NRA have this morning advertised for engineering consultancy to design medium to long term solution to the junction!
:):)
The Construction Industry Federation (CIF) has hit out at delays in the delivery of projects across the region including the Dunkettle Interchange, the M20 and M28 motorways and the Event Centre.
“Strategic infrastructure projects such as Dunkettle, the M28 and the Events Centre underpin further private sector investment and at this stage, a number of very significant private sector projects are delayed or facing delays as a result of stalled public sector infrastructure investment.”
blindsider wrote: » ...thought I heard a snippet on the radio this morning, which hinted strongly at an 18 month delay. (THis suggests a re-tender...?) More good news for Cork! :rolleyes:
There has been no decision as yet on the possible retendering of stage two of the Dunkettle Interchange Project, The Echo can reveal. In recent weeks, doubts were raised as to whether the Dunkettle Interchange Project will be finished on time amid rising costs and possible delays to stage two.
Idbatterim wrote: » Absolute farce if it’s dejayed for eighteen months over a total irrelevance of a few euro.
Jayuu wrote: » Depends how "few" the euro is. The problem now is that after the Children's Hospital debacle I reckon any infrastructure project that indicates a major increase in cost is going to get re-evaluated. I'm not saying I agree with the decision but clearly the last thing the government want is another set of "infrastructure costs spiral" headlines.
marno21 wrote: » Indeed, costs do need to be controlled as you say. But it’s important to remember that if the costs for Sisk have increased due to adverse ground conditions then they will also increase for any other contractor if retendered. Obviously a balance will have to be found here. The other issue is that a 12-18 month delay is 12-18 months of more congestion at Dunkettle, which has major implications for Cork and it’s surroundings. A minor cost increase wouldn’t be the end of the world if it meant finally getting this done
marno21 wrote: » But it’s important to remember that if the costs for Sisk have increased due to adverse ground conditions then they will also increase for any other contractor if retendered.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » This is not necessarily the case. Sisk are arguing that ground conditions are worse but this is their interpretation of surveys and it hardly surprising that they would be putting forward the worst possible interpretation. As they will be taking on most of the risk, they want to be covered for the worst case scenario. There is also no competition at this stage to keep things honest. Retendering the project as a standard employer designed project, or even a design and build, would mean the project could be priced based on what is known now and more reasonable assumptions. The competition between contractors would mean they have to be reasonable in their pricing in order to win the contract. I have no doubt that retendering under a different procurement route would result in much lower bids. There would be more risk of costs increasing during construction but I would be surprised if they got anywhere near the cost Sisk are currently talking about.
Lackadaisical wrote: » Sounds like this will be cancelled then, having already screwed up the tree cover and landscaping around the junction too. Total mess.
Jayuu wrote: » I guess the question is how much is the potential cost increase? Has there been any figure quoted?
Gunner3629 wrote: » They are worried about a few million when the Childrens hospital was 100's of millions over budget. If it was Dublin it would have been done a decade ago like the Red Cow and Newlands Cross. Just get it done.
Markcheese wrote: » Is it only a few million? I assume tii have a budget too.. I don't really buy the if it was Dublin thing.. There's projects in Dublin that are looking for cash too... (and I say that as someone who's often stuck on the the N40)
tonc76 wrote: » It appears to me that the ground investigation issued to tendering parties was not robust enough as GI that has been undertaken since has apparently shown the conditions to be much worse than anticipated. I may have missed this but was the cost that Sisk are currently talking about mentioned, other than the €160m or so figure mentioned by Micheal Martin a few weeks ago? Also the cost that Sisk are due to submit will be final cost whereas if procured under a different contract type there would be no certainty on final cost which on projects in years past amounted to massive additional cost.
SeanW wrote: » If it goes back to tender, is there anything to be gained by breaking the project up into chunks? For example, the slip road from the N8 East to the M8 North is mostly a re-use of an old road, I'd imagine these ground issues are less of a factor there or that this should be one of the easier parts. If the project is to be re-tendered, then could Sisk be told "go ahead and build that slip road, the rest will be re-tendered"? Or would the government have to tender that slip road as well? I ask because it seems like it might a quick-win to take some of the traffic off the roundabout, if the overall scheme gets delayed.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Much of the results of the ground investigation comes down to interpretation, two engineers could look at a borehole log and make a case for two very different solutions needed. If the engineers on TII's side do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the engineers on Sisk's side, this process should be scrapped. Sisk have nothing to lose here and will be looking to squeeze everything they can out of TII, who will suffer a lot of reputational damage and bad PR if the project doesn't go ahead. The cost that Sisk are due to submit may be the final but it will be inflated with premiums for risk. Costs not rising from the contract award sounds good but not if you are paying over the odds to begin with. Cost increases which are justified and verified, based on actual quantities and tendered rates are better than contract price jacked up before any work is done based on "what if".
tonc76 wrote: » Regarding the interpretation of the ground investigation results, testing has been ongoing throughout phase 2 of the tender so this is additional info that TII's engineers would not have had when estimating the scheme cost prior to the tender commencing. As a result couldn't it be possible that the estimate is off the mark as a result? With this form of contract as I understand it, the majority, and if not all, of the risk lies with the contractor so a premium will be paid regardless. Cost increases which are justified and verified, based on actual quantities and tendered rates would possibly offer better bang for your buck but the cost could also spiral if the original construction cost estimate was off the mark. I'd hate to see the project delayed and retendered as it is badly needed. If it does happen though it would be interesting to see the difference in construction cost between the "new" phase and the cost that TII and sisk are supposedly negotiating over at the moment.
Cork Trucker wrote: » What a fcuking joke, but not unexpectedhttps://twitter.com/JoeLeogue/status/1161940871086039040
Gunner3629 wrote: » Could have a new government by then. Very frustrating.
Drax wrote: » Excellent news indeed... expect it in around 10 years. :pac:
Odelay wrote: » Lol. Posted in April 2009
Limerick74 wrote: » https://www.tii.ie/news/press-releases/dunkettle-interchange-update/
:):)
