€1bn cost overrun for new Children's Hospital

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2018 4:50pm

Amirani wrote: »

If you're happy to go without co-location, than you are happy for the children of Ireland to receive sub-optimal care by any medical metric.

Moving an existing adult hospital or building a new one is prohivitavely expensive and makes this overrun seem like peanuts.

What we’re getting is sub optimal and prohibitively expensive. The scary thing is we have no idea just how expensive it’s going to be. Many of us predicted massive overruns and here we are with massive overruns.

Amirani wrote: »

Anyone in this thread without at least a medical degree suggesting that a green field site would be as good for patient outcomes is deluded.

Nonsense. We’re not only paying for it but we’re also future customers and the vast majority of people I’ve discussed this with, including medical people, are of the view that James’s is a nightmare to reach, including from many parts of Dublin.

Amirani wrote: »

What tax rate are you willing to pay to fund the 10 figure sum needed to pay for all this? Do you know how long this would take? We'd be without a National Children's Hospital for another decade at least under your solution.

Well I pay the top rate and i’d be happy to see it go towards a purpose built hospital in an accessible location. I’m not happy paying for the massive waste and missed opportunity that we’re currently throwing a few billion at. As for waiting a decade ? We’ve already waited for nearly 3 decades. I’d prefer to wait another and do it right then rush it and get it wrong.

Wildly Boaring · 22-12-2018 4:51pm

Amirani wrote: »

Not that that will be important to kids sitting in ICU as you seem to imply...

My point was about distraught families from miles away attempting to access James's while their kids are in ICU.

This is probably worse for cancer sufferers or any seriously ill patients with ongoing care.

Its seems incredible to me that a city centre location be chosen logistically or commercially.

I also have a lot of experience of the vested interests in Irish construction projects and the incompetence of the HSE when dealing with large scale projects.

I am impressed with the answers on the location from medical side. In fact the answers here have opened my eyes to be honest.

The Bishop Basher · 22-12-2018 4:55pm

Amirani wrote: »

Cost wasn't the most important factor here, medical outcomes was.

Yes to the detriment of the patients who were ignored. Not much point taking about medical outcomes when it’ll take people hours to get there.

Amirani wrote: »

Co-location was an absolute must. Green field site doesn't give you that so it was ruled out.

Big problems require big solutions. There’s no reason why an adult hospital couldn’t be built along side a childrens hospital. If cost was genuinely an issue we wouldn’t be building in James’s where we have no idea what the final cost will be. 2 billion and counting !!

beauf · 22-12-2018 4:59pm

Amirani wrote: »

75% of the hospital's patients are going to be from the Dublin area (as per Dolphin) report. We should not be trying to locate it on a green field site to suit the <1% of patients coming from Donegal, particularly when that means losing out on the benefits of co-location, which is absolutely essential if you want the best patient outcomes. If you're happy to go without co-location, than you are happy for the children of Ireland to receive sub-optimal care by any medical metric....

The wording in McKinsey was ....

1. Space

• Ability to meet projected tertiary and secondary needs (including potential to accommodate research and education facilities).

...International experience shows that it is important to weigh a decision to co-locate against pragmatic considerations, including: space and quality of
access to potential sites;...

¶ A single tertiary centre (also providing secondary care needs for its local
catchment)

¶ Co-located with an adult teaching hospital

¶ Linked with other paediatric regional centres, within the context of a
clearly defined integrated service

¶ Additional considerations included accessibility to public transport and
roads, and space to expand for research and clinical needs

The preferred option would be co-location. If so, needs to be specific about level of integration and sharing of services. If not co-located, need to be specific about how to address the challenges of isolation from adult services.

4. Access

• Comprehensive outreach programme with other hospitals providing in-patient paediatric services in critical sub-specialties.
• National retrieval plan and ambulance diversion protocol for Dublin.
• Clear referral protocol and supporting liaison with Dublin A&E centres.
• Provision for “hospital hotel” facilities and family accommodation on site.
• Good public transport and road links.
• Parking for families and staff.

So I don't know where "absolutely essential" came from, at the loss of most of the practical considerations.

One of the advantages of co-location was economy of scale and shared resources. That it would be less expensive than a greenfield site.

Well that ship has well and truly sailed.

