Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Happier diner]

18 minutes ago, quilp said:

It's just the one word you're objecting to here, isn't it? Which word is it? 

The C word. 

[Happier diner]

16 minutes ago, John Wright said:

We aren’t the taste police. 

I understand that but you have some responsibility for the success and failure of the forum. I couldn't give a monkeys about it. Doesn't bother me to be honest, but I know it puts a lot of people off this forum. Possibly more than it pleases. Two ladies, who I worked with, registered and the gave up.  They said it was full of foul mouthed and stupid old men. As if!

I'll say no more on the matter. 

[Andy Onchan]

So, if II'm reading this right both branches in Tynwald have all been told not to rock the boat in order to avoid a national (and possibly UK) embarrassment.

[Omobono]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

If this is the case then you are of course correct and I made this point some posts back. 

The key question for me is: at what stage did the DOI engage the services of an expert consulting engineer?

If it was after the project started (and we were committed) then that would be negligent. It's unlikely that would be the case but you never know.

If it was from the start then it's hard to be really too critical of the DOI. It would be the case that they had been let down by their engineering expertise and the designer.

The DOI remain accountable and perhaps should be pursuing those would have been paid to be the experts for some consequential costs of their incompetence. 

I would be surprised if the DOI did do the feasibility, site investigation and pre design work.

 

Don't these people carry   professional  indemnity insurance in case they get it wrong  ?   the isle of Man government should be suing  the Ass of them if this is the case , I am fed up with platitudes and lessons have been learned , its a tough old world out there and someone should have checked the stability of the riverbank given this has been known to be one of the most difficult parts of the Mersey frontage to develop , just ask  anyone associated with the river  the tidal flow and the silt deposits will tell you that   ,  and  will require constant dredging , 

[Kopek]

I would not wish censorship or censoring on any poster, merely that they would consider the vehemence of their own words have on we the recipients of the post  and how much 'Cred' we giv e to that post. I t may be less than we would normally give, so what has the poster gained?

[Petefella]

13 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

So, if II'm reading this right both branches in Tynwald have all been told not to rock the boat in order to avoid a national (and possibly UK) embarrassment.

Well who was Treasury Minister when this all went on? 

[Kopek]

It is not for the Mods to set linguistical standard , rather than, if we wish to be taken seriously, we should couch  our argument in terms that will not be contentious to the more serious of posters?

So easy to dismiss a 'shouty' response??

[Happier diner]

8 hours ago, Omobono said:

Don't these people carry   professional  indemnity insurance in case they get it wrong  ?   the isle of Man government should be suing  the Ass of them if this is the case , I am fed up with platitudes and lessons have been learned , its a tough old world out there and someone should have checked the stability of the riverbank given this has been known to be one of the most difficult parts of the Mersey frontage to develop , just ask  anyone associated with the river  the tidal flow and the silt deposits will tell you that   ,  and  will require constant dredging , 

Yes they pay a lot of money for PI insurance as its a big risk for them. They also caveat their contracts to limit exposure to their fee and exclude consequential liability. However its still possible to sue them and many have quite successfully. 

https://www.infrastructureinvestor.com/aecom-settles-australia-toll-road-lawsuit/

[Andy Onchan]

33 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Yes they pay a lot of money for PI insurance as its a big risk for them. They also caveat their contracts to limit exposure to their fee and exclude consequential liability. However its still possible to sue them and many have quite successfully. 

https://www.infrastructureinvestor.com/aecom-settles-australia-toll-road-lawsuit/

Is AECOM involved in the LPL development? Seems they have quite a good record at falsifying and inflating estimates etc

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/justice-department-joins-whistleblower-lawsuit-against-aecom/579278/

[Happier diner]

11 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Is AECOM involved in the LPL development? Seems they have quite a good record at falsifying and inflating estimates etc

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/justice-department-joins-whistleblower-lawsuit-against-aecom/579278/

It seems the whole project is veiled in secrecy. There is so much we do not know. According to AECOM's website they are running the whole Pier head project and it includes a new ferry terminal. That could be the mersey ferry of course. I'll keep researching, but really I shouldn't have to should I?

