Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

howiya

AlekSmart wrote: »

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.

A contract is between two parties. Both would have to agree to publication where non-publication is allowed for.

markpb

howiya wrote: »

A contract is between two parties. Both would have to agree to publication where non-publication is allowed for.

That's not an insurmountable problem. When the NTA are writing the tender, they specify that elements of the resulting contract will be public. Ta da, problem solved!

Of course, there's a risk that some companies might not want to tender with a clause like that. Who's the know if that's the case or not.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

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

Yes they do allow for non-publication of contract details on grounds of commercial sensitivity.

howiya

markpb wrote: »

That's not an insurmountable problem. When the NTA are writing the tender, they specify that elements of the resulting contract will be public. Ta da, problem solved!

Of course, there's a risk that some companies might not want to tender with a clause like that. Who's the know if that's the case or not.

Agree it's not an insurmountable problem but it might also be the NTA's choice not to publish either. We simply don't know.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

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

What "interpretations" have I made that you disagree with?

AlekSmart wrote: »

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 ?

Your inference is correct, I didn't state that EU law forbids publication, I simply said that what is done is in accordance with EU law which allows for non-publication.

AlekSmart wrote: »

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.

Should the same also apply to any contract involving public services? For example should we ask the HSE to publish all contracts concerning the provision of public medical treatment? Should AnPost publish details of any contracts it has for the provision of postal and other services it operates for the public? Should DB, M&A, IE and BE also publish any sub-contracts it has aswell as contracts with suppliers etc.

The reality is very few companies (private or public) will release details of any of their contracts for commercial sensitivity reasons. If it was not a legal requirement the direct award contracts would not be availabe either.

GM228

markpb wrote: »

That's not an insurmountable problem. When the NTA are writing the tender, they specify that elements of the resulting contract will be public. Ta da, problem solved!

Of course, there's a risk that some companies might not want to tender with a clause like that. Who's the know if that's the case or not.

Such a provision would fall foul of the rules for tendering as a right not to publish the details is afforded under the rules of tendering.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

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.

You can say that again...... :eek:

( I'm assuming that the writer is not the Dr John Lynch,former CIE Chairman )

Definitely bound to stir a bit of response cross a wide area....

Alarmingly, to this end, it has been hiring well-paid UK consultants to replicate the London Bus model, a concept that many think is old-hat.

The UK bus market is declining, due to the removal of road space for cyclists.

It plans the elimination of all existing brands, like Dublin Bus, replacing them with its own NTA brand.

The big question remains: is this the discredited London Bus Authority drama being played out for an Irish audience? One hopes not.

It plans to generate 15-20pc of its revenues from international activity within five years. Some commentators are sceptical, given its track record in the US and Sweden, both of which it entered and exited.

I'm off to my local Lidl to get some popcorn and dips.....:P

Stevek101

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cies-controversial-chairman-to-stay-in-239000ayear-post-26651499.html

Seems to be the author?

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

What "interpretations" have I made that you disagree with?

Your inference is correct, I didn't state that EU law forbids publication, I simply said that what is done is in accordance with EU law which allows for non-publication.

Should the same also apply to any contract involving public services? For example should we ask the HSE to publish all contracts concerning the provision of public medical treatment? Should AnPost publish details of any contracts it has for the provision of postal and other services it operates for the public? Should DB, M&A, IE and BE also publish any sub-contracts it has aswell as contracts with suppliers etc.

The reality is very few companies (private or public) will release details of any of their contracts for commercial sensitivity reasons. If it was not a legal requirement the direct award contracts would not be availabe either.

Interesting how this thread is progressing on a tangent not initially envisaged,but one which,I suspect,will now be somewhat more thoroughly covered.

My interpretation,which may be incorrect,is that yourself and Devnull have no issue with,and see no value to,the details of the BMO Contrats being made Public ?

My view is that the current NTA policies in regard to the BMO Contracts now require explicit re-stating that any and all details of such Contracts will be kept confidential.

This then invites further questions as to the length of such Confidentiality clauses and the lack of public awareness that the NTA was implimenting such a policy from the outset,at pre-qualification stage perhaps ?

Will we now have to wait for Investigative Journalists to pursue FoI requests,and perhaps head to the Courts to secure,what is very obviously Publicly relevant Information ?

One can argue for US style redaction of certain details,but at this juncture,a very basic principle of Openess and Transparency is an absolute requirement,if the NTA and the State itself are to maintain their integrity.

