Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Stephen15 · 16-03-2018 11:46pm

devnull wrote: »

The Bus Eireann Waterford contract is an identical style contract to the Go-Ahead Dublin one, and if DB had retained the Dublin routes they'd have been on exactly the same contract as Go-Ahead will be on rather than the contract DB are on now.

But DB will on the same type of contract for the remaining 90% from 2019

end of the road · 17-03-2018 12:03am

amcalester wrote: »

Problem with that is that the public operators, hamstrung by unions and other vested interests, don’t turn a profit and require further investment paid for by the tax payer whereas private operators don’t get any extra funding.

private operators have unions. in fact go ahead, and any of the other majors that may come in will have the exact same unions as dublin bus.
the private operators operating tendered routes, will also get the "extra funding" that the public operator supposibly gets, in the form of capital investment, in the form of busses to operate the PSO routes, just like the public operator. that isn't going to come from fares income, it will come from the tax payer, ergo the public operator gets no more extra funding then the private operator, unless either of them put in a higher cost bid and win more on the quality aspect. the profit the private operator will make does not go back into services but to the shareholders, the NTA getting the fares income only and paying a fixed fee out of that. so the public operator not making a profit isn't relevant, given both will be getting the exact same funding in the form of the money to operate services, and capital investment in the form of the vehicles to operate the routes. ergo this is a waste of everyone's time.

amcalester · 17-03-2018 12:07am

end of the road wrote: »

private operators have unions. in fact go ahead, and any of the other majors that may come in will have the exact same unions as dublin bus.
the private operators operating tendered routes, will also get the "extra funding" that the public operator supposibly gets, in the form of capital investment, in the form of busses to operate the PSO routes, just like the public operator. that isn't going to come from fares income, it will come from the tax payer, ergo the public operator gets no more extra funding then the private operator, unless either of them put in a higher cost bid and win more on the quality aspect. the profit the private operator will make does not go back into services but to the shareholders, the NTA getting the fares income only and paying a fixed fee out of that. so the public operator not making a profit isn't relevant, given both will be getting the exact same funding in the form of the money to operate services, and capital investment in the form of the vehicles to operate the routes. ergo this is a waste of everyone's time.

You’re conflating lots of ideas here so it’s hard to follow your post, but one thing is clear is that you don’t understand tendering.

Infini · 17-03-2018 12:14am

The only thing I have to ask is why are these contracts being awarded to an English company who will be out of the EU by next year? Wont Brexit have an effect on these if England increasingly looks like its gonna crash off the edge?

end of the road · 17-03-2018 12:21am

amcalester wrote: »

You’re conflating lots of ideas here so it’s hard to follow your post, but one thing is clear is that you don’t understand tendering.

i very much understand tendering.
the reality is once contracts are signed, both operators get the funding to operate the routes, and they get vehicles to operate the routes. the NTA takes the fares income and pays the operators out of that along with the subsidies. whether the operator makes a profit or not isn't relevant given profit from the operator won't go back into the operation.

devnull · 17-03-2018 12:35am

Stephen15 wrote: »

But DB will on the same type of contract for the remaining 90% from 2019

Not necessarily will they be the same - there are different requirements under EU Law for direct award contracts to those that are competitively tendered.

Infini wrote: »

The only thing I have to ask is why are these contracts being awarded to an English company who will be out of the EU by next year? Wont Brexit have an effect on these if England increasingly looks like its gonna crash off the edge?

Because quite frankly it's not really right to discriminate based on nationality if you ask me.

amcalester · 17-03-2018 12:40am

end of the road wrote: »

i very much understand tendering.
the reality is once contracts are signed, both operators get the funding to operate the routes, and they get vehicles to operate the routes. the NTA takes the fares income and pays the operators out of that along with the subsidies. whether the operator makes a profit or not isn't relevant given profit from the operator won't go back into the operation.

This just further shows that you don’t understand tendering.

Kermit.de.frog · 17-03-2018 12:43am

Van.Bosch wrote: »

1) DARTs stopping at Clontarf road and then 200m down thevtracks to change drivers. The driver change should be at Clontarf road station to minimise passenger disruption.

I could never understand this nonsense and it did use to rile me when I used to take the DART.

bebeman · 17-03-2018 12:53am

devnull wrote: »

Public operators normally have an issue in that if there is any profit to be had the funds normally end up going to the staff or there will be a strike and normally are not facing such levels of competition as the private sector does.

