Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[HeHasRisen]

5 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

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

And now they are trying to end it as quickly as possible, which surely is fair enough.

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, HeHasRisen said:

And now they are trying to end it as quickly as possible, which surely is fair enough.

OK, contrary Mark, but they can't even do that in an intelligent manner.

[HeHasRisen]

Just now, RollingJ said:

OK, contrary Mark, but they can't even do that in an intelligent manner.

Nothing contrary about it. They could drag it on for months and months instead. Is that preferable?

[Planner1]

50 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

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

If you read the article, it says they were included in the operating contract.

 

SCC appear to be in dispute with the appointed operator so they are dealing with it themselves and it’s costing £30k more than originally budgeted.

[RollingJ]

Just now, HeHasRisen said:

Nothing contrary about it. They could drag it on for months and months instead. Is that preferable?

They could, but would end up looking even more stupid. Nowhere have I said that would be a sensible plan, only that the whole thing is a total shambles.

[RollingJ]

3 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

If you read the article, it says they were included in the operating contract.

 

SCC appear to be in dispute with the appointed operator so they are dealing with it themselves and it’s costing £30k more than originally budgeted.

Apologies. I have now read the article. I wonder what the 'dispute' is about? We will never be told, but I suspect any sane person can have a fairly intelligent guess.

[Planner1]

3 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Apologies. I have now read the article. I wonder what the 'dispute' is about? We will never be told, but I suspect any sane person can have a fairly intelligent guess.

Well if I recall correctly, it was a design build and operate contract and they failed to get the upper floor units commissioned as it didn’t appear to meet fire regulations. Grounds for a dispute I’d think. We won’t get to know at least for a while as I’d expect it might well end up in claim and counter claim and process has to be observed.

 

In the circumstances, if the operator was supposed to decommission and remove the units and won’t, the actions the Council have taken look to be pretty sensible. They need the units off site before the wider Fargate refurbishment work can commence, so they have a pressing timescale. They’ve got a couple of quotes which were fairly similar, so they’ve appointed and got on with it. That’s what I’d expect in the circumstances.

[Anna B]

8 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Apologies. I have now read the article. I wonder what the 'dispute' is about? We will never be told, but I suspect any sane person can have a fairly intelligent guess.

The council always seems to be in dispute with someone, especially over contracts, (John Lewis anybody?) Yet they are a big employer offering big contracts and with Lawyers and advisors on hand to check the legalities and the small print. The Council should have the upper hand in any contract deals and be able to dictate terms.

 

So where does it all go wrong?

It's our money. We have a right to know.

3 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Well if I recall correctly, it was a design build and operate contract and they failed to get the upper floor units commissioned as it didn’t appear to meet fire regulations. Grounds for a dispute I’d think. We won’t get to know at least for a while as I’d expect it might well end up in claim and counter claim and process has to be observed.

 

In the circumstances, if the operator was supposed to decommission and remove the units and won’t, the actions the Council have taken look to be pretty sensible. They need the units off site before the wider Fargate refurbishment work can commence, so they have a pressing timescale. They’ve got a couple of quotes which were fairly similar, so they’ve appointed and got on with it. That’s what I’d expect in the circumstances.

Disputes that go to court cost a fortune. (oftem millions.) They could save money by getting it right in the first place.

[Mr Bloke]

13 minutes ago, 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.

Hmmm...

I would quit now before you lose what little credibility you have left!

 

From The Star report on post #1142
 

Quote

Ben Brailsford, head of street scene services, said: “In December 2022, Sheffield City Council was made aware that the original plans for the dismantling of the containers by Steelyard could not go ahead, and a new contractor needed to be hired for the work. An estimated figure of £60,000 was given, however the official cost is now confirmed as £95,000. A formal tender process can take up to four months, and had the council taken this option, the start of the Future High Street Fund building works would have had to be delayed. Instead, we obtained two quotes, both were at a similar cost. The containers will be removed mid-March and will be stored on a secure brownfield site owned by the council.”

SCC's contingency planning would appear to consist of paying whatever is now necessary to just make this problem go away - a 'problem' that was known about from the very first day when someone stated that it was always going to be a  'temporary' project!

 

So what are these 'appropriate circumstances' of which you speak?

 

Presumably, if the original contractors agreed to dismantle the boxes and have now changed their minds, then SCC will be legally persuing them for any additional costs SCC have to pay?

 

That's how it would work, right?

 

Well it would, if SCC legally had a leg to stand on, and had made sure all such issues were covered in any agreed contracts!

 

So  maybe  these 'appropriate circumstances' is the fact that SCC now need to get the boxes removed 'as quickly as possible'?

Quote

 

Lib Dem leader Coun Shaffaq Mohammed said the extra cost was disappointing.

He added: “A charge going up by more than 50 per cent is a huge amount. They quicker they get them off Fargate the better. And I still want to see independent oversight into the eyewatering costs. What else could we have done with that money?”

 

It looks like at least someone is trying to distance themselves from another 'successful' SCC vanity project.

 

To paraphrase Mr Mohammed, "Let's hope they're gone and everyone forgets about them... in time for the next elections!"

[harvey19]

41 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Well if I recall correctly, it was a design build and operate contract and they failed to get the upper floor units commissioned as it didn’t appear to meet fire regulations. Grounds for a dispute I’d think. We won’t get to know at least for a while as I’d expect it might well end up in claim and counter claim and process has to be observed.

 

In the circumstances, if the operator was supposed to decommission and remove the units and won’t, the actions the Council have taken look to be pretty sensible. They need the units off site before the wider Fargate refurbishment work can commence, so they have a pressing timescale. They’ve got a couple of quotes which were fairly similar, so they’ve appointed and got on with it. That’s what I’d expect in the circumstances.

With respect to you it is necessary to look at this project from the day it was dreamt up and how it is ending.

There have been numerous complications and one has to ask why and who is to blame for the project failure.

Regardless of how much it has cost in relation to other projects it has cost the council and government a lot of money in real cash terms.