It does not have to be this way ! :mad:

AlekSmart

Stevek101 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cies-controversial-chairman-to-stay-in-239000ayear-post-26651499.html

Seems to be the author?

I was posting tongue-in-cheek !!!!!!

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

You can say that again...... :eek:

( I'm assuming that the writer is not the Dr John Lynch,former CIE Chairman )

Yes he's the same John Lynch.

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

One can argue for US style redaction of certain details,but at this juncture,a very basic principle of Openess and Transparency is an absolute requirement,if the NTA and the State itself are to maintain their integrity.

I will state what I have said before in relation to this, which is that I haven't seen any sign that there has been any breach of integrity as every example of a tendered gross cost contract has been treated the same as every other tendered gross cost contract and every direct award net cost contract has been treated the same as every other direct award net cost contract.

You seem unable, or unwilling to support your questioning of the integrity of a state body by giving me an example of where two contracts of exactly the same type and cost basis are treated different from one another, therefore I assume that you agree that the NTA has treated all winners of certain types of contracts, the same as other winners of the same types of contract?

My view is that the current NTA policies in regard to the BMO Contracts now require explicit re-stating that any and all details of such Contracts will be kept confidential.

This then invites further questions as to the length of such Confidentiality clauses and the lack of public awareness that the NTA was implimenting such a policy from the outset,at pre-qualification stage perhaps ?

In my experience of tenders it is generally the case that commercially sensitive information is not published. This has been the case in every tender I have been involved with in some shape or form for the reasons that GM228 has outlined previously.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

My interpretation,which may be incorrect,is that yourself and Devnull have no issue with,and see no value to,the details of the BMO Contrats being made Public ?

I'm not sure how you come to that view as I never stated one way or the other my views on the matter or weather or not they should be made public and if there was any value in such, I simply stated why they were not public in reply to that question.

AlekSmart wrote: »

My view is that the current NTA policies in regard to the BMO Contracts now require explicit re-stating that any and all details of such Contracts will be kept confidential.

Don't forget the NTA are dealing with private companies, I have yet to come accross a private company willing to publish any contracts they hold, why assume the NTA dictate they be confidential?

AlekSmart wrote: »

This then invites further questions as to the length of such Confidentiality clauses and the lack of public awareness that the NTA was implimenting such a policy from the outset,at pre-qualification stage perhaps ?

Again why assume the NTA call the shots.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Will we now have to wait for Investigative Journalists to pursue FoI requests,and perhaps head to the Courts to secure,what is very obviously Publicly relevant Information ?

You would not get a FOI request too easily on a commercially sensitive contract as it can prejudice the commercial interests of the company involved. Such a request would be subject to a balancing test.

mickmmc

From John Lynch's article:

Go Ahead Bus has 24% of the London Bus market (190 routes) with revenues of £525m and only 8% of UK Regional market with £377m. He doesn't state the nos of passengers or routes for UK Regional

Can I infer from these figures (though limited) that the London Bus market is fiercely competitive?

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

I will state what I have said before in relation to this, which is that I haven't seen any sign that there has been any breach of integrity as every example of a tendered gross cost contract has been treated the same as every other tendered gross cost contract and every direct award net cost contract has been treated the same as every other direct award net cost contract.

You seem unable, or unwilling to support your questioning of the integrity of a state body by giving me an example of where two contracts of exactly the same type and cost basis are treated different from one another, therefore I assume that you agree that the NTA has treated all winners of certain types of contracts, the same as other winners of the same types of contract?

In my experience of tenders it is generally the case that commercially sensitive information is not published. This has been the case in every tender I have been involved with in some shape or form for the reasons that GM228 has outlined previously.

I am perfectly able to support my questioning of the reasons for keeping the new BMO Contracts secret.

We are not involving State Secrecy here,it is a contract for the provision of Public Bus Services,and I suggest the Public are better served if the Contractual requirements are in the Public Domain.

A simple Statement from the NTA,at the pre-qualification stage,that ALL subsequent Contractual details would remain confidential,would have allowed for some debate as to the Public Interest of this policy.

Using the term "Commercial Confidentiality"now, as some form of catch-all to prevent public dissemination of the agreed contracts,may be acceptable you you,and that's fine by me,but I remain wary of such secrecy clauses being invoked to prevent viewing of the terms under which our Public Bus Service will now be provided.

Secrecy,outside of wartime,rarely lasts long,and I can see a situation developing whereby the death-by-a-thousand-cuts process becomes the norm,as little by little,elements of the Contracts become public.

