General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Idbatterim · 17-01-2019 6:09pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

True just sad to see anyone vote Fianna Fail I suppose you know what you're getting and that seems to be comfort for voters.
The only wasted vote is one where people pick their options based on most likely to win IMO.

its a bloody shame, that there isnt one party that call it as it is, that are not spineless! Ill give the greens a vote and renua (for what it is worth) I see Peter Casey seems to have disappeared politically! But if it comes down to FF or FG comedy act, Ill happily punish FG for their incompetence and continuing on with business as usual and the bonus of getting rid of that joke as Taoiseach would be the icing on the cake!

FreudianSlippers · 17-01-2019 6:15pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

its a bloody shame, that there isnt one party that call it as it is, that are not spineless! Ill give the greens a vote and renua (for what it is worth) I see Peter Casey seems to have disappeared politically! But if it comes down to FF or FG comedy act, Ill happily punish FG for their incompetence and continuing on with business as usual and the bonus of getting rid of that joke as Taoiseach would be the icing on the cake!

People don't like FF, but you get what it says on the tin.

They make the tough decisions - not always the right ones, but to some extent we weathered the storm and we need to be making hay while the sun is shining (mixed enough metaphors there?)

Idbatterim · 17-01-2019 6:18pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

People don't like FF, but you get what it says on the tin.

They make the tough decisions - not always the right ones, but to some extent we weathered the storm and we need to be making hay while the sun is shining (mixed enough metaphors there?)

I absolutely disagree that either of them make any tough decisions here! Now if I were one of those spoofer parties, of course you are going to claim you made 'tough decisions' ! you know an example of a politically 'tough decision' not destroying the capital budget during the recession, tender prices would have been a joke compared to now, we could have kept skilled workers here also!

the childrens hospital has turned into a farce at this stage with the cost!

christy c · 17-01-2019 7:00pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

its a bloody shame, that there isnt one party that call it as it is, that are not spineless! Ill give the greens a vote and renua (for what it is worth) I see Peter Casey seems to have disappeared politically!

100% agreed, I'll also probably give Renua a vote for what it's worth. I disagree with voting FF but see where you're coming from.

ancapailldorcha · 17-01-2019 7:58pm

Mod: Posts deleted. No more petty name calling and one-liners please.

markodaly · 18-01-2019 12:45am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You then say hearsay.

If it is 'off the record' then its hearsay imo.

markodaly · 18-01-2019 12:52am

The issues with governance are not really up to one man, Leo Varadkar. He is just a figurehead.
The people who govern the country and the Civil Service and making anything happen there is really really slow. Its built like that.

It does not matter if you get a reincarnation of Michael Collins/Otto Von Bismark/FDR they are still faced with the same guys in suits in the civil service whose purpose is to slow everything up.

How to fix it? Absolute root and branch reform of the civil service but no one out there is going to do that because it will cost them votes.

Its the sad truth.

FreudianSlippers · 18-01-2019 10:45am

Idbatterim wrote: »

I absolutely disagree that either of them make any tough decisions here! Now if I were one of those spoofer parties, of course you are going to claim you made 'tough decisions' ! you know an example of a politically 'tough decision' not destroying the capital budget during the recession, tender prices would have been a joke compared to now, we could have kept skilled workers here also!

the childrens hospital has turned into a farce at this stage with the cost!

FG did those things

James Brown · 13-02-2019 3:29pm

So is Paschal Donohoe saying the idea that the lowest quote may not be the best quote or a realistic quote down the line is a new discovery for him? Was the tender process open to people walking in off the street and merely low balling? Is the idea that all these people given the responsibility of overseeing the administrative and budgetary elements of this project on behalf of the tax payer, didn't vet the capabilities of each company that put in a tender? They merely took the lowest and wished for the best? Nobody requested a cost analysis? If that is the case these people have a sub-par, less than the dogs in the street knowledge or project management including Paschal Donohoe and they have absolutely no business looking after the office party budget let alone more grown up projects like a Children's Hospital.
Simon merely did the political two-step, didn't know, didn't really know, shoulda coulda, sorry about that. The usual harm and the usual comeuppance, full confidence because it's more about saving face than saving the tax payer.
Not saying these boys should resign, because lets face it, who'll replace them only more of the same.

