The Printer

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are you that desperate to score points in a game only you are playing? Pretty pathetic.
I'll spell it out for you:

Buying houses to use as social housing is more expensive than paying contractors to build social housing. As you know, because we covered this, nobody is talking hiring bricklayers to hang around depots or giving them jobs for life with pension. You and I literally have had this conversation. Why pretend we haven't?
It's about outsourcing what's in the cheaper and best interest of the tax payer.

Have an opinion for once in your life and defend it. The attack dog with zero contribution of your own is beyond tiresome. Do you think buying this industrial type printer was a good idea for the tax payer?

Except that it isn't.

The public sector brings the same efficiency to building social housing that it brings to buying printers and building children's hospitals.

That is my opinion and I am defending it. It was a clear opinion put forward in my last post. I will admit that it was somewhat cryptic in how it was put forward, so I will apologise if that made it difficult to understand.

Harry Palmr

Ares Witty Weasel wrote: »

Print to PDF : Save the trees (of which planting targets have been missed in recent years).
Link to these PDFs via QR Codes where needed, for fast downloading.

Have you tried posting Christmas cards and calenders made of PDF

goat2 wrote: »

was it to be a specialised printer, or for A4 paper, how could a printer cost that, they could have housed 3 families with that much money

I hear they'll have a sideline of 3D printing for houses (what's that?, it doesn't do 3D!?).

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that it isn't.

The public sector brings the same efficiency to building social housing that it brings to buying printers and building children's hospitals.

That is my opinion and I am defending it. It was a clear opinion put forward in my last post. I will admit that it was somewhat cryptic in how it was put forward, so I will apologise if that made it difficult to understand.

No, wrong. It's basic mathematics. You are assuming bad management and mistakes etc. They can happen in any area, doesn't mean we go the more expensive route in case the errors are costly. That defies logic.

We needed a NCH. The fact that the government made a pigs ear of it every step of the way means the government were f***ing idiots, giving them benefit of the doubt, not that we don't need one nor shouldn't have one. Kindergarten stuff Blanch really.

Is paying a hotel bill for someone cheaper than letting them live zero/rent free in a house we own on land we own?

No, you've not commented on the printer, you've just repeated debunked opinion on social housing while giving no alternate nor applauding or knocking using hotels or buying to use as social. So same ol' same ol' really.

Do you think buying this printer was a good idea for the tax payer or might they have been better off outsourcing their printing needs? You took a dig but won't address the issue because you'll look like an ass.

*****************

Likely we'll be paying for those generic Christmas cards the politicians send out.

Gunmonkey

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The dimensions of the printer are written clearly on the back page of the brochure

After the twentieth high level meeting did no genius “official” read it?

They really are as thick as pigsh1t

Probably not written in their contracts to read the backs of brochures...so they didnt bother.

Cool little €2000 topup to their yearly wages would have probably resolved that conundrum, though!

Alrigghtythen

The whole thing is a sham


While the printer has been installed at Kildare House, it is not currently in use due to an industrial relations stand-off between the Oireachtas and staff tasked with using the machine, who argue they need to be remunerated for work that requires up-skilling.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, wrong. It's basic mathematics. You are assuming bad management and mistakes etc. They can happen in any area, doesn't mean we go the more expensive route in case the errors are costly. That defies logic.

We needed a NCH. The fact that the government made a pigs ear of it every step of the way means the government were f***ing idiots, giving them benefit of the doubt, not that we don't need one nor shouldn't have one. Kindergarten stuff Blanch really.

Is paying a hotel bill for someone cheaper than letting them live zero/rent free in a house we own on land we own?

No, you've not commented on the printer, you've just repeated debunked opinion on social housing while giving no alternate nor applauding or knocking using hotels or buying to use as social. So same ol' same ol' really.

Do you think buying this printer was a good idea for the tax payer or might they have been better off outsourcing their printing needs? You took a dig but won't address the issue because you'll look like an ass.

*****************

Likely we'll be paying for those generic Christmas cards the politicians send out.

I have clearly said that the same principle of outsourcing applies in both cases.

When the government overmanages a project as in building a children's hospital, buying a printer, or building social housing, it makes a mess of it. Therefore it shouldn't get involved in such activities.

Noel Smyth of Alburn Developments was offering to building a children's hospital for half the price on a site he owned at Newland's Cross. Presumably, it was a loss leader and he would have benefitted from apartment development, hotel and car parking nearby. That would have been a much better deal for the State.

