Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

antoinolachtnai

bebeman wrote: »

Who do CIE/DB work for?
How does it work out for any employee who call out his boss on a matter?

I thought DB's boss was the Irish people? How do DB management sleep at night having left an injustice like this stand?

Have you (or the other DB management) considered taking advantage of the whistleblower protections?

bebeman

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I thought DB's boss was the Irish people? How do DB management sleep at night having left an injustice like this stand?

Have you (or the other DB management) considered taking advantage of the whistleblower protections?

DB do as they are told, like all employees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_whistleblower_scandal
That worked out really well for Maurice McCabe

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

By PSO regulation you mean amended 1370/2007?

Yes, Regulation 1370/2007 is known as the PSO Regulation.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What exclusion from tendering excludes ireland?

The ability to award direct tender which unless prohibited by national law is subject to the de minimus thresholds, but, as national law allows for Direct Award to DB and BE without any qualifying criteria the de minimus thresholds do not apply because as national law does not prescribe any limit then that part of the PSO Regulation is in fact prohibited by national legislation.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Ireland
doesn't have local transport authorities,

I never said it did.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

one operator operates bus services in the whole geographic area, and the national transport authority doesn't own or otherwise control the operator.

Ownership is irrelevant. The NTA have huge control however over the CIE companies in terms of how they provide public transport services, in fact they have more or less exclusive control. Even a minimal influence over the performance of their public passenger transport activities is enough to satisfy the test of control.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The CIE contracts are clearly worth more than 1 million euros and have far greater distances than 300,000 km.

Indeed they do, but the limits as I said can be ignored under the national legislation provisions.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I just don't see where you are getting the exemption from. Various structures for a transport authority to provide in-house services are certainly allowed for, but it is hard to see how CIE companies qualify as in-house to the NTA.

The CIE companies are certainly internal operators for the purposes of the PSO Directive as the NTA exercise almost total control over their PSO services.

LuckyLloyd

Wait, DB were the cheaper tender?! What?

GM228

bebeman wrote: »

The deck was stacked against DB from the start, they were never going to win the tender, we all know that so stop pretending it was a fair process.
The NTA set the level of service standard required, and if you like it or not DB meet or better these standard levels.
So DB put in a bid, cheaper than Go Ahead and meeting all standard required by the NTA , and they loose, A cheaper tender and required standards, and still loose! Let that sink in for a moment.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/questions-remain-on-why-services-were-outsourced-36021212.html
"There are also questions as to why Dublin Bus lost the right to operate these routes. The decision to outsource was taken by the last government, and it's hard to imagine that the contract could have been awarded to the incumbent."
"The fact that Dublin Bus won on price, but lost on technical or quality issues, is in itself interesting. The contract was not awarded solely on the basis of cost, but also on the ability to deliver services."

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-dublin-bus-as-uk-firm-wins-contract-for-24-routes-in-capital-36021211.html
"The Irish Independent understands that the State-owned company scored higher than UK firm Go-Ahead on price in a competitive tendering process overseen by the National Transport Authority (NTA), but ranked lower on technical aspects."

A paper saying they "understand" the DB bid was cheaper with no evidence means nothing. The same paper however also stated:-

Clarity is needed.

bebeman wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

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.

Care to back this up with any proof?

However another paper who quotes Anne Graham as saying she was:-

confident the tendered service will result in savings for the State

holds a bit more credability and weight than one which simply speculates. If it was down to DB and GA than her statement must be inferred to mean a saving for the state over DB.

The paper you quoted however also said something similar oddly enough:-

The NTA said it could not outline the savings which would be generated from the outsourcing of routes at this stage, but has previously said that operating costs could drop by as much as 30pc.

bebeman wrote: »

DB come in Cheaper than Go Ahead and loose, dont sound like a good deal for the Tax Payers.

As I pointed out previously tendering is not just about the cost aspect.

antoinolachtnai

No, CIE and its group companies are not internal operators of the National Transport Authorities.

Firstly, NTA do not nominate directors to the board. They cannot influence major financial decisions of the CIE group (such as raising a bond). They cannot choose the management of the company. CIE is owned and controlled by the Minister for Transport and this is clearly provided for in statute. The NTA is not some sort of 'shadow director' of CIE.

CIE's PSO activities are not carried out by any distinct legal entity. They are spread across companies which have a mix of PSO and other revenue. CIE's companies willingly entered into the public service contracts. There are various ways that the companies could have been required to do certain things under PTRA2009, but this never arose, as far as I know.

The argument that because CIE has direct award contracts, that therefore it is an internal operator and so entitled to direct award contracts into the future is plainly circular and wrong.

The ability to award direct tender which unless prohibited by national law is subject to the de minimus thresholds, but, as national law allows for Direct Award to DB and BE without any qualifying criteria the de minimus thresholds do not apply because as national law does not prescribe any limit then that part of the PSO Regulation is in fact prohibited by national legislation.

There is a lot packed into this sentence.

Can you spell this out to me in terms of the PSO directive and the national legislation?

What 'de minimus' thresholds are you talking about?

then that part of the PSO Regulation is in fact prohibited by national legislation

Can you give me more detail on this? You are saying that national legislation can 'prohibit' (i.e., take priority over) an EU regulation? Can you explain the precedent for this in European law?

The idea that CIE is somehow exempt from this is a nice idea but I just can't see the legal basis for it. I don't see how the Railway Package changes anything.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

No they don't, mandatory tendering (with some exceptions) from 2019 only applies to rail in accordance with changes made to the PSO Regulation under the EUs Fourth Railway Package. Direct award can still apply to road transport.

