Consultants Fees

Larbre34 · 10-01-2014 03:31PM

A point made earlier said that Consultants just "do what they were asked". The point is so many of them do not deliver what they were asked in the first instance is what ramps up the cost.

Irish Steve · 10-01-2014 03:41PM

Larbre34 wrote: »

A point made earlier said that Consultants just "do what they were asked". The point is so many of them do not deliver what they were asked in the first instance is what ramps up the cost.

That, and having made it do what the client asked for on the second or third iteration, the client then discovers that the spec was inadequate anyway, so they have to go back to the drawing board again.

darkpagandeath · 10-01-2014 04:46PM

Ok lets tell it like it is...

Mr quango who works for Irish water has employed his wife as a secretary she read somewhere on the internet something about water management. Mr guango has a good idea to employ his wife now as a consultant as well. Mr guango also has a son that has just finished his ECDL This will be of huge benefit in helping out setting up the needed I.T infrastructure so he also employs his son as a consultant. Seeing that he as been doing such a good job in saving the company money Mr quango pays himself a bonus for finding in-house skills and also head hunting an external consultant sound about right ? I would say could be tip of the iceberg I would be interested in the actual number of qualified consultants in relevant fields...

Alf Veedersane · 10-01-2014 05:14PM

€5 million for what they did.

€45 million for knowing how to do what they did.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 10-01-2014 05:22PM

On Newstalk they said 'they may have to charge more for under usage'.

What?

rawn · 10-01-2014 05:22PM

Irish Water defends their spending

What I love is this bit squeezed in at the end.

The Commission said it may allow Irish Water to increase its charge per unit for water if the demand is not as high as anticipated.

It also confirmed that Irish Water could increase charges if it has higher than anticipated costs because of unforeseen events arising from a drought or a harsh winter.

Alf Veedersane · 10-01-2014 05:24PM

The charges should only start when accurate metering is in place. This flat fee determined by someone sticking their finger in the air and pulling a number out of their a$$ is nonsense.

.jacksparrow. · 10-01-2014 05:32PM

Hate the way it's their rules terms and conditions, we get no say to negotiate or pick a different supplier.

They can charge anything they want and we can't do anything about it.

darkpagandeath · 10-01-2014 05:44PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The charges should only start when accurate metering is in place. This flat fee determined by someone sticking their finger in the air and pulling a number out of their a$$ is nonsense.

Yeah I live in an apartment like a lot of people .. There are only 2 of us yet I will be paying the same for my water as the apartment next door with 5-6 people in it .. who uses more water .... No mention of using the census to get an idea of how many people per apartment. They could even ask.

darkpagandeath · 10-01-2014 05:46PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Hate the way it's their rules terms and conditions, we get no say to negotiate or pick a different supplier.

They can charge anything they want and we can't do anything about it.

And on that does not something like 30% of the water produced P*ss out the pipes .. So who pays for that wastage .. us.

Irish Steve · 10-01-2014 06:08PM

Reality check

The flat rate is short term, once meters are in, the apartment with 6 WILL pay more than the same size apartment with 2, unless the 2 are being very wasteful.

Leaks, yes, at the moment, the consumers are going to be paying, but the reason for that is not what you think, the reason is because water (and bins) has been a political football that's been bouncing around the political arena for years, and water funding has never been a vote winner at elections.

Water costs, (A LOT) to store, treat, and pipe to each property that wants it. There is no such thing as "Free" water, unless you live by an extinct volcano on a tropical island that has rain storms on a regular basis to top it up again.

Anyone else, get used to joining the rest of the world in paying for the water that is provided as a service to your taps. Anywhere else, water has a cost, either in monetary terms that provide the means of controlling quality and delivery, or more frighteningly, it has a cost in terms of lives lost due to fights over the availability, or lives lost due to the diseases in untreated water

I don't like the way that IW has been set up, the structure and operating concept is a complete dogs breakfast of compromise, fudge and "down the road" isms, but if it gets water out of the political arena so that the next party close to losing an election can't make undeliverable promises about charges , (or bins, or filling potholes,) then the sooner the better, Once there is a known cash flow going in to Irish Water, they can then address the issues of things like long term security of supply, water quality, leaks in 100 year old distribution systems, and all the other issues that have been long fingered for too long because there was no dedicated budget for water, and there will be less NIMBY possibilities with the politicians out of the loop, so water from the Shannon for the East Coast will become a reality, rather than an opportunity for political showboating.

That will be the big change once IW is up and running properly, and I'm under no illusions that getting to that point will take a lot longer than it is supposed to, primarily because the initial setting up has been planned so badly by the previous controllers. There needs to be some very careful examination of the cronyism behind appointments, given the history of such things in recent times, and careful examination of any appointments that are family related.

