Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[northernboy]

Here's the latest version from The Star : https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/container-park-sheffield-dismantling-costs-shoot-up-to-ps95000-due-to-time-pressures-4030530?fbclid=IwAR0a9Diin3_cfLfWwRg_NmAYcUW3R5nk4LJwOYZ72CLRhsRDHfqprhbxlBw

 

The original operator and the council have "fallen out"!

 

I bet the "secure brownfield site" where the council plan to store them ends up being the old Norton Nurseries, which should technically be part of Graves Park but is used as a general dumping ground instead.

[harvey19]

Gets even more surprising when we read the council can dispense with the need to tender for expensive contracts.

[HeHasRisen]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

Gets even more surprising when we read the council can dispense with the need to tender for expensive contracts.

I mean they cant win can they, they could have followed the usual procedure that clearly takes time and people would have moaned they were dragging their feet. 

 

A totally invidious position.

Edited February 17, 2023 by HeHasRisen

[Mr Bloke]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

Gets even more surprising when we read the council can dispense with the need to tender for expensive contracts.

Hmmm...

It seriously brings into question the whole SCC process and the competence of who's in charge of agreeing these contracts.

We were told the shipping containers were always going to be 'temporary'...
... so why wasn't any fully costed LEGAL agreement in place for their inevitable removal?

Wouldn't that have been the obvious thing to do?

I'm guessing that in their haste to grab as much of the Government handouts as possible, planning a successful project implementation was 'something for another day'.

But the guy in charge is apparently a very nice man (so we're told on here, by our resident SCC fawning contributor) so despite the fact that his qualifications are in Sports Management, he's obviously more than qualified to organise the erection and subsequent disposal of a few metal boxes.

Isn't he?

And some may also have noticed from the bottom of that page on The Star website...
https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/sheffield-city-council-considered-suing-the-moor-owner-newriver-for-banishing-market-traders-4028477?itm_source=parsely-api
... "Sheffield City Council considered suing The Moor owner NewRiver for banishing market traders"

 

Quote

Lawyers wrote to NewRiver urging the firm to stick to an ‘informal arrangement’ which allowed stallholders to operate six days a week. But the company insisted on following the letter of the lease agreement, which permits a maximum of three. At that point the authority ‘considered legal action’, according to a Freedom of Information response seen by The Star.

It appears that SCC 'operates' on 'informal agreements', and then gets upset when professional companies turn around and enforce the conditions of LEGAL lease agreements.

 

So SCC then have to get their lawyers involved...
... because one of their incompetent muppets doesn't know what they're doing when agreeing contracts!

 

And many still wonder why SCC is in a mess and unable to balance the books...

[RollingJ]

3 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

I mean they cant win can they, they could have followed the usual procedure that clearly takes time and people would have moaned they were dragging their feet. 

 

A totally invidious position.

As they knew this was a temporary structure, decommissioning costs should have been built into the overall budget.

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

Gets even more surprising when we read the council can dispense with the need to tender for expensive contracts.

Surely you’d expect that a organisation’s procurement process would have flexibility to go outside the normal procedure where circumstances demanded it and the justification was clearly set out and recorded.

 

On the wider scale of construction projects, this one isn’t really expensive. A million doesn’t buy you much these days.

[harvey19]

6 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Surely you’d expect that a organisation’s procurement process would have flexibility to go outside the normal procedure where circumstances demanded it and the justification was clearly set out and recorded.

 

On the wider scale of construction projects, this one isn’t really expensive. A million doesn’t buy you much these days.

Sorry but this post is not creditable.

project planning and forward planning.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by harvey19

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Sorry but this post is not creditable.

 

Or even credible. 😉

[Planner1]

3 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Sorry but this post is not creditable.

 

Why is that?

 

Every organisation I’ve worked for has procurement processes which involve getting quotes or formal tenders depending on the value of the contract, but they do allow exceptions to this in appropriate circumstances.
 

For example, you wouldn’t want to go to the trouble and expense of a full formal tender process if there was only one supplier of whatever you’re buying, there are others like the need to procure quickly. Of course these are exceptions to the general rule and have to be fully justified and documented.

[RollingJ]

Just now, Planner1 said:

Why is that?

 

Every organisation I’ve worked for has procurement processes which involve getting quotes or formal tenders depending on the value of the contract, but they do allow exceptions to this in appropriate circumstances.
 

For example, you wouldn’t want to go to the trouble and expense of a full formal tender process if there was only one supplier of whatever you’re buying, there are others like the need to procure quickly. Of course these are exceptions to the general rule and have to be fully justified and documented.

True, but this whole 'Container City' project has been a shambles from start to finish.