The unions have been telling us for years though that Dublin Bus should not be expected to make a profit.

Pulling these numbers out of the air as i don't have the exact ones at hand.
Government gave DB 20 million in 2014
DB made zero profit
Government gave DB 20 million in 2015
As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit
Government gave DB 19 million in 2016
DB made zero profit
Government gave DB 19 million in 2017
As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit
Government gave DB 18 million in 2018

See what happens, when DB make profit, Government cut funding,Tax payer saves money, this won't happen with Go Ahead, the money stays the same each year and profits go to share holders.
Do you think the Unions are wrong to criticise this?

GM228 · 17-03-2018 12:55am

Stephen15 wrote: »

But DB will on the same type of contract for the remaining 90% from 2019

No they will get direct award contracts again in 2019.

end of the road · 17-03-2018 12:56am

amcalester wrote: »

This just further shows that you don’t understand tendering.

no it doesn't. i think you are looking for a different discussion because the discussion we are actually having, is from your original point that because the public operator doesn't make a profit they get more funding then a private operator would because they do make a profit, which is just not true.

IE 222 · 17-03-2018 1:03am

Will G/A have to disclose whether they make a profit or not.

devnull · 17-03-2018 1:04am

bebeman wrote: »

Pulling these numbers out of the air as i don't have the exact ones at hand.
Government gave DB 20 million in 2014
DB made zero profit
Government gave DB 20 million in 2015
As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit
Government gave DB 19 million in 2016
DB made zero profit
Government gave DB 19 million in 2017
As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit
Government gave DB 18 million in 2018

You lack serious credibility when you pluck out figures from the sky like that for several reasons
a) PSO has been rising for the last few years
b) PSO subsidy has been approx €60m for the last few years.
c) You fail to mention the tens of millions of free buses and other grants provided in the same time.

See what happens, when DB make profit, Government cut funding,Tax payer saves money, this won't happen with Go Ahead, the money stays the same each year and profits go to share holders.

As stated before direct award contracts are completely different for tendered contracts, if Dublin Bus had won the tendered contracts they'd have exactly the same kind of agreement that Go-Ahead will have for the routes in question.

devnull · 17-03-2018 1:04am

IE 222 wrote: »

Will G/A have to disclose whether they make a profit or not.

They will have to file accounts with the Companies Registration Office like any other company.

Stephen15 · 17-03-2018 1:13am

GM228 wrote: »

No they will get direct award contracts again in 2019.

Yes but they will have to sign up to the NTAs T+Cs they will be given a contract where the NTA keeps all the fares and will have to have an NTA livery on their buses etc.

GM228 · 17-03-2018 1:18am

bebeman wrote: »

Pulling these numbers out of the air as i don't have the exact ones at hand.
Government gave DB 20 million in 2014
DB made zero profit
Government gave DB 20 million in 2015
As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit
Government gave DB 19 million in 2016
DB made zero profit
Government gave DB 19 million in 2017
As passengers numbers increased DB made 1 million profit
Government gave DB 18 million in 2018

See what happens, when DB make profit, Government cut funding,Tax payer saves money, this won't happen with Go Ahead, the money stays the same each year and profits go to share holders.
Do you think the Unions are wrong to criticise this?

Eh?

Official accounts show DB profit as:-

€0.5M for 2013 (€64.5M PSO),
€11.6M for 2014 (€60M PSO),
€10.2M for 2015 (€57.7M PSO) and
€2.6M for 2016 (€59.6M PSO).

GM228 · 17-03-2018 1:20am

Stephen15 wrote: »

Yes but they will have to sign up to the NTAs T+Cs they will be given a contract where the NTA keeps all the fares and will have to have an NTA livery on their buses etc.

EU law dictates otherwise, direct award contracts sees the operator keep the fares box.

The NTA keeping the fares box only applies to competitive tendering.

bebeman · 17-03-2018 1:29am

devnull wrote: »

You lack serious credibility when you pluck out figures from the sky like that for several reasons

Thats a bit rich.
So many lies posted here as fact.
I was honest in saying i don't have the exact numbers, but the gist is correct, is it not?

bebeman · 17-03-2018 1:31am

devnull wrote: »

They will have to file accounts with the Companies Registration Office like any other company.

