Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

amcalester wrote: »

This just further shows that you don’t understand tendering.

no it doesn't. i think you are looking for a different discussion because the discussion we are actually having, is from your original point that because the public operator doesn't make a profit they get more funding then a private operator would because they do make a profit, which is just not true.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Yes but they will have to sign up to the NTAs T+Cs they will be given a contract where the NTA keeps all the fares and will have to have an NTA livery on their buses etc.

EU law dictates otherwise, direct award contracts sees the operator keep the fares box.

The NTA keeping the fares box only applies to competitive tendering.

The MD for Go Ahead Dublin was appointed in late February. His name is Ed Wills.

http://www.route-one.net/articles///Ed_Wills_to_lead_Go_Ahead_Dublin

bebeman wrote: »

So Go Ahead have ZERO incentive to grow the business?
You think thats a good deal for the Tax payer?

Any growth would be dictated by the NTA and they would be paid accordingly.

The flip side is any fall in standards means penalties, so at the very least there is an incentive to offer the service as expected as per their contract.

bebeman wrote: »

So in other words,Zero Incentive to improve or grow the service, steady as she goes.

I don't know about the GA contact but the Luas contact has penalties for dropping customer numbers, poor delivery performance, excessive fare evasion, etc and bonuses for performing better than expected in those (and probably other) areas. It's quite likely that the GA contact will have something like a 1% bonus for each 5% increase in passenger numbers.

markpb wrote: »

I don't know about the GA contact but the Luas contact has penalties for dropping customer numbers, poor delivery performance, excessive fare evasion, etc and bonuses for performing better than expected in those (and probably other) areas. It's quite likely that the GA contact will have something like a 1% bonus for each 5% increase in passenger numbers.

With the NTA/Go Ahead contract in effect since last September,we should not have to be using such terms as "Its quite likely" or "something like".

Is there a specific reason for the NTA not publishing the details of the GAD contract ?

You may well suggest I ask the NTA direct,but I would prefer that,as a Public Authority,they apply the same criteria to ALL of their PSO contracts....if,that is,they are confident of no conflicts of interest etc

Peregrine wrote: »

This was already answered a few pages back after you last asked this.

No it was'nt.

Some contributors put forward opinions on the "Commercially Sensitive" reasoning,whilst others drew a distinction between Direct Award Contracts and Competitively Tendered one's.

As of now,the general public have had no sight of even the heads of contract or the operational requirements,none of which would impinge on the Commercial Sensitivity of the deal.

Currently,the NTA have FULL current,and historic details,of PSO contracts with Four Operators available on their website.
Bus Eireann
Bus Atha Cliath.
M&A Coaches.
Whartons Travel

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

At his juncture,it appears remiss of the NTA not to have even a passing reference to the 2017 GAD contract ?

I would equally disagree with this "Commercially Sensitive" excuse now,apparently,the norm when wanting to deflect inquisitive outsiders.

If the Singaporean Land Transit Authority is able to publish FULL Public Tender deliberations and statistics concerning the same groups now becoming active in Ireland then so too can the NTA.

https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=a0d4d08f-32f9-4a7a-804b-a0e97e9c19e6

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has awarded the contract for the Bukit Merah bus package to SBS Transit Ltd (SBST), at an estimated total fee of $472 million[1] over the five-year contract period. The package is currently operated by SBST and this new contract will start from the fourth quarter of 2018.

Evaluation Process

3 The tender for the Bukit Merah bus package was called on 28 April 2017 and attracted six bids when it closed on 28 August 2017. All tender submissions were evaluated based on the same set of criteria through a two-envelope process which looked at both quality and price factors. With greater weightage given to the quality proposals, the price envelopes were only opened after the quality evaluation was completed. This two-envelope process ensures that LTA gets the best-value-for-money proposal without compromising on quality.

The annexes contain the Tenderers,and actual Tendered amounts to allow full comparison.

I would suggest that the interested Irish public,are more than capable of being able to digest whatever contract has been put in place,on their behalf,by the NTA,to at least the same level of availibility as demonstrated by the Singaporean Authority.

So,just to be clear on my view here...The Irish National Transport Authority's dealings in the Dublin BMO process,has not yet achieved an acceptable level of transparency,and will not,until the new Contract Details are in the Public Domain. (With an explanation as to the reasons for the delay).

There is some merit in the specific financial values beging commercially sensitive but I don't agree that it should extend to the rest of the contract. It's a public contract, surely we have some right to know what is expected of the new operator.

Edit: the estimated cost of the second Luas operate contract was/is public knowledge. Why would a bus contract be any different?

devnull wrote: »

See here

Originally Posted by GM228 View Post
The contracts with M&A, IE, DB and BE (except Waterford) are direct award net costs contracts and must be available to.view.

All other contracts (including BE Waterford) are competitive tender gross cost contracts and not availible for the public to view, they are considered commercially sensitive (whilst not a PSO service contract the LUAS contract is considered the same - commercially sensitive). The old BE Route 817 was a competitive tender gross cost contract and this too was not availible to the public.

This is in accordance with EU Regulation.

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 bus is the main form of public transport used in Ireland today. Overall buses make about 200 million passenger trips on regular scheduled services across the state. These services are provided under Public Service Obligation contracts with Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus and by licensed commercial bus operators. We review the bus companies’ performance in this regard, and publish quarterly performance reports which are available through the menu bar on the left.

So,it's the European Union itself which has decided that the Operational PSO Contract for the Dublin Bus Market Opening is to remain unavailable for Public Viewing ?

I am far from an expert in such matters,but I very much doubt that the European Union will step forward to recommed an Authority keeping such matters secret ?

However,if it has,then I would be hugely supportive of any individual,group or representative body (;)) who would head Brussselsward to probe a bit more !

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.