This little known fact,will, to my way of thinking dictate the NTA's next move in the BMO process.

Currently,the NTA is carrying out the mandatory "Statutory Review" of the existing Direct Award contracts.

The results of this review will then be communicated to the DA holders in advance of the 2019 BMO announcement.

My prediction is that. Bus Atha Cliath & Bus Eireann will have their DA contracts renewed for a further 5 years (until 2024).
10% of those DA routes will be then subject to a Competitive Tendering process from 2022.
By this time the initial Go Ahead package will have been running for 3 years and will be generating the relevant comparative statistics,which will further inform the NTA as to how the second tranche should proceed.

As we are still denied access to the new BMO Contract specifications,it is currently impossible to make accurate resumé or predictions in relation to the entire process.

The MAJOR concern of the NTA throughout the 2019 period will be the very fraught situation concerning Irish Rail,particularly in the light of the EU's 4th R.P. stipulations,in addition to big-ticket projects such as MetroLink.

As is currently very obvious,the continuing absence of factual information from the Contracting Authority,has led to a situation where the field is left to an ever more eclectic group of individuals to pursue personal political crusades with impunity.

Whether this "Keep them in the dark" policy is actually an NTA corporate one is open to conjecture,but for sure,every day that passes without some clarity on the BMO Contract increases the risk of the entire process being discredited.

Yet again,and fully aware that Singapore is NOT a member of the EU :eek:, I draw comparisons between the handling of,what is a rather similar programme of change.

I find it of interest that the Singapore Authority followed a diametrically opposed path on the Price vs Quality elements....

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/first-11-packages-negotiated-sbs-transit-smrt-buses-tender

In awarding the tender, the LTA said on Friday that proposals would be judged for both quality and price, with more weightage given to quality.

The Irish NTA weighted it 65% Cost-35% Quality.
Singapore LTA weighted it 65% Quality- 35% Cost.

Either way,as each day passes,the presence of this Cloak of Secrecy,even if draped in a "Commerciality" disguise is becoming less acceptable.

If such a highly Commercially tuned state as Singapore,can manage to fully publish their Bus Tendering Process,then,little ol Ireland has sweet bugga all of an excuse not to !!!

devnull

bebeman wrote: »

see post #691
The big unfounded statement was made by the poster and all i asked for was proof.
Seems to be pro DB and negative NTA post need proof, while negative DB and pro NTA posts need zero proof.
Dont you find that strange?

If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up. Simply saying that you are saying something and we should simply take it at face value because you or any other poster on boards said so, simply means that your claim is unproven.

I have seen no article that has confirmed that the Dublin Bus bid was cheaper. I have only seen people makining claims they are unable to substaniate or back up and the quotes from Anne that GM228 pointed out, suggested the bus market opening will save up to 30% and there are other quotes from Anne which have previously been posted that confirm that Bus Eireann won a bid on the Waterford tender despite being more expensive than some of the people they were bidding against.

If you can show me a quoted comment from Anne Graham or someone else who would be able to confirm and have access to such information, that explicitly states that the Dublin Bus bid was cheaper, I will be happy to concede I am wrong, but at the moment there is nothing more than unproven speculation behind the claims that you are making and on the other side, as another poster pointed out, there are quotes from Anne Graham which would hold more water.

bebeman wrote: »

come in Cheaper than Go Ahead and loose, dont sound like a good deal for the Tax Payers.

I assume that you have also made your feelings known about the Waterford bus contract where it has been confirmed by Anne Graham that the Bus Eireann bid was more expensive?

end of the road

did Anne Graham give a prediction of where she believes this 30% saving will come from?

antoinolachtnai

AlekSmart wrote: »

This little known fact,will, to my way of thinking dictate the NTA's next move in the BMO process.

...

If such a highly Commercially tuned state as Singapore,can manage to fully publish their Bus Tendering Process,then,little ol Ireland has sweet bugga all of an excuse not to !!!

Have you been able to find results of their tenders? Price, contract, etc?

I would say that there is inspiration to be drawn from Singapore, but you can't really apply the model directly here. When the Singaporeans talk about 'quality' what they mainly mean is 'adherence to timetable'. The biggest significant difference is the road conditions (in particular the peculiar decision to run the most frequent railway service in the country right through the main traffic junctions). But there are also legal differences about penalty clauses (though nothing significant to do with procurement law that I can see).

You are basically right of course, that NTA is going to use tendering to get leverage against the CIE bus companies.

The problem of the railways is an old one. It is massively politically loaded and the money involved in keeping very marginal train stations open is phenomenal when you compare it to the cost of running a couple of single-deckers.

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Have you been able to find results of their tenders? Price, contract, etc?

I would say that there is inspiration to be drawn from Singapore, but you can't really apply the model directly here. When the Singaporeans talk about 'quality' what they mainly mean is 'adherence to timetable'. The biggest significant difference is the road conditions (in particular the peculiar decision to run the most frequent railway service in the country right through the main traffic junctions). But there are also legal differences about penalty clauses (though nothing significant to do with procurement law that I can see).

You are basically right of course, that NTA is going to use tendering to get leverage against the CIE bus companies.

The problem of the railways is an old one. It is massively politically loaded and the money involved in keeping very marginal train stations open is phenomenal when you compare it to the cost of running a couple of single-deckers.