It will be like TESCO, it will be rolled into the rest of the profits in the UK, we will never know how much they are gouging us

bebeman · 17-03-2018 1:32am

GM228 wrote: »

Eh?

Official accounts show DB profit as:-

€0.5M for 2013 (€64.5M PSO),
€11.6M for 2014 (€60M PSO),
€10.2M for 2015 (€57.7M PSO) and
€2.6M for 2016 (€59.6M PSO).

Eh?
What, I'm not a bus nerd with this type of info on hand.
The Gist of what i posted is correct is it not?

dublinman1990 · 17-03-2018 2:23am

The MD for Go Ahead Dublin was appointed in late February. His name is Ed Wills.

http://www.route-one.net/articles///Ed_Wills_to_lead_Go_Ahead_Dublin

monument · 17-03-2018 9:26am

bebeman wrote: »

Thats a bit rich.
So many lies posted here as fact.
I was honest in saying i don't have the exact numbers, but the gist is correct, is it not?

It’s not a bit rich at all you said that you were “Pulling these numbers out of the air“... don’t expect any creditably when you’re messing like this.

bebeman wrote: »

Eh?
What, I'm not a bus nerd with this type of info on hand.
The Gist of what i posted is correct is it not?

And cut out the bus nerd nonsense.

— moderator

amcalester · 17-03-2018 9:52am

end of the road wrote: »

no it doesn't. i think you are looking for a different discussion because the discussion we are actually having, is from your original point that because the public operator doesn't make a profit they get more funding then a private operator would because they do make a profit, which is just not true.

Then why was Dermot O’Leary calling for the Minister to get involved during the recent Industrial Action?

What could the Minister do other than write a big cheque that other state bodies couldn’t do?

howiya · 17-03-2018 10:43am

bebeman wrote: »

Eh?
What, I'm not a bus nerd with this type of info on hand.
The Gist of what i posted is correct is it not?

It's all on your companies website.

The point you are missing is that the payment to Go Ahead is a fixed amount irrespective of passenger numbers. All fare income goes to the NTA (aka the Government).

So in the example you gave of increasing passenger numbers leading to an increase in Dublin Bus' profit, an increase in passenger numbers on the Go Ahead routes leads to an increase in profit for the NTA and not a private company.

bebeman · 17-03-2018 3:24pm

howiya wrote: »

So in the example you gave of increasing passenger numbers leading to an increase in Dublin Bus' profit, an increase in passenger numbers on the Go Ahead routes leads to an increase in profit for the NTA and not a private company.

So Go Ahead have ZERO incentive to grow the business?
You think thats a good deal for the Tax payer?

end of the road · 17-03-2018 3:32pm

amcalester wrote: »

Then why was Dermot O’Leary calling for the Minister to get involved during the recent Industrial Action?

What could the Minister do other than write a big cheque that other state bodies couldn’t do?

maybe contact Dermot O’Leary and ask him. no point in asking me why someone else does something, i'm not going to know.

GM228 · 17-03-2018 3:36pm

bebeman wrote: »

So Go Ahead have ZERO incentive to grow the business?
You think thats a good deal for the Tax payer?

Any growth would be dictated by the NTA and they would be paid accordingly.

The flip side is any fall in standards means penalties, so at the very least there is an incentive to offer the service as expected as per their contract.

bebeman · 17-03-2018 3:43pm

GM228 wrote: »

Any growth would be dictated by the NTA and they would be paid accordingly.

The flip side is any fall in standards means penalties, so at the very least there is an incentive to offer the service as expected as per their contract.

So in other words,Zero Incentive to improve or grow the service, steady as she goes.

Dyr · 17-03-2018 3:50pm

bebeman wrote: »

Bus Nerd would be the PG rated term used for those that take a unhealthy interest in Buses, how many photographs do they need of buses? They all look the same.

devnull · 17-03-2018 3:52pm

monument wrote: »

And cut out the bus nerd nonsense.

— moderator

bebeman wrote: »

Bus Nerd would be the PG rated term used for those that take a unhealthy interest in Buses, how many photographs do they need of buses? They all look the same. Just because you don't like something , does not mean its true, or will make it go away.

Assigning derogatory nick-names to those participate in a hobby or interest which is not to your taste is against the charter and you have previously been warned by a moderator and have still persisted.

Enjoy some time off.