If this were the Freemasons or the Magic Circle I'd not be too concerned,but it's the NTA beginning a process,which could take decades to become fully accepted and operational.

Secrecy,in this instance does NOT benefit the Public.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

A simple Statement from the NTA,at the pre-qualification stage,that ALL subsequent Contractual details would remain confidential,would have allowed for some debate as to the Public Interest of this policy.

And then the NTA would be accused of pre-empting secrecy, they can't win can they.

mickmmc

On the Direct Award Model:

From reading the NTA document in the Fare Determination thread, the NTA has significant level of control over DB.

DB's profits are capped at €5m per annum; anything in excess of this amount will be taken by the NTA. Also, the issues of wage increases is discussed. The NTA could control DB pay increases in the future from my read of the document.

With regard to BE, the CEO stated in an interview last year that BE is not allowed make a profit on the PSO contract routes. He is certainly unhappy with the PSO contract.

Maybe DB & BE would be better off if 100% of the market is opened to tender?

The NTA are no push over reading that document and drive a hard bargain.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

And then the NTA would be accused of pre-empting secrecy, they can't win can they.

But it would have been sorted BEFORE the process began...which,to me,would be preferable to what is going on now.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

Secrecy,in this instance does NOT benefit the Public.

And openness may not benefit anyone either, especially the parties involved when commercial sensitivity is involved.

GM228

mickmmc wrote: »

On the Direct Award Model:

From reading the NTA document in the Fare Determination thread, the NTA has significant level of control over DB.

DB's profits are capped at €5m per annum; anything in excess of this amount will be taken by the NTA. Also, the issues of wage increases is discussed. The NTA could control DB pay increases in the future from my read of the document.

Not really, they only set a reasonable profit which is then used as part of the formula (known as the "net financial effect") to determine the PSO compensation payment, the PSO payment can't be above this net financial effect figure, but the actual profit can be above the reasonable profit figure, they are not the same (the unions like to spin this, but DB have made bigger profits in recent years).

The NTA can not dictate pay rises.

mickmmc

If you read the Fare Determination thread, the NTA stated that the 3.75% pay increase was excessive and that part of the pay rise was going to re-imbursed from PSO revenue - not the full 3.75% rise.

If DB are paying out increases not funded by the NTA, they are wasting their time.

DB was projected to make a loss in 2017 per the NTA document.

GM228

mickmmc wrote: »

If you read the Fare Determination thread, the NTA stated that the 3.75% pay increase was excessive and that part of the pay rise was going to re-imbursed from PSO revenue - not the full 3.75% rise.

If DB are paying out increases not funded by the NTA, they are wasting their time.

DB was projected to make a loss in 2017 per the NTA document.

Yes I read it (I started the thread).

Indexation is provided for under their contract, that does not dictate DB pay rises, rather it dictates the PSO payment amount maximums allowed.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

And openess may not benefit anyone either, especially the parties involved when commercial sensitivity is involved.

OK........an interesting point of view for sure.

I can see where you may be coming from,but in this instance,when the issue under discussion is the securing and provision of Public Transport Services (or 10% of ) then I remain unconvinced it benefits any of the parties involved.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

OK........an interesting point of view for sure.

I can see where you may be coming from,but in this instance,when the issue under discussion is the securing and provision of Public Transport Services (or 10% of ) then I remain unconvinced it benefits any of the parties involved.

But this is the problem, as we don't know the provisions of the contracts we can't say one way or the other what benefits there may or may not be either way, but it is in line with the norms surrounding confidentiality of contracts for public and private services.

I think this argument only arises because people see direct award contracts published and no others and wonder why, direct award contracts are published becauae their details must legally be published. Otherwise they too would not be availible, their publication is the exception to the norm, not the other way round.

You will not normally find publication of any public or private contract otherwise.

xper

GM228 wrote: »

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.

Very weird, poorly presented article if you ask me.

It eventually contorts itself into analysis whether buying shares in Go Ahead is a good idea or not. Based on the headline and that it is in the Business section, I presume this is the actual subject of the article. Fine, this is not pertinent to the success or failure of Go Ahead's execution of its contractual obligations to the NTA (barring a Carrillion type collapse).

The weird bit is the long preamble critiquing the NTA's route tendering plan.