I am not suggesting that we adopt Singapores Bus Tenderin Process in total,one would need to be somewhat removed from reality to lay a direct comparison between Singapore and Ireland.

However,in relation to their Bus Market Tendering process,it has very pertinent and direct comparisons which,I believe cand,and should be used in order to ensure that the Irish NTA steps back from the old ways of the Established Civil Service from which it has evolved.

2019 will bring with it a skipfull of issues for the NTA relating to Rail Transport in Ireland,which is why I suspect,they will require virtually all of their resources to deal with.

The BMO process is now underway (as it has been for 10 years now,if anybody had bothered to notice) and a period of sustained calm observation is what is required...my guess is the NTA will factor this requirement into their Diary.

Here's a dollop of detail on the recent Singaporean LTA Bus Tendering Programme.......

http://landtransportguru.net/bus/bus-contracting-model/bukit-merah-bus-package/

Even the original signed documents are available to the Singaporean Publik.....https://www.lta.gov.sg/data/apps/tender/doc/13226/PT203%20Tender%20Schedule.zip

Bit of a difference to the big fat informational ZERO,oul Paddy is treated to........Commercially Sensitive my backside

L1011

bebeman wrote: »

see post #691
The big unfounded statement was made by the poster and all i asked for was proof.
Seems to be pro DB and negative NTA post need proof, while negative DB and pro NTA posts need zero proof.
Dont you find that strange?

In post 690 you state as fact that DB was cheaper. Which is also unfounded.

You haven't got proof, have you?

antoinolachtnai

AlekSmart wrote: »

Here's a dollop of detail on the recent Singaporean LTA Bus Tendering Programme.......

http://landtransportguru.net/bus/bus-contracting-model/bukit-merah-bus-package/

Even the original signed documents are available to the Singaporean Publik.....https://www.lta.gov.sg/data/apps/tender/doc/13226/PT203%20Tender%20Schedule.zip

Bit of a difference to the big fat informational ZERO,oul Paddy is treated to........Commercially Sensitive my backside

That is very interesting. It is interesting to drill down into it. It looks like 24 services, 365 vehicles, for 5 years for 475 million, which is 95 million a year SGD (60 million euros a year) which about 164,000 euros to operate each vehicle.

This is an awful lot cheaper than DB! (look at the total cost of the PSO service and subtract out the net depreciation) Costs of living in SG are higher than in Ireland. (https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=Singapore)

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That is very interesting. It is interesting to drill down into it. It looks like 24 services, 365 vehicles, for 5 years for 475 million, which is 95 million a year SGD (60 million euros a year) which about 164,000 euros to operate each vehicle.

This is an awful lot cheaper than DB! (look at the total cost of the PSO service and subtract out the net depreciation) Costs of living in SG are higher than in Ireland. (https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Ireland&country2=Singapore)

Indeed,however as I have been told-off already about not knowing that Singapore was'nt in the E.U. ,you can make whatever comparisons you like about costs etc....We all know (?) that there are two totally different societies at play here...BUT...The principle of having those Public Contract Details FULLY available to the general public,is what suggests the Singaporeans may understand the principles of transparency and clarity a bit better than Ann Graham and her lad's.....

antoinolachtnai

Absolutely. At the end of the day what matters is unit costs like cost per peak vehicle and cost per km. There is no way they can keep this some big secret.

We are talking about operating buses here. Anyone who thinks this is some sort of dark art reliant on trade secrets about schedules and quality really needs to cop themselves on. There are many complex aspects to running public transport, but intellectual property management is not one of them.

Is the actual contract up on the LTA website somewhere?

AlekSmart

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/new-bus-operator-short-of-drivers

As the man says......

National University of Singapore transport researcher Lee Der Horng noted that Tower Transit, which won the first government bus tender, has not faced problems in holding on to its staff despite offering a pay package similar to Go-Ahead's.

"It's not just about the salary," he added.

What IS of relevance here ,is how Go-Ahead Singapore dealt with the issues,particularly how it swiftly recognised that softly-softly catchee monkey,may be a more productive approach than going in with all Accountancy Cannons blazing.....;)

antoinolachtnai

Yes, I think there is a lot to that. There are lots of interesting HR issues in transport operations.

As long as there are still human drivers, this is where money is going to be made and lost (and not in protecting the devilishly clever ideas you put in your tender proposal).

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Yes, I think there is a lot to that. There are lots of interesting HR issues in transport operations.

As long as there are still human drivers, this is where money is going to be made and lost (and not in protecting the devilishly clever ideas you put in your tender proposal).

For sure...the notion that we in Ireland,can quote some alleged E.U. Commercial Confidentiality Mumbo-Jumbo to keep the BMO Contract Process off-the Public Radar is total balderdash....even more so now that the Successful Tenderer demonstrably has no issues with the free availability of such information in similar processes elsewhere ?

The NTA has'nt a leg to stand on here. Publish the contract details and be done with it !

IE 222

AlekSmart wrote: »

For sure...the notion that we in Ireland,can quote some alleged E.U. Commercial Confidentiality Mumbo-Jumbo to keep the BMO Contract Process off-the Public Radar is total balderdash....even more so now that the Successful Tenderer demonstrably has no issues with the free availability of such information in similar processes elsewhere ?

The NTA has'nt a leg to stand on here. Publish the contract details and be done with it !

Here here.