Amirani · 14-02-2019 6:16pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So is Paschal Donohoe saying the idea that the lowest quote may not be the best quote or a realistic quote down the line is a new discovery for him? Was the tender process open to people walking in off the street and merely low balling? Is the idea that all these people given the responsibility of overseeing the administrative and budgetary elements of this project on behalf of the tax payer, didn't vet the capabilities of each company that put in a tender? They merely took the lowest and wished for the best? Nobody requested a cost analysis? If that is the case these people have a sub-par, less than the dogs in the street knowledge or project management including Paschal Donohoe and they have absolutely no business looking after the office party budget let alone more grown up projects like a Children's Hospital.
Simon merely did the political two-step, didn't know, didn't really know, shoulda coulda, sorry about that. The usual harm and the usual comeuppance, full confidence because it's more about saving face than saving the tax payer.
Not saying these boys should resign, because lets face it, who'll replace them only more of the same.

It's been pretty standard for a while that the lowest tender price (once deemed realistic) gets the contract on public contracts. Anything else leads to allegations of corruption, impropriety or wastefulness with public funds.

It is something that needs to be re-visited, but being honest, if you're the person making the decision on a tender, are you going to be happy to go for one that's a few hundred million higher when it has a high chance of ruining your career if/when something goes wrong with it? You'd be slaughtered by the Public Accounts Committee and other political parties.

Regarding doing a cost analysis before deciding - these thing are incredibly murky and just as subject to inaccuracies as the tenders themselves.

James Brown · 14-02-2019 6:45pm

Amirani wrote: »

It's been pretty standard for a while that the lowest tender price (once deemed realistic) gets the contract on public contracts. Anything else leads to allegations of corruption, impropriety or wastefulness with public funds.

It is something that needs to be re-visited, but being honest, if you're the person making the decision on a tender, are you going to be happy to go for one that's a few hundred million higher when it has a high chance of ruining your career if/when something goes wrong with it? You'd be slaughtered by the Public Accounts Committee and other political parties.

Regarding doing a cost analysis before deciding - these thing are incredibly murky and just as subject to inaccuracies as the tenders themselves.

Not at all. I've been involved in the tender process and the main issue is finding the best party for the job at the best rate. Not merely going with the lowest.
Corruption claims come in to it depending on many factors. Connections, inappropriate communication etc. I can't see anyone picking a low quote because it looks good for them. That's not how these things work or happen. Nobody with any experience would simply pick the lowest without looking at a cost analysis and the track record of the party putting it in. I mean if you are getting you drive done you do some research.
People dropped the ball on the most basic fundamentals. The only things we need find out is who, why and never let them near anything important ever again.

Colonel Claptrap · 14-02-2019 7:12pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nobody with any experience would simply pick the lowest without looking at a cost analysis and the track record of the party putting it in.

Are you suggesting that no due diligence was done on any of the service providers and that lowest cost was the only factor in awarding the contract?

James Brown · 15-02-2019 2:43pm

Poor due diligence was certainly a factor, quite obviously. No. I asked was that what Pascal Donohoe was saying. It's quite clearly laid out in my comments.

Mr Donohoe said that as Finance Minister he has to put his hands up when something goes wrong.

Projects will be examined to ensure that if a particular bid is “abnormally low” there will be a thorough examination of the procurement process.

The Minister said he had full confidence in the board of the hospital and was confident that the group of people in place “will see this job out.”
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/paschal-donohoe-something-went-very-wrong-with-childrens-hospital-tender-process-904089.html

The concept seems new to him.
As yet we don't know the finer details. We do know it's common sense and common practice not to merely pick the lowest quote, but Pascal seems to be inferring it might have been a factor?

VonZan · 15-02-2019 9:59pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So is Paschal Donohoe saying the idea that the lowest quote may not be the best quote or a realistic quote down the line is a new discovery for him? Was the tender process open to people walking in off the street and merely low balling? Is the idea that all these people given the responsibility of overseeing the administrative and budgetary elements of this project on behalf of the tax payer, didn't vet the capabilities of each company that put in a tender? They merely took the lowest and wished for the best? Nobody requested a cost analysis? If that is the case these people have a sub-par, less than the dogs in the street knowledge or project management including Paschal Donohoe and they have absolutely no business looking after the office party budget let alone more grown up projects like a Children's Hospital.
Simon merely did the political two-step, didn't know, didn't really know, shoulda coulda, sorry about that. The usual harm and the usual comeuppance, full confidence because it's more about saving face than saving the tax payer.
Not saying these boys should resign, because lets face it, who'll replace them only more of the same.

