Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[0bserver]

3 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Eh?? Care to expand?

It's going to be like a really shit statue apparently.

[Twitch]

2 hours ago, 0bserver said:

Source at the DOI has said they're sending a horse tram to sit in the new terminal shed. 

Maybe we should just ship the whole horse tram infrastructure to Liverpool to help ferry the thousands of Manx shoppers between the £70 million new terminal and Liverpool ONE. 

[Ghost Ship]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:04 PM, Roger Mexico said:

Of course not.  Tynwald finally revolted back in December when the demand to increase the budget to £71 million from £38 million and Watterson got the motion modified to also demand:

the Department of Infrastructure to publish by the last day of January 2022 a report to Tynwald which should include (i) a detailed cost breakdown of the budget as envisaged in February 2019, July 2019, July 2021 and December 2021; (ii) a detailed explanation of each area in which the budgeted cost has increased along with all relevant reports

Now in any sort of remotely competently managed project all this information should be available in any case, so it would just me a matter of putting things together.

But they simply didn't.  Eventually, some time in May, I think, a report was produced:

Isle of Man Ferry Terminal at Liverpool Budget Breakdown:

February 2019, July 2019, July 2021, December 2021

So it took them six months to come up with something that should have been available in a few days

Proving again that the DoI thinks itself above any sort of democratic control and Tynwald seems unable to stop it.

Looking at the analysis on p6 of the movement on the budget, what does "Included" mean in the table?

For instance: Site Inspection/Resident Engineer Fees start off at £450,000 in Feb* 2019, but are only enumerated as "Included" in the three subsequent iterations of the budget.

Likewise Fuel Tank shows as zero in Feb 2019 and July 2019, as "Included" in July 2021 and as £840k in December 2021.

I assume that "Included" is intended to convey to the reader that sums previously (or subsequently) shown under a particular heading are subsequently (or were previously) included under a different budget heading, and that there have been transfers between the different headings.   So that - for instance - the £840k for Fuel Tank in December 2021 was previously included as a provision under the budget heading Risk Register showing as £14 million in July 2021?  (I presume that is the case as the £14 million Risk Register amount had reduced to £3 million in December 2021 while Fuel Tank and Scour Full Extent Option 1 had together increased by a similar amount).

But if that is the case, why aren't there footnotes to make that immediately clear to the reader?  In my job you would always include footnotes in any analysis like this so that it would be transparently clear where movements between different headings had taken place.  Not doing so makes it look like you don't want anyone to look too closely at the movements over time...

*And something that drives me mad about information presented in this way, why do we have the Abbreviation "Feb" in the first set of budget figures but then the full month names July and December in subsequent figures?  Can't they make it look consistent?

 

[asitis]

14 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

But if that is the case, why aren't there footnotes to make that immediately clear to the reader? 

I acknowledge I am a cynic, but making it clear for scrutiny is not part of the remit methinks !

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Ghost Ship said:

But if that is the case, why aren't there footnotes to make that immediately clear to the reader?  In my job you would always include footnotes in any analysis like this so that it would be transparently clear where movements between different headings had taken place.  Not doing so makes it look like you don't want anyone to look too closely at the movements over time...

As always with the DoI it's impossible to tell if it's deliberate cover-up or complete professional incompetence or some mixture of the two.  The problem is that accountancy practices in the civil service (as with legal practices) seem mainly directed to concealment and avoidance of responsibility rather than providing information or making sure that things are run correctly.  That's why when genuine outsiders have to examine any financials (eg the York Aviation report into the Airport), they end up flummoxed at the sheer lack of even basic standards.

The fact that it took the DoI management six months to produce a simple report they were supposed to produce in one and even then it has the same production standards that would be criticised in a school project is very telling.  These people aren't just bad at their jobs, they don't really even know what their jobs consist of.

[Non-Believer]

They are just very good at such concealment and/or obfuscation. This is an entirely self serving generation of public servants who are well aware that the first port of call in examination and reporting respects is the elected representatives from our society who may have neither the experience nor subject matter expertise to pick up on such and may simply vote to continue, out of lack of time or interest in other subjects.

Do our elected have the time and experience to fine comb this stuff that is available to these boards for instance? I'd suggest not, which is why we are where we are, so's to speak.

[Numbnuts]

Seems like its a ongoing issue in DOI. Its been over 6 months since the last My Prom management minutes for December were produced. None since ! . As its public money in my view thats clearly in no way acceptable. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Gladys]

Time for the Auditor General?

[Non-Believer]

Just now, Gladys said:

Time for the Auditor General?

