Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[asitis]

18 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Just think about how much money we’d have to support small businesses if we hadn’t have lit fire to this pile of cash 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/govt-duty-bound-to-support-small-businesses-through-covid-19/

........ agreed, or the health service, or mental health provisions, drug rehabilitation, fuel poverty, education, etc etc etc !

The much vaunted SPCO purchase is beginning to look a bit like a millstone to me !

 

[Happier diner]

41 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

At what point do you differentiate between extra work and out of scope?

Extra work is something that has to be done because the contractor has come across something unforeseen  like, for example, there is a sewer in their way that was not shown on the drawings or picked up in any survey

A change of scope is something like, for example, the client (employer (us)) wants the road to be 5mm of tarmac rather than 4mm, or asked for tinted windows in the building). Something that is different to what was in the original works information.  Another example might be if the client suddenly decided he wanted the dock wall to be resistant to the bowthrusters of a certain vessel and someone had not specified this in the original contract (Not that that would ever happen)

33 minutes ago, Gladys said:

So, who is the project manager? 

The project manager has to sign off extra work and there is no need for DOI approval.  I get that unexpected changes will occur and involve extra cost in big construction/civil engineering projects.  But there has to be a point that the change is so significant that it is "outside of the scope" of the contract can only be authorised by the client, i.e. DOI.

So, the question is at what point did DOI have to pre-agree a change in spec and, if the budget wasn't there, wouldn't they have had to go back to Tynwald for approval?  When was that first point, when it hit £20mn, £30mn or £40mn?  Was that the time to rethink the whole project, let alone when it looked like hitting £70mn and you have the unwelcome prospect of sunk cost?

It would be rare for 'extra' work to be significant, more an accumulation of small things. Yes you are correct, for a large change you would expect the PM to consult with the client.

This change of spec is what I have been trying to get from @Stu Peters but in fairness to him it would be before his time and its way too late to start digging that up now. I think we all suspect it was the change of location and the need to better bowthruster protection. But we are guess of course.

PS The spell check of bowthrusters is

[Happier diner]

What seems to be making people unhappy is that we seem to be totally in the hands of UK consultants and contractors. Because of the lack of information and the spectacular rise in cost it leaves us feeling that no one with any stake in the project is representing our interests.

It may be a perception that this is the case but we pay designers, project managers, quantity surveyors, supervisors to act in our interest. While they might well be, because we are living in a vacuum of information, we don't feel like they are.

[Gladys]

That isn’t what bothers me, in fact I would be very bothered if there were none of those professionals involved.  What bothers me is that there seems to have been a lack of restraint, or continual stress-testing of the viability of the project, by the client, DOI and possibly elsewhere.

As I have said before, entering into the contracts for construction (despite what industry standard was used) should not have meant an open-ended liability on DOI to continue at all costs, which seems to be where we are. 

At what point did it start to go wrong?  When the voids were identified?  Was that not a significant change in scope and the point to re-visit the whole basis of the viability of the project?  Could it have been abandoned taking the hit of the purchase and costs to date?

If you buy land to develop and find there is a disused mineshaft beneath it, changing the whole cost profile of the project, would you really plough on given the uncertainty on the costs of stabilising the land before you even put a brick down? 

That is aside to any possible course of action against surveyors who should have picked it up. 

But you do wonder if there was a commitment to delivering this project no matter what at a very high level.  I hesitate to use the trite term "vanity project", but the desire to have a bit of Liverpool that will be "Manx" may have clouded judgement quite considerably.

 

 

[asitis]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

That isn’t what bothers me, in fact I would be very bothered if there were none of those professionals involved.  What bothers me is that there seems to have been a lack of restraint, or continual stress-testing of the viability of the project, by the client, DOI and possibly elsewhere.

As I have said before, entering into the contracts for construction (despite what industry standard was used) should not have meant an open-ended liability on DOI to continue at all costs, which seems to be where we are. 

At what point did it start to go wrong?  When the voids were identified?  Was that not a significant change in scope and the point to re-visit the whole basis of the viability of the project?  Could it have been abandoned taking the hit of the purchase and costs to date?

If you buy land to develop and find there is a disused mineshaft beneath it, changing the whole cost profile of the project, would you really plough on given the uncertainty on the costs of stabilising the land before you even put a brick down? 

That is aside to any possible course of action against surveyors who should have picked it up. 

