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.
antoinolachtnai wrote: » What EU regulation determines whether contracts should be available for the public to view or not?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
howiya wrote: » A contract is between two parties. Both would have to agree to publication where non-publication is allowed for.
antoinolachtnai wrote: » The procurement directives specify nothing of the sort. The confidentiality does not obviously extend to terms of a contract.
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.
AlekSmart wrote: » That said,I continue to fundamentally disagree with their interpretations of the current situation.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
The big question remains: is this the discredited London Bus Authority drama being played out for an Irish audience? One hopes not.
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.
Stevek101 wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cies-controversial-chairman-to-stay-in-239000ayear-post-26651499.html Seems to be the author?
AlekSmart wrote: » You can say that again...... :eek: ( I'm assuming that the writer is not the Dr John Lynch,former CIE Chairman )
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
GM228 wrote: » And then the NTA would be accused of pre-empting secrecy, they can't win can they.
AlekSmart wrote: » Secrecy,in this instance does NOT benefit the Public.
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.