It has been suggested, Juan Watterson's name mentioned in dispatches.

No. Too close to Tynwald and the establishment. It would need to be external to the Island, which is why it won't happen. It would be a damning indictment of the Island's governance if the aspect needed was external fiscal scrutiny. Fought tooth and nail. Much better to let the finances take the hit than admit to anything. We are dealing with egos and people who are doing very well out of the current situation.

[Happier diner]

5 hours ago, Twitch said:

Maybe we should just ship the whole horse tram infrastructure to Liverpool to help ferry the thousands of Manx shoppers between the £70 million new terminal and Liverpool ONE. 

Or start a Liverpool TWO a bit nearer the terminal.

[Two-lane]

On 7/14/2022 at 2:04 PM, Roger Mexico said:

February 2019, July 2019, July 2021, December 2021

So it took them six months to come up with something that should have been available in a few days

27 pages, of which 9 contain data (ignoring Terminology, Summary, Photographs etc.)

Nice picture of a 3-story high steel-framed structure. That must be the DoI version of the portacabins that are used in other places. Maybe it's the plan - Douglas sea terminal will need to be flattened and built 4-stories high, so as not to feel inferior.

Take a look at the Manser Practice website - by hiring them, the result was sure to be expensive - they don't do portcabins.

 

[Mistercee]

To my mind the report to  Tynwald does not cover a couple of important issues;

1) The survey work and site investigations undertaken to assess the suitability of the site and its condition PRIOR to committing to purchase a long lease on the land.

2) The design brief given to the "Lead Consultant and Terminal Designers" 

Before going into a project of this scale and type full surveys are essential to identify ALL potential problems and restrictions on what can and cannot be done. A few hundred thousand pounds spent on surveys and proper professional advice before committing to the lease would have avoided the "unknowns". 

You should not even consider putting anything on a site until you are 99.9999% certain that you know everything about it. Can you imagine if the big  UK  development firms adopted the approach of our Government and just started work on sites without proper surveys / investigations and absorbed massive increases in costs because of "unexpected issues". It does not happen in the real world. 

In the construction world, with modern technology and computer modelling there are not really any "unknowns".     

The list of Key Stakeholders at the end of the document is interesting - I don't see some of them as essential to the project and most have no skin in it - why are Isle of Man Government and the Steam Packet not in it?? 

18 pages of bullshit, waffle and management speak which does not actually explain anything. (In my personal opinion of course!!)  

 

 

 

  

[Non-Believer]

19 minutes ago, Mistercee said:

To my mind the report to  Tynwald does not cover a couple of important issues;

1) The survey work and site investigations undertaken to assess the suitability of the site and its condition PRIOR to committing to purchase a long lease on the land.

2) The design brief given to the "Lead Consultant and Terminal Designers" 

Before going into a project of this scale and type full surveys are essential to identify ALL potential problems and restrictions on what can and cannot be done. A few hundred thousand pounds spent on surveys and proper professional advice before committing to the lease would have avoided the "unknowns". 

You should not even consider putting anything on a site until you are 99.9999% certain that you know everything about it. Can you imagine if the big  UK  development firms adopted the approach of our Government and just started work on sites without proper surveys / investigations and absorbed massive increases in costs because of "unexpected issues". It does not happen in the real world. 

In the construction world, with modern technology and computer modelling there are not really any "unknowns".     

The list of Key Stakeholders at the end of the document is interesting - I don't see some of them as essential to the project and most have no skin in it - why are Isle of Man Government and the Steam Packet not in it?? 

18 pages of bullshit, waffle and management speak which does not actually explain anything. (In my personal opinion of course!!)  

 

 

 

  

Your para 1. The fact that PH advised IoMG of potential difficulties with the site prior to purchase and anything being signed.

That information from an MHK.

[A fool and his money.....]

3 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

It has been suggested, Juan Watterson's name mentioned in dispatches.

No. Too close to Tynwald and the establishment. It would need to be external to the Island, which is why it won't happen. It would be a damning indictment of the Island's governance if the aspect needed was external fiscal scrutiny. Fought tooth and nail. Much better to let the finances take the hit than admit to anything. We are dealing with egos and people who are doing very well out of the current situation.

Watterson is a Freemason so a very poor choice.

They don't have to come from across, but they do need to be completely independent of the establishment.

[0bserver]

18 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

Watterson is a Freemason so a very poor choice.

They don't have to come from across, but they do need to be completely independent of the establishment.

Get a school leaver to do it on a 1 year basis.