Happier diner Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: certainly suggests to me some sort of personal 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Now you are alleging that I am a criminal too. I think the reason @Banker knows it's bullshit is that he knows how procurement and governance works and how what you are saying might have been possible in the 60's but would not be possible now. PS. I have absolutely no connection with that project and have been vocal in my critism of it. Disaster. But nothing to do with criminallity. Edited August 20 by Happier diner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 7 hours ago, Happier diner said: 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Now you are alleging that I am a criminal too. I think the reason @Banker knows it's bullshit is that he knows how procurement and governance works and how what you are saying might have been possible in the 60's but would not be possible now. PS. I have absolutely no connection with that project and have been vocal in my critism of it. Disaster. But nothing to do with criminallity. Would you welcome an independent audit? Isn't it the case that most major contracts have audit/open book clauses in them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: Would you welcome an independent audit? Isn't it the case that most major contracts have audit/open book clauses in them? The contract is open book. It's a cost reimbursible contract of a form. The point of employing an independant Quantity Surveyor ( in the form of an organisation and not an individual is to perform that function). There was an QS of that form all the way through the project. Google can tell you that. That is standard in all large construction contracts It's got nothing to do with me whether an audit should be carried out over and above that. I have no involvement whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: The contract is open book. It's a cost reimbursible contract of a form. The point of employing an independant Quantity Surveyor ( in the form of an organisation and not an individual is to perform that function). There was an QS of that form all the way through the project. Google can tell you that. That is standard in all large construction contracts It's got nothing to do with me whether an audit should be carried out over and above that. I have no involvement whatsoever. Where is it stated it's a cost reimbursable contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 hour ago, Mercenary said: Where is it stated it's a cost reimbursable contract? I can't be 100% sure but IOM government invariably use NEC Type B contracts which is bill of quantities. I did say cost reimbursible of a form, which it is. Therin was there first error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 hours ago, Happier diner said: I can't be 100% sure but IOM government invariably use NEC Type B contracts which is bill of quantities. I did say cost reimbursible of a form, which it is. Therin was there first error. Bill of quantities is not cost reimbursable any more than buying bananas in Tesco is. I believe it's target cost anyway - so there is a mechanism for partial reimbursement but it's not really a 'cost reimbursable' contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 2 hours ago, Mercenary said: Bill of quantities is not cost reimbursable any more than buying bananas in Tesco is. I believe it's target cost anyway - so there is a mechanism for partial reimbursement but it's not really a 'cost reimbursable' contract. Well I'll disagree. There is no target cost in that contract. That is completely different. Option B is not strictly cost reimbursible because that sort of contract has no limits, but with B costs are reimbursed as quantities are met so it's kind of a hydrid. Meant to limit the clients exposure to unlimited costs. The big problem with Option B, and the most important point, is that it takes pretty much all the risk from the contractor. Something we now know is a bad thing for IOM government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 3 hours ago, Happier diner said: Option B is not strictly cost reimbursable because that sort of contract has no limits, but with B costs are reimbursed as quantities are met so it's kind of a hybrid. Meant to limit the clients exposure to unlimited costs. I would have to say judging by the whole fuckup that is the Liverpool landing stage, option B is fundamentally flawed 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 hour ago, Dirty Buggane said: I would have to say judging by the whole fuckup that is the Liverpool landing stage, option B is fundamentally flawed 😁 It's not flawed. It is appropriate to some projects. Is it appropriate for a high risk complex project? Not in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: It's not flawed. It is appropriate to some projects. Is it appropriate for a high risk complex project? Not in my opinion. Can we assume therefore that the advice our shower received at the outset (re contract) was flawed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 13 minutes ago, asitis said: Can we assume therefore that the advice our shower received at the outset (re contract) was flawed ? Was it identified as a high risk project? In retrospect, you would think it should have been, but was there sufficient information and advice at the outset? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 32 minutes ago, asitis said: Can we assume therefore that the advice our shower received at the outset (re contract) was flawed ? We dont know for sure do we but we could might assume that we were mislead over the condition of the land and its suitability for the construction of a landing stage. The massive amount of extra work that was done could have been as a result of 1. Being mislead over the condition and/or 2. Not doing sufficient investigation into the condition and its suitability before entering into a contract based upon a bill of quantities which is in turn based on a its assumed condition and the amount of work required. Of course we don't know any of this, but history would undeniably lead anyone with any common sense to make that assumption. 17 minutes ago, Gladys said: Was it identified as a high risk project? In retrospect, you would think it should have been, but was there sufficient information and advice at the outset? I don't know that of course. But would you have considered it high risk? I would, but then we both have the advantage hindsight. With any contract, preparation is everything. It would appear that this could have been so much better. If you are building on top of something that has been there for a long time and at the mercy of the eroding effect of tides and waves, would you check it out before you bought it and then asked someone to build on it. Id like to think I would. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 5 minutes ago, Happier diner said: I don't know that of course. But would you have considered it high risk? I would, but then we both have the advantage hindsight. With any contract, preparation is everything. It would appear that this could have been so much better. If you are building on top of something that has been there for a long time and at the mercy of the eroding effect of tides and waves, would you check it out before you bought it and then asked someone to build on it. Id like to think I would. Exactly, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I suppose the question is whether there was a project risk assessment undertaken and if the correct risks were identified. Also your earlier point re initial investigations is relevant. Were the investigations undertaken of the right type and further investigation undertaken if issues were highlighted? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercenary Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 7 hours ago, Happier diner said: Well I'll disagree. There is no target cost in that contract. That is completely different. Option B is not strictly cost reimbursible because that sort of contract has no limits, but with B costs are reimbursed as quantities are met so it's kind of a hydrid. Meant to limit the clients exposure to unlimited costs. The big problem with Option B, and the most important point, is that it takes pretty much all the risk from the contractor. Something we now know is a bad thing for IOM government. As I said it's not an Option B contract https://tynwald.org.im/index.php/spfile?file=/business/pp/Reports/2023-PP-0123.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted August 21 Author Share Posted August 21 On 8/20/2024 at 6:15 AM, Happier diner said: 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I think the reason @Banker knows it's bullshit is that he knows how procurement and governance works and how what you are saying might have been possible in the 60's but would not be possible now. Yet amongst all this modern day "impossibility" two lots of funding were voted to get horsetrams to the Sea Terminal and they, er, don't. So clearly procurement and governance within the DOI provenly fall short of the expected standard. Why would Liverpool Terminal, more remote and with an even bigger budget be any different? Banker's knowledge in most of the matters they post on these boards has been repeatedly proven to be somewhat lacking in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.