Happier diner Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 3 minutes ago, Mercenary said: Yes reading the details of that one it is not comparable. PPP contracts are quite different and payments are generally linked to an output, such as availability or number of vehicle movements, rather than completion of a building or asset such as in a typical construction contract. AECOM's liability was to the concession operator who went bust (because of the erroneous numbers) rather than the government. Understand that. However my point is that they made an error, this lead to an unforseen cost. They were sued. I understand PPP is a different contract completely and agree, however we are talking about fundamentals here. Fundamentals that apply regardless of the contract type. IMHO of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulos The Great Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 19 hours ago, Happier diner said: That sounds very bitter. Not sure they would be laughing in the taxpayers face, more quietly content perhaps, or even smug.😁 I’m not bitter at all. I’m sure many in the DOI are laughing at the taxpayer knowingly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 Thought a calming classical Christmas interlude may be soporific here ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 51 minutes ago, Paulos The Great said: I’m not bitter at all. I’m sure many in the DOI are laughing at the taxpayer knowingly. Our CM the former Treasury Minister certainly laughs at the taxpayers. The current Treasury Minister is no better either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 According to Gef, AECOM (or 'Aecon' as they quite aptly put it) are involved. Although its is not clear from the text it would seem they are either Cost Consultants, Consulting Engineers or both. John Sisk and Sons are the contractor. https://gef.im/2021/04/27/liverpool-terminal-cost-will-increase-significantly/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulos The Great Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 6 minutes ago, 2112 said: The current Treasury Minister is no better either. To be honest we might as well have appointed Sooty as our current treasury minister with Alfie in the role of Mathew Corbett. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, Happier diner said: According to Gef, AECOM (or 'Aecon' as they quite aptly put it) are involved. Although its is not clear from the text it would seem they are either Cost Consultants, Consulting Engineers or both. John Sisk and Sons are the contractor. https://gef.im/2021/04/27/liverpool-terminal-cost-will-increase-significantly/ Oh and confirmed here. I forgot about this http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=62076&headline=Steam Packet chairman lambasts design of Liverpool ferry terminal§ionIs=news&searchyear=2021 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: Oh and confirmed here. I forgot about this http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=62076&headline=Steam Packet chairman lambasts design of Liverpool ferry terminal§ionIs=news&searchyear=2021 Crickey his comments were at the time it was 38m ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, asitis said: Crickey his comments were at the time it was 38m ! Seems the key question here is- Were AECOM briefed about the need for protection for the wall to deal with the bow thrusters. If they were not then they ( AECOM)cannot be held to account, and If they were not then looks like a 'cock up on the catering front' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 11 minutes ago, Happier diner said: If they were not then looks like a 'cock up on the catering front' That rings a bell from way back. Could you oblige and remind me of the programme? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Seems the key question here is- Were AECOM briefed about the need for protection for the wall to deal with the bow thrusters. If they were not then they ( AECOM)cannot be held to account, and If they were not then looks like a 'cock up on the catering front' But you would expect a specialist company to be aware of such things even if it wasn't explicitly in the brief. It would be like employing a firm to build a road and them not allowing for the fact there would be cars and lorries on it. Even Crookall in his speech to Tynwald stated that "We know about scour problems because our own historic quay walls suffer from scour damage, but the levels of risk and rate of wear vary from harbour to harbour and from vessel to vessel". So even if they weren't asked you would expect a competent contractor to ask. But as ever the DoI may be unwilling to press their case, even if they are in the right, because the process might reveal too much about themselves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: But you would expect a specialist company to be aware of such things even if it wasn't explicitly in the brief. It would be like employing a firm to build a road and them not allowing for the fact there would be cars and lorries on it. Even Crookall in his speech to Tynwald stated that "We know about scour problems because our own historic quay walls suffer from scour damage, but the levels of risk and rate of wear vary from harbour to harbour and from vessel to vessel". So even if they weren't asked you would expect a competent contractor to ask. But as ever the DoI may be unwilling to press their case, even if they are in the right, because the process might reveal too much about themselves. It's nothing to do with them 'knowing'. It's to do with what we supplied in what is called the works information. Part of the design brief. If its not mentioned in there then we is stuffed as designers do what you tell them to do, not what they think you mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 9 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: That rings a bell from way back. Could you oblige and remind me of the programme? Reggie perrins brother in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Happier diner said: It's nothing to do with them 'knowing'. It's to do with what we supplied in what is called the works information. Part of the design brief. If its not mentioned in there then we is stuffed as designers do what you tell them to do, not what they think you mean. @Roger MexicoI am talking legally and in terms of sueing them. I agree that yes you would expect them to query it. Edited December 22, 2021 by Happier diner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted December 22, 2021 Share Posted December 22, 2021 2 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Reggie perrins brother in law. Great. Thank you 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.