Stheno · 10-01-2014 06:11PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

Reality check

The flat rate is short term, once meters are in, the apartment with 6 WILL pay more than the same size apartment with 2, unless the 2 are being very wasteful.

Is there not some difficulty which will prevent individual meters being installed in every apartment? I thought I read that it could only be done at the apartment block level, and not for individual apartments?

Irish Steve · 10-01-2014 06:15PM

Stheno wrote: »

Is there not some difficulty which will prevent individual meters being installed in every apartment? I thought I read that it could only be done at the apartment block level, and not for individual apartments?

Not sure, if there's a valve to cut off the supply to the apartment, then it should be possible to put a meter on the line at that point. Getting the reading from it might be slightly more complicated, if gas and electric meters can be made to be read remotely, then the same should be possible for water, even if it's not right now.

Michael D Not Higgins · 10-01-2014 06:20PM

In Edinburgh I believe it was not practical to install water meters in all the old buildings and flats in the city and the water charges are flat rate based off the council tax band which are based off the valuation way back when. Hence larger flats have higher council tax and have higher water rates.

However at least the council and water company give breakdowns of where your money is spent.

Ray Palmer · 10-01-2014 06:32PM

I am a consultant in a civil service department. All it means is you are a contractor because they can't hire people due to hiring freezes or in most cases a lack of knowledge. They hire a consulting firm who pay me less than they charge the customer.

As for the idea it is jobs for the boys is completely ridiculous. The firms used are often not Irish. The tender process is completely transparent and anybody can apply for the contracts. There are tons of rules and regulations around this.

I know the company that got the meter contract isn't Irish so again disproving the theory it is favouritism. They got the contract because they have put water meters in other countries.

God forbid reality is actually discussed.

Roger Hassenforder · 10-01-2014 07:56PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am a consultant in a civil service department. All it means is you are a contractor because they can't hire people due to hiring freezes or in most cases a lack of knowledge. They hire a consulting firm who pay me less than they charge the customer.

As for the idea it is jobs for the boys is completely ridiculous. The firms used are often not Irish. The tender process is completely transparent and anybody can apply for the contracts. There are tons of rules and regulations around this.

I know the company that got the meter contract isn't Irish so again disproving the theory it is favouritism. They got the contract because they have put water meters in other countries.

God forbid reality is actually discussed.

3 metering contracts awarded:
Coffey-Northumbrian(partly owned by Chinese chap that owns 3
Murphy Group
GMC Sierra (partly owned by Denis o brien which he bought off NAMA...)

MonsterCookie · 10-01-2014 10:45PM

50M seems a little on the high side on first glance.

That said, I've been involved in some highly complex IT projects and I could well believe how something of this scale could require an array of consultants with specialist skills and experience....all of which costs money.

As one poster already alluded to...what would be an acceptable level of fees? Keeping in mind that few of us here, I suspect, have direct comparable experience.

I'd welcome the appearance of IW in front of a committee to explain the fees, but I fear that it has already become a political football therefore, even if there were public floggings, it would be just for show.

Sh1tbag OToole · 11-01-2014 12:03PM

What are the chances of anyone actually losing their job over this scandal?

It looks like Irish Water is already being bundled up nicely to make it ready for privatisation. Phil Hogan is probably already liaising with potential foreign buyers in upmarket cocktail bars.

StupidLikeAFox · 11-01-2014 02:58PM

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

What are the chances of anyone actually losing their job over this scandal?

Where is the scandal?

MisterAnarchy · 11-01-2014 03:27PM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

€5 million for what they did.

€45 million for knowing who awards the contracts

Fixed that for you.

Sh1tbag OToole · 11-01-2014 09:30PM

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Where is the scandal?

Ill just take a gamble that it isnt 50 million well spent and is a huge waste of ""our"" money

Justice for the individual · 11-01-2014 10:34PM

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Ill just take a gamble that it isnt 50 million well spent and is a huge waste of ""our"" money

I would think that scandal is taken from the word scandalous and therefore it is a scandal to have such a scandalous waste of scarce taxpayers money. Anyway if it is not their money they think they can do what they like with it. I note that the contracts for the meters were given to a company from outside the country, thus losing valuable income tax, vat and spin-off to small indigenous Irish companies, which will take workers off the unemployment register - but sure, who cares. This is par for most contracts from Irish Government agencies. Ireland has the highest percentage of contracts given to companies from outside the State, whereas all of the other EU countries have a bit of cop-on and will favour home-grown companies. Meanwhile, our trade delegations are traipsing around the Gulf, China, India, Brazil, etc, without any real genuine jobs or trade benefits and supporting countries with diabolical civil rights issues. The State Agencies should spend more time and money in promoting the very small companies (less than 10 employees) as they need assistance very badly at the moment.
Sorry for the rant and going a bit off the subject but it is so annoying the constant stupidity and disrespect shown to the genuine hard-working Irish people by the guys we elected to represent us.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-01-2014 01:07PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

As for the idea it is jobs for the boys is completely ridiculous. The firms used are often not Irish. The tender process is completely transparent and anybody can apply for the contracts. There are tons of rules and regulations around this.