Amirani · 22-12-2018 5:01pm

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

My point was about distraught families from miles away attempting to access James's while their kids are in ICU.

This is probably worse for cancer sufferers or any seriously ill patients with ongoing care.

Its seems incredible to me that a city centre location be chosen logistically or commercially.

I also have a lot of experience of the vested interests in Irish construction projects and the incompetence of the HSE when dealing with large scale projects.

I am impressed with the answers on the location from medical side. In fact the answers here have opened my eyes to be honest.

I understand your concerns and I think you're spot on as regards vested interests from a construction point of view - the project overrun speaks to this. If we were picking a site on purely a cost-basis, it would be an M50 site.

But the medical reasoning was definitely the most important here, Co-Location was essential, and there were only a select few hospitals where this could be achieved.

As regards parking for parents. The site does have a reasonably large number of spaces available, but won't be able to accommodate all of them. A dedicated park and ride with access to the Luas or Houston train should help this, and there are other parking facilities that may be used also. No option, even a green field M50 site, would have ample parking for all parents and hospital staff if we were to build a large co-located facility.

beauf · 22-12-2018 5:08pm

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

...I am impressed with the answers on the location from medical side. In fact the answers here have opened my eyes to be honest.

You should consider does James currently handle everything on site, or does it refer people to other locations in Dublin for certain specialities. Maternity for example.

Wildly Boaring · 22-12-2018 5:17pm

Amirani wrote: »

I understand your concerns and I think you're spot on as regards vested interests from a construction point of view - the project overrun speaks to this. If we were picking a site on purely a cost-basis, it would be an M50 site.

But the medical reasoning was definitely the most important here, Co-Location was essential, and there were only a select few hospitals where this could be achieved.

As regards parking for parents. The site does have a reasonably large number of spaces available, but won't be able to accommodate all of them. A dedicated park and ride with access to the Luas or Houston train should help this, and there are other parking facilities that may be used also. No option, even a green field M50 site, would have ample parking for all parents and hospital staff if we were to build a large co-located facility.

I realise the ship has sailed.

But actually getting there is the huge issue. I don't think dubs who are used to your ****e traffic realise just how bad it is. Dublin is paralysed for several hours a day. How are cancer patients to get in for 9am treatments? Get up at 5??

It's a great aim to have to ignore cost and provide the optimal medical solution. But we now have spent the health capital spend for the next 20 years. A minor recession and Cork, Limerick and Waterford can put paid to any planned works. The location and brownfield is a substantial part of this. (Hse uselessness is going to transpire to be most of it I fear)

Idbatterim · 22-12-2018 5:18pm

salmocab wrote: »

In fairness it’s much needed the two children’s hospitals are very old and need replacing or complete overhauls. They could be done up cheaper but they can’t really be expanded. More space is needed for beds and new technologies. I’ve been to our lady’s a few times over the years and there is a lot of queuing in corridors going on, it’s just too small for what’s in it now.

how long before we hear the new childrens hospital doesnt have enough beds etc? the usual bull**** we expect from here? Its laughable, how long has it taken to get here? over two decades? then the cost isnt far off two billion?

No doubt it could have been done for a fraction of the price during the recession! Laughable! Also when I hear the word "expert" being used, in Ireland, please, just please... dont!

that james site seems a sprawling low density mess, if there is an issue with parking, surely they can demolish a building or find a site for a several storey car park?

beauf · 22-12-2018 5:19pm

I'll answer my own question. Co-location changed from preferred to essential because its the only plus for certain politically advantageous locations.
Locations which are otherwise entirely unsuitable.

Someone mentioned Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is landlocked, and doesn't have parking on site, and is difficult to drive to.

Its also not co-located.

Idbatterim · 22-12-2018 5:25pm

beauf wrote: »

I'll answer my own question. Co-location changed from preferred to essential because its the only plus for certain politically advantageous locations.
Locations which are otherwise entirely unsuitable.

Someone mentioned Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) is landlocked, and doesn't have parking on site, and is difficult to drive to.

Its also not co-located.

is the co-location a must in non banana republics? because as you say, nothing would surprise me here, they'd gladly cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions if their mates could make an extra few euro out of it...

beauf · 22-12-2018 5:33pm

Co-location is important, no doubt. But it wasn't the only or sole consideration. Not by a long way.

