Gladys Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 30 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Extract from the contract for interest. Clause 11 - Identified and defined terms 11.2 (1) The Accepted Programme is the programme identified in the Contract Data or is the latest programme accepted by the Project Manager. The latest programme accepted by the Project Manager supersedes previous Accepted Programmes. Clause 31 – The Programme 31.1 If a programme is not identified in the Contract Data, the Contractor submits a first programme to the Project Manager for acceptance within the period stated in the Contract Data. 31.2 The Contractor shows on each programme which he submits for acceptance · the starting date, access dates, Key Dates and Completion Date, · planned Completion, · the order and timing of the operations which the Contractor plans to do in order to Provide the Works, · the order and timing of the work of the Employer and Others as last agreed with them by the Contractor or, if not so agreed, as stated in the Works Information, · the dates when the Contractor plans to meet each Condition stated for the Key Dates and to complete other work needed to allow the Employer and Others to do their work, Contracts aren't written in stone, which has been pretty obvious throughout this. Amendments can be negotiated and agreed. However, the absence of a completion date is going to make project management difficult and could amount to an open cheque for the contractor, unless there is very tight management from the DOI. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 5 minutes ago, Gladys said: ...unless there is very tight management from the DOI. Contradiction in terms alert, Gladys....... 😁 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 14 minutes ago, Gladys said: Contracts aren't written in stone, which has been pretty obvious throughout this. Amendments can be negotiated and agreed. However, the absence of a completion date is going to make project management difficult and could amount to an open cheque for the contractor, unless there is very tight management from the DOI. They are written in stone metaphorically. The project manager decides when the completion date is. You cannot not have one. Seems you are as ill informed as Timmy. This would change if the contract was completed or terminated. This would be when Auldyns role of principal contractor ended. If that was the case then Timmy would be able to choose any date he likes....or in this case have no date. I am not aware that the contract has been terminated (and the works clearly are not completed) so seems that you, as well as Timmy are just kidding yourselves but not the GMP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 10 minutes ago, Happier diner said: They are written in stone metaphorically. The project manager decides when the completion date is. You cannot not have one. Seems you are as ill informed as Timmy. This would change if the contract was completed or terminated. This would be when Auldyns role of principal contractor ended. If that was the case then Timmy would be able to choose any date he likes....or in this case have no date. I am not aware that the contract has been terminated (and the works clearly are not completed) so seems that you, as well as Timmy are just kidding yourselves but not the GMP. You missed my second sentence. And @Non-Believer my comment was tongue in cheek. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 4 minutes ago, Gladys said: You missed my second sentence. And @Non-Believer my comment was tongue in cheek. I did read your second sentence. I know what you are trying to say but in the context of the contract it is still not correct. The Employer (DOI) cant negotiate end dates. The project manager, and only the project manager can change the date. The date is based on completion of tasks on the programme and the estimation of time required to complete the tasks that are outstanding. The estimation of time to complete the outstanding tasks is submitted by the contractor (mostly in their bid) and changes are either accepted or rejected by the project manager based upon his engineering judgement. Certainly not because a minister says something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Alf just needs to grow a pair. They’ve already done the Manx Care thing with the DHSC management team and there would be no better action than a Black, Robinson and Longworth triple sacking. Not only would he have the public behind him they’d probably have a street party on Lock Prom. If he was looking to get his government off on the right footing in pushing out the message that the incompetence and bungling has to stop then that’s exactly what he should do. I don’t think he has the balls though even when the public would be 100% behind him. It may be that he's knocked a few heads together behind the scenes but protocol dictates that it's not been public. But if he hasn't, with Crookall coming out of the blocks with this approach he's clearly either misread the public mood or he's (Crookall) been very quickly assimilated into the DOI bloc; somebody on here a few posts back has already alluded to Crookall already having a close relationship with some of the "usual suspects", that's not a good omen. We could be up for another 4 years and 11 months of this before the GMP are listened to? Edited October 27, 2021 by Non-Believer Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 8 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Alf just needs to grow a pair. They’ve already done the Manx Care thing with the DHSC management team and there would be no better action than a Black, Robinson and Longworth triple sacking. Not only would he have the public behind him they’d probably have a street party on Lock Prom. If he was looking to get his government off on the right footing in pushing out the message that the incompetence and bungling has to stop then that’s exactly what he should do. I don’t think he has the balls though even when the public would be 100% behind him. Yes the public would be overwhelming behind the sacking of the incompetent trio. But - balls or no balls - does the CM or DOI minister have the authority to sack them? Because if one or both of them do have that authority, why didn't it happen years ago? Genuine question btw. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 8 minutes ago, Happier diner said: I did read your second sentence. I know what you are trying to say but in the context of the contract it is still not correct. The Employer (DOI) cant negotiate end dates. The project manager, and only the project manager can change the date. The date is based on completion of tasks on the programme and the estimation of time required to complete the tasks that are outstanding. The estimation of time to complete the outstanding tasks is submitted by the contractor (mostly in their bid) and changes are either accepted or rejected by the project manager based upon his engineering judgement. Certainly not because a minister says something. That is not what I said. What I said is contracts can be amended or varied by the agreement of the parties. It is obvious that there have been amendments and variations by the changes, delays etc that we have seen. Nor did I say that the minister could change things on a whim or without negotiation. Things like impossibility of performance (something that may be very relevant here), conditional performance clauses (if X circumstances exist, or don't, then Y will happen) force majeure clauses, variation clauses, addenda, side agreements, terms of sub-contracts and supplier contracts, can all change the contract. Who employs the project manager? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 8 minutes ago, Zarley said: Yes the public would be overwhelming behind the sacking of the incompetent trio. But - balls or no balls - does the CM or DOI minister have the authority to sack them? Because if one or both of them do have that authority, why didn't it happen years ago? Genuine question btw. My bet is the influence of the biggest problem, the Chief Secretary . Quayle was weak and only interested in ego, gongs and perception. So he wasn't going there . Protected species are CS and the Chief secretary keeps it that way . My opinion for what its worth. I do also think that these issues with points and lots of other problems along the way will be seen to be down to DOI and not Auldyn hence the reluctance to make more of a scene about it. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 13 minutes ago, Zarley said: Yes the public would be overwhelming behind the sacking of the incompetent trio. But - balls or no balls - does the CM or DOI minister have the authority to sack them? Because if one or both of them do have that authority, why didn't it happen years ago? Genuine question btw. Consider the Chief Secretary's defence of the civil servant responsible for the discharge of pollution into Peel Bay? 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 34 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Consider the Chief Secretary's defence of the civil servant responsible for the discharge of pollution into Peel Bay? Which Civil servant is responsible for the discharge of pollution into Peel Bay. Are you referring to the Raggert PCBs or the sewage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Consider the Chief Secretary's defence of the civil servant responsible for the discharge of pollution into Peel Bay? Yes that was criminal. Can't believe the CS got away with it. Boot was (IMO) also responsible for it happening in the first place, as well as the subsequent "nothing (you're permitted) to see here" response. The majority of the ten allegations were upheld by the independent Roberts Report, two partially. The allegation that "Mr XY" "knowingly sanctioned deliberate pollution of controlled waters", was upheld in full. And yet nothing happened to "Mr XY". Meanwhile, Kevin Kennington (the whistle blower) was "chastised, humiliated, and regarded as a traitor" in meetings with Mr XY and "various officers" after KK made a protected disclosure to the AG. Not so protected after all, eh? KK also made a protected disclosure to DEFA minister Boot. The dumping occurred in 2016 and KK went to the AG when further plans were made to dredge and dump in 2017. Nothing was investigated until 2018, which produced the Roberts Report, delivered to Greenhow in March 2019. I don't believe this report (which upheld KK's allegations, see above) has ever seen the light of day - KK certainly hasn't been permitted to see it so I doubt anyone else has been either. Perhaps Greenhow got Asford to show him how to work the shredder. TL;DR something's rotten in the AG's office and it isn't the half-eaten butty in the back of the office fridge. IMO. 5 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Which Civil servant is responsible for the discharge of pollution into Peel Bay. Are you referring to the Raggert PCBs or the sewage The Ragget's PCBs dredged out of the harbour and dumped at sea in 2016 & 17 (and various times before that as well). Edited October 27, 2021 by Zarley Neglected to include a second IMO disclaimer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 14 minutes ago, Zarley said: Yes that was criminal. Can't believe the CS got away with it. Boot was (IMO) also responsible for it happening in the first place, as well as the subsequent "nothing (you're permitted) to see here" response. The majority of the ten allegations were upheld by the independent Roberts Report, two partially. The allegation that "Mr XY" "knowingly sanctioned deliberate pollution of controlled waters", was upheld in full. And yet nothing happened to "Mr XY". Meanwhile, Kevin Kennington (the whistle blower) was "chastised, humiliated, and regarded as a traitor" in meetings with Mr XY and "various officers" after KK made a protected disclosure to the AG. Not so protected after all, eh? KK also made a protected disclosure to DEFA minister Boot. The dumping occurred in 2016 and KK went to the AG when further plans were made to dredge and dump in 2017. Nothing was investigated until 2018, which produced the Roberts Report, delivered to Greenhow in March 2019. I don't believe this report (which upheld KK's allegations, see above) has ever seen the light of day - KK certainly hasn't been permitted to see it so I doubt anyone else has been either. Perhaps Greenhow got Asford to show him how to work the shredder. TL;DR something's rotten in the AG's office and it isn't the half-eaten butty in the back of the office fridge. IMO. The Ragget's PCBs dredged out of the harbour and dumped at sea in 2016 & 17 (and various times before that as well). But its still happening so is someone in trouble every day 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 It would probably be difficult to pin the blame on any one person,or two or three even . It would be a huge pass the parcel operation starting with the design then the contractor etc, so many people and firms involved it would be impossible to apportion blame and of course no one is ever held to account when the government is involved. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 5 minutes ago, Happier diner said: But its still happening so is someone in trouble every day The harbour isn't being dredged every day. Perhaps you're talking about the untreated sewage being discharged, I'm talking about the harbour and the Raggett PCBs etc which was the subject of the Roberts Report. 1 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.