The public procurement process nearly always goes for the cheapest tender. There are generally a few metrics that have to be met in order to apply but from my experience these tend to generally go unchecked but there are systems in place to stop it going to any Joe Bloggs. The cheapest tender tends to be quoted by the bottom rung of firms who produce the worse outcome from all involved. It generally gets accepted as every part of the government is under pressure to cut costs.

markodaly · 16-02-2019 1:06am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We do know it's common sense and common practice not to merely pick the lowest quote, but Pascal seems to be inferring it might have been a factor?

Eh, yes it is. All public contracts in pretty much all OECD nations operate like this.

AndrewJRenko · 16-02-2019 1:12am

markodaly wrote: »

Eh, yes it is. All public contracts in pretty much all OECD nations operate like this.

Nope - Most Economic Advantageous Tender is the basis for all evaluations. Cost is just one factor, and can be weighted up or down in setting the criteria, which are always published in the RFT.

markodaly · 16-02-2019 1:37am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nope - Most Economic Advantageous Tender is the basis for all evaluations. Cost is just one factor, and can be weighted up or down in setting the criteria, which are always published in the RFT.

How much is cost the factor though. Generally the biggest factor, usually up to 75% of the total tender.

You can also see if from a PR point of view. If the state decided to go with a more expensive bid, then the opposition parties will cry foul and accuse them of wasting taxpayers money.

AndrewJRenko · 16-02-2019 2:11am

markodaly wrote: »

How much is cost the factor though. Generally the biggest factor, usually up to 75% of the total tender.

You can also see if from a PR point of view. If the state decided to go with a more expensive bid, then the opposition parties will cry foul and accuse them of wasting taxpayers money.

It depends on the nature of the tend. If it's a commodity product, then cost will be high, possibly 100% once the selection criteria have been met.

If it's a more custom product or service, cost will be lower, maybe 40% or 50%, to leave room to ensure that you get a quality contractor.

I don't have experience of construction tenders, so I can't speak to how they work.

James Brown · 19-02-2019 3:45pm

VonZan wrote: »

The public procurement process nearly always goes for the cheapest tender. There are generally a few metrics that have to be met in order to apply but from my experience these tend to generally go unchecked but there are systems in place to stop it going to any Joe Bloggs. The cheapest tender tends to be quoted by the bottom rung of firms who produce the worse outcome from all involved. It generally gets accepted as every part of the government is under pressure to cut costs.

Well in my experience where money gets spent is looked at very closely. The whole point of the tender process is to assess the best deal, not look at the quote with a glance at all the other factors. The idea that this common practice might not have been followed on such a large project involving public money and in these amounts would be a scandal not excused by, 'you learn as you go'.

blanch152 · 19-02-2019 4:47pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So is Paschal Donohoe saying the idea that the lowest quote may not be the best quote or a realistic quote down the line is a new discovery for him? Was the tender process open to people walking in off the street and merely low balling? Is the idea that all these people given the responsibility of overseeing the administrative and budgetary elements of this project on behalf of the tax payer, didn't vet the capabilities of each company that put in a tender? They merely took the lowest and wished for the best? Nobody requested a cost analysis? If that is the case these people have a sub-par, less than the dogs in the street knowledge or project management including Paschal Donohoe and they have absolutely no business looking after the office party budget let alone more grown up projects like a Children's Hospital.
Simon merely did the political two-step, didn't know, didn't really know, shoulda coulda, sorry about that. The usual harm and the usual comeuppance, full confidence because it's more about saving face than saving the tax payer.
Not saying these boys should resign, because lets face it, who'll replace them only more of the same.

For people who have no understanding or knowledge of public procurement, a good starting point is the OGP website:

https://ogp.gov.ie/national-public-procurement-policy-framework/

The National Public Procurement Policy Framework sets out the overarching framework for procurement decisions and sets rules that must be followed by Government agencies.

It has got to the stage where it is practically impossible for a Minister to get involved in a tendering process.

It is also strange and deeply hypocritical that the same people who would have been loudest in criticising Minister Naughten's peripheral involvement in the decision on tendering for a National Broadband Framework are also the same people criticising Minister Harris for not being more involved in the decision on tendering for the National Children's Hospital.

