Donegal Storm wrote: » N56 seems to be behind schedule, was supposed to be open this summer but still loads of work to do last time I passed through and no sign of the next stage to Dungloe starting any time soon. We've already had to endue 7 years of constant disruption and temporary lights on this road, ridiculous that it's taking a full decade to complete. Theres a section of the N2 north of Monaghan U/C for the past year as well, seems to be going at a snails pace from my perception with little progress visible any time I see it The Donegal TEN-T routes also progressing at a snails pace, preferred route was supposed to be announced last year which never happened, we then had a few public consultations earlier this year and not a word since. The outdated website says the EIS will take 2 years to complete so presumably that means late 2021 or 2022 before we hear any more news. Depressing..
AugustusMinimus wrote: » Getting worried about the Dunkettle scheme.
Wildly Boaring wrote: » Sisk have launched in a nice juicy price increase to go into phase 2 (the actual work) because "ground conditions were more challenging than expected at tender" What minister is gonna sign off on that mess before a general election? Prudent Pascal is out preaching that after the children's hospital they'll never allow the same happen again et voila.....
hans aus dtschl wrote: » Thanks for the info. Something I don't understand is what exactly needs to be done in terms of ground investigations. It's all been built on in the last 30 years when building the tunnel and original interchange. I don't work in civil eng and I naively assumed there was already a good idea of what the ground conditions on the project site are. Can anyone on the board make sense of that for me? Do ground conditions change that much? Was the original interchange project documentation set lacking in some way?
Wildly Boaring wrote: » I'm afraid I'd be guessing as I've had no involvement in the project. BUT what I have seen on several projects lately is to put large amounts of site investigations into the phase 1 or enabling works. The reasoning is 1. To speed up the process 2. The absolute final figure is agreed prior phase two Tender put out with current service drawings, topo surveys and minimal site investigations. Contractor wins the overall job but is only given a work order for phase 1. They carry out phase 1 (say fencing and hedge clearance) and as much site investigation that they seem necessary to completely price the main works. (Phase 2) . They submit this price and the client can either accept or reject. The client has full view of all site investigations and full breakdown of the uplift from original contract. The uplift must be based on tendered rates. All uplift must be justified Contractually the client can just say no. In reality it becomes a massive QS exercise and agreement is always reached. It seems convoluted but I've seen it work very well. Lot of work for the client between phase 1 and 2 but gets rid of any ground condition or unknown services claims. Life is much easier in construction stage. "Shares the risk"
Wildly Boaring wrote: » Ground conditions in this country can change completely in 10 metres. Rock, bog, sand...... all expensive to deal with. One reason not to do the site investigations for as contractor is that he might find a lump of rock 2 metres from where your SI said clay. Geotechnical is also the least scientific of the civil engineering disciplines (in my opinion). A lot of it is interpretation of holes and cores. One persons silty-clay is another's clayey-silt If there's limestone knocking about you can have karst features. Remember your junior cert geography.... dykes and all that jazz. Well none of that is any good under a road and particularly under a structure. Your site investigations will never be the whole picture. Also Sisk would not be shy in adding numbers together. (Very few big contractors are)
annfield1978 wrote: » N4 Mullingar to Roosky will be out in the next couple of days for Phases 1 to 4. Consultants have been appointed for the N21 Abbeyfeale and Newcastle West Bypasses
Wildly Boaring wrote: » No as per first sentence I've not seen the form of contract. I'm looking at the news articles and inferring from them that the contract is this type or quite near. But I'm guessing. For instance Tii are stating that the original price was ballpark to be able to compare prices. Sisk are stating the ground conditions were worse than expected so the phase 2 price is higher than expected. There's going to be a lot more to the contract.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The contract being used is an NEC early engagement contract. I assume that this is the first time an NEC contract has been used for a public project in this country, certainly since the introduction of the GCCC suite. There is the civil engineering D&B contract available which is often used for road projects so I don't understand why that wasn't used. As with the Childrens Hospital, going an alternative route just creates problems. I am not familiar with that contract but I assume that there is an element of design and build to it - contractors expected to put forward their own design proposal. Phase 1 is more likely an initial round of bids with the preferred bidder progressing to a more detailed Phase 2 negotiation. Things you mentioned earlier like fencing and hedge clearance are done separately before the main contractor gets to site.
Limerick74 wrote: » NEC3 suite of contracts also being used on the Dublin metro project. Main difference is the Dunkettle project already has planning permission whereas Metro is being used during planning and design phases (pre-planning).
