devnull wrote: » The Bus Eireann Waterford contract was let under exactly the same process as the contract as the Go-Ahead Dublin contract, so when people are making claims about the secrecy of contracts let under the process and making claims that the GAI contract is unique in the way that it has been handled (when it clearly isn't) then I think it is a valid and fair comparison to make as they both can be considered apples run under the same framework, rule books and in the same country.
Probably because it hasn't started yet?
devnull wrote: » I have been on record of saying over a prolonged period of time that I do not care about individual operators, but what I do care about is public transport as a whole and seeing each type of tender treat both public and private operators the same - as far as I'm concerned the NTA have done that. Probably because it hasn't started yet? We've also seen how things work in Singapore and other countries brought up, despite the fact that what happens in Singapore, which is a sovereign nation with it's own rules, laws, competition agencies and regulatory environments, is not comparable whatsoever.
AlekSmart wrote: » Indeed,and as you are more than aware I disagree fundamentally with your perception of the situation. I have considerable skin in this game,but that does not prevent me from having an objective viewpoint on the issue either.
I refer to the recent Singapore BMO Process,as it is quite clear that it's methodology represents considerably better practice with regard to transparency and accountability than current NTA policy does.
Your high regard for this particular interpretation of Irish Law is to be admired,however this does not of itself,mean that the current situation is either correct or acceptable. I would not,however,be in favour of heading to the Courts in order to FORCE the Authority to conform to acceptable standards on Public Accountability,as they really should not require such expensive stewardship from the Stakeholders they purport to fairly represent.
AlekSmart wrote: » I would not,however,be in favour of heading to the Courts in order to FORCE the Authority to conform to acceptable standards on Public Accountability,as they really should not require such expensive stewardship from the Stakeholders they purport to fairly represent.
devnull wrote: » The NTA themselves are aware of issues that conflicts of interest can cause, as in their code of conduct they stateMembers shall avoid actual or apparent conflict of interests in relation to situations involving the potential award of a contract or the disbursement of monies. This would suggest that our transport regulator in this country would consider that someone who has stake in the game, so to speak, not best placed on deciding matters related to contracts and tenders. Many organisations have clauses similar to this, because people who have conflicts of interests, in the vast majority (but not all) of times simply not able to put them aside, even if they believe they can, so businesses and regulators tend to always have a policy to avoid the chances of this happening.
dfx- wrote: » It needs GAI to succeed to validate its own signature policy because it wants it to spread further. So it issues €172m in the dark with expectations and benchmarks for delivery withheld.
Would this be the same body that agreed to award Dublin Bus another 5 year contract because it wanted to assess things over a longer period? If it was so desperate to spread it further, why did it neglect to do so when it had the opportunity to do so when the direct award contract came up for renewal?
SG317 wrote: » That is not necessarily true, in fact it would be quite unwise to tender out a vast chunk of the network at once, as this would nost likely be met with significant opposition and would raise concerns about the true agenda behind tendering out the routes.
This is already apparent with how they reduced the tender of Bus Éireann routes from 10% to 5%, after the tender announcement was met with opposition.
It further wouldn't make sense for them to tender out more DB routes when they have announced themselves they are very pleased with DBs service provision.
So, the fact that they haven't tendered more routes out isn't proof that is not their agenda.
devnull wrote: » Would this be the same body that agreed to award Dublin Bus another 5 year contract because it wanted to assess things over a longer period? If it was so desperate to spread it further, why did it neglect to do so when it had the opportunity to do so when the direct award contract came up for renewal?
devnull wrote: » We will have to see what statistics the NTA will publish later in 2019 about Go-Ahead's performance under their awarded contract. I'm sure they will later in the year and hopefully we'll also see Dublin Bus statistics moved to being independently collected rather than the self reported nature that many of them are at present. No operator, whether public or private, should report their own performance data. For what it's worth I believe the NTA have made the right decision to not tender any more Dublin Bus routes out in 2019-2024 - we need to see how the GAI contract performs over the next while before making any further decisions. This is very sensible and is a pragmatic approach. A regulator who was determined to tender everything would not have held back like that.
dfx- wrote: » Could be any reason. Why else did they pick these routes to tender? It was widely believed this was a dry run for the main routes to go to tender - the major city routes that would and will definitely attract interest. I would suggest that their line in that announcement about the difficulties experienced in this handover indicates that they are nowhere near ready for the major city routes to be handed over, so it is in their interest for now for DB to continue. It doesn't change their long term goal. Of course, they still put in a line in that contract that DB will have to assist them in changes and threatens them to a tender if they don't comply all the same.
dfx- wrote: » It was widely believed this was a dry run for the main routes to go to tender - the major city routes that would and will definitely attract interest.