Although in the eyes of many it (the NTA) remains a 'faceless quango' whose decisions often come out of the blue,

I would say that the NTA's activities are (edit: somewhat) well publicised. The tendering of 10% of Dublin routes has been in the public realm for years now. The 'out of the blue' problem encounter by many public service plans is primarily due to the sheer indifference of public and media to real debate of that plan. Gets in the way of complaining to Joe on day one of operation.

...to replicate the London Bus model, a concept that many think is old-hat.

I dunno, I thought the London model was generally well regarded (and not to be conflated, as this author does, with the complete deregulation model followed in other UK cities). Maybe there are those who think its old hat. But this author apparently isn't going to tell you who or why.

The big question remains: is this the discredited London Bus Authority drama being played out for an Irish audience?

What, prey tell, is or was the "London Bus Authority"? What drama was it involved in and why is it discredited as a result?

The UK bus market is declining, due to the removal of road space for cyclists.

Again, conflating the very different beasts, the UK bus market and the London bus market. I'll give the author the benefit of the doubt and presume there are uncited hard figures somewhere that do in fact show the UK market contracting. The cited single cause seems quite the imaginative leap.

If you are going to make such statements you really need to substantiate them but no body, report or study is mentioned at any point. Its just the author's opinion being presented as fact. Poor journalism.

GM228

xper wrote: »

What, prey tell, is or was the "London Bus Authority"? What drama was it involved in and why is it discredited as a result?

I would guess (as there was no entity knowns as the LBA) that it's in relation to the privatisation of London Bus and London Buses Limited being set up under the London Regional Transport Authoroty when London bus routes were first put out to tender.

antoinolachtnai

You are talking about commercial sensitivity like we are talking about artificial intelligence or biopharma. It’s a bus route. It boils down to one number, the rate per km driven. There is very little confidential or proprietary in it. How can they they not publish the outturn cost?

If they do not publish or otherwise make known the outturn cost they are going to have difficulty attracting bidders in the future, for the simple reason that the bidders won’t know if it is worth their while bidding with their cost base.

Stephen15

The only reason I'm looking forward to GAD is that my local route the 63 will be operated exclusively by GT/SGs or a new type of single decker. It's currently operated by EVs and they're pretty crap.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

Stephen15 wrote: »

The only reason I'm looking forward to GAD is that my local route the 63 will be operated exclusively by GT/SGs or a new type of single decker. It's currently operated by EVs and they're pretty crap.

As a previous driver of this route I'll actually tell you now

As rattly and noisey that those EVs are, they are actually the best vehicle to have up there with a good sized engine with plenty of power. Often drove an EV up those very steep hills at a good speed

Often took older vehicles up there too that would nearly stop on the hills. (AV, AX, WV)

Had an SG engine fail on me going up cornalscourt hill one day too and that was the end of me taking them up there.

The SG according to maintenance is not a very reliable vehicle. There were plenty that came in new that had engine failures and turbo failures aswell as emission issues and pissing through adblue.

So be careful when you wish for lad,

In any ways I think it'll end up being a single deck route like what is on the 44B at the moment. That little WS thing.

punisher5112

It will be a cozy and squishy ride ;-)

devnull

The EV's have to be my least favourite bus to travel on, noisy, squashy, exceptionally poor build quality, rattly, bent seats and poor heating, there's not a whole lot to like from a passenger point of view!

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

devnull wrote: »

The EV's have to be my least favourite bus to travel on, noisy, squashy, exceptionally poor build quality, rattly, bent seats and poor heating, there's not a whole lot to like from a passenger point of view!

Come here,

It's a bus. There's not a whole lot to like full stop

I can add quite a lot to that list !

punisher5112

Ra and rv were the best ever.... There will never be anything like them again.

dashcamdanny

devnull wrote: »

The EV's have to be my least favourite bus to travel on, noisy, squashy, exceptionally poor build quality, rattly, bent seats and poor heating, there's not a whole lot to like from a passenger point of view!

Lovely to drive though. Heat in the cab is roasting. Less rattles in the cab and plenty of poke.

Love the EV personally. . Have heard plenty of complaints about saloon heating though.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You are talking about commercial sensitivity like we are talking about artificial intelligence or biopharma. It’s a bus route.

But we are still talking about multi-million Euro contracts, weather it be AI, biopharmaceutical, the local bus route or even the local sweet shop supplier the parties involved are entitled to commercial sensitivity in their contracts if they so wish.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It boils down to one number, the rate per km driven. There is very little confidential or proprietary in it.