[Mercenary]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Yes they pay a lot of money for PI insurance as its a big risk for them. They also caveat their contracts to limit exposure to their fee and exclude consequential liability. However its still possible to sue them and many have quite successfully. 

https://www.infrastructureinvestor.com/aecom-settles-australia-toll-road-lawsuit/

That link is a PPP where the entity is typically contracted to build and also provide a service level for a period, which is quite different to the build only pier head contract where AECOM are the designer and T&T the PM/cost consultant. There may well be liability but this would not cover general increases in scope (see previous post).

[Nom de plume]

15 hours ago, Kopek said:

Did the DoI change their Design Consultants after criticism from the Steam Pkt? Think they may have done? That could mean that they were let down by the original Co. before new advice could be put into action.

There, that's a nice excuse for them!

 

''   I'm sorry to be so coarse....." You're not usually! I don't mind the odd 'Fuck', ( puns invited), but 'cunt' is a bit much in forum name calling and usually means some froth and spittle rather than forethought?

A good test is, would you say that in front of your Wife and Family???

You are quite right, however ... I must caveat with my feelings of utter contempt for the way in which capital expenditure projects are administered.

It's difficult to quantify my anger & the odd 'C' word here and there only exacerbates the ill feeling.

I apologise to those offended by my back room in the pub descriptive licence.

Btw - the word 'C' is actually a term of endearment amongst my friendship group. If we were out for a sociable one and you happened to mistakenly hand the bar maid a US dollar, rather than a five pound note I'd likely call you a daft 'C'.

A daft or silly 'C' in our circles is a good mate.

The way in which I used the word in the context of this thread was pseudo aggressive but you certainly got the cut of my jib.    

Edited December 22, 2021 by Nom de plume

[Happier diner]

3 hours ago, Mercenary said:

That link is a PPP where the entity is typically contracted to build and also provide a service level for a period, which is quite different to the build only pier head contract where AECOM are the designer and T&T the PM/cost consultant. There may well be liability but this would not cover general increases in scope (see previous post).

Are you sure. AECOM don't usually go beyond design. They are not contractors. The way I readi it is that they did a feasibility that calculated the estimated future revenue for a toll road but they used the wrong figure for the amount of traffic. If they had got it right then it would have paid for itself. Whether or not its a PPP or not is actually irrelevant. 

I don't even know if AECOM are the consulting engineers on our landing stage but that lawsuit proves that if you pay someone to estimate something and they get it so wrong that it brings into doubt the feasibility of the project ( ring any bells?) then it demonstrates that they can be successfully sued

[Max Power]

14 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

So, if II'm reading this right both branches in Tynwald have all been told not to rock the boat in order to avoid a national (and possibly UK) embarrassment.

In a change to the previous schedule of toxic incompetence and shameless sleaze, we will now enter an indefinite period of deranged clusterfuckery.

[Mercenary]

57 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Are you sure. AECOM don't usually go beyond design. They are not contractors. The way I readi it is that they did a feasibility that calculated the estimated future revenue for a toll road but they used the wrong figure for the amount of traffic. If they had got it right then it would have paid for itself. Whether or not its a PPP or not is actually irrelevant. 

I don't even know if AECOM are the consulting engineers on our landing stage but that lawsuit proves that if you pay someone to estimate something and they get it so wrong that it brings into doubt the feasibility of the project ( ring any bells?) then it demonstrates that they can be successfully sued

Yes reading the details of that one it is not comparable. PPP contracts are quite different and payments are generally linked to an output, such as availability or number of vehicle movements, rather than completion of a building or asset such as in a typical construction contract. AECOM's liability was to the concession operator who went bust (because of the erroneous numbers) rather than the government.