Anyway it doesn't matter now. They've literally dug a hole they can't get out of.

Other locations are irrelevant now. We need a crisis team to stop the uncontrolled costs.

salmocab · 22-12-2018 6:33pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

that james site seems a sprawling low density mess, if there is an issue with parking, surely they can demolish a building or find a site for a several storey car park?

To demolish a building would mean closing down whatever it is used for moving it elsewhere presumably off site then spending a year contstructing a car park in a tight working hospital. You end up with a few hundred maybe a thousand extra spaces and still every one of those cars needs to drive through the surrounding roads.
There is also talk of moving the Coombe down too in the future, presumably it will be on stilts over the physiotherapy wing.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 10:07am

Most big building projects like this is basically a blank cheque for the government to wedge up their buddies who put in bumped up quotes for work or materials.Once the project gets started it has to get finished,regardless of overrun costs,the final price tag will only get bigger and it will be like an out of control snowball.Jobs for the boys,and guess who foots the final bill,plus the interest on the interest on the interest on the interest........................aaaghh

Wheeliebin30 · 25-12-2018 10:37am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Most big building projects like this is basically a blank cheque for the government to wedge up their buddies who put in bumped up quotes for work or materials.Once the project gets started it has to get finished,regardless of overrun costs,the final price tag will only get bigger and it will be like an out of control snowball.Jobs for the boys,and guess who foots the final bill,plus the interest on the interest on the interest on the interest........................aaaghh

Yeah so have you any evidence of anything you just posted?

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 11:11am

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yeah so have you any evidence of anything you just posted?

I am heavily involved in procurements and quotes at a top government level,so I can't really say much,however.....yeah,of course I don't have evidence,ffs,I'm just an average joesoap keyboard warrior like yourself throwing my two cents in like everybody else.Do you have evidence yourself to back anything up that you may or not believe.No,of course not,we are just normal people expressing an opinion,are you a Russian chat not lol?

Wheeliebin30 · 25-12-2018 11:17am

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I am heavily involved in procurements and quotes at a top government level,so I can't really say much,however.....yeah,of course I don't have evidence,ffs,I'm just an average joesoap keyboard warrior like yourself throwing my two cents in like everybody else.Do you have evidence yourself to back anything up that you may or not believe.No,of course not,we are just normal people expressing an opinion,are you a Russian chat not lol?

But you stated most government projects like this are a blank cheque for the governments buddies.

So now you’re saying it’s only your opinion and have no proof it.

So basically your talking ****e.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 11:30am

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But you stated most government projects like this are a blank cheque for the governments buddies.

So now you’re saying it’s only your opinion and have no proof it.

So basically your talking ****e.

Basically I'm expressing an opinion,and I'm sure that you talk more ****e than most,and have no evidence to back up your presumption that I'm wrong,so who's talking ****e now,**** talker lol.

EdgeCase · 25-12-2018 11:33am

The problem is the damn project was run as if it were a boards thread discussing some theoretical hospital and decisions were made, fought over and everybody was an expert on hospital location all of a sudden.

What happened here is precisely what happens when you've no project management.

It does need to go to a major enquiry as this has been the squandering of a huge amount of the capital health budget.

We're not going to get the money back but we need to put systems in place to ensure this never happens again and to ensure that it isn't happening all over the system on a less noticeable scale

We get abysmal value for our health spend. We put in as much money as places like Sweden, yet we seem to get poor service, massive queues, poor conditions for staff to the point we've difficulty retaining and recruiting and many other issues.

This massive overspend needs to be very heavily investigated and we need to find out exactly what happened and how this money was burnt though like this.

Unless you're happy to spend €257 per head on hot air and waste.

That overspend works out at about a grand for s household of 4 people. That's a grand of your money flushed down the toilet.

It's money that could have gone into actual health facilities or dealing with various other problems.

When you sit down for dinner later on just imagine that .... €257 bill per seat courtesy of the HSE.

Ultimately we are paying for this fiasco. It's public money thrown away.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 11:44am

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is the damn project was run as if it were a boards thread discussing some theoretical hospital and decisions were made, fought over and everybody was an expert on hospital location all of a sudden.

What happened here is precisely what happens when you've no project management.

It does need to go to a major enquiry as this has been the squandering of a huge amount of the capital health budget.