- Moderator

markpb · 17-03-2018 6:00pm

bebeman wrote: »

So in other words,Zero Incentive to improve or grow the service, steady as she goes.

I don't know about the GA contact but the Luas contact has penalties for dropping customer numbers, poor delivery performance, excessive fare evasion, etc and bonuses for performing better than expected in those (and probably other) areas. It's quite likely that the GA contact will have something like a 1% bonus for each 5% increase in passenger numbers.

punisher5112 · 17-03-2018 8:03pm

I'll tell it how it is....

Have had many either don't pay or pay minimum fare.

Inspector in the city at a bus stop....
Made said inspector aware there were 2 that hadn't paid...

I was told he can't do anything as he is alone under health and safety and that I could have told them their fare had run out.

Amazing we have huge earners standing around the city who can't do anything....

What do you all make of that oh and no back up or support whatsoever...

AlekSmart · 17-03-2018 11:25pm

markpb wrote: »

I don't know about the GA contact but the Luas contact has penalties for dropping customer numbers, poor delivery performance, excessive fare evasion, etc and bonuses for performing better than expected in those (and probably other) areas. It's quite likely that the GA contact will have something like a 1% bonus for each 5% increase in passenger numbers.

With the NTA/Go Ahead contract in effect since last September,we should not have to be using such terms as "Its quite likely" or "something like".

Is there a specific reason for the NTA not publishing the details of the GAD contract ?

You may well suggest I ask the NTA direct,but I would prefer that,as a Public Authority,they apply the same criteria to ALL of their PSO contracts....if,that is,they are confident of no conflicts of interest etc

Peregrine · 17-03-2018 11:44pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Is there a specific reason for the NTA not publishing the details of the GAD contract ?

You may well suggest I ask the NTA direct,but I would prefer that,as a Public Authority,they apply the same criteria to ALL of their PSO contracts....if,that is,they are confident of no conflicts of interest etc

This was already answered a few pages back after you last asked this.

AlekSmart · 18-03-2018 3:53pm

Peregrine wrote: »

This was already answered a few pages back after you last asked this.

No it was'nt.

Some contributors put forward opinions on the "Commercially Sensitive" reasoning,whilst others drew a distinction between Direct Award Contracts and Competitively Tendered one's.

As of now,the general public have had no sight of even the heads of contract or the operational requirements,none of which would impinge on the Commercial Sensitivity of the deal.

Currently,the NTA have FULL current,and historic details,of PSO contracts with Four Operators available on their website.
Bus Eireann
Bus Atha Cliath.
M&A Coaches.
Whartons Travel

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-transport-services/bus/dublin-bus/contracts/

At his juncture,it appears remiss of the NTA not to have even a passing reference to the 2017 GAD contract ?

I would equally disagree with this "Commercially Sensitive" excuse now,apparently,the norm when wanting to deflect inquisitive outsiders.

If the Singaporean Land Transit Authority is able to publish FULL Public Tender deliberations and statistics concerning the same groups now becoming active in Ireland then so too can the NTA.

https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=a0d4d08f-32f9-4a7a-804b-a0e97e9c19e6

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has awarded the contract for the Bukit Merah bus package to SBS Transit Ltd (SBST), at an estimated total fee of $472 million[1] over the five-year contract period. The package is currently operated by SBST and this new contract will start from the fourth quarter of 2018.

Evaluation Process

3 The tender for the Bukit Merah bus package was called on 28 April 2017 and attracted six bids when it closed on 28 August 2017. All tender submissions were evaluated based on the same set of criteria through a two-envelope process which looked at both quality and price factors. With greater weightage given to the quality proposals, the price envelopes were only opened after the quality evaluation was completed. This two-envelope process ensures that LTA gets the best-value-for-money proposal without compromising on quality.

The annexes contain the Tenderers,and actual Tendered amounts to allow full comparison.

I would suggest that the interested Irish public,are more than capable of being able to digest whatever contract has been put in place,on their behalf,by the NTA,to at least the same level of availibility as demonstrated by the Singaporean Authority.

So,just to be clear on my view here...The Irish National Transport Authority's dealings in the Dublin BMO process,has not yet achieved an acceptable level of transparency,and will not,until the new Contract Details are in the Public Domain. (With an explanation as to the reasons for the delay).

devnull · 18-03-2018 4:23pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

No it was'nt.

