spacetweek wrote: » Brilliant. It won't be long before they start to balk at such inhumane conditions and demand better.
cantalach wrote: » Yes, we could build things as fast as China. Their construction sites really show how to get things done. The workers do 12-hour shifts, live on-site in shipping containers stacked 2-3 high, wash every evening using a fire hose, and p1ss in buckets.
EnzoScifo wrote: » Sounds like the conditions the Turkish workers endured building the Ballincollig bypass
Water John wrote: » CCC didn't want them to get the contract but the price was keen. First major such project to come in on time and on budget. Gama-Tubin used a lot of workers. Low wages and slept in cabins. But they didn't have to work very hard. They just had a lot of bodies on the ground to do anything. A bit like the Irish in England in the 1950s, but who worked a lot harder.
Water John wrote: » Not sure if affects this type of project but LAs tender contractors always get plant and materials on site before Christmas, to draw down funding from the current year.
Water John wrote: » I am aware it's a national project of NRA. It may affect they're drawdown of DOE funds, don't know.
aisling86 wrote: » Passed Jons site earlier they have a serious amount of space. I wonder will they be working around the clock. With site on millstreet rd I wonder will they start there back towards circle k first to get the macroom section open first.
yerwanthere123 wrote: » Where precisely is the site, by the way? Will be on the look out for it next time I travel that road.
aisling86 wrote: » With site on millstreet rd I wonder will they start there back towards circle k first to get the macroom section open first.
aisling86 wrote: » Between the social welfare office & the car garage all in the back.
cantalach wrote: » Would that be useful in real terms? All westbound traffic would have to go back down to the Millstreet Cross on the current N22 and then take a right there. Either that or go through Clondrohid. Neither an attractive option.
aisling86 wrote: » Passed Jons site earlier they have a serious amount of space. I wonder will they be working around the clock.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » There is no way they are paying the contractor to have plant sit on site, payments are valued based on actual works completed not just having plant there. It would be reckless to pay for plant sitting there as it is of no value to the client, no QS would do that, particularly on a high profile government job. Payments are made in arrears and any invoices to be paid this year would have to be already processed by now to have cleared for end of year. I also seriously doubt that the client would have encouraged the contractor to bring plant to site early and have it sitting for two weeks over Christmas as it then leaves them exposed if it were to be vandalised or stolen.
Water John wrote: » A certain Minister would also like to have it active for Christmas. Delighted it's going ahead, at last.
Wildly Boaring wrote: » It's been done. You have a few elements to these funding streams There could be quite substantial mobilisation prelims. Monies could b ed accrued in department against 2019 However it's more likely Jons and Craddocks just want to hit the ground running. You need to get any trees knocked early in the new year before ecologists stop you.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Mobilisation prelims is a different issue. The prelims items relating to mobilisation are identified separately in the BOQ and payment can be made against them. Bringing plant to site is completely different, it is not a measurable item. Plant costs are built into rates for work, unless the work is done you don't get paid for just having plant on site. Payments for 2019 will have had to be processed at this stage, payments from government departments don't just happen over night.
Wildly Boaring wrote: » Nope but they can be accrued within the department against project. You'll get no money but that department will be very happy with you. I'm doing it this week for a semi state. I'll stick the account in in January. But they want the money on their system against 2019 for mobilisation. I am not saying this is the case here. Just that it happens. FYI Jon's are not just bringing plant I know for a fact they loaded cabins and I'll be driving past Sloane yard in an hour be surprised if more not gone. They also have a bailey bridge gone in somewhere
marno21 wrote: » Confirmation of tender award to Jons/Craddock JV Price was €186m, quite different to the price mentione in press releaseshttps://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/225614
Water John wrote: » Other posters here have said the proposed depot is out the Millstreet Rd. Will have a drive up there over the hols.
