Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, Happier diner said:

I think you need to read up on how these projects work. Not like you to be so shabby. The employer (us) has to employ an impartial NEC qualifier project manager and a quantity surveyor. The NEC project manager approves all payments based upon the quantity surveyors assessment if the work done and the rates for materials and work that were tendered by the Contractor. He also assesses claims from the contractor for extra work that is necessary because it was not in the design or original bill of quantities. 

I don't think you you quite understood my point, maybe I was too short for once.  These projects only operate within a contractual framework and that needs to be set in advance with constraints on what can and can't happen and how variations can be made, changes justified and so on.  What you describe then takes place within that framework, but it needs to be set up with the aid of lawyers (probably specialist ones).

That certainly didn't happen with the Prom - indeed even other legalities such as planning were frequently ignored.  We know less about Liverpool, which would have been an even more complex situation, but the silence there is telling.  The DoI haven't even tried to blame other people as they tried with Auldyn.

[Happier diner]

35 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I don't think you you quite understood my point, maybe I was too short for once.  These projects only operate within a contractual framework and that needs to be set in advance with constraints on what can and can't happen and how variations can be made, changes justified and so on.  What you describe then takes place within that framework, but it needs to be set up with the aid of lawyers (probably specialist ones).

That certainly didn't happen with the Prom - indeed even other legalities such as planning were frequently ignored.  We know less about Liverpool, which would have been an even more complex situation, but the silence there is telling.  The DoI haven't even tried to blame other people as they tried with Auldyn.

There is no such word as framework in a NEC contract. They are actually quite simple. It's an off the shelf contract.

You state what is to be constructed, in this case a ferry terminal. You state a specification. E.g how big etc. The tenderer gives a price and schedule of rates. Off you go.

The whole process is to avoid small print and the need to scrutinise it by lawyers because there is no small print. It's a standard form of contract. 

[finlo]

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

There is no such word as framework in a NEC contract. They are actually quite simple. It's an off the shelf contract.

You state what is to be constructed, in this case a ferry terminal. You state a specification. E.g how big etc. The tenderer gives a price and schedule of rates. Off you go.

The whole process is to avoid small print and the need to scrutinise it by lawyers because there is no small print. It's a standard form of contract. 

Obviously a very flawed one then!

[Happier diner]

9 hours ago, finlo said:

Obviously a very flawed one then!

No. Can't be flawed. It's a standard contract. IMO. This mess has absolutely nothing to do with the contract and everything to do with the poor preparation. 

[Gladys]

Of course it can be flawed if it is used for the wrong project or not sufficiently tailored to suit. 

I don't think anyone is saying there has been a contractual issue, I certainly am not.  Just that there must have been points where the whole project should have been reviewed and at that point terminated.  Still cannot get my head around how a specified contract can go so far off that it ends up so vastly over cost.  

[Gladys]

14 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Oh yes he can. He will do that until its completed or one party has terminated the contract. 

You can terminate a contract and pay the penalties that are written into it or you can walk away and be in breach of the contract.

Not sure what you are saying really. Either of these would leave you with a part built landing stage and a lot less money than you had at the start.

What would be your next move?

He can sign off on expenditure outside of the scope of the contract? 

That is the point,  has the work causing the additional expenditure been approved but not the expenditure? 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

He can sign off on expenditure outside of the scope of the contract? 

That is the point,  has the work causing the additional expenditure been approved but not the expenditure? 

So part of the contract is to stabilise the existing dock wall, foundations, and protect from scour. There will have been a specification for anticipated work. The contract will have been priced on that.

But, once they got down and found it needed much more work, that’s additional work. It’s a bit like work on your home, and when they open up the wall they find dry rot.

What do you, or the contract supervisor, or QS do?

In this case things were aggravated by the original engineers having underestimated scour by Manannan. It’s alleged they watched you tube video of her casting off and setting off from Douglas.