We're not going to get the money back but we need to put systems in place to ensure this never happens again and to ensure that it isn't happening all over the system on a less noticeable scale

We get abysmal value for our health spend. We put in as much money as places like Sweden, yet we seem to get poor service, massive queues, poor conditions for staff to the point we've difficulty retaining and recruiting and many other issues.

This massive overspend needs to be very heavily investigated and we need to find out exactly what happened and how this money was burnt though like this.

Unless you're happy to spend €257 per head on hot air and waste.

That overspend works out at about a grand for s household of 4 people. That's a grand of your money flushed down the toilet.

It's money that could have gone into actual health facilities or dealing with various other problems.

When you sit down for dinner later on just imagine that .... €257 bill per seat courtesy of the HSE.

Ultimately we are paying for this fiasco. It's public money thrown away.

Not so sure an enquiry will be a good idea,more money wasted for the elite gravy train of lawyers and "experts", however I agree absolutely with everything you say.These big projects we will be paying for over and over again,its the interest on the interest on the interest..........we never stop paying,so its a project ,not withstanding the overspend,that milks the public year after year for god knows how long,and for the elites its the cash cow that keeps on giving.

facehugger99 · 25-12-2018 1:04pm

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is the damn project was run as if it were a boards thread discussing some theoretical hospital and decisions were made, fought over and everybody was an expert on hospital location all of a sudden.

Only in Ireland, is Jonny's 'I get the bus a couple of times a week' opinion afforded as much weight as someone who's spent 4 years studying transportation engineering.

gctest50 · 25-12-2018 1:19pm

They couldn't even run a cervical screening program without needlessly killing women

Now they've notions about building ?

€ 1.7 billion for 320 beds ?

It will suck up money and kill children

Wheeliebin30 · 25-12-2018 9:25pm

gctest50 wrote: »

They couldn't even run a cervical screening program without needlessly killing women

Now they've notions about building ?

€ 1.7 billion for 320 beds ?

It will suck up money and kill children

Who is killing women and children?

Aidric · 25-12-2018 10:44pm

Anita Blow wrote: »

The cost overrun is absolutely abhorrent and deserves scrutiny

Abhorrent and reckless. An overspend on a capital project of this scale in the private sector would end with heads rolling.

The HSE is already a shítshow, this overrun will impact negatively on future much needed capital projects. The buck stops with the health minister.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 10:54pm

Aidric wrote: »

Abhorrent and reckless. An overspend on a capital project of this scale in the private sector would end with heads rolling.

The HSE is already a shítshow, this overrun will impact negatively on future much needed capital projects. The buck stops with the health minister.

Welcome to the HSE gravy train.Transfer of capital in obscene amounts from our pockets to god knows where.Jobs for the boys,and the agency's must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 10:55pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who is killing women and children?

Wheeliebin,you have to leave the dark side,it may hurt for a while,but you can do it.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 11:00pm

Aidric wrote: »

Abhorrent and reckless. An overspend on a capital project of this scale in the private sector would end with heads rolling.

The HSE is already a shítshow, this overrun will impact negatively on future much needed capital projects. The buck stops with the health minister.

Yes,heads would roll in the private sector.However in the private sector you would have people who knew what they were doing,who had huge experience,otherwise they wouldn't even get close to projects of this size.With government ,well its not quite the case...............

Aidric · 25-12-2018 11:08pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Yes,heads would roll in the private sector.However in the private sector you would have people who knew what they were doing,who had huge experience,otherwise they wouldn't even get close to projects of this size.With government ,well its not quite the case...............

Was there a procurement manager, finance manager, quantity surveyor, project manager on this project?

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 11:16pm

Aidric wrote: »

Was there a procurement manager, finance manager, quantity surveyor, project manager on this project?

Would the government have contracted out these jobs,or would it be office of public works? I've no idea tbh,however the problem as I see it is that in the private sector,money is leveraged for projects this size,and has to be paid back,by creating a profit.With government however,its not their money,and WE are the ones who have to pay it back.There lies the problem.Once a project this size is started,it has to be finished,and all parties involved know this,so why not keep bleeding the public coffers,its the cash cow that keeps on giving.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 11:25pm

Years ago I worked in the building trade over in the UK.Worked on some medium sized projects,and some big ones.McAlpines was one company I worked with,as a tradesman,and they had deadlines for finishing,with punitive over run penalties,and things got pretty ****ty when the schedule was off target,and their profit margins were pretty slim,only a few percentage points of the total budget.Twelve hour shifts were normal if things were behind,that was how the private sector worked in my limited experience.

salmocab · 25-12-2018 11:27pm

Would I be right in saying it was the estimated costs that were wrong and that in fact this is the price for the job as tendered. It was the initial projection that was fantasy. Even the initial costs were based on a different plan.

