Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion
Options
Comments
-
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.
Well the NTA came out saying that the Waterford Bus Éireann bid wasn't the cheapest. They haven't commented whatsoever on the bid prices of the DB and GAI, which is a significant part of the tender. Thus, there is less information about the GAI contract than the Bus Éireann one. So under your own line of argument, should the NTA not announce whose bid was cheaper or more expensive on the Dublin contract, as they did this with the Bus Éireann contract.Probably because it hasn't started yet?
That is interesting as there was a lot of talk about the GAI contract in Dublin before it even started0 -
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.
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 actually believe the BMO process,and the Busconnects programme to be some of the very best things ever to have happened to Bus Atha Cliath.
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.
The fact remains that apart from a single-line in their own Q & A document published last October,the Authority have refused to make public the Contractual Requirements under which a 5 year €172,000,000 PUBLIC Contract,is being operated.
One of the Core reasons behind the entire BMO project,was to allow the ability to perform direct comparisons across Operators (Public & Private) to benchmark current,and progress future Public Transport,which is no bad thing in itlelf.
Any Comparison is currently Impossible in BMO terms.
With this in mind,my greatest concern is WHY a stakeholder or interested party is prevented,by an Interpretation of the Law,and Authority policy,from accessing and comparing the actual Contract Reqiuirements and Compliance with them ?
One only has to look at what is currently unfolding with the National Childrens Hospital Programme,to get a very real sense of what poor oversight,and lack of appropriate scrutiny can result in,and the NTA might do well to pay close attention to the results of the current raft of "enquiries" into the HSE's stewardship of that plogramme.
I will continue to "Beat the Drum" on this issue,as I believe it eventually will come to represent a crisis in the entire BMO/Competitive Tendering process itself.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
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.
My perception is based on being involved in tenders in the past in a different sector where the rules about commercial sensitivity apply and what I know on competition law. As someone who fairly recently started working in the public sector in another industry and had a hand in procurement, these were things I had to brush up on.
The NTA themselves are aware of issues that conflicts of interest can cause, as in their code of conduct they state
Members 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.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.
The NTA are subject to the laws of Ireland and not the laws of Singapore, therefore the process is designed with both Irish and European Law, competition regulations, commercial best practice and legal systems in mind. The process is based on ensuring they comply with all of these things.
Singapore is not subject to Irish and European laws and to suggest we can simply just copy the process here, despite the fact it's not going to be able to be done without breaking our laws, competition regulations and commercial best practices is rather fanciful I have to say. We should not be encouraging our public bodies to break the law in my opinion as that is a slippery slope.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.
Well I think Irish Law is a lot more relevant than the law and competition regulations in Singapore, because after all we are in Ireland and we're not in Singapore after all and we are in the European Union and they are not.
As for not heading to the courts, if you feel that you have such a strong case then why not go ahead and go to them? I mean, whats holding you back? You would be able to prove everyone, including myself who fundamentally disagrees with your view, completely wrong? That's an open goal, why not take advantage of it? Or is it perhaps that you know that the courts would not find in your favour?0 -
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.
Indeed anyone who was in favour of such would be potentially quite foolish, and would need to be very wealthy (you would require a six figure sum for example if you ended up in the Supreme Court, or 5 figures at least for the High Court) because you would have well over a 100 years of case law from the highest courts in England, Ireland and the EU as well as statute, legal doctrines and practices to overturn.
There are very few legal professions who would take on such a case.0 -
The NTA themselves are aware of issues that conflicts of interest can cause, as in their code of conduct they state
Members 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.
What if the body itself has stake in the game?
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.
As CramCycle said, maybe no-one cares about the details, just that the policy is underway.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?
If any bus operator provides a good service that is to be welcomed because it will benefit the public and help ease congestion on our roads which is very much needed. But there has been a vocal number of people on Twitter especially, who would far rather they didn't because ensuring their ideology is proven right even if it means poor public services is far more important to them than their ideology being proven wrong and having high quality public services.
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.
I also agree with their decision to tender extra BE services out The services in the East have been poorly performing for the best part of a year and action needed to be taken - no operator should be able to provide substandard service for that length of time, whether public or private and expect to retain the routes.0 -
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?