If the 30% saving and major improvements Anne's suggesting are true you can bet your bottom dollar we would be all hearing about it by now.

bebeman

devnull wrote: »

It doesn't happen, yet the poster linked to a document on a trade union website signed by a senior trade union official who is now on the board of CIE. Why would someone release a statement and a circular to union members if it was not true?

It didn't happen in your opinion - yet the poster has not made any claims, they've simply referenced a trade union source and a document contained therein which is signed by four SIPTU reps of the garage that it comes from?

To me it's a little bit odd claiming that a union didn't do something when the union reps themselves are claiming on a union rep run website that it did happen and have their names listed alongside such document.

Or am I misinterpreting what you say?

Not ONE signature on the documents posted.
For all we know they could be made up documents by the owner of the website, who by the way no one knows who they are.
What proof do you have that the web site is run by a union rep?
It could be anyone larping and stirring up shÍt for all we know

Just had a quick look at some documents on the website, none had a signature, how do you know they are real and not a larp?

devnull

bebeman wrote: »

Not ONE signature on the documents posted.
For all we know they could be made up documents by the owner of the website, who by the way no one knows who they are.
What proof do you have that the web site is run by a union rep?
It could be anyone larping and stirring up shÍt for all we know

Just had a quick look at some documents on the website, none had a signature, how do you know they are real and not a larp?

Look up the registered owner of DublinBusDrivers.com and look up the name in Google - you will find that the person in question is a union rep with SIPTU. The site also says that it is run by members of SIPTU.

Generally digital communications don't have signatures.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

No, CIE and its group companies are not internal operators of the National Transport Authorities.

Firstly, NTA do not nominate directors to the board. They cannot influence major financial decisions of the CIE group (such as raising a bond). They cannot choose the management of the company. CIE is owned and controlled by the Minister for Transport and this is clearly provided for in statute. The NTA is not some sort of 'shadow director' of CIE.

My apologies, yes you are correct in this regard, I was thinking of the NTA being a local as opposed to competent authority for the purposes of the Directive, brain fart moment.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The argument that because CIE has direct award contracts, that therefore it is an internal operator and so entitled to direct award contracts into the future is plainly circular and wrong.

Hang on, I never said CIE is an internal operator of the NTA, I said the CIE Companies are, and as clarified above I was having a brain fart in that regard, but CIE is not awarded any PSO contracts, the individual companies (IE, DB and BE) are.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The ability to award direct tender which unless prohibited by national law is subject to the de minimus thresholds, but, as national law allows for Direct Award to DB and BE without any qualifying criteria the de minimus thresholds do not apply because as national law does not prescribe any limit then that part of the PSO Regulation is in fact prohibited by national legislation.

There is a lot packed into this sentence.
Can you spell this out to me in terms of the PSO directive and the national legislation?

Article 5 (4) of the PSO Regulation states:-

Regulation 1370/2007 wrote:

4. Unless prohibited by national law, the competent authority may decide to award public service contracts directly:

(a) where their average annual value is estimated at less than EUR 1 000 000 or, in the case of a public service contract including public passenger transport services by rail, less than EUR 7 500 000; or

(b) where they concern the annual provision of less than 300 000 kilometres of public passenger transport services or, in the case of a public service contract including public passenger transport services by rail, less than 500 000 kilometres.

Unless prohibited by law they can award directly but subject to the de minimus limits as per Article 5 (4)(a) and (b), but, the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 (as amended) allows exclusive rights for direct award to operate services to DB, BE and IE* (*IE will loose this right in 2019 due to provisions of the Fourth Railway Package):-

Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 wrote:

52.— (1) Save where —

(a) a licence is granted by the Minister under the Road Transport Act 1932 ,
(b) a licence is granted by the Authority under Part 2 of the Act of 2009,
(c) the Authority has entered into a public transport service contract with a public transport operator, or
(d) otherwise provided by law —

(i) Dublin Bus has an exclusive right to continue to provide the public bus services that it provides in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Act of 1958 and section 8 of the Act of 1986 within the city of Dublin and the counties of Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and contiguous areas, and

(ii) Bus Éireann has an exclusive right to continue to provide the public bus services that it provides in accordance with section 7 of the Act of 1958 and section 8 of the Act of 1986 except in so far as such services are provided by Dublin Bus under subparagraph (i) ,
and those services shall be set out in the public service contracts entered into under subsection (3)(a) .

(2) Save where otherwise provided by law, Irish Rail has an exclusive right to provide rail passenger services, other than metro or light rail passenger services.

As a result of S52 national law prohibits the criteria of Article 5.4, namely the de minimus thresholds being applied as the 2008 Act does not impose any “subject to” to that exclusive right. National law allows direct award for exclusive operation without any qualification, in other words national law prohibits the limits of the PSO Regulation being applied.

As such they are free to award direct award contracts in accordance with the PSO Regulation without the need to worry about the thresholds.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

What 'de minimus' thresholds are you talking about?

The thresholds specified in Article 5 (4)(a) and (b) are known as the de minimus thresholds.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Can you give me more detail on this? You are saying that national legislation can 'prohibit' (i.e., take priority over) an EU regulation? Can you explain the precedent for this in European law?

Yes in certain circumstances as outlined above.

The legal doctrine of supremacy of EU law means that EU law takes precedence over national law, however EU law itself allows for exceptions in certain circumstances as for example as seen in Article 5 of the PSO Regulation.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The idea that CIE is somehow exempt from this is a nice idea but I just can't see the legal basis for it. I don't see how the Railway Package changes anything.