Wheeliebin30 · 25-12-2018 11:36pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Years ago I worked in the building trade over in the UK.Worked on some medium sized projects,and some big ones.McAlpines was one company I worked with,as a tradesman,and they had deadlines for finishing,with punitive over run penalties,and things got pretty ****ty when the schedule was off target,and their profit margins were pretty slim,only a few percentage points of the total budget.Twelve hour shifts were normal if things were behind,that was how the private sector worked in my limited experience.

You work in the public sector now yes?

Wheeliebin30 · 25-12-2018 11:38pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Wheeliebin,you have to leave the dark side,it may hurt for a while,but you can do it.

The dark side?

You were obviously watching Star Wars tonight and think you’re billy big balls with the quotes.

Come back when you have grown up a little.

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 11:46pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The dark side?

You were obviously watching Star Wars tonight and think you’re billy big balls with the quotes.

Come back when you have grown up a little.

Im back ,and yes ,I have a big pair of balls,which allows me to make jokes,to have a joke made at my expense,and not be effected.So wheelibin,do you like the dark side,can you take a joke,without bitchin like a little girl? Lol

Wheeliebin30 · 25-12-2018 11:54pm

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Im back ,and yes ,I have a big pair of balls,which allows me to make jokes,to have a joke made at my expense,and not be effected.So wheelibin,do you like the dark side,can you take a joke,without bitchin like a little girl? Lol

Happy Christmas M:)

Master of the Omniverse · 25-12-2018 11:58pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Happy Christmas M:)

Happy Christmas wheelibin!

Wildly Boaring · 26-12-2018 12:04am

salmocab wrote: »

Would I be right in saying it was the estimated costs that were wrong and that in fact this is the price for the job as tendered. It was the initial projection that was fantasy. Even the initial costs were based on a different plan.

450m was initial estimate
650m was estimate at planning
1.2b tender won by BAM
projected 1.4b a month ago
Now projected 1.75b

Was always gonna go up a bit after tender.

Substantial groundwork issues and as per my previous post HSE a disaster of a client who love to shift goalpost.

I ASSUME that between tender and final project there will be some technological improvements out there that will need to be accommodated to ensure cutting edge hospital on completion. This will add to tender cost

Edit...also you do not award a tender to BAM and expect to finish at tender price. They have a model of winning and then using every trick and twist to claim and get extension of time

salmocab · 26-12-2018 12:08am

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

450m was initial estimate
650m was estimate at planning
1.2b tender won by BAM
projected 1.4b a month ago
Now projected 1.75b

Was always gonna go up a bit after tender.

Substantial groundwork issues and as per my previous post HSE a disaster of a client who love to shift goalpost.

I ASSUME that between tender and final project there will be some technological improvements out there that will need to be accommodated to ensure cutting edge hospital on completion. This will add to tender cost

Cheers for that, still some massive jumps there and has to have been some incompetence along the way to end up at treble the cost and counting.

Wildly Boaring · 26-12-2018 12:18am

salmocab wrote: »

Cheers for that, still some massive jumps there and has to have been some incompetence along the way to end up at treble the cost and counting.

Well for starters who the fudge did the estimation? Pretty much doubled. 650m up to 1200m

You can be guaranteed that BAM tender was low by say 10%. So the estimate was out by 100%. You have to ask was this done on purpose in order to keep the project moving

I've done in numerous times on a much smaller scale. Boss needs an estimate for the bean counters. Go high if they really want it and you want wriggle room.

Go a bit low if you really want it and then blame the contractors for being greedy ****s when the tenders come back. Award and then add the rest of it on a change order.

Lot of external consultants will come back with the figure you want when estimating.

EdgeCase · 26-12-2018 1:32am

It's a complex project of a type that isn't done all that often, so I'd have been reasonably expecting it to cost up to €1bn.
Brown field site, complex layout, specialist facilities, possible delays.