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 most likely be met with significant opposition and would raise concerns about the true agenda behind tendering out 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.0 -
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.
So if they did tender more of the network out, it's because they wanted to and if they don't tender more of it out, it's also because they wanted to but they didn't think it would wash with some people? I think that is what they call a no-win situation and being damned if they do and damned if they don't.
If we're going to start using fallacies like this in the discussion, we could suggest that everyone that every decision since the beginning of time may have only made it to stop them being accused of the opposite that they were in-fact in support of, therefore you should trust absolutely nobody at all, none of the time because they might be doing something to put people off the scent.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.
The reason that they agreed to tender out the Bus Eireann routes is because that Bus Eireann have been providing a poor level of services in the Eastern region for the last year or so. After the proposal was published there was an improvement in the operation of some of those services so they agreed to cut down the number of services to be tendered. Again that's fair game for me.
They were never going to stop tendering all the services for the BE routes because it would send out a very poor message about the rigour of the regulator that operators could provide sub-standard services, often leaving public stranded for most of a calendar year and no action would be taken against them. The public deserve better.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.
Indeed it wouldn't, which is why they haven't done it but instead we come up with some conspiracy theories about how that they have only done it reluctantly to cover up an agenda, which in my opinion is pretty absurd.So, the fact that they haven't tendered more routes out isn't proof that is not their agenda.
So let me get this straight, so you're saying if someone does something, it's proof of an agenda, but if they don't do anything, it's not proof that it's not their agenda. What would be proof of it not being their agenda then? Allowing a monopoly to retain a direct award contract forever more no matter how poorly they ran a service?
All that would show is that they have an agenda of putting ideology and keeping the public operators happy ahead of that of the customers and the customers have to come before any operator or ideology and no unchallengeable monopoly puts customers first. I know it myself from working in unchallenged monopoly companies.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 16356
Just slightly going back to the original topic. Got an email from NTA this week confirming 24th March is the final transition date. Not sure if it was confirmed (just rumoured) here before0 -
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?
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.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.
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Well it would be hard for them to be ready to tender out considering DB have been awarded another direct award until 2024. What's wrong with them forcing DB to assist if it's part of the direct award contract and they are getting paid seriously DB are hardly doing the world a favour. It is inevitable there are going to be some problems with the changeover if it improves the service in the long run then surely it can only be a good if it doesn't then the routes can back to DB under a direct award big swing.
Also why would the major city routes as you put it be any more attractive than the orbital and local routes that GAI operate they would be at the end of the day all be paid a fixed fee for providing a service to the NTA.
DB recently won the tender to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of bus stops in the Dublin area including those only served by GAI hence why DB crews were out updating the timetables at stops for the GAI routes during the switchover. Some would likely think they were doing as they were forced by the NTA not true they won the tender fair and square.0 -
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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.0 -
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.
Once again you have blown what I said completely out of proportion. I was simply stating that the notion that if the NTA wanted to tender out more routes they would have, is not necessarily true and 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.0 -
I was simply stating that the notion that if the NTA wanted to tender out more routes they would have, is not necessarily true
If the NTA do something you don't approve of, they're doing it because of the fact that they want to, but if they do something that you approve of, they're only doing it because they have to in your eyes. That's somewhat fallacious and blinkered in my personal opinion but I guess that we won't agree on this. I'm just looking at it from the point of view of a public transport user who isn't interested in the whole public vs private debate.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.
Dublin Bus performed well against the previous contract and because of that they got an extension. There's no hidden agenda here or reluctance to do that. The NTA have published their reasoning for this. Are you really suggesting that whilst they've outlined the reasons for giving DB a longer contract, these may not be true?
It's also rather sensible to see how Go-Ahead fares before deciding what may come next. What delivers the best service for customers as well as delivering best value for the taxpayers should be how they proceed and if they don't base 2024 onwards on that I'd be the first to complain.There is no conspiracy theory within this, its simply pointing out what would likely happen, were they to tender out more routes at once.