I know the company that got the meter contract isn't Irish so again disproving the theory it is favouritism. They got the contract because they have put water meters in other countries.

I'd argue that there needs to be a change in tendering rules.

Govt pays dole to people out of work. So when tendering a company would have to show how many new jobs they'd create in this country. Jobs abroad or people brought in from abroad would be penalised by the average dole payment. Otherwise it's like jobbridge where the govt is subsidising foreign workers. And it's fair because all you are doing is counting the provable knock on cost of non employing a local. Doesn't stop you getting in qualified people from abroad, just means there are costs in doing so, that until now have been borne by the Irish taxpayer.

€50m is a huge amount. With basic dole at ~10K that's 50,000 people
There are still highly skilled construction industry people out there who haven't got a job or have a job out side of the industry.

Or even , competition to get into IW was tough, you'd have had no problems getting lots of professional "interns" doing anything to have a shot at a permanent and pensionable position, jobs for life are rather scarce at the moment. Supply and demand etc.

I love the bit where they claim they will save €2Bn over the next few years. BUT then have to impose minimum fees to claw back if people do start saving water.

Just a reminder about how well setting up a new board to oversee existing regional authorities worked out for the HSE. IIRC at one time the claim was that there were less front line health workers at a given time than pencil pushers employed.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-01-2014 01:14PM

Irish Steve wrote: »

It's also the vehicle that has enabled the Govt to at last implement what Europe has been demanding for years, Ireland's been one of the very few countries to have still have "free" water, and the real cost of providing that "free" water is significant, when people have to pay for it, there will be changes, leaks and waste will be eliminated by the cost factor.

The only reason we had free water is that FF bought the 1977 election by promising to remove domestic rates. Removing a major income source for local authorities emasculated them.

Rates could have been bought back during the boom as a way of cooling house price growth, without affecting numbers of houses constructed.

We are going about it the expensive way, by putting meters on all houses. In parts of the UK they simply give everyone an average bill. If you feel it's too high you can ask for a meter to be fitted. I'm not sure how it works when the water company thinks you are using too much water but I'm sure they have a procedure for that.

Saves a fortune on costs of installing meters. - Do we know how much this will cost each house , and how much of the cost will be interest payments that WI will have to pay back to their financiers ?

rawn · 12-01-2014 04:15PM

Report reveals Irish Water consultancy overspend

A confidential report obtained by RTÉ's This Week shows the Government expected Irish Water would be established using Bord Gáis' "existing operational capacity" in the specific areas of IT, asset management, customer billing systems and other key functions.

The unpublished 20-page report, which was drawn up in September 2012, sets out how Irish Water would be implemented over the following five years as a subsidiary of the Bord Gáis Group.

However, it makes no reference to any use of external consultants to create or operate key IT or other systems.

It went on to declare the current government's "determination" that the use of such existing capacities in the State sector was a central element of any new functions being taken on by public bodies.

Roger Hassenforder · 12-01-2014 04:45PM

rawn wrote: »

Report reveals Irish Water consultancy overspend

This was one of the main reasons they got the gig. Bord na mona must be spitting, and could well take a case if the "misrepresented" in their tender

ScumLord · 12-01-2014 07:47PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am a consultant in a civil service department. All it means is you are a contractor because they can't hire people due to hiring freezes or in most cases a lack of knowledge. They hire a consulting firm who pay me less than they charge the customer.

On a project this size that will be ongoing why don't they just hire the staff? I don't see how a company that will be doing all this work year in year out can't justify having the staff it needs on the payroll.

If they're contracting out work to a third party why doesn't that third party have all the skills required to carry out the work? To spend half the money on consultants is obscene.

The only experience I have with consultants is through Enterprise Ireland and I saw nothing done there that justified their money.

I don't know if the guy we paid £600 an hour to come over from England and fix our CNC mill is considered a consultant because he did the work that fixed it too.

Is there any comparison with other projects in other countries?

Stheno · 12-01-2014 08:00PM

ScumLord wrote: »

On a project this size that will be ongoing why don't they just hire the staff? I don't see how a company that will be doing all this work year in year out can't justify having the staff it needs on the payroll.

If they're contracting out work to a third party why doesn't that third party have all the skills required to carry out the work? To spend half the money on consultants is obscene.

The only experience I have with consultants is through Enterprise Ireland and I saw nothing done there that justified their money.