I have a simple view of this matter. The National Children's Hospital Board had the responsibility to manage this procurement. If either Minister interfered in the procurement process, outside of the NPPPF, they should be fired. By the same token, if the Ministers didn't interfere and the tender was too expensive, it isn't their responsibility, it is the responsibility of the Board.

http://www.newchildrenshospital.ie/the-project/national-paediatric-hospital-development-board/

What is really interesting is that one of the members of the board as listed on their website is Paul Quinn, head of the OGP. It would be interesting to know whether he had any role in advising on the procurement process. If the head of the OGP can't get the procurement process right, who can?

James Brown · 19-02-2019 6:07pm

Harris and Donohoe don't claim to know what went on. Donohoe seems to be under the impression that the lowest quote was given precedence or in the least is suspicious that was the case. This alas is were their involvement ends unless of course anyone might feel ministers at the head of a particular department should bare some responsibility for that department.
There's a marked difference between getting pally with a contract prospect, forgetting to mention meetings when pressed and not paying attention to spiraling costs within your department. Again, both Harris and Donohoe are using the standard, 'nobody told me' defense which IMO if the buck doesn't stop with Ministers, they are pointless.
The idea that people, not politicians mind normal everyday business people, anyone who ever had to operate under a budget, simply took the lowest quote, (and because of 'what the opposition might say' is hilarious by the way) and did no analysis and/or did not organise some form of process for the vetting of any request for more funding ongoing, (as costs generally go up not down in such things) is joke worthy and poor defence for obvious incompetence if true.
At LA level there is a tender process for all works were the cost, quality of the submission and credentials of the applicant are vetted. Pascal Donohoe seems to be under the impression that wasn't done here.
Whomever is responsible should be taken to task and removed from any future decision making. To what level Harris should be taken to task doesn't really matter, its Fine Gael after all.

blanch152 · 19-02-2019 6:53pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Harris and Donohoe don't claim to know what went on. Donohoe seems to be under the impression that the lowest quote was given precedence or in the least is suspicious that was the case. This alas is were their involvement ends unless of course anyone might feel ministers at the head of a particular department should bare some responsibility for that department.
There's a marked difference between getting pally with a contract prospect, forgetting to mention meetings when pressed and not paying attention to spiraling costs within your department. Again, both Harris and Donohoe are using the standard, 'nobody told me' defense which IMO if the buck doesn't stop with Ministers, they are pointless.
The idea that people, not politicians mind normal everyday business people, anyone who ever had to operate under a budget, simply took the lowest quote, (and because of 'what the opposition might say' is hilarious by the way) and did no analysis and/or did not organise some form of process for the vetting of any request for more funding ongoing, (as costs generally go up not down in such things) is joke worthy and poor defence for obvious incompetence if true.
At LA level there is a tender process for all works were the cost, quality of the submission and credentials of the applicant are vetted. Pascal Donohoe seems to be under the impression that wasn't done here.
Whomever is responsible should be taken to task and removed from any future decision making. To what level Harris should be taken to task doesn't really matter, its Fine Gael after all.

Is it an independent procurement process you want, or is it a procurement process with the Ministers' hands all over it you want?

It isn't possible to have both.

You mention local authority procurement processes. Are they the ones that the Healy-Raes keep winning in Kerry?

Colonel Claptrap · 20-02-2019 8:34am

blanch152 wrote: »

Is it an independent procurement process you want, or is it a procurement process with the Ministers' hands all over it you want?

It isn't possible to have both.

You mention local authority procurement processes. Are they the ones that the Healy-Raes keep winning in Kerry?

Government officials having a say in awarding state contracts is exactly what happened in Argentina, Romania and Venezuela. Three massively corrupt countries. Romania was not allowed even look at EU membership forms until this was stamped out.

The minister sets policy. The civil servant carries it out.

De Kirchner received bribes from construction companies, ensuring their more expensive tender won the contract. Are people really suggesting our government ministers should be placed in this vulnerable position?

Brown envelopes anybody? Come on.

blanch152 · 20-02-2019 11:27am

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Government officials having a say in awarding state contracts is exactly what happened in Argentina, Romania and Venezuela. Three massively corrupt countries. Romania was not allowed even look at EU membership forms until this was stamped out.

The minister sets policy. The civil servant carries it out.

De Kirchner received bribes from construction companies, ensuring their more expensive tender won the contract. Are people really suggesting our government ministers should be placed in this vulnerable position?

Brown envelopes anybody? Come on.

I don't think they want Ministers to be involved. Rather, there is a blind anti-FG mentality among some posters that wants Ministers to be blamed when they are involved in procurement processes but also to be blamed when they are not involved in procurement processes. It is not a question of what is the right thing to do, it is a question of finding a way to blame Leo or Eoghan or a Simon for what happens.

