Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[ads36]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

so why was said contract so badly negotiated?

was it?

 

were you there?

Edited February 21, 2023 by ads36

[Planner1]

7 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Wouldn't the best option have been to compare the costs against the benefits of the project and use the money elsewhere ?

 

The project has governance in place and the council have to report back to the government ( ie make a change request) and ask them to approve the changes set out in the report I linked.

 

The change request will include details of how the benefit / cost ratio is affected by the changes.

 

This is a normal project governance process.

 

It is often the case that government grants are given for the specific project only and can’t just be transferred to something else. In this particular case, there is a funding timescale which means they need to spend the grant within a set timescale. There will also be specific objectives which are applicable to the funding stream. So it is not at all easy to just change tack mid project and spend the money on something entirely different. Usually, if you can’t deliver the specific project, you have to give the funding back to the funder ( government), which is generally not a desirable outcome. 

 

 

[RollingJ]

1 minute ago, ads36 said:

was it?

 

were you there?

No, but to negotiate one which allows such a massive increase kind of suggests there were 'mistakes' - to put it politely.

[ads36]

The funding model clearly does leave the council in a very exposed position.

Edited February 21, 2023 by ads36

[Planner1]

3 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

OK - so why was said contract so badly negotiated? the 'tin huts' costs came out of that, anyway.

It is a design and build project. 
 

It isn’t unusual to have items in the contract that can’t be costed without further work / investigations being done ( like trial excavations etc to establish what buried services are there and what ground conditions are). 
 

Those will be optional items that the employer can decide whether they want depending on feasibility and cost.

[RollingJ]

Just now, Planner1 said:

It is a design and build project. 
 

It isn’t unusual to have items in the contract that can’t be costed without further work / investigations being done ( like trial excavations etc to establish what buried services are there and what ground conditions are). 
 

Those will be optional items that the employer can decide whether they want depending on feasibility and cost.

If you say so.

[Planner1]

2 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

No, but to negotiate one which allows such a massive increase kind of suggests there were 'mistakes' - to put it politely.

No, it suggests there were significant unknowns, which, it is clear from the report, employer and contractor understood at the start. 

[RollingJ]

Just now, Planner1 said:

No, it suggests there were significant unknowns, which, it is clear from the report, employer and contractor understood at the start. 

So the 'unknowns', which the employer and contractor knew about - so they weren't unknown, were not considered.

[Meltman]

You are all at again making excuses. What are these significant unknowns that you mention? Do you mean the significant sewer that people in charge seem to have forgotten about but should have known about?

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, Meltman said:

You are all at again making excuses. What are these significant unknowns that you mention? Do you mean the significant sewer that people in charge seem to have forgotten about but should have known about?

Plus the total lack of power source?