Moving site and all the other crazy stuff along the way are what caused this massive overrun.

Dirtdrifter · 26-12-2018 4:18am

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital

1677 bed super-hospital built in Glasgow for just over a billion a few years ago on a brownfield site .

Opened in 2015

Largest hospital campus in Europe ,10,000 staff

Every facility paediatric, maternity ,emergency ,adult

Contrast that with what we get here for more money

Wildly Boaring · 26-12-2018 12:01pm

Dirtdrifter wrote: »

Queen Elizabeth University Hospital

1677 bed super-hospital built in Glasgow for just over a billion a few years ago on a brownfield site .

Opened in 2015

Largest hospital campus in Europe ,10,000 staff

Every facility paediatric, maternity ,emergency ,adult

Contrast that with what we get here for more money

Pound or euro?

Was it built during recession?

VAT included?

Still a whopper of a difference.

Was it one of the builds that put Carillion under?

Dirtdrifter · 26-12-2018 12:29pm

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Pound or euro?

Was it built during recession?

VAT included?

Still a whopper of a difference.

Was it one of the builds that put Carillion under?

About 850 million pounds

Everything on the one campus

Built only a few years

University hospital,large emergency hospitals *2

You name it it's all there

Wildly Boaring · 26-12-2018 12:31pm

Dirtdrifter wrote: »

About 850 million pounds

Everything on the one campus

Built only a few years

University hospital,large emergency hospitals *2

You name it it's all there

Mad isn't it.

A few of these hospitals were the projects that broke carrillion though.

This was a public tendered process

Dirtdrifter · 26-12-2018 12:36pm

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Mad isn't it.

A few of these hospitals were the projects that broke carrillion though.

This was a public tendered process

Someone can fire up a link for a laugh to see what they got for their billion in the UK

It's a joke here a little hospital costing this money

salmocab · 26-12-2018 1:53pm

I was chatting to a lad today and he was telling me one of the main contractors is having trouble getting sub contractors to commit as it’s too big and it’s near impossible to get tradesmen, I know this is unsubstantiated gossip but I can see trades struggling to get enough people to work there when there’s better money to be made out further.

Dirtdrifter · 26-12-2018 1:59pm

salmocab wrote: »

I was chatting to a lad today and he was telling me one of the main contractors is having trouble getting sub contractors to commit as it’s too big and it’s near impossible to get tradesmen, I know this is unsubstantiated gossip but I can see trades struggling to get enough people to work there when there’s better money to be made out further.

There'll be the same issues during construction with parking and travelling to work

Who'd want the hassle if there's something handier elsewhere

Also the work will be a pain in the hoop with all the specs and oversight,the job will crawl along here

Wildly Boaring · 26-12-2018 2:00pm

salmocab wrote: »

I was chatting to a lad today and he was telling me one of the main contractors is having trouble getting sub contractors to commit as it’s too big and it’s near impossible to get tradesmen, I know this is unsubstantiated gossip but I can see trades struggling to get enough people to work there when there’s better money to be made out further.

Probably more to do with the main contractor being infamous to extract money from.

So subbies a bit more inclined to go where they'll get their money without having work for free.

salmocab · 26-12-2018 2:04pm

Dirtdrifter wrote: »

There'll be the same issues during construction with parking and travelling to work

Who'd want the hassle if there's something handier elsewhere

Also the work will be a pain in the hoop with all the specs and oversight,the job will crawl along here

Yeah parking and travel will be a nightmare but I’d disagree about the work it would be good interesting stuff.

salmocab · 26-12-2018 2:07pm

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Probably more to do with the main contractor being infamous to extract money from.

So subbies a bit more inclined to go where they'll get their money without having work for free.

It’s not the builder but one of the trades but you could be right.

People at the moment are going to avoid hassle if they can. The site is tight and will be a logistical nightmare for stores, deliveries, office space and deliveries.

Dirtdrifter · 26-12-2018 2:09pm

salmocab wrote: »

Yeah parking and travel will be a nightmare but I’d disagree about the work it would be good interesting stuff.

True

It will be good work depending on who you're working for on site

If it's someone established used to big jobs and not panic stations every day

€1bn cost overrun for new Children's Hospital

Comments