Douglas is tidal, but not a heavily silted river. Douglas is straight out, Half Tide dock Manannan is facing up river, so has to thrust off and turn around. Eventually, the engineers asked for details. It’s full thrust at a 30° angle to the dock wall. Sisk brought in different engineers. The amount of reinforcement and reconstruction and dock wall protection required went through the roof.

[Happier diner]

21 minutes ago, Gladys said:

He can sign off on expenditure outside of the scope of the contract

No he can't. But he hasn't had he? The scope is to build a landing stage/ferry terminal. He can approve work that is required to do that and any extra work that has to be done because either

1. The client has changed the scope/specification or

2. The conditions that they find means they have to do extra work. 

[The Duck of Atholl]

On 7/22/2023 at 10:24 PM, Happier diner said:

There is no such word as framework in a NEC contract. They are actually quite simple. It's an off the shelf contract.

You state what is to be constructed, in this case a ferry terminal. You state a specification. E.g how big etc. The tenderer gives a price and schedule of rates. Off you go.

The whole process is to avoid small print and the need to scrutinise it by lawyers because there is no small print. It's a standard form of contract. 

Not strictly true. NEC contracts can have X clauses (options) and Z clauses (additional cluses) which are agreed betwen the parties. There will always be a fairly substantial heads of terms as well.

[Happier diner]

22 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

Not strictly true. NEC contracts can have X clauses (options) and Z clauses (additional cluses) which are agreed betwen the parties. There will always be a fairly substantial heads of terms as well.

Yes True. I think not pertinent to the point though. Yes I have over simplified it, but the point being made was that it is not likely to be a complexity of the contract that needs the input of lawyers. The interpretation of these contract is principally an engineering one and not a legal one. If that makes sense. Any engineering detail will normally be in the works information. The general principle (being that it is cost reimbursable i this case) stays true whatever.

[John Wright]

52 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

Not strictly true. NEC contracts can have X clauses (options) and Z clauses (additional cluses) which are agreed betwen the parties. There will always be a fairly substantial heads of terms as well.

 

26 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Yes True. I think not pertinent to the point though. Yes I have over simplified it, but the point being made was that it is not likely to be a complexity of the contract that needs the input of lawyers. The interpretation of these contract is principally an engineering one and not a legal one. If that makes sense. Any engineering detail will normally be in the works information. The general principle (being that it is cost reimbursable i this case) stays true whatever.

But it will all be pretty standard stuff, not much scope for lawyers in that. It’s all engineers and architects and a huge specification drawn up, plus things like nomination of sub contractors and what for ( the steel frame for the building, the actual linkspan, etc ).

[asitis]

I'm told we need a new tug, to either buy or hire for the Douglas Harbour, as the one we have is not powerful enough for the new boat.

[finlo]

7 minutes ago, asitis said:

I'm told we need a new tug, to either buy or hire for the Douglas Harbour, as the one we have is not powerful enough for the new boat.

I heard it's costing £4k a day and is the reason it's not sailing at night.

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, asitis said:

I'm told we need a new tug, to either buy or hire for the Douglas Harbour, as the one we have is not powerful enough for the new boat.

 

1 minute ago, finlo said:

I heard it's costing £4k a day and is the reason it's not sailing at night.

It’s been in and out of Douglas harbour 3 or 4 dozen times in the last 4 weeks and probably ten times in and out of Heysham. Has anyone seen it being pushed or towed by a tug? Any photographic evidence? It’d be all over the internet.

SPCo May have a tug on call in early day testing. Let’s just hope Mx isn’t a Monas Isle type white elephant.

[finlo]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

It’s been in and out of Douglas harbour 3 or 4 dozen times in the last 4 weeks and probably ten times in and out of Heysham. Has anyone seen it being pushed or towed by a tug? Any photographic evidence? It’d be all over the internet.

SPCo May have a tug on call in early day testing. Let’s just hope Mx isn’t a Monas Isle type white elephant.

Indeed, let's just hope our illustrious leaders had as little as possible to do with it's inception!