PSO compensation is far more complicated than simply cost per km.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

How can they they not publish the outturn cost?

Out-turn costs would not be known until at least 12 months after the get go.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

If they do not publish or otherwise make known the outturn cost they are going to have difficulty attracting bidders in the future, for the simple reason that the bidders won’t know if it is worth their while bidding with their cost base.

Out-turn costs mean nothing in terms of a potential future bidder. They can change each year drastically.

That's not how PSO tendering works, when submitting their tender a potential operator submit their figures for appropriate compensation based on the EU parameters.

antoinolachtnai

London seems to be able to publish a price per mile for every award.

There is a lot to it but at the end of the day there are kilometers and there is money. The operator may consider itself to have a brilliantly worked pricing model but at the end that is what it comes down to.

Why would the authority or the operator not know what the outturn is going to be? If you know the km, the conditions, the timetable and so on?

What are the EU parameters?

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

London seems to be able to publish a price per mile for every award.

Because the London Bus contracts work under a totally different contract type, they are not PSO contracts either, they are not comparable.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is a lot to it but at the end of the day there are kilometers and there is money. The operator may consider itself to have a brilliantly worked pricing model but at the end that is what it comes down to.

You do know there is a lot more to operating a bus route than simply covering a certain amount of mileage, mileage does not come into play in Ireland.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Why would the authority or the operator not know what the outturn is going to be? If you know the km, the conditions, the timetable and so on?

Because there are so many variables at play, PSO is paid several times a year depending on targets etc to be met and is not a fixed amount, each payment also has a proportion retained for final end of year payment again depending on many factors. Indexation can also affect the payment.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What are the EU parameters?

This would initially be the pitched costs of operating the service as allowed for by the PSO Regulation such as fuel bill, staff wages etc which must be be calculated in accordance with accounting and tax laws. There's a lot more to it than that as per the PSO Regulation and the Procurement Directives though.

IE 222

If the NTA are going to be making changes and bloating about how good of a deal they have made on behave of the public well then they need to show us comparisons between old and new.

They've already stated GA were more exspenive than Dublin Bus so they should show us why changing the operators is the best choice. After all its the NTA who will be making the decisions regarding buses, routes and frequencies so what exactly could GA be bringing to the table thats so secretive and worth paying more for.

One has to wonder if this country not learnt anything over the last 10 years. I thought the days of national interest cover ups were gone.

GM228

IE 222 wrote: »

If the NTA are going to be making changes and bloating about how good of a deal they have made on behave of the public well then they need to show us comparisons between old and new.

They've already stated GA were more exspenive than Dublin Bus so they should show us why changing the operators is the best choice. After all its the NTA who will be making the decisions regarding buses, routes and frequencies so what exactly could GA be bringing to the table thats so secretive and worth paying more for.

One has to wonder if this country not learnt anything over the last 10 years. I thought the days of national interest cover ups were gone.

When did the NTA state GA were dearer than DB?

IE 222

GM228 wrote: »

When did the NTA state GA were dearer than DB?

Pretty sure it was announced shortly after they awarded GA the 24 routes. DB offered the best "value/cost" but GA won the tender on the basis of been able to offer the "better services". Cant rember the exact figures but i think 65% of the scoring is on value while 35% is on service delivery which also baffles me as to how DB lost the tender.

bk

IE 222 wrote: »

Pretty sure it was announced shortly after they awarded GA the 24 routes. DB offered the best "value/cost" but GA won the tender on the basis of been able to offer the "better services". Cant rember the exact figures but i think 65% of the scoring is on value while 35% is on service delivery which also baffles me as to how DB lost the tender.

If that was true, then the 65/35 would indicate that they were close on cost, with DB just marginally ahead, but GA was quiet a bit out front on service delivery.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

Pretty sure it was announced shortly after they awarded GA the 24 routes. DB offered the best "value/cost" but GA won the tender on the basis of been able to offer the "better services". Cant rember the exact figures but i think 65% of the scoring is on value while 35% is on service delivery which also baffles me as to how DB lost the tender.

Remember that Go-Ahead have extra costs that Dublin Bus would not have, like start-up costs and depot construction costs for example. The fact that they still won a tender that was 65% price and 35% quality suggests that they couldn't have been a huge amount more expensive than Dublin Bus, even though they had to bear one off costs that an incumbent wouldn't have to bear.

