N8/N25/N40 - Dunkettle Interchange [open to traffic]

Kevwoody

I can see this being another children's hospital style debacle regarding cost.

Live at Three

Kevwoody wrote: »

I can see this being another children's hospital style debacle regarding cost.

Why?

Cookiemunster

Kevwoody wrote: »

I can see this being another children's hospital style debacle regarding cost.

That hasn't happened on a roads infrastructure project since the early 00s. TII know how to award these contracts properly.

AugustusMinimus

Cookiemunster wrote: »

That hasn't happened on a roads infrastructure project since the early 00s. TII know how to award these contracts properly.

I have the same feeling though. It’s worrying to hear that ground conditions are worse than originally believed.

marno21

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I have the same feeling though. It’s worrying to hear that ground conditions are worse than originally believed.

It's disappointing that comprehensive ground investigation wasn't done during the incredibly long planning process this scheme had

kub

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I have the same feeling though. It’s worrying to hear that ground conditions are worse than originally believed.

I will be surprised if SISK do not go back looking for more funds for this project.

Kevwoody

kub wrote:

I will be surprised if SISK do not go back looking for more funds for this project.

I'd say BAM are happy they didn't get the contract!

EdgeCase

Kevwoody wrote: »

I'd say BAM are happy they didn't get the contract!

To be fair TII projects are pretty well managed and well spec'd up.

The NCH has all of the issues: a client who can't make their mind up on anything and a project that's a political football, specs that shifted including relocating the whole site, a very awkward brownfield site, a one off building that's highly complex... The list is endless.

In comparison a road junction even one like that interchange is a very straightforward project with well known and easily estimated costs.

highwaymaniac

EdgeCase wrote: »

To be fair TII projects are pretty well managed and well spec'd up.

The NCH has all of the issues: a client who can't make their mind up on anything and a project that's a political football, specs that shifted including relocating the whole site, a very awkward brownfield site, a one off building that's highly complex... The list is endless.

In comparison a road junction even one like that interchange is a very straightforward project with well known and easily estimated costs.

While costs might be more easily estimated than the NCH, I certainly couldn't agree that it is a very straightforward project with easily estimated costs. Not with 90,000 vehicles daily to contend with and multiple Irish Rail interfaces!

highwaymaniac

highwaymaniac wrote: »

While costs might be more easily estimated than the NCH, I certainly couldn't agree that it is a very straightforward project with easily estimated costs. Not with 90,000 vehicles daily to contend with and multiple Irish Rail interfaces!

A few years old but still relevant, a lot of risk factors with this project.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/road-builders-and-irish-rail-disputes-to-cost-100m-1.640560?mode=amp

Cookiemunster

highwaymaniac wrote: »

While costs might be more easily estimated than the NCH, I certainly couldn't agree that it is a very straightforward project with easily estimated costs. Not with 90,000 vehicles daily to contend with and multiple Irish Rail interfaces!

The M50 was had simultaneous multiple junction rebuilds and road widening with similar level of traffic a decade ago. It's a complicated project, but it''s not as if it's the first time it's been done.

EdgeCase

It's not remotely comparable to the NCH.

Kevwoody

EdgeCase wrote:

It's not remotely comparable to the NCH.

How so?

Sisk have tendered and won the contract based on what they knew at the time.

It's only coming to light now that they've moved on site, that ground conditions are considerably worse than the original ground investigations revealed.

With multiple structures to be built, it's not too hard to figure out the cost is going to rise. All because due diligence wasn't carried out regarding ground investigations.

Cookiemunster

Kevwoody wrote: »

How so?

Sisk have tendered and won the contract based on what they knew at the time.

It's only coming to light now that they've moved on site, that ground conditions are considerably worse than the original ground investigations revealed.

With multiple structures to be built, it's not too hard to figure out the cost is going to rise. All because due diligence wasn't carried out regarding ground investigations.

Has any of this been actually confirmed or is it all conjecture?

highwaymaniac

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The M50 was had simultaneous multiple junction rebuilds and road widening with similar level of traffic a decade ago. It's a complicated project, but it''s not as if it's the first time it's been done.

Certainly buildable but not without it's risks. As you said a complicated project.

highwaymaniac

Kevwoody wrote: »

How so?

Sisk have tendered and won the contract based on what they knew at the time.

It's only coming to light now that they've moved on site, that ground conditions are considerably worse than the original ground investigations revealed.

With multiple structures to be built, it's not too hard to figure out the cost is going to rise. All because due diligence wasn't carried out regarding ground investigations.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Has any of this been actually confirmed or is it all conjecture?

Conjecture - there is no Tender Sum or initial Contract Sum with a NEC3 ECI contract as the Design is not complete, therefore it should not matter that the detailed ground investigations are done at this stage. If there are higher costs due to worse ground conditions than expected then so be it, what matters is whether the contract delivers value for money. Cost certainty is not the same as value for money. Eg if the piles for one bridge were estimated at 15m long in the preliminary design and the detailed design requires 20m to reach bedrock then I think any taxpayer would be happy to pay for the extra 5m! as long as it is a competitive price.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase.asp?PID=111758

Kermit.de.frog

When are we going to see this redesign?

Limerick74

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When are we going to see this redesign?

I assume the documents will be made available on the project website if required to do so.

veryangryman

Drax wrote: »

Excellent news indeed... expect it in around 10 years. :pac:

Well its ben 10 years now....