But you do wonder if there was a commitment to delivering this project no matter what at a very high level.  I hesitate to use the trite term "vanity project", but the desire to have a bit of Liverpool that will be "Manx" may have clouded judgement quite considerably.

 

 

Excellent analysis bravo.

[Non-Believer]

For the money we're spending on this, we could have enlarged Douglas Harbour to allow Stena to get in there from Birkenhead 😂

[Passing Time]

35 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

For the money we're spending on this, we could have enlarged Douglas Harbour to allow Stena to get in there from Birkenhead 😂

For the money we are spending and continue to spend, we could have built a feckin bridge.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

That isn’t what bothers me, in fact I would be very bothered if there were none of those professionals involved.  What bothers me is that there seems to have been a lack of restraint, or continual stress-testing of the viability of the project, by the client, DOI and possibly elsewhere.

As I have said before, entering into the contracts for construction (despite what industry standard was used) should not have meant an open-ended liability on DOI to continue at all costs, which seems to be where we are. 

At what point did it start to go wrong?  When the voids were identified?  Was that not a significant change in scope and the point to re-visit the whole basis of the viability of the project?  Could it have been abandoned taking the hit of the purchase and costs to date?

If you buy land to develop and find there is a disused mineshaft beneath it, changing the whole cost profile of the project, would you really plough on given the uncertainty on the costs of stabilising the land before you even put a brick down? 

That is aside to any possible course of action against surveyors who should have picked it up. 

But you do wonder if there was a commitment to delivering this project no matter what at a very high level.  I hesitate to use the trite term "vanity project", but the desire to have a bit of Liverpool that will be "Manx" may have clouded judgement quite considerably.

 

 

I don't think our views conflict

If you had the information and and the confidence in those trusted to deliver this project you would not need to be 'bothered' and you would not need to ask these questions. You are a resident and not a developer at the end of the day. It shouldn't be our jobs to worry about restraint and viability. But we are.

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Extra work is something that has to be done because the contractor has come across something unforeseen  like, for example, there is a sewer in their way that was not shown on the drawings or picked up in any survey

A change of scope is something like, for example, the client (employer (us)) wants the road to be 5mm of tarmac rather than 4mm, or asked for tinted windows in the building). Something that is different to what was in the original works information.  Another example might be if the client suddenly decided he wanted the dock wall to be resistant to the bowthrusters of a certain vessel and someone had not specified this in the original contract (Not that that would ever happen)

It would be rare for 'extra' work to be significant, more an accumulation of small things. Yes you are correct, for a large change you would expect the PM to consult with the client.

This change of spec is what I have been trying to get from @Stu Peters but in fairness to him it would be before his time and its way too late to start digging that up now. I think we all suspect it was the change of location and the need to better bowthruster protection. But we are guess of course.

PS The spell check of bowthrusters is

My question was, of course, rhetorical. 😉

This debacle of a project has been through the hands of three ministers, Gawne, Harmer and latterly Baker. All three of these gentlemen should have had reports put across their respective desks on progress (or otherwise), including potential cost over-runs (the extras) and issues that would have caused the scope to have been re-drafted/amended

Either that didn't happen or, each in their turn, chose to ignore them. Are all three culpable? Or is one more culpable than the others? 

[Andy Onchan]

10 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I don't think our views conflict

If you had the information and and the confidence in those trusted to deliver this project you would not need to be 'bothered' and you would not need to ask these questions. You are a resident and not a developer at the end of the day. It shouldn't be our jobs to worry about restraint and viability. But we are.

Where does the Buck Stop?

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Where does the Buck Stop?

With the taxpayer, it would seem. 

[James Blonde]

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

With the taxpayer, it would seem. 

Same as it ever was. 

[Non-Believer]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

With the taxpayer, it would seem. 

And the ballot box in the case of all three to date...?

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Where does the Buck Stop?

If its a project that is sponsored by the DOI, then the buck stops with the DOI. They have scoped the project and appointed all the consultants/contractors. They (and their minister) are wholly accountable for the project.

[James Blonde]

12 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

And the ballot box in the case of all three to date...?

Hardly, they've all fucked off with a gold-plated pension and 6 months salary after being dismissed by the electorate. 

 

3 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

If its a project that is sponsored by the DOI, then the buck stops with the DOI. They have scoped the project and appointed all the consultants/contractors. They (and their minister) are wholly accountable for the project.

Again it's hardly accountable. They will suffer no ill for such incompetence.