See here

GM228 wrote: »

The contracts with M&A, IE, DB and BE (except Waterford) are direct award net costs contracts and must be available to.view.

All other contracts (including BE Waterford) are competitive tender gross cost contracts and not availible for the public to view, they are considered commercially sensitive (whilst not a PSO service contract the LUAS contract is considered the same - commercially sensitive). The old BE Route 817 was a competitive tender gross cost contract and this too was not availible to the public.

This is in accordance with EU Regulation.

markpb · 18-03-2018 5:30pm

There is some merit in the specific financial values beging commercially sensitive but I don't agree that it should extend to the rest of the contract. It's a public contract, surely we have some right to know what is expected of the new operator.

Edit: the estimated cost of the second Luas operate contract was/is public knowledge. Why would a bus contract be any different?

AlekSmart · 18-03-2018 7:17pm

markpb wrote: »

There is some merit in the specific financial values beging commercially sensitive but I don't agree that it should extend to the rest of the contract. It's a public contract, surely we have some right to know what is expected of the new operator.

Edit: the estimated cost of the second Luas operate contract was/is public knowledge. Why would a bus contract be any different?

Spot-on.

I am quite impressed that so many contributors (and even a moderator !) appar so committed to an,as yet,unexplained reasoning for keeping the details of a Public Contract out of the Public domain.

If a very similar Bus market Tendering procedure to ours,in Singapore,can manage to lay bare the entirety of the situation then surely our equally Democratic Republic can,at least provide the Public with the operational elements,without the safety & security of the State being compromised.

For the record,I remain quite supportive and reasonably impressed with the work of the NTA thus far.

However,there are elements,vagueness & secrecy being some of them,that represent an all too visible link to the political reasoning which has bedevilled Irish Public Transport decision making for so long.

Ms Graham,Publish the damn contracts and be done with it eh ?

AlekSmart · 18-03-2018 7:41pm

devnull wrote: »

See here

Originally Posted by GM228 View Post
The contracts with M&A, IE, DB and BE (except Waterford) are direct award net costs contracts and must be available to.view.

All other contracts (including BE Waterford) are competitive tender gross cost contracts and not availible for the public to view, they are considered commercially sensitive (whilst not a PSO service contract the LUAS contract is considered the same - commercially sensitive). The old BE Route 817 was a competitive tender gross cost contract and this too was not availible to the public.

This is in accordance with EU Regulation.

It's noteworthy that the NTA itself,in it's publicity makes no reference to an EU requirement to keep schtum....

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-transport-services/bus/

The bus is the main form of public transport used in Ireland today. Overall buses make about 200 million passenger trips on regular scheduled services across the state. These services are provided under Public Service Obligation contracts with Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus and by licensed commercial bus operators. We review the bus companies’ performance in this regard, and publish quarterly performance reports which are available through the menu bar on the left.

So,it's the European Union itself which has decided that the Operational PSO Contract for the Dublin Bus Market Opening is to remain unavailable for Public Viewing ?

I am far from an expert in such matters,but I very much doubt that the European Union will step forward to recommed an Authority keeping such matters secret ?

However,if it has,then I would be hugely supportive of any individual,group or representative body (;)) who would head Brussselsward to probe a bit more !

I am bemused that none of these folk can see how important it is to begin this process in an open and frank manner,as it will decide the integrity or otherwise of the entire BMO process in the Public mind.

antoinolachtnai · 18-03-2018 8:08pm

The contracts with M&A, IE, DB and BE (except Waterford) are direct award net costs contracts and must be available to.view.

All other contracts (including BE Waterford) are competitive tender gross cost contracts and not availible for the public to view, they are considered commercially sensitive (whilst not a PSO service contract the LUAS contract is considered the same - commercially sensitive). The old BE Route 817 was a competitive tender gross cost contract and this too was not availible to the public.

This is in accordance with EU Regulation.

What EU regulation determines whether contracts should be available for the public to view or not?

devnull · 18-03-2018 8:20pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

If a very similar Bus market Tendering procedure to ours,in Singapore,can manage to lay bare the entirety of the situation then surely our equally Democratic Republic can,at least provide the Public with the operational elements,without the safety & security of the State being compromised.

In case you are not aware, Singapore is not a country which is part of the European Union so European Union regulations do not apply to them, bringing in a country which is not even in same continent let alone subject to the same tendering and contractual rules makes what has happened in Singapore somewhat of a red herring in my book.