Similarly, getting Reads to do the printing, is, as you point out, a much better deal for the taxpayer. The only problem is, we might have seen a repeat of the printer cartridges debacle where one party printed out all of its material on the taxpayer.

In the case of social housing, the same principle applies. The State, particularly the local authorities, aren't capable of the type of contracting out and managing the build that you envisage. Look at the mess they are making over 54 houses in Cork, not to mention St. Annes Park and O'Devaney in Dublin, where prevarication and preening by politicians is delaying social housing development.

The only time any capital infrastructure was done properly was the roads built and tolled by the private sector as well as the Luas.

As for looking like an ass, I am not one for changing with the wind, being for the private sector for printers and against the private sector for building social housing but for the private sector for building children's hospitals as you are. The only consistency in your posts is that if the government says it is a good idea, you are against it.

In reality, the government are right about some things, wrong about others, as are all governments. This government has been wrong about the broadband plan, the children's hospital, water charges, the carbon tax, and climate change. However, it has been right on taxation levels generally, corporation tax, keeping the LPT, sorting the country's finances, Brexit, keeping hold on the worst excesses of current expenditure (a very brave and correct decision not to increase social welfare in 2020), breaking up the FF-created HSE, providing the environment for increasing employment and pay rises, and it is also beginning to get the job done on the housing market, though that is slower than it should be. To be fair, the opportunistic sniping from the opposition benches and the reliance on the sneaky FF haven't helped them.

A mixed bag, overall positive performance, not enough to get my first preference vote which will go Green because of the importance of climate change, but vying for second preference depending on what the Labour manifesto looks like.

That is what a real assessment looks like, not the standard rant and rave about whatever the government is doing/did/will do, just because, which is all you come out with all the time.

893bet

goat2 wrote: »

was it to be a specialised printer, or for A4 paper, how could a printer cost that, they could have housed 3 families with that much money

This is such a poor argument.

jmayo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Likely the person doing the buying has a connection to the seller. FF use to pull that kind of thing all the time.

I can just imagine the scenario that unfolded re it's storage.

Normal company rep to supplier:
Listen we can't take delivery of it at the moment, so would you mind holding on to it for a while so we can set up the location.
Supplier to normal company rep
Ehh that will cost 10k a month.
Normal company rep to supplier:
Just remember how much we spent with you guys and how much this contract is worth. And also remember we need to buy more printers elsewhere so have a think about 10k.
Supplier to normal company rep
We have just discovered we can do it for 100 as we just found some space.
I have to charge something if that is ok, we will reimburse you with toner and waste cartridges if that is ok.

Leinster house rep to supplier
Listen we can't take delivery of it at the moment, we need to find room for it. Who would have thought it was that big.
So would you mind holding on to it for a while so we can set up the location.
Supplier to Leinster house rep
Ehh that will cost 10k a month.
BTW I just have a new delivery of real cool new laser printers and there is one going spare, mix up on order no. Might you have need of one?
Leinster house rep to supplier
10k sounds ok. We have budgeted 1.5 mill for the whole thing so if we don't spend it we'll never get it again.
That laser printer sounds great.
Supplier to Leinster house rep
Righty oh 10k it is.
BTW where will I deliver that color laser to ?

The above scenario is entirely fictitious and has and never will happen.
Any similarities to real persons is entirely coincidental.

goat2 wrote: »

was it to be a specialised printer, or for A4 paper, how could a printer cost that, they could have housed 3 families with that much money

You could always use the cardboard boxes that comes with it, they must be massive.

Guy:Incognito

Snow Garden wrote: »

This FG government must be the most wasteful ever. New Politics?

Would the same civil servants have done something differently if someone else was in government?

Edit, Harry beat me to it.

Odyssey 2005

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Likely the person doing the buying has a connection to the seller. FF use to pull that kind of thing all the time.

Someone somewhere got a handsome bonus

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I have clearly said that the same principle of outsourcing applies in both cases.

When the government overmanages a project as in building a children's hospital, buying a printer, or building social housing, it makes a mess of it. Therefore it shouldn't get involved in such activities.

Noel Smyth of Alburn Developments was offering to building a children's hospital for half the price on a site he owned at Newland's Cross. Presumably, it was a loss leader and he would have benefitted from apartment development, hotel and car parking nearby. That would have been a much better deal for the State.