The Fourth Railway Package changes the situation for rail (I never said it changes anything for buses) as despite the exceptions to the PSO Regulation and the exclusive operation for IE as per the 2008 Act as I already outlines the EU has mandated the opening of the domestic passenger rail market via the package, there are other Regulations and Directives at play which mean the rail market must be opened when above the thresholds.


Now all that may seem a bit far fetched, I don’t know, but this is the position the NTA are taking. If I am incorrect then tell me why is it that the NTA will open up fully the railway from 2019, but not the bus market and why are the likes of the big players like GA etc not looking for the ECJ to force tendering from 2019?

antoinolachtnai

CIÉ is the operator as far as european law is concerned. DB and BE are just operating arms of CIÉ. CIÉ fully controls these subsidiary companies. They aren't independent decision makers. (This matters depending on how you interpret other parts of the Regulation.)

I have looked at three language versions and I just can't see your interpretation holding water. There is also plenty precedent about the topic of things that restrict application of laws in EU law. Any restrictions in scope tend to get interpreted narrowly.

Here is what I say: 5(4) means that the member states have a choice. They can allow direct awards or they can decide not to. That is the end of the choice. If they do decide to allow direct awards, there are restrictions. They have to allow them only in the circumstances outlined further down. It does not mean that they can prohibit the setting of de minimis requirements. (If they were to, it would make a nonsense of basically the whole Regulation - countries could either opt in to the most meaty part of the Regulation or not. (It would probably also not solve the fundamental legal problem that the Regulation was supposed to solve, i.e., the Altmark case. )

Section 52 is a funny one. There is nothing else like it in Irish legislation. And it doesn't really say what it seems to say. It actually says that DB and BE only have the right to continue to operate the services that they are already operating. And of course, it doesn't stop NTA from taking routes off them if they can find a law that allows them discretion to give them to someone else. It doesn't say anything about post-PTRA routes (like the revamped DB 63 which has been mentioned, for example, but most routes have been reconfigured in some way since then.) There is also a pretty obvious problem with this section in the context of 1370/2007. The government can't just award any contracts they want to their own companies without any questions asked - that's the whole point of the Regulation - and an Act of the Oireachtas can't change that. As far as I can see, this section was added as some sort of sop for the unions. It doesn't actually mean anything that would be of any benefit to BE/DB. It may actually be highly detrimental.

Re court action, I don't know really, but it would appear:

1. NTA has not announced any definitive decision on whether they will renew the direct awards as far as I know (though I haven't followed it and I could be wrong). When they do that, there is a possibility of a challenge I suppose.

2. Tactically, it would make no sense for GA to bring this challenge. They already have as many routes as they need. They will want to get those sorted out and allow time for a bit of public transport operator hubris to set in before they do anything as stupid as judicially reviewing their major customer!

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

CIÉ is the operator as far as european law is concerned. DB and BE are just operating arms of CIÉ. CIÉ fully controls these subsidiary companies. They aren't independent decision makers. (This matters depending on how you interpret other parts of the Regulation.)

I'm not sure I'd agree with this.

Yes CIE is the holding company and yes they may have strategic direction, control and co-ordination over all their subsidiaries, CIE as a body does not provide public passenger services by bus or rail as is required by the Regulation, IE, DB and BE (which are separate distinct undertakings) are the actual companies who are awarded the contracts, no contracts are signed by CIE. The three companies also have a high level of autonomy over the CIE board.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I have looked at three language versions and I just can't see your interpretation holding water. There is also plenty precedent about the topic of things that restrict application of laws in EU law. Any restrictions in scope tend to get interpreted narrowly.

Here is what I say: 5(4) means that the member states have a choice. They can allow direct awards or they can decide not to. That is the end of the choice. If they do decide to allow direct awards, there are restrictions. They have to allow them only in the circumstances outlined further down. It does not mean that they can prohibit the setting of de minimis requirements. (If they were to, it would make a nonsense of basically the whole Regulation - countries could either opt in to the most meaty part of the Regulation or not. (It would probably also not solve the fundamental legal problem that the Regulation was supposed to solve, i.e., the Altmark case. )

<SNIP>

Re court action, I don't know really, but it would appear:

1. NTA has not announced any definitive decision on whether they will renew the direct awards as far as I know (though I haven't followed it and I could be wrong). When they do that, there is a possibility of a challenge I suppose.

2. Tactically, it would make no sense for GA to bring this challenge. They already have as many routes as they need. They will want to get those sorted out and allow time for a bit of public transport operator hubris to set in before they do anything as stupid as judicially reviewing their major customer!

I guess we will just have to see what happens post 2019.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Section 52 is a funny one. There is nothing else like it in Irish legislation. And it doesn't really say what it seems to say. It actually says that DB and BE only have the right to continue to operate the services that they are already operating. And of course, it doesn't stop NTA from taking routes off them if they can find a law that allows them discretion to give them to someone else. It doesn't say anything about post-PTRA routes (like the revamped DB 63 which has been mentioned, for example, but most routes have been reconfigured in some way since then.) There is also a pretty obvious problem with this section in the context of 1370/2007. The government can't just award any contracts they want to their own companies without any questions asked - that's the whole point of the Regulation - and an Act of the Oireachtas can't change that. As far as I can see, this section was added as some sort of sop for the unions. It doesn't actually mean anything that would be of any benefit to BE/DB. It may actually be highly detrimental.