The NTA should do whatever would lead to a better service for the public if that annoys people on the left or right, private operators or public operators I really couldn't care less because as I've said countless times before, this is not about ideology with me and never has been.
I don't want the NTA to turn into a regulator that engages itself in populism by pleasing who shouts the loudest. I had quite enough of that when this country was under the leadership of Fianna Fail and I don't want us to go back to those days where Bertie tries to keep everyone sweet by pulling strokes left right and centre.0 -
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?
Can the performance statistics be published ?
They MUST be published. End of.
However,publishing these statistics automatically results in the Contract in it's entirety then becoming a matter of Public Record,and we appear to be assured by posters with significant experience of Public Tendering,that there is nothing to be concerned about here,that we simply do not have sufficient understanding of complex matters to be allowed lay eyes upon the Contract Schedule.
The fact that Singapore has a different set of Laws to ourselves,is presented as reason to disregard the principle of,very obviously more detailed information, being made available to it's citizens from the outset of the process.
Oddly enough,foreknowledge of the Singaporean LTA's substantially more transparent Contractual provisions,did'nt prevent either the Go-Ahead Group or Tower Transit from proceeding with their bids anyway.
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.
The NTA/GAI Contract was signed last October,and today,almost 6 months later,we still have no idea whatever,as to the specifications of that document.
Continuing with a policy of blanket secrecy in relation to a Public Bus Operating contract is unacceptable,as well as plain wrong.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
However,publishing these statistics automatically results in the Contract in it's entirety then becoming a matter of Public Record.
The publication of performance statistics doesn't mean that the whole contract is going to be presented because performance standard is just one of the many things that contracts set out, there will be many other things contained within.
I agree though that we should see some performance statistics published for 2019 for GAI and if by the end of the year we have not got such statistics I will be the first one to complain, without a doubt.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.
I feel that they should do so for all operators of PSO funded bus operators. No argument whatsoever there because I think that relying on operator reported statistics about themselves is not something we should do, whether that operator is public or private. There has to be independent monitoring.Continuing with a policy of blanket secrecy in relation to a Public Bus Operating contract is unacceptable,as well as plain wrong.
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.0 -
My main argument against a fully tendered bus service is there really a market for it in relatively small city in the grand scheme of things like Dublin compared to the most well known example in London. Would there really be a large enough amount of companies bidding for bus routes in Dublin it would remain to be seen with our first round there were only two companies bidding one being DB but there was an interest expressed by a few others who later pulled out as they believed a depot would be provided such as RATP, Transdev and Arriva I believe.
I think if a full tendering model was implemented the most efficient way would if hypothetically the NTA owned all current DB depots and tendered for the operation of routes based on each depot. Otherwise you'd potentially have a situation where an operator would be expected to operate southside routes out of Clontarf or northside routes out of Donnybrook which would obviously create a lot of dead running making it an unattractive proposition for any private operator or a situation where one operator would be guaranteed to win the tender for routes in a certain area based on where their depot is meaning it would be un competitive.
You have to remember most of the larger operators in London such as Arriva, Stagecoach, Go-Ahead, London RATP and Metroline would have operations of a similar size or in some cases significantly larger than DB.0 -
. 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.
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-.pdfNovember 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.
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.pdfFollowing 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.
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......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
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/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.
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.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
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.
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.0 -
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.
Excellent !.....now we're suckin diesel
My humblest apoligies for my consistent failures,but I'm also grateful for a chink of light finally emerging at the end of this tunnel
It has taken a while,but the much lauded greater knowledge of Tendering procedures is finally filtering down to those of us further down the pecking order.
We have,apparently,now a realization that the E.U. are not about to unleash the dogs of war on an unsuspecting Authority should they inadvertently let a kitten or two out of the contractual bag.
I'm assuming the lack of similar activity around the Steps of the Four Courts,is indicative of a degree of Legal disinterest in the process also?
Hopefully,as public interest in the stated reasoning for "Competitive Tendering"processes grows,the Authority might have to consider becoming more open with it's own stakeholders (the same general public).
It is now almost Six Months since the GAI PSO contract was agreed,and signed,and if the Authority is indeed "pushing for" it's publication,then this is the ideal time to simply say so !