Of course, they still put in a line in that contract that DB will have to assist them in changes and threatens them to a tender if they don't comply all the same.
There is a good post elsewhere on this site about how many basic things they have got wrong and this is supposed to be the easier set of routes to handle.
Can the GAI performance stats be published or will they be hidden too? Without knowing what they were supposed to deliver, will they be any use?
devnull wrote: » I think it would be fairer to say it was widely believed among those with a strong ideology that it would be the case. Personally whether an operator is public or private matters little to me. I just know that monopolies are always bad and that's the case whether the monopoly is private or public. I have no stake in this game whatsoever other than wanting us to move to a situation where in the future we have a proper integrated public transport system that our country deserves that ranks our operators based on quality over a decent period of time not if they are public or private. It was widely believed by the hard left that Go-Ahead would put bus fares up, would cease to run services outside peak times, wouldn't accept free travel passes and would only be interested in the profitable routes, despite the fact over and over again they were told that Go-Ahead would not have any control over these things and had no interest in the ticket revenue. The idea that the city-routes would be more lucrative because of more passengers and demand is also another myth because the operator of any bus routes as part of the tendering process doesn't see any fare revenue. Are you suggesting that a regulator inserting a clause to ensure that the public are disrupted as little as possible for any transfers is a bad thing? That is exactly what they should be doing in my book and is extremely common when services are contracted out in any industry, especially when a direct award is in place. If you sign a contract and don't comply to it's terms you should expect sanctions. If you don't want to agree with the terms and don't agree with the sanctions then you shouldn't be signing the contract in the first place and instead you should let someone else have a go. The NTA are well aware that they are understaffed and they need extra staff members to complete projects. They've been making these representations to the Department of Transport since the middle of last year. Unfortunately the Department of Transport are dragging their heels on this as approval for hiring such staff members has to be given by the Department. I do feel that Minister Ross does get some unfair criticism from time to time, but the simple fact is that his department are failing to allow the NTA to hire the number of staff they need to complete many of their projects. This means that they simply don't have the resources they need to deliver all of their projects on time. Ultimately Ross has to take the blame for that and if it's because his department itself doesn't have the resources to assist the NTA, then he needs to discuss this with senior government figures. I have no doubt that performance data, including mystery shopper data, will be published, we will all see later in the year but they've only been operating services for a short time so it's a bit early to levy this charge against them yet, if we don't have any performance data by the end of the year, I'll agree it's not right, but lets wait and see. What should not be allowed to happen however is that for all performance data to be submitted by the operator, it needs to be independently collected from all operators who are in receipt of public money. This needs to apply to both public and private operators running PSO services.
SG317 wrote: » I was simply stating that the notion that if the NTA wanted to tender out more routes they would have, is not necessarily true
To assert this beyond reasonable doubt is ludicrous, due to it inevitably being met with opposition while also not making sense due to them stating, they are very pleased with Dublin Bus's performance.
There is no conspiracy theory within this, its simply pointing out what would likely happen, were they to tender out more routes at once.
dfx- wrote: » Could be any reason. Why else did they pick these routes to tender? It was widely believed this was a dry run for the main routes to go to tender - the major city routes that would and will definitely attract interest. There is a good post elsewhere on this site about how many basic things they have got wrong and this is supposed to be the easier set of routes to handle. I would suggest they're simply not ready to do the major tender yet.Can the GAI performance stats be published or will they be hidden too? Without knowing what they were supposed to deliver, will they be any use?
AlekSmart wrote: » However,publishing these statistics automatically results in the Contract in it's entirety then becoming a matter of Public Record.
With the Irish NT Authority,since 2017,correctly,utilising Mystery Shopper data to ensure Tender Compliance in the case of BAC and BE,it has to be assumed that the same methodology will be used with the GAI contract.
Continuing with a policy of blanket secrecy in relation to a Public Bus Operating contract is unacceptable,as well as plain wrong.
devnull wrote: » . Snip/So now we're at the point where we're criticising a state agency for having policies that comply with the law and almost 100 years of reference cases in Ireland and the EU and instead should just break the law because it's an ass? Do you think that the Irish Taxpayer would be happy in footing the bill for the compensation payments that they would have to fork out when such state agency is brought before the courts? That's before we even consider the sanctions that the EU may bring onto Ireland in addition. I respect the laws of this country and I expect that the companies and agencies that are funded by me also respect the law. If we are going to go down the road and suggest if the law is something we think is not right, we should just ignore it, where does this end? What is a society where laws are routinely ignored? Now that's plain wrong.
