Promenade - Megathread

[Tricky]

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

How many of those are definitely down to contractor?

Was Richmond Hill laid to a specification?

NSC issues - specifically what did the contractor cock.up?

Peel Rd - again, spec or shoddiness?

Really just curious. I know that there is usually pretty tight spec. issued so there isnt a lot of room for wriggle, and DOI oversees the work so its an interesting mix.

 

In relation to all of the above, I would first ask the question, were the chosen contractors capable of delivering a result as per specification?

I would suggest that in at least two of the above, the answer is no.  In which case, the jobs are either being over-specified in lieu of the pool of contractors 'available', or the contractors don't have the abilities to deliver on the contract specifics.  Both points clearly amount to the same thing - a fundamental disassociation between the project brief and the result.

There is a pattern of failed projects, with the failures ultimately due to procurement.  Said procurement is operated within a framework which is irrelevant and unfit for purpose.  

[the stinking enigma]

It's more a case of too much oversight than too little. Anything that is over managed will eventually stop thinking for itself.

[WTF]

12 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

 

But where is the oversight for these jobs? Why are the standards not being, apparently, adhered to?

cost,   you accept the cheapest job possible and then shout when it isn't good enough ratger than put the money where it should be,  the DOI are just handing out sticking plasters cos they won't pat for surgery,  bit like the NHS here.

[Andy Onchan]

20 hours ago, Tricky said:

One of the single biggest issues in Government is the absolute barmy procurement policy/procedures, and the insistence of the IOM Government to use locals.

The Government want to employ locals to do works in pretty much every situation, which is fine if the measure of success is rooted in making everyone feel all 'warm and fuzzy' and there is an absolute acceptance of substandard works.  If it is a proven fact that the competence and resources can be fulfilled locally, great, i'm all for that.  The problems begin however when people start biting off more than they can chew (far too common), and the government happily provide the meal via taking a seat for lunch at the MACCS restaurant. 

If the government wish to procure people to take on large, complex tasks, where there is no proven history or track record of success, the procurement net must be spread further afield.  Results have to come first i'm afraid, and if local companies (and I mean from design stage, not just workers on the ground) can't complete works to the required standards, they either have to up their game, or face losing out on jobs from the cash cow that is the IOM Government.  I'll reference the abomination that was Gansey/Shore Road to reinforce this point.

Procurement and use of local services and people is almost entirely down to the politicians when it comes to deciding who is awarded the work. The points based system that's used to score the bidders is used in a lot of industries. There's probably very little wrong with the process itself until the award stage.

[doc.fixit]

Do what the UK has done . One of the very large contractors mislaid some of the plans whilst refurbishing the MI6 building and ....whack..........multi million pound contract cancelled......that's the way to do it.

Reported by MSN today

[Tricky]

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

Procurement and use of local services and people is almost entirely down to the politicians when it comes to deciding who is awarded the work. The points based system that's used to score the bidders is used in a lot of industries. There's probably very little wrong with the process itself until the award stage.

Yes and no.

The Framework is set out by Treasury, with a heavy degree of political input.  Having spoken to some in DOI procurement regarding this (formally and informally), it is clear that procurement staff feel their hands are somewhat tied, and are very frustrated with the situation.

In addition, there is a degree of political influence that runs prior to the points system.  In effect, the points system, in some cases, is being used to include or exclude certain contractors prior to tender. When you add this to the requirement for MACCS accreditation, it is clear that there are 'favoured' contractors who get the lions share of the work, and the deck is well and truly stacked against others, who may well be more suited to the task at hand. You could liken it to having chosen a candidate for a full time job before the position has been advertised, and writing the job description to fit the chosen candidate.  In this case, I don't see the point of having a points based system as it is a waste of resources, and is very dishonest in nature by suggesting that the system is solely points based in the first place. In many cases, the points based system is being used as a tool to manipulate a decision making process to a desired outcome, and is then used as the justification for such an outcome to absolve those whom steered the decision of all responsibility if/when something goes wrong.

In respect of the Promenade, it seems apparent that the main flaw is in the design (with possible further faults 'on the ground).  In effect, problems were 'built in' to the job at the design stage, therefore before tenders were awarded.  This problem should have been picked up, but it clearly wasn't - reading through the Capital Procurement guidance notes, it is clear that it is the responsibility of the respective Government dept to ensure that this does not occur.  In this case, the fault initially lies in the 'procurement' of the designers (who do not go through the tender process), and the failure of DOI to notice the design failure and deal with it before putting the contract out to tender.

Edited December 27, 2019 by Tricky

[Derek Flint]

2 hours ago, doc.fixit said:

Do what the UK has done . One of the very large contractors mislaid some of the plans whilst refurbishing the MI6 building and ....whack..........multi million pound contract cancelled......that's the way to do it.

Reported by MSN today

If the Russians get hold of a copy of the plans for the Prom, then reverse engineer for their own purposes, it might in fact work in the National interest.

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Tricky said:

Yes and no.

The Framework is set out by Treasury, with a heavy degree of political input.  Having spoken to some in DOI procurement regarding this (formally and informally), it is clear that procurement staff feel their hands are somewhat tied, and are very frustrated with the situation.

In addition, there is a degree of political influence that runs prior to the points system.  In effect, the points system, in some cases, is being used to include or exclude certain contractors prior to tender. When you add this to the requirement for MACCS accreditation, it is clear that there are 'favoured' contractors who get the lions share of the work, and the deck is well and truly stacked against others, who may well be more suited to the task at hand. You could liken it to having chosen a candidate for a full time job before the position has been advertised, and writing the job description to fit the chosen candidate.  In this case, I don't see the point of having a points based system as it is a waste of resources, and is very dishonest in nature by suggesting that the system is solely points based in the first place. In many cases, the points based system is being used as a tool to manipulate a decision making process to a desired outcome, and is then used as the justification for such an outcome to absolve those whom steered the decision of all responsibility if/when something goes wrong.

In respect of the Promenade, it seems apparent that the main flaw is in the design (with possible further faults 'on the ground).  In effect, problems were 'built in' to the job at the design stage, therefore before tenders were awarded.  This problem should have been picked up, but it clearly wasn't - reading through the Capital Procurement guidance notes, it is clear that it is the responsibility of the respective Government dept to ensure that this does not occur.  In this case, the fault initially lies in the 'procurement' of the designers (who do not go through the tender process), and the failure of DOI to notice the design failure and deal with it before putting the contract out to tender.

I thought responsibility for Procurement moved to the AG's Chambers, for exactly the reason you highlight above?

[WTF]

2 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

If the Russians get hold of a copy of the plans for the Prom, then reverse engineer for their own purposes, it might in fact work in the National interest.

only if they use the same staff to carry it out.

Edited December 27, 2019 by WTF

[Tricky]

3 hours ago, Andy Onchan said:

I thought responsibility for Procurement moved to the AG's Chambers, for exactly the reason you highlight above?

I believe that is what's technically known as a 'PR stunt'

Edited December 27, 2019 by Tricky

[rodders]

I have it on good authority that Bates has left and Longworth has been re-instated today. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/director-of-transport-services-steps-down-from-full-time-work/

[WTF]

great,  dumb gets replaced with dumber

[ellanvannin2010]

I see the new updated phasing plans show the seaside road section at Derby Castle end of Queens promenade as being complete, presumably the fencing, missing bits of pavement and the 12 inch ramp up to the sienna cracked concrete are all part of the finished design then.

The, no doubt hugely expensive, electronic counter thing up that end has just been showing the desktop of whatever operates it for the last few weeks as well, Harmer must have missed this on his regular walks to meet the people

[Roger Mexico]

42 minutes ago, rodders said:

I have it on good authority that Bates has left and Longworth has been re-instated today. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/director-of-transport-services-steps-down-from-full-time-work/

Just when you thought things couldn't get any more ridiculous...

Interesting that the Manx Radio piece from a year ago says Bates was only being appointed as Transport Director "a day-to-day basis for a limited term", though his LinkedIn gives no such quibbling.  But you can see how anyone would become restless if Longworth was still hanging around, interfering in everything and making decisions that impact how you do the job.

[Ham_N_Eggs]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Just when you thought things couldn't get any more ridiculous...

Interesting that the Manx Radio piece from a year ago says Bates was only being appointed as Transport Director "a day-to-day basis for a limited term", though his LinkedIn gives no such quibbling.  But you can see how anyone would become restless if Longworth was still hanging around, interfering in everything and making decisions that impact how you do the job.

I'm sure Nick Black will promoted to Chief Secretary in good time.