AlekSmart wrote: »

It's noteworthy that the NTA itself,in it's publicity makes no reference to an EU requirement to keep schtum....

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-transport-services/bus/

The page details Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann's contracts which are direct award net costs and therefore must have the contracts shown publicly because of the fact they were awarded the contract automatically without giving anyone else a chance to bid for said contracts. It has absolutely no relevance to a discussion about tendering in my book, since no tendering was run for said contracts.

I am bemused that none of these folk can see how important it is to begin this process in an open and frank manner,as it will decide the integrity or otherwise of the entire BMO process in the Public mind.

There have been two contracts formally awarded and signed under the Bus Market Opening system and what perplexes me a little bit is that people who are calling for the publication of the Go-Ahead won Dublin contract and talking about integrity, do not call for the same or have the same fears about the contract that Bus Eireann won under the same system.

From what I understand from my own experiences of tendering in other sectors in the past and what GM228 has posted here, I don't see any real problems as the lack of publicly available contract is normal for competitive tenders and the NTA has consistently applied the same rules to both BE and GA in the two signed Bus Market Opening contests so far.

devnull · 18-03-2018 8:21pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What EU regulation determines whether contracts should be available for the public to view or not?

From what I understand (from working in another sector) there is a requirement that all contracts that are directly awarded have to be published in the public domain because of the absence of a competing bidding process means that the commercial sensitivities aspect no longer applies and the closed shop nature of these awards.

antoinolachtnai · 18-03-2018 8:25pm

devnull wrote: »

In case you are not aware, Singapore is not a country which is part of the European Union so European Union regulations do not apply to them, bringing in a country which is not even in same continent let alone subject to the same tendering and contractual rules makes what has happened in Singapore somewhat of a red herring in my book.

What about London then? They seem to publish lots of details about their contracts? (for example http://content.tfl.gov.uk/metroline-bus-contract.pdf)

AlekSmart · 18-03-2018 10:13pm

devnull wrote: »

In case you are not aware, Singapore is not a country which is part of the European Union so European Union regulations do not apply to them, bringing in a country which is not even in same continent let alone subject to the same tendering and contractual rules makes what has happened in Singapore somewhat of a red herring in my book.

I never suggested that EU regulations applied,even if,on reflection,perhaps the EU might learn a bit from the Singaporean methodology ?

I use the Singaporean example only because the entirety of their situation has many similarities to our own.

Although 13 years younger,our NTA performs largely similar duties regarding Public Transport sourcing & provision.

https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/about-lta.html

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is a statutory board under the Ministry of Transport, which spearheads land transport developments in Singapore. As the agency responsible for planning, designing, building and maintaining Singapore’s land transport infrastructure and systems, we aim to bring about a greener and more inclusive public transport system, complemented by convenient options to walk and cycle from their homes or to their destinations. We leverage technology to strengthen our rail and bus infrastructure and provide exciting options for future land transport.

Not very much different to our NTA I suggest ?

I fully expect some pithy rejoinder about my fixation with the Singaporean model,to which I shall plead guilty,as it's ongoing progress in respect of Public Bus Services contains incredibly similar ingredients to our own.

The page details Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann's contracts which are direct award net costs and therefore must have the contracts shown publicly because of the fact they were awarded the contract automatically without giving anyone else a chance to bid for said contracts. It has absolutely no relevance to a discussion about tendering in my book, since no tendering was run for said contracts.[/QUOUE]

Obviously we sing from different hymn books,which is'nt the end of the world.
Tendering,Franchising,Contracting....call it what you will,is but one constituent of the far broader experiment in Bus Market Opening,and therefore totally relevant to the issue under discussion here.

There is on the face of it,nothing to be gained for most contrbutors,from attempting to restrict or short-circuit broad based discussion and enquiry into the current situation.

There have been two contracts formally awarded and signed under the Bus Market Opening system and what perplexes me a little bit is that people who are calling for the publication of the Go-Ahead won Dublin contract and talking about integrity, do not call for the same or have the same fears about the contract that Bus Eireann won under the same system.

Whoa there now!.....Where are ye getting this contrarian stuff from ?

I fully expect the NTA to make public,at the earliest point,the Bus Eireann Waterford contract. I do not accept that ANY difference exists,once,as you point out those contracts are formally awarded.