November 19th,2012 The National Transport Authority is pleased to announce the launch of a new bus service between Urlingford and Portlaoise. The service starts today (November 19,2012) as Route number 828.It is operated by M&A Coaches of Ballyraggett, Co.Kilkenny,who won the Public Transport Services Contract with the Authority following a tender competition.
Following competitive tender competitions, M&A Coaches Ltd. of Co. Kilkenny, Whartons Travel Ltd. of Cavan, Bernard Kavanagh & Sons Ltd. of Co. Kilkenny and Bus Éireann were awarded public transport service contracts for the provision of bus services. M&A Coaches Ltd. operates route 828 return services between Cashel and Portlaoise while Whartons Travel Ltd operates route 975 a return service from Cavan to Longford.
Mr Gaston outlined the outcome of the recent tender process in respect of a new orbital bus route between Naas and Blanchardstown(Route 139). Following discussion the Board approved the awarding of a contract to JJ Kavanagh & Sons
Interested parties were invited by NTA to tender for the route through a notice placed on eTenders and the OJEU in late July 2017. JJ Kavanagh & Sons were assessed to be the most economically-advantageous tender following the completion of the tender assessment process.
AlekSmart wrote: » A domesday scenario indeed,with potential for the collapse of organised society as we know it ? Perhaps....perhaps not. However,given that the GAI contract is NOT the first tendered PSO contract in the Republic,and noting that the others ARE in the Public Domain,I remain critical of the decision (if one has been made) to withold the GAI contract schedule without explanation. It is worth noting that the initial tendered PSO contract dates back to 2012,which ensures that any Queries relating to concerns about a Century of Legal Precedent etc will have been spotted and dealt with.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/National-Transport-Authority-enters-new-contract-for-Urlingford-Portlaoise-service-with-M-A-Coaches-.pdf As an aside,and fully accepting that M & A Coaches and GAI are at different ends of the Public Transport Operating spectrum,It is still worth noting that M & A Coaches first Contractual Performance Report was available in Q2/2013 for a service which began on the 7th May 2013.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Q2_2013_MA_Coaches_Ltd_Performance_Report_828_only11.pdf The FULL Tendered PSO Contract has been freely available on the Authority's own website since 2013,with,as yet,no no word of an EU Commission directive to remove it,or any robust Legal Challenge to the Authority based upon 100 years of Irish legal committment to the dominance of "Commercial Confidentiality".https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Public_Service_Contract_828_Service11.pdf There are,in addition,other well known Irish Operators who were awarded Competitively Tendered,Gross Cost PSO Contracts,for which details are also available.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Jun01_Bulletin03_Bus_State_Funded_FINAL.pdf Where things potentially began to diverge was the JJ Kavanagh Route 139 process which went through in early 2018.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/new-139-bus-service-linking-naas-blanchardstown-begins-operation-12th-march/ The only information available for the JJK 139 contract is via references in passing....https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Agreed_Minutes_of_Oct_2017_Board_Meeting.pdf October 2017...... The 139 PSO contract appears therefore to be the first departure from the accepted norms of the previous Tendered PSO contracts.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/new-139-bus-service-linking-naas-blanchardstown-begins-operation-12th-march/ So,for 5 years we have a particular policy regarding Public Availability of the Authority's PSO contracts,then in 2017,we appear to have a substantial change in this policy. I can find no admission or acknowledgement of this alteration anywhere in the NTA's considerable library of available documentation,but I freely admit I am not a Librarian or Collator. I do not,for one moment,accept that my questioning of this departure from pre-existing policy,suggests that I am in favour of breaking either EU,or Irish law,and I suggest that posters making such references,are well aware of this,but,for whatever reasons,prefer to deflect attention from,what I consider to be a significant failure in the Authority's committment to Public Accountability.