Red_Wake · 20-02-2019 12:11pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think they want Ministers to be involved. Rather, there is a blind anti-FG mentality among some posters that wants Ministers to be blamed when they are involved in procurement processes but also to be blamed when they are not involved in procurement processes. It is not a question of what is the right thing to do, it is a question of finding a way to blame Leo or Eoghan or a Simon for what happens.

Pretty much this.

The idea that increasing a politician's power over the public purse reduces the potential for corruption is utterly delusional.

Amirani · 20-02-2019 1:45pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think they want Ministers to be involved. Rather, there is a blind anti-FG mentality among some posters that wants Ministers to be blamed when they are involved in procurement processes but also to be blamed when they are not involved in procurement processes. It is not a question of what is the right thing to do, it is a question of finding a way to blame Leo or Eoghan or a Simon for what happens.

Your posts here on procurement rules have been very good and well informed - I've learned quite a bit from them. Matt Barrett (and others) does seem to have a strong anti-FG/anti-Government sentiment to his posts here and/or complete ignorance of how the procurement process works with regard to ministerial involvement.

Idbatterim · 20-02-2019 1:52pm

The two main parties of morons are just lucky there isn’t a viable alternative to vote for yet. I’ve first hand experience of tendering and was awarded a few 10 years plus ago , told them not to bother approaching the company looking for tenders any more about several years back, after some laughable issues!

I find it hard to believe anyone can condone the incompetence of the morons on here , unless varadkar and his cabinet mates are on here posting under fake accounts as Leo himself suggested!

James Brown · 20-02-2019 3:33pm

Amirani wrote: »

Your posts here on procurement rules have been very good and well informed - I've learned quite a bit from them. Matt Barrett (and others) does seem to have a strong anti-FG/anti-Government sentiment to his posts here and/or complete ignorance of how the procurement process works with regard to ministerial involvement.

If you read my first comments on this they were queries. I have experience in the tender process. Nothing I have asked refutes any information on the tender process which has been provided. I never made claims about ministerial involvement in the tendering process. You've obviously misread or not read my postings.

Red_Wake wrote: »

Pretty much this.

The idea that increasing a politician's power over the public purse reduces the potential for corruption is utterly delusional.

It's been inferred as being suggested but not actually suggested by anyone. There is the strawman that has been presented that for some reason criticising the handling of the scandal is an argument for government ministers to take more control over the tender process. Show me where anyone suggested that? Makes for a great rabbit hole but alas is made up. Throwing more posts on how the idea nobody had is a bad idea makes for great diversion.

Whom ever is responsible for entering into a contract this poorly laid out should be held to account. IF, as Pascal seems to infer, precedence might have been given to the BAM tender because it was the lowest, that needs to be addressed. It's beneath amateurism.
Pascal and Simon are accountable for their own departments IMO. Whether they resign, get sacked or nothing happens, I don't really care to be honest. I'm more interested in cutting out the behaviour and the ridiculous idea that merely going for the lowest quote is sound practice and or a result of fearing the opposition.

Edward M · 20-02-2019 3:35pm

Amirani wrote: »

Your posts here on procurement rules have been very good and well informed - I've learned quite a bit from them. Matt Barrett (and others) does seem to have a strong anti-FG/anti-Government sentiment to his posts here and/or complete ignorance of how the procurement process works with regard to ministerial involvement.

If you've learned from them how do you know they're so good?
Eventually all cockups have to be paid for and the person responsible is the Head buck, the minister, he is accountable.
We elect a Govt to be accountable, we have no say pretty much on the civil servants, and the Govt and its ministers are entitled to be held accountable and replaced if we don't think they're giving us value for our money.
FG on this one don't look too good.

Amirani · 20-02-2019 4:00pm

Edward M wrote: »

Eventually all cockups have to be paid for and the person responsible is the Head buck, the minister, he is accountable.
We elect a Govt to be accountable, we have no say pretty much on the civil servants, and the Govt and its ministers are entitled to be held accountable and replaced if we don't think they're giving us value for our money.
FG on this one don't look too good.

Do you think the it was the wrong decision to choose BAM? Do you think the minister should've intervened and overruled the board? What action would you like to have seen the minister take?

I'm all for Government and it's ministers being held accountable. But first you're going to need to clarify what you want them to be held accountable for. Exactly which bit of the procurement or the cost appreciation.

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments