Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Roger Mexico]

The Tynwald debate is now available on Hansard

What strikes me from Crookall's opening remarks is that there's very little explanation of where the money went:

To date, COVID has added £4 million to the cost of this scheme. It will almost certainly add more to the final bill and provision has been made for further COVID impacts of £700,000 within the projected cost

[...] The surveys identified 100 voids and we were advised to allow £1 million of contingency funding to deal with these. We have now completely remediated the site, but in doing so we found 300 voids and have spent a total of £2½ million.

[...] We knew that working on or near the historic quay wall would have to be done with care. We engaged specialists and were advised to allow £90,000 of contingency funds to deal with any possible issues. The structural issues alone have cost £1.8 million, and that is without dealing with the potential damage that could be caused by the scouring of the quay walls by the water moved by the ships’ propulsion systems

[...]  The initial design that we were given to protect the walls was costed at £166,000. After several months of exploring different options, with some reluctance we have accepted a recommendation from our engineers that the best solution is a system that will last at least 50 years but at a cost of £10.4 million

These are the only sums mentioned that I can see and each shows horrendous differences from the initial estimates and makes you question the 'professional' advice they got.  But even then they don't explain the massive increase in the total.

Otherwise the whole debate is a classic example of the sunk costs fallacy.

[Gladys]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The Tynwald debate is now available on Hansard

What strikes me from Crookall's opening remarks is that there's very little explanation of where the money went:

To date, COVID has added £4 million to the cost of this scheme. It will almost certainly add more to the final bill and provision has been made for further COVID impacts of £700,000 within the projected cost

[...] The surveys identified 100 voids and we were advised to allow £1 million of contingency funding to deal with these. We have now completely remediated the site, but in doing so we found 300 voids and have spent a total of £2½ million.

[...] We knew that working on or near the historic quay wall would have to be done with care. We engaged specialists and were advised to allow £90,000 of contingency funds to deal with any possible issues. The structural issues alone have cost £1.8 million, and that is without dealing with the potential damage that could be caused by the scouring of the quay walls by the water moved by the ships’ propulsion systems

[...]  The initial design that we were given to protect the walls was costed at £166,000. After several months of exploring different options, with some reluctance we have accepted a recommendation from our engineers that the best solution is a system that will last at least 50 years but at a cost of £10.4 million

These are the only sums mentioned that I can see and each shows horrendous differences from the initial estimates and makes you question the 'professional' advice they got.  But even then they don't explain the massive increase in the total.

Otherwise the whole debate is a classic example of the sunk costs fallacy.

Was there an explanation of the costs of halting the project and how much has already

a. been paid for works actually done and

b  committed for works to be done that cannot be cancelled?  

[GreyWolf]

I hope Alf can get a grip on real change and reform, to break up the sheer incompetence of those involved and show them the door, if someone fiddles there benefits for a couple of grand or nicks a bottle of booze or has an untaxed car there all over the papers yet certain individuals within government seem to be able to lose millions and millions yet quietly carry on within the system and that makes me angry. Let’s also have an full audited inquiry/breakdown of where our taxes have been spent. Step up to the plate Mr Crookall.

[Roger Mexico]

49 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Was there an explanation of the costs of halting the project and how much has already

a. been paid for works actually done and

b  committed for works to be done that cannot be cancelled?  

Not that I can see - though I've only skimmed and there may be information elsewhere.  There was an amendment from Watterson that:

(c) requires 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;

(d) requires the Department of Infrastructure to identify information it holds which is relevant to the report to Tynwald referred to in (c) above but which is in the Department’s opinion unsuitable for publication, and to submit that information in confidence to the Public Accounts Committee;

Despite all the talk about transparency, accountability and the rest from Crookall, CoMin voted against this en bloc presumably under orders to do so.  However no one else in the Keys did except for Peters, who seems perpetually opposed to all research, presumably on the grounds that facts might violate his perfectly preserved prejudices, so it went through (Council split 4-4 so it scraped by there).

As well as Wannenburgh voting against the main motion, so did Faragher and Moorhouse, plus Kelsey and Mercer on LegCo.

[Petefella]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

The Tynwald debate is now available on Hansard

What strikes me from Crookall's opening remarks is that there's very little explanation of where the money went:

When all other design changes and ancillary costs are factored in – not changes instigated by the Department, I hasten to add – the final expected outturn figure comes to £70,625,921, an additional increase of £32,621,921, which is the amount I am seeking in this motion.

You can only assume that those ancillary costs are actually massive bribes then 

[cissolt]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Was there an explanation of the costs of halting the project and how much has already

a. been paid for works actually done and

b  committed for works to be done that cannot be cancelled?  

I think mhks received that information during their briefing.  One of them mentioned 14000 a day to halt work

Cancelling the contract would cost over 60 million somehow. 

[Non-Believer]

One wonders what the financial implications arising from effectively further waving a blank chequebook around Merseyside might be too....

[Petefella]

10 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

One wonders what the financial implications arising from effectively further waving a blank chequebook around Merseyside might be too....

They’ll get mugged again. 

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, GreyWolf said:

I hope Alf can get a grip on real change and reform, to break up the sheer incompetence of those involved and show them the door, if someone fiddles there benefits for a couple of grand or nicks a bottle of booze or has an untaxed car there all over the papers yet certain individuals within government seem to be able to lose millions and millions yet quietly carry on within the system and that makes me angry. Let’s also have an full audited inquiry/breakdown of where our taxes have been spent. Step up to the plate Mr Crookall.

There is no doubt that an institutional lack of accountability leads to an institutional lack of due diligence...

[Nom de plume]

I find it inconceivable that during the design phase the sea wall wasn't sufficiently surveyed & deemed unsuitable to deal with the forces a ships bow thrusters may put upon it.

These are fundamental pre-contract design considerations & those that any competent marine surveyor / structural engineer would (should) have identified early in the piece.

I'm sorry to be so coarse but these people, both IOM Govt. and consultants, are daft cunts.  

[Non-Believer]

3 hours ago, Petefella said:

They’ll get mugged again. 

Not "they".... "we"...eventually.

"They" will retire with their pensions, lump sums, whatever, intact.

The GMTP public will be left to pick up the pieces and carry the can for whatever duration is required to kick the finances straight again. As ever.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Non-Believer
Typo

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Nom de plume said:

I find it inconceivable that during the design phase the sea wall wasn't sufficiently surveyed & deemed unsuitable to deal with the forces a ships bow thrusters may put upon it.

These are fundamental pre-contract design considerations & those that any competent marine surveyor / structural engineer would (should) have identified early in the piece.

I'm sorry to be so coarse but these people, both IOM Govt. and consultants, are daft cunts.  

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.

 

[Kopek]

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???

[The Voice of Reason]

46 minutes 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???

I think you probably have to further differentiate that which you would say in front of your wife, and that which you would say in front of your family ( say your mother or your children) 

But for context, you’re not saying that in front of either of those, you’re saying it on an Internet forum to people you don’t know, so is it actually such a good test?

It gets very complicated. Probably best to err on the side of caution and not use such terms at all.

But easier said than done in the heat of the moment.

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by The Voice of Reason
Added a bit

[Paulos The Great]

6 hours ago, P.K. said:

There is no doubt that an institutional lack of accountability leads to an institutional lack of due diligence...

They have nothing to risk is the reality. What is Tim Crookall or Alf Cannan going to do about any of this? Nothing is the word. The management in the DOI will sit there and collect their pensions in however many years time laughing in the taxpayers face.