As you say,the Authority has made previous PSO contracts fully available,which should in this case,at the very least,allow for the Authority to outline how "it's hands are tied" and thus wash it's hands of the matter.
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.
The Irish Stakeholders would then be in a far stronger position to question the "other party" on it's approach to the issue.
Posters on this thread and elsewhere,have to remember that there are vastly differing levels of interest in the Public Transport arena,as a whole,with not everybody being au-fait with the arcane requirements of E.U. Tendering Law,or indeed Centuries of UK based Legal Precedence.
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.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
Alek, your spinning of this for what I believe is ideological purposes as some kind of private company issue is somewhat misleading in my view, 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 what is in my opinion a flawed argument.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.
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 in my view.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.
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.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.
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?0 -
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?
Nope...it's much simpler.
There is now,no good reason for the details of this contract to be witheld,and if it pleases the court,Justice...There is now, no good reason for the Bus Eireann Waterford Contract to remain secret either.
I thoroughly applaud Go-Ahead for "looking after their own interests",as will their shareholders,and I will similarly applaud the NTA,if and when,it clarifies it's position regarding the post 2018,JJ Kavanagh and Go-Ahead Tendered PSO Contracts.
What changed the original policy,and if so,why was that change not publicised ?
It may not suit your perception of my position,but I am completely unconcerned by the Public or Private issue.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
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?
To be honest I find it very interesting that you constantly bring up the Bus Éireann contract, anytime anyone says anything about 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.0 -
To be honest I find it very interesting that you constantly bring up the Bus Éireann contract, anytime anyone says anythi6abput the GAI contract.
As I've said before, a contract let under the very same system as the Go-Ahead Ireland contract is much more relevant than a contract in a completely different country, not inside the European Union, where different rules, competition law and regulations apply. If you are criticising a regulator for a process you need to examine all the actions under that policy, rather than cherry picking an example that suits and ignoring the other ones that don't.
Also people are using the GAI situation as a stick to beat the NTA with overall and have appeared to suggest that the GAI contract is the only contract that isn't in the public domain (which is untrue) and suggested that it has something to do with the London Stock Exchange (Untrue as same is happening with BE) or something to do with being a multinational (BE is not one but still benefits from same) all of which might be pretty relevant points if they were true, but they're really not.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.
Perhaps the fact that there was two bidders in the Dublin contract and multiple in the Waterford contract made a difference as well, since if you're saying that one is not the cheapest in the Dublin contract, you're saying they're the most expensive and if you're saying they're not the most expensive, they're the cheapest since there are only two bidders?
The thing about the the Waterford contract is that as there is more than two bidders, if you say someone is not the cheapest then that doesn't mean they are the most expensive or vice versa So it's not possible with the Dublin contract to give bidder information without giving the order of which they were ranked on price, whereas it is with Waterford.0 -
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?
Commercial sensitivity is often used as an excuse both here and in the UK.
https://www.ocei.ie/decisions/lar-mckenna-and-eirgrid-p/CEI-16-0039.pdfAlek, 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.
That's untrue.
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.0 -
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.
Of course people are free to put a Freedom of Information request and they can also state that they feel there is a public interest aspect to it and this request must be taken seriously I don't doubt that whatsoever and as you say if the NTA was ordered to release such contract it would have to do so. However the contractor that has it's contract released is then likely to ensure that other contractors contracts are published as well.
Im my experience is it's very unlikely (but not impossible) they will be asked by the information commissioner or the court to do that, as there is a lot of past reference cases, both in Ireland and the European Union, where the principles of commercial sensitivity are well established and protected by the courts and you can sure the other side will be referencing all of these when the matter is being discussed in whatever court hears it.0 -
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.0
-
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.
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.0 -
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.
Both Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead services should show on the RTPI signs.
If there is problems you should report it to the NTA - I know there have been some issues with RTPI, so they may well be aware, but no harm in letting them know about the stops effected - you can find them on twitter @tfiupdates or you can find the contact details for them on their site.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
Beaumont hospital for 17a and 1040
Advertisement