parking and poor clinical results? The location was chosen by an expert panel of medics, planners and architects. Why would you think that you know better?


And by the way, it's EXACTLY the kind of thinking that you call for - outsourcing of ALL risk onto the builder - that results in huge inflated prices on these contracts. Be careful what you wish for.

dxhound2005

There's a lot of price fixing cartels going on in the private sector. And variations like the banks colluding to set overnight interest rates. Either the workers are too afraid to blow the whistle on those which are still hidden, or they are being paid off for their silence.

AndrewJRenko

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

That doesn’t explain anything. Thats the second time I’ve clicked one of your links and it doesn’t do what you said it did.

It’s just random waffle. From my experience in the building trade I’d say a quote was given then a pile of extras were added. A slightly less obvious version of

“Oh you wanted running water mrs? Oh that wasn’t in the original price mrs? Ooooh that’ll be extra.

Now obviously it won’t be done on things as obvious as running water but say for example the air con units can’t fit where they are supposed to go because an rsj is blocking the ducting from connecting to it. Now sudddenly 400 units need to be moved 4 inches to the left. They may not even have been hung yet but it’s free money. Bill a half a day for each one that needs to be moved as an extra.

Nobody at the moment in the public could really know what went on but the extras are the first place I’d look.

Once again, your knowledge of what's going isn't really adding anything to the situation. Seeing as they are years away from fitting running water or a/c ducts, you've missed the target again here.



And the recent move towards PPP design/build contracts means that if the design for the a/c ducts is wrong, that's the developer's problem to fix, at the developer's expense, not the clients.


So maybe you'd like to go back and read again what an actual expert who has done some actual research has come up with, instead of your fantasy stuff.

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

It’s all just spin and bluster. The person awarding the contracts could have been selected because he was trusted with awarding the right fella the contract.
The person writing up the contract could have been selected because he was trusted with writing the best contract for exploitation.
The person checking the contract and agreeing extras could have been selected because he did what he was told.
The people running the inquiries will probably be selected.

My oh my, that's an awful lot of 'selecting', isn't it? No one person evaluates tenders like this. There will be teams of people involved in tender evaluation, so are these teams 'all selected' because they're known to be corrupt? So they've worked for years, never been caught on the fiddle, and got themselves into senior positions to risk it all for creaming a few grand off a contract?


It must be great just to come up with spurious allegations without having anything to back them up. Every time you've been asked to come up with something specific, you've moved the goalposts.

AndrewJRenko

dxhound2005 wrote: »

There's a lot of price fixing cartels going on in the private sector. And variations like the banks colluding to set overnight interest rates. Either the workers are too afraid to blow the whistle on those which are still hidden, or they are being paid off for their silence.

Very hard to keep secrets in this day and age, given that anyone can record any conversation at any time on their phone. Just ask the lads who went up against Maurice McCabe.


So you reckon that the most senior staff in all the banks here are colluding on interest rates? How exactly did you work that out?

dxhound2005

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Very hard to keep secrets in this day and age, given that anyone can record any conversation at any time on their phone. Just ask the lads who went up against Maurice McCabe.


So you reckon that the most senior staff in all the banks here are colluding on interest rates? How exactly did you work that out?

I doubt very much if the LIBOR scandal is not being repeated. And it would have to be directed from the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

Franz Von Peppercorn

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Very hard to keep secrets in this day and age, given that anyone can record any conversation at any time on their phone. Just ask the lads who went up against Maurice McCabe.


So you reckon that the most senior staff in all the banks here are colluding on interest rates? How exactly did you work that out?

You think people are going around to banking headquarters and recording everything on their phones? Average joe soaps?

Flyingsnowball

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, your knowledge of what's going isn't really adding anything to the situation. Seeing as they are years away from fitting running water or a/c ducts, you've missed the target again here.



And the recent move towards PPP design/build contracts means that if the design for the a/c ducts is wrong, that's the developer's problem to fix, at the developer's expense, not the clients.


So maybe you'd like to go back and read again what an actual expert who has done some actual research has come up with, instead of your fantasy stuff.