I'd say if you stripped out all of the one off costs in the Go-Ahead bid they would have been quite a bit cheaper than Dublin Bus. The reason other bidders pulled out according to the press coverage at the time was they felt that the bus depot construction costs would make their bid non competitive against an incumbent who already had such facilities and therefore did not have to bear such costs.

LeinsterDub

devnull wrote: »

Remember that Go-Ahead have extra costs that Dublin Bus would not have, like start-up costs and depot construction costs for example. The fact that they still won a tender that was 65% price and 35% quality suggests that they couldn't have been a huge amount more expensive than Dublin Bus, even though they had to bear one off costs that an incumbent wouldn't have to bear.

I thought the NTA would build and own the depot?

GM228

IE 222 wrote: »

Pretty sure it was announced shortly after they awarded GA the 24 routes. DB offered the best "value/cost" but GA won the tender on the basis of been able to offer the "better services". Cant rember the exact figures but i think 65% of the scoring is on value while 35% is on service delivery which also baffles me as to how DB lost the tender.

I don't recall that information being released, but yes the GA tender was awarded on the MEAT (most economically advantageous tender) basis.

Contracts are either awarded on the lowest priced tender basis where naturally the lowest price wins or the MEAT basis.

MEAT awarding is based on a scoring system specifying, in addition to price, various other criteria including running costs, servicing costs, level of after sales service, technical assistance, technical merit, and environmental characteristics. MEAT is considered a better system as it looks beyond just the cost and takes acound of what will actually be delivered.

devnull

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I thought the NTA would build and own the depot?

That was mooted at one point but later on it was decided than bidders would be required to provide their own depot which caused a few parties to pull out as they felt it ruined the economics of the bid and gave the incumbent an unfair advantage as it already had such facilities.

GM228

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I thought the NTA would build and own the depot?

No the operator had to provide their own depot, this was the reason why 4 of the 6 bidders pulled out leaving just DB and GA.

GM228

devnull wrote: »

That was mooted at one point but later on it was decided than bidders would be required to provide their own depot which caused a few parties to pull out as they felt it ruined the economics of the bid and gave the incumbent an unfair advantage as it already had such facilities.

Confusion was created with bidders as the contract notice stated the NTA may provide the depots or at the very least pay for the bidder to build them - and bidders obviously assumed they would. When the NTA clarified they would not provide the depots they pulled out.

Depots and Maintenance of Fleet and Associated Equipment

It shall be a condition of the Contract that the Operator maintain secure depot facilities throughout the duration of the Contract. The Authority is currently endeavouring to identify, and may secure for the benefit of the Operator, sites for such depots. Notwithstanding the above, it is currently envisaged that Candidates will be entitled (and may be obliged by the Authority) to identify and secure appropriate depots and to tender on the basis of such. The Operator may also be required to arrange for the construction and/or fit out of the depot facilities. The Authority will provide for a mobilisation period which is, in the opinion of the Authority, sufficient to provide such a depot. Further detail will be provided at the next stage of the competition. It is intended that the Operator will be responsible for the maintenance of the Bus Fleet and associated equipment to specifications provided in the Contract.

IE 222

bk wrote: »

If that was true, then the 65/35 would indicate that they were close on cost, with DB just marginally ahead, but GA was quiet a bit out front on service delivery.

Supposedly they were a bit behind on cost but this leads to the question of what exactly are GA bringing to Dublin. We Were told the NTA have complete control of all decisions been made and will demand a level of service to be met. So why do we need another company to come in and charge us more for following someones else's instructions.

devnull

IE 222 wrote: »

Supposedly they were a bit behind on cost but this leads to the question of what exactly are GA bringing to Dublin. We Were told the NTA have complete control of all decisions been made and will demand a level of service to be met. So why do we need another company to come in and charge us more for following someones else's instructions.

You have to take into account that in Go Ahead's costs will be start-up and one off depot construction costs which will be reflected in their bid price - take them out and they would certainly be cheaper as if there was anything other than a small difference in costs in the last tender there is no way that Go-Ahead could have won a tender that is approx two thirds based on cost.

Fact is though at the end of the day we're going to see an expansion of Dublin City bus services by over 100 vehicles this year and if Go-Ahead didn't cost that into their bid, someone was going to have to build another depot sooner or later to house those vehicles because there's not a huge amount of space in existing depots anyway.

GM228

I'm pretty certain that Anne Graham has been quoted as saying the overall contract with GA saved money for the state compared to DB.

Was there not something however about the BE Waterford contract being dearer than other bidders, but offering a better service overall - perhaps that is causing confusion.