No S52 does not say they can only continue to operate services they already operate, it says they can operate services which are set out in the public service contracts entered into and more importantly allows for alteration, that's pretty much like writing a blank cheque.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

The NTA has'nt a leg to stand on here. Publish the contract details and be done with it !

Whilst the contract itself won't be published it is possible the details of the contract may be made known:-

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/go-ahead-to-start-operating-some-bus-routes-in-dublin-next-year-1.3182858%3fmode=amp

This article has been linked and referred to several times, but we may have all missed this point:-

NTA chief executive Anne Graham said Go-Ahead had offered the “most economically advantageous tender” and would bring a “fresh dimension” to Dublin’s bus services. She said she was not in a position to reveal how much Go-Ahead would be paid for the service until a contract stand-still period had passed, but was “confident the tendered service will result in savings for the State”. The NTA “expects improved punctuality and reliability” on existing services, she added.

The stand-still period is either a minimum 14 or 16 days (depending on certain circumstances but usually the 14 day limit), and is the minimum period between the announcement of the bidder and actual contract signing.

The contract stand-still is well passed, but the use of "until" seems to indicate they will (or at least they then had intention to) reveal details in due course.

punisher5112

If they are serious about change then drivers need to be backed up and regular fare evasion checks and cut out anti social behavior and people taking over buses and having a go at drivers over the most silliest of things.

Last night took over an hour to finish out a route that use to take 20 minutes less before the college green mess. The luas wasn't even an issue cause I only came across one but the downgrade of traffic lanes and a sea of taxis it was and has been a nightmare for quite some time.

I was held up on George's St by an absolute nut in a transporter taxi who was also watching a video on his phone in a craddle in front of him. He continued watching while driving.

He thought it was totally fine parking in the traffic lane beside the ton of rickshaw's that were all waiting for fares.

If so much crap was stamped out the bus service could be so much better.

Stephen15

punisher5112 wrote: »

If they are serious about change then drivers need to be backed up and regular fare evasion checks and cut out anti social behavior and people taking over buses and having a good at drivers over the most silliest of things.

Agreed. They should deploy security like on the Dart and Luas on problem routes too. It shouldn't always be left up to the driver as they have enough to be worrying about such as passenger safety when driving and the safety of other road users such as motorists, cyclists and pedestrians without having to worry about anti social thugs and fare evaders.

GM228

punisher5112 wrote: »

If they are serious about change then drivers need to be backed up and regular fare evasion checks and cut out anti social behavior and people taking over buses and having a go at drivers over the most silliest of things.

Last night took over an hour to finish out a route that use to take 20 minutes less before the college green mess. The luas wasn't even an issue cause I only came across one but the downgrade of traffic lanes and a sea of taxis it was and has been a nightmare for quite some time.

I was held up on George's St by an absolute nut in a transporter taxi who was also watching a video on his phone in a craddle in front of him. He continued watching while driving.

He thought it was totally fine parking in the traffic lane beside the ton of rickshaw's that were all waiting for fares.

If so much crap was stamped out the bus service could be so much better.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Agreed. They should deploy security like on the Dart and Luas on problem routes too. It shouldn't always be left up to the driver as they have enough to be worrying about such as passenger safety when driving and the safety of other road users such as motorists, cyclists and pedestrians without having to worry about anti social thugs and fare evaders.

Who is "they"? The operators or the NTA?

punisher5112

GM228 wrote: »

Who is "they"? The operators or the NTA?

Both....

The revenue protection team in db is so small they are as rare to see as a dodo bird. Yes I know extinct.....

Nta aren't interested in revenue protection either.

Stephen15

punisher5112 wrote: »

Nta aren't interested in revenue protection either.

They probably will be when the fares go to them rather than the operator.

GM228

punisher5112 wrote: »

Both....

The revenue protection team in db is so small they are as rare to see as a dodo bird. Yes I know extinct.....

Nta aren't interested in revenue protection either.

But security and revenue protection is a matter for the operator, not the NTA.

On the point of revenue protection there are provisions in the contracts regarding revenue and appropriate incentives to the operators to reduce it.

Edit: There are also security provisions in the contracts.

punisher5112

GM228 wrote: »

But security and revenue protection is a matter for the operator, not the NTA.

On the point of revenue protection there are provisions in the contracts regarding revenue and appropriate incentives to the operators to reduce it.

Revenue and security.... Something none seem to know anything about.

Shocking what's tolerated on public transportation.

dashcamdanny

punisher5112 wrote: »

Revenue and security.... Something none seem to know anything about.

Shocking what's tolerated on public transportation.

its a complete zoo. No one gives a sh**. Thats the problem.

As long as no one tweets about it, its fine.

LuckyLloyd

I'm sorry, but the insinuation that DB were the cheaper tender but were rejected for other reasons is extremely serious. The lack of transparency and a clear refutation of that is bizarre to me. Cheapest tender gets the bid - particularly if they are the existing trusted operator, right?

NeitherJohn

Not necessarily.

I work in the public sector and just finished two tendering process for some scientific instruments. The cheaper supplier doesn't necessarily come out on top.

GM228

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Cheapest tender gets the bid - particularly if they are the existing trusted operator, right?

Contracts are rarely awarded on that basis.

Contracts are either awarded on the:-

(a) lowest priced tender basis, where naturally the lowest price wins or,

(b) the most economically advantageous tender (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.

LuckyLloyd

GM228 wrote: »

Contracts are rarely awarded on that basis.