My oh my, that's an awful lot of 'selecting', isn't it? No one person evaluates tenders like this. There will be teams of people involved in tender evaluation, so are these teams 'all selected' because they're known to be corrupt? So they've worked for years, never been caught on the fiddle, and got themselves into senior positions to risk it all for creaming a few grand off a contract?


It must be great just to come up with spurious allegations without having anything to back them up. Every time you've been asked to come up with something specific, you've moved the goalposts.

There’s a lot of anger in your posts. What you are doing is taking my examples of overpricing and saying it didn’t happen because my example didn’t happen.

ToBeFrank123

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, your knowledge of what's going isn't really adding anything to the situation. Seeing as they are years away from fitting running water or a/c ducts, you've missed the target again here.



And the recent move towards PPP design/build contracts means that if the design for the a/c ducts is wrong, that's the developer's problem to fix, at the developer's expense, not the clients.


So maybe you'd like to go back and read again what an actual expert who has done some actual research has come up with, instead of your fantasy stuff.




My oh my, that's an awful lot of 'selecting', isn't it? No one person evaluates tenders like this. There will be teams of people involved in tender evaluation, so are these teams 'all selected' because they're known to be corrupt? So they've worked for years, never been caught on the fiddle, and got themselves into senior positions to risk it all for creaming a few grand off a contract?


It must be great just to come up with spurious allegations without having anything to back them up. Every time you've been asked to come up with something specific, you've moved the goalposts.

It was either gross corruption or gross incompetence that led to some of the cost miscalculations.

I'm not sure which is better. In fact I'd nearly prefer the corruption if the cost was only a couple hundred million of an overrun.

In this case there is no accountability which is a form of corruption.

dxhound2005

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It was either gross corruption or gross incompetence that led to some of the cost miscalculations.

I'm not sure which is better. In fact I'd nearly prefer the corruption if the cost was only a couple hundred million of an overrun.

In this case there is no accountability which is a form of corruption.

It would have to be a particular "form of corruption" to be prosecuted in the courts. Which would require the evidence to be tested.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/html

ToBeFrank123

dxhound2005 wrote: »

It would have to be a particular "form of corruption" to be prosecuted in the courts. Which would require the evidence to be tested.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/html

I would call it more a form of mild political corruption where no-one is accountable and taxpayer's money is p*ssed down the toilet because some government ministers don't have the b*lls to stand up and say "enough".

They'd rather p*ss away a billion than change track.

BrianBoru00

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Still avoiding going into any specifics on your claims, I see. If you do want to understand what happened at the Children's Hospital, take a look at this explanation from one of the top private sector quantity surveyors in the country.


https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/paul-mcneive-childrens-hospital-cost-overrun-can-be-explained-37742244.html

You're fond of asking for concrete examples yet you've linked to an article which is about as insightful as the Sun's gossip pages.
:eek:

That chap is not one of the "Top private sector quantity surveyors". Hes a journalist and motivational speaker and former head of HOK
http://www.paulmcneive.com/motivational_speaker.html

dxhound2005

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I would call it more a form of mild political corruption where no-one is accountable and taxpayer's money is p*ssed down the toilet because some government ministers don't have the b*lls to stand up and say "enough".

They'd rather p*ss away a billion than change track.

By changing track you mean scrapping the hospital?

ToBeFrank123

dxhound2005 wrote: »

By changing track you mean scrapping the hospital?

Nope. Building it on a greenfield site, one of those offered as a donation. I'm sure there's also plenty of government owned land close to Dublin. There's even the Thorntan Hall site going to waste.

If a 2 billion hospital ticked all the boxes people would nearly stomach that. But it will be a minimum 2 billion hospital stuck in a terrible location that ticks very few boxes and makes little consideration of how sick patients get to it.

Bringing sick children on public transport is not an option for most and puts them at even more risk. Many of these children have vulnerable immune systems. You could be endangering their lives. Even the common flu could kill them. Parking and easy access has to be a central consideration.

AndrewJRenko

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

There’s a lot of anger in your posts. What you are doing is taking my examples of overpricing and saying it didn’t happen because my example didn’t happen.

Angry? You're throwing around allegations of corruption, with zero evidence and close to zero understanding of how the supposedly corrupt process actually works, changing the subject and shifting the goalposts every time you're asked for specifics, and you don't understand why people are angry - really?