Similarly, getting Reads to do the printing, is, as you point out, a much better deal for the taxpayer. The only problem is, we might have seen a repeat of the printer cartridges debacle where one party printed out all of its material on the taxpayer.

In the case of social housing, the same principle applies. The State, particularly the local authorities, aren't capable of the type of contracting out and managing the build that you envisage. Look at the mess they are making over 54 houses in Cork, not to mention St. Annes Park and O'Devaney in Dublin, where prevarication and preening by politicians is delaying social housing development.

The only time any capital infrastructure was done properly was the roads built and tolled by the private sector as well as the Luas.

As for looking like an ass, I am not one for changing with the wind, being for the private sector for printers and against the private sector for building social housing but for the private sector for building children's hospitals as you are. The only consistency in your posts is that if the government says it is a good idea, you are against it.

In reality, the government are right about some things, wrong about others, as are all governments. This government has been wrong about the broadband plan, the children's hospital, water charges, the carbon tax, and climate change. However, it has been right on taxation levels generally, corporation tax, keeping the LPT, sorting the country's finances, Brexit, keeping hold on the worst excesses of current expenditure (a very brave and correct decision not to increase social welfare in 2020), breaking up the FF-created HSE, providing the environment for increasing employment and pay rises, and it is also beginning to get the job done on the housing market, though that is slower than it should be. To be fair, the opportunistic sniping from the opposition benches and the reliance on the sneaky FF haven't helped them.

A mixed bag, overall positive performance, not enough to get my first preference vote which will go Green because of the importance of climate change, but vying for second preference depending on what the Labour manifesto looks like.

That is what a real assessment looks like, not the standard rant and rave about whatever the government is doing/did/will do, just because, which is all you come out with all the time.

You didn't and it doesn't.
You yourself argued against your mistaken assumption that the LA's paying to have social housing built would mean bricklayers and the like being given pensionable jobs for life. That's the only equivalency that can be drawn here. How is outsourcing to pay contractors to build the same as buying an industrial printer?
You can compare outsourcing to a printers to outsourcing to a contractor sure. So I'm not contradicting myself and even if I were each situation should be judged on it's own merits for the tax payer.

So government shouldn't govern because they're not very good at it? On the NCH, they shouldn't become a builder giving tradesmen pensionable jobs, (I agree) but neither should they be outsourcing for builds. So what's left? You suggest choosing a better deal. I agree. So your argument falls on it's arse doesn't it? You mean they made a bad decision. Agreed.

How? If every big job was outsourced to Reads how would this assist in overusing cartridges in the Dail chambers?

Again, you seem to be arguing government, local and national can't govern. I agree this shower are complete ****ehawks, but thems the ones we've got. What do you suggest we replace them with?

So the government had a complete hands off approach to roads and the Luas?

You are looking like an ass Blanch.
I said it would likely be a better deal to outsource printing rather than buy this machine. You have not given an opinion either way but took the opportunity to compare it to my view on social housing, which sadly for you, is exactly the same. We should build our own social housing by paying outsourced contractors not creating a building company. We should outsource printing needs, not become a printing company.
You are coming across as desperate to score one. All a normal person would need do is agree or disagree and give reason.

The amusing, I'm more of a green myself sh*te :rolleyes: you spend a lot of energy attacking any sniff of criticism towards FG, I hope it's renewable.

I'm ranting? I gave a point of view. You still have not
Blanch, do you think buying this printer rather than outsourcing around the corner to Reads was a good idea for the tax payer? And if you say No, agreeing with my comment, why are you trying to attack my comment at all?

Eric Cartman

They bought a 28” plate making machine, a 29” guillotine and a 40” printing press, cant even use its full specs , thing prints 16,000 copies an hour and only one company bid for it . They oversold it to the hilt.

These offset printers become woefully more expensive to use when youre doing smaller runs. Aside from national publications going to everyone this is complete overkill.

That and some union rep is going to get a song getting the print engineers more money for training and to operate this.

A hp indigo 12000 would have been half the price , much more efficient for small runs and produced everything they needed, ohh and would have fit in the room too.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You didn't and it doesn't.
You yourself argued against your mistaken assumption that the LA's paying to have social housing built would mean bricklayers and the like being given pensionable jobs for life. That's the only equivalency that can be drawn here. How is outsourcing to pay contractors to build the same as buying an industrial printer?
You can compare outsourcing to a printers to outsourcing to a contractor sure. So I'm not contradicting myself and even if I were each situation should be judged on it's own merits for the tax payer.