Pete_Cavan

highwaymaniac wrote: »

Conjecture - there is no Tender Sum or initial Contract Sum with a NEC3 ECI contract as the Design is not complete, therefore it should not matter that the detailed ground investigations are done

The NEC contracts are not used in this country. The contract for this project is PW-CF4 Public Works Contract for Civil Engineering Works designed by the Contractor. There most certainly is a contract sum.

Limerick74

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The NEC contracts are not used in this country. The contract for this project is PW-CF4 Public Works Contract for Civil Engineering Works designed by the Contractor. There most certainly is a contract sum.

I believe it is a NEC contract for Dunkettle.

The Instructions to Tenderers is available for download on etenders (link in previous post) and Section 1.1 states the following: The form of contract to be used is the NEC 3 Engineering and Construction Contract incorporating Option C Target Contract with Activity Schedule and the NEC Early Contractor Involvement clauses. A two stage process will be used with Stage One for design and construction planning and Stage Two for construction. The Target Price is to be determined during Stage One.

Pete_Cavan

Limerick74 wrote: »

I believe it is a NEC contract for Dunkettle.

The Instructions to Tenderers is available for download on etenders (link in previous post) and Section 1.1 states the following: The form of contract to be used is the NEC 3 Engineering and Construction Contract incorporating Option C Target Contract with Activity Schedule and the NEC Early Contractor Involvement clauses. A two stage process will be used with Stage One for design and construction planning and Stage Two for construction. The Target Price is to be determined during Stage One.

Oh! This must be the first time that an NEC contract have been used here, certainly since the introduction of the GCCC suite. It is very odd given that PW-CF4 is essentially an evolution of the old NRA D&B contract. They seem to have used the CWMF SAQ documents though.

highwaymaniac

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The NEC contracts are not used in this country. The contract for this project is PW-CF4 Public Works Contract for Civil Engineering Works designed by the Contractor. There most certainly is a contract sum.

Nonsense. I even attached the document to the previous post - Page 1, 4th paragraph.

Chris_5339762

I have emailed the website for details but they have not replied sadly.

Anyway, much more important, Dunkettle Bunny Update.

Thursday 14th: 1x bunny eating grass on the north side of the roundabout at 5pm.
Friday 15th: 1x bunny eating grass on the north side of the roundabout at 5pm.
Monday 18th: 3 or 4 bunnies sunning themselves on the sound side of the roundabout at 430pm.

Markcheese

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I have emailed the website for details but they have not replied sadly.

Anyway, much more important, Dunkettle Bunny Update.

Thursday 14th: 1x bunny eating grass on the north side of the roundabout at 5pm.
Friday 15th: 1x bunny eating grass on the north side of the roundabout at 5pm.
Monday 18th: 3 or 4 bunnies sunning themselves on the sound side of the roundabout at 430pm.

Were they big fat fluffy ones, or the tiny little cute ones,?
I think since foxy showed up, bunnytopia has ended...

Chris_5339762

They appeared fairly big and fluffy from what I could tell. But yeah, the Dunkettle Fox has lowered their numbers somewhat and I reckon traffic itself probably keeps numbers in check as those that venture outwards tend not to come back.
Edit: Thursday 21st: One bunny on the south side of the roundabout.

marno21

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

They appeared fairly big and fluffy from what I could tell. But yeah, the Dunkettle Fox has lowered their numbers somewhat and I reckon traffic itself probably keeps numbers in check as those that venture outwards tend not to come back.
Edit: Thursday 21st: One bunny on the south side of the roundabout.

You missed a bunny fest there around 9:30. Two on the northside, didn't get to count the southside as I got greened through.

Got a little hop when I came to a stop coming from the M8 and I realised this bunny chat wasn't a pisstake

Chris_5339762

I have an update, the guys from the Dunkettle website got back to me. They tell me that they are only looking for planning permission for minor changes, possibly the height of some of the N25(W) slips and the new Little Island access interchange. No capacity changes, and no new M8(S) to Tivoli freeflow. They said its from a "Constructability" point of view.

In far more important news, there was one bunny out on Friday night at 1am munching grass south of the roundabout. But, surprisingly, no bunnies this evening in the nice weather but with bollards up for night works, they might be scared off. I like to think they put the bollards up to keep the bunnies safe.

hans aus dtschl

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I have an update, the guys from the Dunkettle website got back to me. They tell me that they are only looking for planning permission for minor changes, possibly the height of some of the N25(W) slips and the new Little Island access interchange. No capacity changes, and no new M8(S) to Tivoli freeflow. They said its from a "Constructability" point of view.

I've been told that in the planning permission request there will be no changes to the pedestrian / cycle route either: they will detour 1km north as per original (re)design.

rameire

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I have an update, the guys from the Dunkettle website got back to me. They tell me that they are only looking for planning permission for minor changes, possibly the height of some of the N25(W) slips and the new Little Island access interchange. No capacity changes, and no new M8(S) to Tivoli freeflow. They said its from a "Constructability" point of view.

In far more important news, there was one bunny out on Friday night at 1am munching grass south of the roundabout. But, surprisingly, no bunnies this evening in the nice weather but with bollards up for night works, they might be scared off. I like to think they put the bollards up to keep the bunnies safe.

They are very good poached with a Waldorf salad.