Contracts are either awarded on the:-

(a) lowest priced tender basis, where naturally the lowest price wins or,

(b) the most economically advantageous tender (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.

How can you come in behind on price but ahead on running costs / servicing costs / etc?

Details should be published, otherwise I'll reasonably conclude it was a fait accompli and DB were shut out unfairly.

Stephen15

GM228 wrote: »

Contracts are rarely awarded on that basis.

Contracts are either awarded on the:-

(a) lowest priced tender basis, where naturally the lowest price wins or,

(b) the most economically advantageous tender (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.

And how exactly would GA be more economically advantageous over DB. GA will have more difficulty recruiting drivers than DB as would be a better known company than GA in this country and have a good reputation as a good employer. DB also already have six depots across the city better suited to operating the tendered routes as they are placed in strategic geographical locations near the tendered which operated all over the city while GA only have one that's not even up and running yet or ready to start operating as a bus garage.

antoinolachtnai

Their per-unit operating costs could be lower as a result of greater efficiency? DB's operating costs seem to be quite high.

dashcamdanny

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Their per-unit operating costs could be lower as a result of greater efficiency? DB's operating costs seem to be quite high.

They are trying that with the new bills, but its not working. Tightening up the bills so there is less layover time is back firing. More dropped trips and overtime.

devnull

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How can you come in behind on price but ahead on running costs / servicing costs / etc?

Nobody knows if they did come behind on cost - there is nothing official that confirms that Go-Ahead came behind on costs, just speculation that has been in the press. Bus Eireann were certainly not the cheapest bidder in the Waterford contract, that has been confirmed by the NTA.

Details should be published, otherwise I'll reasonably conclude it was a fait accompli and DB were shut out unfairly.

It has been confirmed that Bus Eireann were not the cheapest on the Waterford contract but they won - have you raised the same concerns about the other operators in that contest being shut out unfairly, since the same system was used, and unlike in the Dublin contract, it has been officially confirmed that the winner was not the cheapest.

Or do you have no problem when the horse you back wins using the system you claim is flawed?

magentis

BIG difference between the Bus Éireann award and both go-ahead's alright.

Loads of info on the bus eireann award in the public domain,but very limited information on the latter,It's cloaked in mystery.Why?

devnull

magentis wrote: »

BIG difference between the Bus Éireann award and both go-ahead's alright.

Loads of info on the bus eireann award in the public domain,but very limited information on the latter,It's cloaked in mystery.Why?

There is no real info at all on the Bus Eireann Waterford tender award aside from the r quotes that have already been posted from Anne Gpaham.

GM228

magentis wrote: »

Loads of info on the bus eireann award in the public domain,but very limited information on the latter,It's cloaked in mystery.Why?

There is very little info on either award in reality, bar of course all the conjecture.

LuckyLloyd

I would absolutely agree that the same questions need to be asked on any tender and information should be made public. The process needs to be transparent devnull, I am not a blind DB cheerleader.

bebeman

devnull wrote: »

Nobody knows if they did come behind on cost - there is nothing official that confirms that Go-Ahead came behind on costs, just speculation that has been in the press.

Does anyone honestly believe that The NTA would not announce with great fanfare that the policy of tendering the 10% has already resulted at the first attempt at getting a better cheaper deal for the Tax Payer?
it would be the main thing they would talk about, but here we are, not a peep, draw your own conclusions.

AlekSmart

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Their per-unit operating costs could be lower as a result of greater efficiency? DB's operating costs seem to be quite high.

With Lady Thatcher and Nicholas Ridley,now long dead,and even Harry Blundred the mini-bus king,also no longer with us,the notion of Low-Cost operators being the saviour of the poor oul commuter is pretty much diddley dyddely....;)

Once an operator reaches that critical mass (at a rough guess 20 vehicles-40 drivers ?) things begin to follow a pattern...and so it will be with Stagecoach....Arriva....FirstGroup....Go-Ahead.

With Driver recruitment now officially open,my eyes grow a tad misty.....

https://www.go-aheaddublin.ie/bus-driver/

We are offering,

A salary of up to €32,000 per annum with opportunities for further earnings with overtime
A contributory pension scheme
Free modern uniform
Travel benefits
Paid holiday
Industry leading training and ongoing development
Structured working patterns with guaranteed hours
Death in service benefit
Opportunities to work elsewhere within the Go-Ahead Group

The white flag is raised.....and they're OFF ....

GM228

Wonder will I get a meaningful reply?

Letter to the NTA wrote:

To whom it concerns,

I do hope this query finds itself with the appropriate person and I would be grateful if the Authority as a public body would supply a comprehensive (where appropriate) reply to each point I make.

My queries relate to the provision of public transport services for road and rail, particularly in relation to the recently awarded Go-Ahead (GA) and Bus Eireann (BE) competitive tendering contracts and the future of contract awarding from 2019 onwards.

1. In relation to the GA award for 10% of Dublin bus routes some media reports infer (*1) and indeed present as fact (*2) that the tender by Dublin Bus (DB) was a cheaper option than GA, but overall GA won on the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) basis. Whilst I understand the principles of the MEAT basis and that this is indeed the normal basis for contract award I was wondering if this “understanding” is correct or miss-founded?

This has created confusion amongst the public in general as the same paper also reported potential savings of up to 30% for the state (*1), also another media report (*3) is suggestive that there are savings by the GA contract.