So government shouldn't govern because they're not very good at it? On the NCH, they shouldn't become a builder giving tradesmen pensionable jobs, (I agree) but neither should they be outsourcing for builds. So what's left? You suggest choosing a better deal. I agree. So your argument falls on it's arse doesn't it? You mean they made a bad decision. Agreed.

How? If every big job was outsourced to Reads how would this assist in overusing cartridges in the Dail chambers?

Again, you seem to be arguing government, local and national can't govern. I agree this shower are complete ****ehawks, but thems the ones we've got. What do you suggest we replace them with?

So the government had a complete hands off approach to roads and the Luas?

You are looking like an ass Blanch.
I said it would likely be a better deal to outsource printing rather than buy this machine. You have not given an opinion either way but took the opportunity to compare it to my view on social housing, which sadly for you, is exactly the same. We should build our own social housing by paying outsourced contractors not creating a building company. We should outsource printing needs, not become a printing company.
You are coming across as desperate to score one. All a normal person would need do is agree or disagree and give reason.

The amusing, I'm more of a green myself sh*te :rolleyes: you spend a lot of energy attacking any sniff of criticism towards FG, I hope it's renewable.

I'm ranting? I gave a point of view. You still have not
Blanch, do you think buying this printer rather than outsourcing around the corner to Reads was a good idea for the tax payer? And if you say yes, agreeing with my comment, why are you trying to attack my comment at all?

The huge flaw in your argument is that you assume that outsourcing your printing to Reads is the same as outsourcing a contractor to build social housing. That is simply not the case.

If you go around the corner to Reads, you pay the market price that Reads demands. If you buy a house off an estate agent, you pay the market price the estate agent demands. Same thing.

If you start a procurement process for a printer, it is the same as a procurement process for building social housing or building a children's hospital. Same thing. You get the specs wrong, you make a dog's dinner of it. You forget to include a cost, it gets added on. Very rarely do you beat the market.

Anybody involved in buying for a public company knows this. This is all because of the mess that is the OGP.

So if you are in favour of paying the market price to Reads, you are in favour of paying the market price to an estate agent. If you are in favour of a wasteful procurement process for a contractor to build social housing, you are in favour of a procurement process for a printer or for a children's hospital.

I found it strange that you were arguing one way for one thing, and the opposite for another thing, until I realised both arguments were just to criticise FG. Of course if we discover than Denis O'Brien owns Reads, you will swing around the opposite direction again.

You criticise me for never offering an opinion, well I don't want to be a fool by offering an inconsistent opinion.

Eric Cartman

blanch152 wrote: »

The huge flaw in your argument is that you assume that outsourcing your printing to Reads is the same as outsourcing a contractor to build social housing. That is simply not the case.

If you go around the corner to Reads, you pay the market price that Reads demands. If you buy a house off an estate agent, you pay the market price the estate agent demands. Same thing.

If you start a procurement process for a printer, it is the same as a procurement process for building social housing or building a children's hospital. Same thing. You get the specs wrong, you make a dog's dinner of it. You forget to include a cost, it gets added on. Very rarely do you beat the market.

Anybody involved in buying for a public company knows this. This is all because of the mess that is the OGP.

So if you are in favour of paying the market price to Reads, you are in favour of paying the market price to an estate agent. If you are in favour of a wasteful procurement process for a contractor to build social housing, you are in favour of a procurement process for a printer or for a children's hospital.

I found it strange that you were arguing one way for one thing, and the opposite for another thing, until I realised both arguments were just to criticise FG. Of course if we discover than Denis O'Brien owns Reads, you will swing around the opposite direction again.

You criticise me for never offering an opinion, well I don't want to be a fool by offering an inconsistent opinion.

The problem with leinster house inhousong printing is
1) due to support staff hours the staff cant be there at all times
2) the printers will be paid infinitely more than commercial printers would
3) commercial printers run a press like that 20+ hour a day to make it pay for itself
4) commercial printers have the staff on hand to maintain these machines all day
5) commercial printing is such a competitive business that the retail cost of printing makes even buying a machine like this worthless for a company.