From what I understand from my own experiences of tendering in other sectors in the past and what GM228 has posted here, I don't see any real problems as the lack of publicly available contract is normal for competitive tenders and the NTA has consistently applied the same rules to both BE and GA in the two signed Bus Market Opening contests so far.

Well then,in the interests of maintaining their integrity and the integrity of the greater BMO project,the NTA might be well advised to review what relevance that definition of "normal" now bears in this new and,as yet,unproven situation.

devnull · 18-03-2018 10:41pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

I fully expect some pithy rejoinder about my fixation with the Singaporean model,to which I shall plead guilty,as it's ongoing progress in respect of Public Bus Services contains incredibly similar ingredients to our own.

But it's a completely different country, in a completely different regulatory system, in a completely different continent, that is not part of a political and economic union of other member states in the way Ireland is.

Obviously we sing from different hymn books,which is'nt the end of the world. Tendering,Franchising,Contracting....call it what you will,is but one constituent of the far broader experiment in Bus Market Opening,and therefore totally relevant to the issue under discussion here.

Comparing a direct award net cost contract with a tendered gross cross conduct is the very essence of comparing apples with oranges because they are completely different things and are not the same on a number of levels and to state they are is simply plain incorrect.

All of the apples have been treated the same way as each other and all of the oranges have been treated the same way as each other as has been explained earlier in the thread by GM228. You'd have a good point if some apples were treated different to other apples, but they weren't, so you don't in my view.

Well then,in the interests of maintaining their integrity and the integrity of the greater BMO project,the NTA might be well advised to review what relevance that definition of "normal" now bears in this new and,as yet,unproven situation.

So far I have seen no sign that there has been any breach of integrity since every example of a direct award net cost contract has been treated the same as every other example of the same and every tendered gross cross conduct has also been the same as every other tendered gross cross conduct.

Can you show me an example of where two contracts of exactly the same type (direct award / tender) and cost basis (gross/net) have been treated differently to support your questioning of the integrity of a state body?

end of the road · 18-03-2018 10:52pm

any contracts which are awarded by a public body and which are paid for out of public money should be availible to view. it's absolutely wrong that these contracts can be kept secret just because they are tendered. if information is genuinely commercially sensitive then fair enough if it's redacted but it should be kept to an absolute minimum. the contracts should be availible for public viewing and scruteny once awarded as we are paying for them after all.

GM228 · 19-03-2018 12:38pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What EU regulation determines whether contracts should be available for the public to view or not?

The "PSO Regulation" (Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) and the "Procurement Directives" (Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU).

Competitive tender contracts must be awarded in accordance with the conditions of the Procurement Directives which allow for non publication due to commercial sensitivity, however direct award contracts are specifically exempted from this and must be made availible to the public in accordance with the PSO Regulation.

antoinolachtnai · 19-03-2018 2:17pm

The procurement directives specify nothing of the sort. The confidentiality does not obviously extend to terms of a contract.

GM228 · 19-03-2018 2:18pm

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/world/not-so-much-goahead-as-back-to-a-flawed-uk-model-36718588.html

Interesting article in todays Indo about GA.

AlekSmart · 19-03-2018 2:19pm

GM228 wrote: »

The "PSO Regulation" (Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) and the "Procurement Directives" (Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU).

Competitive tender contracts must be awarded in accordance with the conditions of the Procurement Directives which allow for non publication due to commercial sensitivity, however direct award contracts are specifically exempted from this and must be made availible to the public in accordance with the PSO Regulation.

Firstly,it's great to have some knowledgable posters contributing.

I am not for a moment challenging either GM228 or Devnull's knowledge of the NTA's BMO Tendering Process.

That said,I continue to fundamentally disagree with their interpretations of the current situation.

I note from GM228's above post an inference that the wordings of both the EU Regulation (1370/2007) and the Directives (2014/24 & 2014/25) "allow for" non-publication due to commercial sensitivity.

Is it the contention here then,that the quoted EU documents expressly forbid making public the provisions of Public Service Contracts, to the Public on who's behalf the contracts have been framed and entered into ?

There is a Vast difference between "allowing for non-publication" and "prohibiting publication" in this case,and I am suggesting that it is most certainly in the Public Interest,that ALL of the NTA's contractual documents in respect of the BMO process are available for Public Scrutiny.

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Comments