antoinolachtnai wrote: » What EU regulation determines whether contracts should be available for the public to view or not?
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
markpb wrote: » 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?
AlekSmart wrote: » No it was'nt.
GM228 wrote: » 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.
Peregrine wrote: » This was already answered a few pages back after you last asked this.
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.
AlekSmart wrote: » 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
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.
bebeman wrote: » So in other words,Zero Incentive to improve or grow the service, steady as she goes.
monument wrote: » And cut out the bus nerd nonsense. — moderator
bebeman wrote: » Bus Nerd would be the PG rated term used for those that take a unhealthy interest in Buses, how many photographs do they need of buses? They all look the same. Just because you don't like something , does not mean its true, or will make it go away.
bebeman wrote: » Bus Nerd would be the PG rated term used for those that take a unhealthy interest in Buses, how many photographs do they need of buses? They all look the same.
GM228 wrote: » 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 Go Ahead have ZERO incentive to grow the business? You think thats a good deal for the Tax payer?
amcalester wrote: » Then why was Dermot O’Leary calling for the Minister to get involved during the recent Industrial Action? What could the Minister do other than write a big cheque that other state bodies couldn’t do?
howiya wrote: » So in the example you gave of increasing passenger numbers leading to an increase in Dublin Bus' profit, an increase in passenger numbers on the Go Ahead routes leads to an increase in profit for the NTA and not a private company.
bebeman wrote: » Eh? What, I'm not a bus nerd with this type of info on hand. The Gist of what i posted is correct is it not?
end of the road wrote: » 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.
bebeman wrote: » Thats a bit rich. So many lies posted here as fact. I was honest in saying i don't have the exact numbers, but the gist is correct, is it not?
GM228 wrote: » Eh? Official accounts show DB profit as:- €0.5M for 2013 (€64.5M PSO), €11.6M for 2014 (€60M PSO), €10.2M for 2015 (€57.7M PSO) and €2.6M for 2016 (€59.6M PSO).
devnull wrote: » They will have to file accounts with the Companies Registration Office like any other company.
devnull wrote: » You lack serious credibility when you pluck out figures from the sky like that for several reasons
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.
bebeman wrote: » Pulling these numbers out of the air as i don't have the exact ones at hand.Government gave DB 20 million in 2014 DB made zero profit Government gave DB 20 million in 2015 As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit Government gave DB 19 million in 2016 DB made zero profit Government gave DB 19 million in 2017 As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit Government gave DB 18 million in 2018 See what happens, when DB make profit, Government cut funding,Tax payer saves money, this won't happen with Go Ahead, the money stays the same each year and profits go to share holders. Do you think the Unions are wrong to criticise this?
GM228 wrote: » No they will get direct award contracts again in 2019.
IE 222 wrote: » Will G/A have to disclose whether they make a profit or not.
bebeman wrote: » Pulling these numbers out of the air as i don't have the exact ones at hand. Government gave DB 20 million in 2014 DB made zero profit Government gave DB 20 million in 2015 As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit Government gave DB 19 million in 2016 DB made zero profit Government gave DB 19 million in 2017 As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit Government gave DB 18 million in 2018
See what happens, when DB make profit, Government cut funding,Tax payer saves money, this won't happen with Go Ahead, the money stays the same each year and profits go to share holders.