These printers cost you 4 cent a sheet full colour to print a document , that excludes staff and plating costs , thats only ink and time on the press. The retail cost of pronting documents at the moment is about 8 cent a sheet full colpur in B2 if you can get a decent deal with a printer. They’d need to run 40.4 million sheets off this thing without paying a cent for staff or having any issues to even break even on it

171170

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They bought a 28” plate making machine, a 29” guillotine and a 40” printing press, cant even use its full specs , thing prints 16,000 copies an hour and only one company bid for it . They oversold it to the hilt.

These offset printers become woefully more expensive to use when youre doing smaller runs. Aside from national publications going to everyone this is complete overkill.

That and some union rep is going to get a song getting the print engineers more money for training and to operate this.

A hp indigo 12000 would have been half the price , much more efficient for small runs and produced everything they needed, ohh and would have fit in the room too.

Revenue's Print Centre in Santry has spare capacity, lots of space and is highly efficient.

There seems no intelligent reason - other than custom and practice - why they shouldn't have been offered the Leinster House job - plus the new printer if required!

One other thing in their favour is that their staff don't tend to act the arseh0le over new technology!

Eric Cartman

171170 wrote: »

Revenue's Print Centre in Santry has spare capacity, lots of space and is highly efficient.

There seems no intelligent reason - other than custom and practice - why they shouldn't have been offered the Leinster House job - plus the new printer if required!

One other thing in their favour is that their staff don't tend to act the arseh0le over new technology!

Revenues is only single colour and a different printing method, revenues is great for a load of customised letters, not full colour reproductions. But this is still overkill, youd want to be having a referendum guide every week for everyone to make this printer worthwhile.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The huge flaw in your argument is that you assume that outsourcing your printing to Reads is the same as outsourcing a contractor to build social housing. That is simply not the case.

You know that was your comparison right? I just said they are both outsourcing.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you go around the corner to Reads, you pay the market price that Reads demands. If you buy a house off an estate agent, you pay the market price the estate agent demands. Same thing.

See above.
You created this conundrum to try score a point.
Not so. How commerce works is I build a printer in my factory. I sell the printer for profit. Then a company sells it on for more profit and finally you own it. If it's cheaper to get jobs done by someone else rather than buying the printer which might remain unused half the time why buy it?
I pay people to build a house. I put it on the market for profit. You buy the house. Or, you pay people to build you a house. Can you guess which is cheaper for you?

blanch152 wrote: »

If you start a procurement process for a printer, it is the same as a procurement process for building social housing or building a children's hospital. Same thing. You get the specs wrong, you make a dog's dinner of it. You forget to include a cost, it gets added on. Very rarely do you beat the market.

If you make an arse of anything it can go either way. Agreed.
If you don't why go the most needlessly expensive route?
You usually beat the market. Developers rarely sell homes they paid people to build for them at a loss.

blanch152 wrote: »

Anybody involved in buying for a public company knows this. This is all because of the mess that is the OGP.

So if you are in favour of paying the market price to Reads, you are in favour of paying the market price to an estate agent. If you are in favour of a wasteful procurement process for a contractor to build social housing, you are in favour of a procurement process for a printer or for a children's hospital.

That's working off your flawed logic.
This isn't about picking a technique and damn the expense. I'm not in Fine Gael. In any case, if paying the market price to have copying done is cheaper than buying an industrial printer, I say go to Reads.
The equivalence would be buying a building firm because you want to build houses. I've explained this in my last post. You are simply trying to score a point rather than make one.
No you are taking giant leaps. Firstly the procurement process is how you get the best deal otherwise you stick a pin in the phone book or just go through the motions and give the contract to Denis O'Brien. Again because people are making a mess of the process doesn't mean we all should run around like Lord of the Flies.
Secondly, you tripped up again:

If you are in favour of a wasteful procurement process for a contractor to build social housing, you are in favour of a procurement process for a printer to find a good printing company who can do your printing well and at a reasonable price or for a children's hospital.

Yes. Completely.

Wasteful

blanch152 wrote: »

I found it strange that you were arguing one way for one thing, and the opposite for another thing, until I realised both arguments were just to criticise FG. Of course if we discover than Denis O'Brien owns Reads, you will swing around the opposite direction again.