GM228 wrote: » Alek, you keep going on and on about the Authorities failures etc, however, what you have failed consistently to recognise is that in order for such contracts to be made public there must be all party agreement such as what would have happened in the M&A contract. The fact that the NTA have in the past made available such contracts shows there is a willingness to do so meaning that if fingers need to be pointed perhaps they are being pointed in the wrong direction, failure to disclose them is most likely a decision of JJ (for the 139) or GAI, not the NTA. It is usually (probably 99% of the time) the person who bids for contracts who claims the commercial sensitivity clause, not those who award the contracts. On that point how can the NTA be accused of a "significant failure in [their] committment to Public Accountability" when their hands are tied. How does someone fail to do something which they can't do? For all we know the NTA could be pushing themselves for such release, blaming the NTA is nothing more than a finger pointing exercise because saying conclusively they failed at this that or the other duty is not established.
AlekSmart wrote: » A very simple PR announcement,outlining clearly that the delay in making the provisions of a Tendered Public Service Contract available for Public scrutiny,is solely due to the successful Tenderer's unwillingness to sanction it,would be a simple and positive way of underlining the Authority's committment to it's Irish stakeholders as opposed to the (assumed) commercial sensitivities of a major multinational group.
This does not automatically result in such posters being left or right wing,public vs private orientated,nor should it automatically result in their concerns & questions being brushed aside as a form of mildly annoying sniping at overall NTA performance.
The NTA have made many positive,and forward thinking changes to the accepted norms of Irish PT,and I for one,see it as moving forward in the right direction,which makes it all the more important to reassert it's credentials as a NATIONAL Authority,rather than a body who's policies are framed by the (London) Stock Exchange.
devnull wrote: » Alek, your constant spinning of this for ideological purposes as some kind of private company issue is somewhat misleading, as we have the same situation with both the contracts of a commercial company as one that is fully state owned. However lets not allow this fact to poison a flawed argument. The same situation is the case with the Bus Eireann contract, yet no word of that once again. Perhaps it doesn't exist and I just dreamed it up, but if we're to have any such actions it needs to be based on all contracts let under the same process rather than just as a basis to attack companies that we don't like and declining to mention the ones we like who are availing of the same clause. But let's continue to frame it as a big multinational group vs the people for added dramatic ideological based dissent over the whole thing. If it was only multinational companies availing of commercially sensitivity then you might have a point, but it's both multinational companies and state owned ones, so you really don't have a point. Well personally I've been on record of saying that if one operator, whether public or private has to do something under contracts let under the BMO process, the other operators let under such process should have to do the same as like I said before, I don't care about public vs private and never have. It's up to other people to decide what they think about it and what their views are at the end of the day, I'm not going to tell them what to believe. But at the end of the day if the Daily Mail prints stories about how wrong benefit fraud is by migrants but doesn't say a word about the Brits doing the same thing, then people have to ask themselves if they are interested in dealing with the problem of benefit fraud or just want to have a pop at immigrants. Bus Eireann are not on the London Stock Exchange but their contract for the Waterford routes has not been published either. But surely they must be a complete victim in all of this and Go-Ahead looking after their own interests are solely to blame for this as well?
SG317 wrote: » To be honest I find it very interesting that you constantly bring up the Bus Éireann contract, anytime anyone says anythi6abput the GAI contract.
Yet you have failed to comment on how the NTA announced that Bus Éireann's Waterford bid wasn't the cheapest and yet they did not comment whatsoever on the GAI and DB bid prices. Why can they do that for one contract but not the other? By your logic if the NTA released information in relation to one contract they have to do that for all contracts. For the record I completely agree that all PSO contracts should be held to the same standard. However, when you make that claim but leave out how the NTA commented on the Waterford bid price, but not on the Dublin one it seems inconsistent.
devnull wrote: » You are really suggesting, that 'commercial sensitivity' is an excuse, despite the fact that NTA have to refuse a FOI request by law where commercial sensitivity is involved?
GM228 wrote: » Alek, you keep going on and on about the Authorities failures etc, however, what you have failed consistently to recognise is that in order for such contracts to be made public there must be all party agreement such as what would have happened in the M&A contract.
monument wrote: » If the NTA came to the view in a request process or in an internal review proess to the request (or on a appeal the Information Commissioner ruled) that it was in the public interest to release any contract etc, then the contract or other record must be released. Companies entering into any business with the State or its bodies have to understand that documents may be subject to FOI or AIE requests and the bodies cannot pre-determine non-release.
RobbingBandit wrote: » Anyone know when or even if Go Ahead will have a time display at bus stops for 17a/104/220 ala the TFI display units.
Stephen15 wrote: » What particular stop are you referring to? RTPI display unit locations are something decided by the NTA and are usually located at the busier bus stops where demand dictates. If you think a particular bus stop should have a display unit then maybe contact the NTA or a local councillor.