I don't know if the guy we paid £600 an hour to come over from England and fix our CNC mill is considered a consultant because he did the work that fixed it too.

Is there any comparison with other projects in other countries?

I worked as a consultant in NI with their then health service when it went through serious rationalisation.

There were three of us working three days a week for an average of €1550 per person per day, excluding travel expenses.

As travel generally took a day each week that was four days per week x 3 people x €1550 x 46

Total for the three of us for a year?

€285,200

Add in daily expenses of approx. €200 per 3 days for accomodation and travel = €600 x 6 x 46 = €82,800

Overall total €368,000 for three consultants working 3 days a week. After a year of working with us, and I've kept in touch through work/networking, they have reaped the benefit of that spend through knowledge transfer etc over the past seven years. We did very specialised work to move them from point a to point b, which they had no experience of.

I can easily see how they have spent that money on consultants.

I did the math earlier today, and if they were using top end €1500 -€2000 per day consultants for an entire year, then per consultant @ 230 working days a year and an average of €1750 per day and excluding travel/accomodation/subsistence, then for one consultant, that's €420,500 per year

Take that 50 million, and that winds up being 124 consultants in place for a year.

Like I've said earlier, as part of the ramp up, the preferred approach in IT at least is to use contractors/consultants especially while they get through the hump of new systems/rolling out meters, so I can see how it's more economical to have 100, or even 200 consultants (if they are on half that rate, and the rates they are paying vary depending on expertise) than to put permanent staff in place, pay employer PRSI, face redundancy etc.

Plus BGE moved to an outsourced datacentre last year run by IBM, I suspect some of the 50 million is the cost of expanding that to accomodate Irish Water.

The public sector in this country would stop in the morning if they had to stop using consultants/contractors.

Roger Hassenforder · 12-01-2014 08:47PM

Stheno wrote: »

I worked as a consultant in NI with their then health service when it went through serious rationalisation.

There were three of us working three days a week for an average of €1550 per person per day, excluding travel expenses.

As travel generally took a day each week that was four days per week x 3 people x €1550 x 46

Total for the three of us for a year?

€285,200

Add in daily expenses of approx. €200 per 3 days for accomodation and travel = €600 x 6 x 46 = €82,800

Overall total €368,000 for three consultants working 3 days a week. After a year of working with us, and I've kept in touch through work/networking, they have reaped the benefit of that spend through knowledge transfer etc over the past seven years. We did very specialised work to move them from point a to point b, which they had no experience of.

I can easily see how they have spent that money on consultants.

I did the math earlier today, and if they were using top end €1500 -€2000 per day consultants for an entire year, then per consultant @ 230 working days a year and an average of €1750 per day and excluding travel/accomodation/subsistence, then for one consultant, that's €420,500 per year

Take that 50 million, and that winds up being 124 consultants in place for a year.

Like I've said earlier, as part of the ramp up, the preferred approach in IT at least is to use contractors/consultants especially while they get through the hump of new systems/rolling out meters, so I can see how it's more economical to have 100, or even 200 consultants (if they are on half that rate, and the rates they are paying vary depending on expertise) than to put permanent staff in place, pay employer PRSI, face redundancy etc.

Plus BGE moved to an outsourced datacentre last year run by IBM, I suspect some of the 50 million is the cost of expanding that to accomodate Irish Water.

The public sector in this country would stop in the morning if they had to stop using consultants/contractors.

Most instances of consultants being appointed to my organization, the expertise is already in house. Often the consultants are brought in so there can be someone to blame if the thing goes pear shaped. And sure the consultants can just blame the brief, prepared by... wait for it... other consultants. (I'm not in ICT, but presume the same nonsense goes on).
Anecdotal evidence from colleagues involved in this suggests the consultants were well aware the biggest gravy train in years had just pulled into the stations, and there was no one minding it.

A definition of a consultant I find relevant in this instance is "someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time. And charges for it".

The "knowledge transfer" in setting up this omnifcuk involved "consultants" or "industry experts" as they like to be called, arriving to my organization, interviewing staff, coping manuals, procedures, forms etc., going away for a while, and coming back as "floor walkers" with the logos changed, but with lovely new flow charts, decision trees with smashing colour coded "swim lanes", populated by initialisms and acronyms and a whole new language of bullsh1t. Talk about the emperors new clothes!

Theres a culture of cronyism prevalent at certain levels, with consultants milking the public service, several examples of senior managers joining the same consultants' firms on retirement...

Its outrageous what went/goes on.

Frank Lee Midere · 13-01-2014 11:13AM

There are definitely consultants who milk the system. The contractors here don't seem to be that type though - non-Irish, Big Names. I doubt if the civil service has the IT skills for this.

EDIT : although Bord Gais should have had some.

Consultants Fees

Comments