I don't believe you. I think you thought you saw a chance at scoring a point and took it.
All I said was going to a printers might be a better Idea than buying an industrial printer and look at the ginormous rabbit hole you made. It's causing ripples in the space time continuum. It has it's own gravity.

blanch152 wrote: »

You criticise me for never offering an opinion, well I don't want to be a fool by offering an inconsistent opinion.

So, do you think buying an industrial sized printer was a good idea, over and above going around the corner to reads?
You're in a corner now. If you agree with me your attack on my post was petty and unnecessary...eek..if you don't, you are cool with the industrial printer spend, after comparing it to wasteful procurement...yikes... tough one.

Alrigghtythen

When did the old printer break? In 2017 1.19m paid for printing

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.breakingnews.ie/ireland/accounts-show-td-and-senator-salaries-came-to-18m-last-year-as-dail-bar-and-restaurant-profits-double-852036.html


The parliamentary printing bill totalled €1.19m

James Brown

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

When did the old printer break? In 2017 1.19m paid for printing

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.breakingnews.ie/ireland/accounts-show-td-and-senator-salaries-came-to-18m-last-year-as-dail-bar-and-restaurant-profits-double-852036.html


The parliamentary printing bill totalled €1.19m

The had to bus in monks to make transcripts by hand.

One of the monks was a former Fianna Fail councillor, but that's coincidence

Alrigghtythen

Sinn féin got a big printer after Aengus Ó Snodaigh used 50000 grand worth of printer cartridges


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-td-urged-to-come-clean-over-e50000-use-of-dail-printer-cartridges-367908-Feb2012/%3famp=1


Sinn Féin has since been supplied with an industrial photocopier for large printing.

bmc58

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1126/1095148-dail-printer-investigation/


Is this a joke? The cost I have on my buildings insurance to rebuild my house isn’t anywhere near the amount they spent on fitting this printer into a space!

And my printer cost 40 euro from currys. Why is a printer that much money?

Anyone?

TD's have thousands of Christmas Calendars to print for their constituents at our cost.Important for our TD's remind us there still around.Your nice little printer from Currys just would not be up to standard for these big spenders.

SEPT 23 1989

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

When did the old printer break? In 2017 1.19m paid for printing

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.breakingnews.ie/ireland/accounts-show-td-and-senator-salaries-came-to-18m-last-year-as-dail-bar-and-restaurant-profits-double-852036.html


The parliamentary printing bill totalled €1.19m

It was costing 150k a year in maintenance and repairs

When seems totally believable....

bmc58

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd be okay with it if they can justify it's use. I do not believe they can.
This is an industrial level professional printer.
How would this be cheaper than going around the corner to Reads? There's your fuppin' money tree. Shower of tits.

TD's Christmas Calendars are printed at an industrial rate.

James Brown

bmc58 wrote: »

TD's Christmas Calendars are printed at an industrial rate.

TBF, I didn't think they ran them off in the Dail chambers. Mind you they could now

JohnnyFlash

What's much more likely to have happened is some variation on the following:

an expression of interest to procure a new printer was submitted to the European Journal - known in the business as the OJEC. Here's the OJEC - https://www.ojec.com/. You can see all the tenders being submitted by public sector organisations across Europe.

an RFQ was issued based upon expressions of interest.

A tender was issued based upon requirements for a commercial/industrial grade printer. Here's the thing - someone might have forgotten to put in a requirement that it needed to be able to fit in through a door, or fit in a space of a specific size.

Tender gets awarded after months of tortuous back and forth, legal oversight, procurement rules etc. The vendor has built in the cost of dealing with the public service into the price.

Printer gets delivered and doesn't fit.

This has nothing to do with the government. This is a civil service issue. It's amazing how utterly ignorant so many 'all day merchants' are about the separation between the Government, Civil Service, and the Law.

Who gives the civil service their budget?

Eric Cartman

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It was costing 150k a year in maintenance and repairs

When seems totally believable....

Thats just a parts cost , this cost wont decrease even for a new machine. Funnily enough the worst thing you can do to an offset press is leave it idle, wears out parts quucker

Are they really printing calendars or are you lot winding me up?

liosnagceann75

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Are they really printing calendars or are you lot winding me up?

Michael Healy rae sent out calendars last year. Only problem was that the calendars were inaccurate in terms of how many days certain months had. Sure its only taxpayers money

BDI

Any big printers I know has air conditioning which needs to be serviced regularly. Will stuff like that be factored into the running cost too?