Can the NTA put clarity on these reports please and advise if GA or DB offered the best monetary aspect of the tender, if not when will they?


2. In relation to the above, can the NTA advise same with regards to the GA award of Kildare (former BE) routes and the BE award for Waterford services.


3. Anne Graham is quoted by the Irish Times (*3) as saying she “was not in a position to reveal how much Go-Ahead would be paid for the service until a contract stand-still period had passed”. This can be inferred as meaning the NTA will give details after the stand-still period, legally the minimum contract stand-still period is 14 days so this period is well passed, is this reporting accurate or has it been decided not to publish any details of the contracts now?


4. Can the NTA clarify it’s position in relation to awarding of contracts for the remaining 90% of DB and BE routes and the Irish Rail (IE) services from 2019 onwards and commitments required under the PSO Regulation.

It is well known that the NTA intend to tender the operation of the rail network from 2019 in accordance with the PSO regulation, but these intentions are not 100% certain in relation to the remaining bus network, all indications seem to suggest that competitive tendering will not apply to the remaining bus services (i.e Direct Award will continue) and how that relates to the requirements of the PSO Regulation.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport recently stated in the Dail that there will be no further tendering in the future of the remaining 90% of bus routes (*4), and the NTAs very recently published report (*5) also seems to indicate this by dealing with the “next” direct award contract.


5. would like to ask what provisions have been made with JJ Kavanagh regarding advertising of the new 139 service they are operating, I notice that as part of the contract they must supply a website detailing various information to be made available to the public regarding the service, but bar the NTA website there seems to be very little information on this service in the public domain, certainly nothing on JJs website or any Route 139 type website.


6. Can the NTA provide any information on the start date of the new DB Route 40L to link with Broombridge?


I look forward to your reply.

Regards

(*1) Irish Independent “Blow for Dublin Bus as UK firm wins contract for 24 routes in capital” – August 11th 2017.

https://independent.ie/irish-news/blow-for-dublin-bus-as-uk-firm-wins-contract-for-24-routes-in-capital-36021211.html

“The Irish Independent understands that the State-owned company scored higher than the UK firm Go-Ahead on price in a comparitive tendering rocess overseen by the National Transport Authority (NTA), but ranked lower on technical aspects”

“The NTA said it could not outline the savings which would be generated from the outsourcing of routes at this stage, but has previously said that operating costs could drop by as much as 30pc.”

(*2) Irish Independent “Questions remain on why services were outsourced” – August 11th 2017.

https://independent.ie/irish-news/questions-remain-on-why-services-were-outsourced-36021212.html

“The fact that Dublin Bus won on price, but lost on technical or quality issues, is in itself interesting”

(*3) Irish Times “Go-Ahead to start operating some bus routes in Dublin next year” – August 11th 2017.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/go-ahead-to-start-operating-some-bus-routes-in-dublin-next-year-1.3182858%3fmode=amp

“NTA chief executive Anne Graham said Go-Ahead had offered the “most economically advantageous tender” and would bring a “fresh dimension” to Dublin’s bus services. She said she was not in a position to reveal how much Go-Ahead would be paid for the service until a contract stand-still period had passed, but was “confident the tendered service will result in savings for the State”. The NTA “expects improved punctuality and reliability” on existing services, she added.”

(*4) Shane Ross (Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport) “Dail Eireann – Bus Services Debate” 11th October 2017.

https://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2017-10-11/8/#pq-answers

“I can assure the Deputy that there are no plans whatsoever to tender for more than 10% of the services in the future”

(*5) NTA Statement Strategy 2018-2022 – published 11th March 2018

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/nta-publishes-statement-strategy-2018-2022/

“Within the period of the this Statement of Strategy, decisions will be made on the next Direct Award contracts for Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann and the extent of any further competition in the subsidised bus market”

Will update with any reply.

antoinolachtnai

AlekSmart wrote: »

With Lady Thatcher and Nicholas Ridley,now long dead,and even Harry Blundred the mini-bus king,also no longer with us,the notion of Low-Cost operators being the saviour of the poor oul commuter is pretty much diddley dyddely....;)

Well that was a crap rhetorical trick if you don't mind me saying so.

This is the outlook (that costs basically don't matter, that there is no way to reduce costs and that the only way to improve quality is to reduce costs) that in a large part explains how Dublin's and Ireland's public transport has gotten itself to the situation that it is in.

No other industry works on this model. Even civil servants have to manage cost and quality now. The way things are going, soon even Guards will be doing it.

Once an operator reaches that critical mass (at a rough guess 20 vehicles-40 drivers ?) things begin to follow a pattern...and so it will be with Stagecoach....Arriva....FirstGroup....Go-Ahead.

With Driver recruitment now officially open,my eyes grow a tad misty.....

https://www.go-aheaddublin.ie/bus-driver/



The white flag is raised.....and they're OFF ....

Well, that is great but operating costs are far higher on Dublin Bus than they are in operations elsewhere. Can you find a bus company anywhere in the world that has higher unit costs than Dublin Bus?

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

It has been confirmed that Bus Eireann were not the cheapest on the Waterford contract but they won - have you raised the same concerns about the other operators in that contest being shut out unfairly, since the same system was used, and unlike in the Dublin contract, it has been officially confirmed that the winner was not the cheapest.

Who were the other bidders Dublin Coach and JJK both poor operators whom I'd pick Bus Eireann over. Especially DC who are proven to be cutting corners and look at how poorly JJK are implementing the 139 tender they won recently.