Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

Doitonce

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

57 Excellent

About Doitonce

  • Rank
    MF Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Your the psychic one, so why don't you tell me?
  2. I don't need to see, Dill - I know the facts, and I also know all of the figures. You don't, clearly.
  3. The 'truth' is it's ' a commercial secret'. If some bright spark like Dilli wants to establish facts, perhaps he should try and set something like that project up with Government - he may then understand just how incorrect his comments are. Saying that, he's never going to as he'd rather post on here, firing cheap shots at any and everyone, instead of growing a pair, getting off his backside and actually make a positive contribution to something worthwhile.
  4. Sorry Dilli, but you have no idea of the in's and out's of the deal. I can assure you it is a very, very long way from "another give away", far from it actually. You are either extremely ill informed, have an agenda against certain people, or were born an arsehole and have just grown bigger as time went by. Either way, I don't really care which of these issues you have, but whichever it is, doesn't detract from the fact that your assumptions couldn't be further from the truth.
  5. Taken from another part of this forum: "Ohh, I almost forgot, how the government are so able at contradictions - seems DOI & Treasury don't read from the same script... DoI say (FOI 624568) "I am led to believe that there is an agreement in situ whereby all contractors wishing to undertake works on behalf of the DoI must be MACCS accredited. I would like to see any supporting documentation of this relationship between DoI and MACCS (or information which otherwise prove that it is not a requirement to be MACCS accredited to undertake works on behalf of the DoI), so I can be fully conversant with the terms and limitations of this agreement." While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance some of the information is available by other means. The requirement for MACCS accreditation is one set by Treasury through the Financial Regulations, a link can be found below: https://www.gov.im/media/1362161/iom-government-financial-regulations-june- 2018.pdf Part of the Regulations refers to a document called FPN C.02 Capitol Procedure Notes which is not available online, however after consultation with Treasury we attach it to this response. Please quote the reference number 624568 in any future communications." So DOI say that the requirement for MACCS accreditation is a requirement set out by Treasury for ALL categories of work. Well, it seems Treasury beg to differ... "While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Treasury does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. As a result, a practical refusal reason applies under section 11(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015. A search of our records has revealed that the Treasury does not hold any agreement or other formal documentation between the Treasury and the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme (MACCS) that establishes the scope of Government construction work or other categories of works, for which MACCS accreditation is required. I can advise you that requirements in respect of construction works being undertaken on behalf of Government are set out in the Financial Regulations (see Financial Practice Note C.02 Capital Procedure Notes). Paragraph 1.1 of Financial Practice Note C.02 (FPN C.02) states – “For all construction work, designated bodies must use Accredited Contractors included on the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme ...” It is each Department’s responsibility to assess each stand-alone project it is undertaking to determine whether it would reasonably consider it to be ‘construction’ for the purpose of paragraph 1.1 of FPN C.02. The Treasury does not provide Departments with any guidance on the interpretation of ‘construction’. However, it has been recognised that further clarification of this term may be helpful and we will consult with Departments to consider both the wording of the current requirements and whether additional guidance can be developed that would assist Departments, potential contractors and the general public. Paragraph 1.2 of FPN C.02 also states – “All Officers involved in Capital Projects must ensure that they are undertaken in accordance with the Procedure Notes for the Management of Construction Projects issued by the Treasury.” Paragraph 8.5.12 of the Procedure Notes for Management of Construction Projects requires that any sub-contractor of a Capital scheme construction project must be MACCS accredited. The requirement for Government to use an approved list of contractors came as a result of a recommendation included in a 1993 Council of Ministers report which reviewed the administration of Government’s construction contracts at the time. As a result, a Government maintained list of approved contractors came into operation. In 2005 the Construction Federation presented a proposal to the Department of Trade and Industry (now the Department for Enterprise), for an ‘approved contractors’ scheme for use by both Government and the general public. The proposal was accepted and resulted in the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme. The requirements of the Financial Regulations are a minimum standard in respect of construction works. Each Department undertaking any general procurement, or tendering for goods or services, will of course be responsible for setting any requirements considered reasonable in respect of the good or service required. Please quote the reference number 649565 in any future communications." Seems the stance of treasury is that there is no such requirement in place, outside of construction based works (yet DOI, and others, stipulate MCCS accreditation for ALL categories of works nowadays). Moreover, ongoing communication reveals that DOI have misinterpreted the Capitol Procedure Guidance Notes. Not only this, but powers that be in DOI are aware of it, are unwilling to engage with contractors who challenge it, and are restricting employment opportunities to those whom refuse to subscribe to this shambles of a scheme. So, to be clear: DOI - "The requirement for MACCS accreditation is one set by Treasury through the Financial Regulations" Treasury - "Treasury does not hold any agreement or other formal documentation between the Treasury and the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme (MACCS) that establishes the scope of Government construction work or other categories of works, for which MACCS accreditation is required." So much for the good old "Freedom the Flourish", on the IOM. Muppets." Riddle me this - whom on earth is making the decisions re procurement? Whoever it is, needs a shot of lead, several, in fact.
  6. Sounds like a messy do this one, from the local rumour rounds.
  7. Doitonce

    TT 2018

    Answer to all - because that's what protocols dictated, as has been made clear. No one is denying there is a monumental screw up by sending the bikes back to the Grandstand, no one (it appears) is supporting the decision to withhold the content of the report. What is being commented on however, is the apportioning of blame, which, according to the comments of some in this thread, is being apportioned squarely at the feet of the driver of the car, which for me, is out of order (and arguing the toss over who was behind the wheel, police or not, doesn't make a shits worth of difference to the outcome). It is clear that the cause of the problem is in the communication, be it either the message that was given, or the (mis)understanding of it, so if there is ire towards those directly involved in the incident, or the decision to withhold the report into the incident - this is where the focus of the ire should be directed.
  8. Doitonce

    TT 2018

    This being my point. The car was responding to an incident, under instruction. Who was behind the wheel, doesn't make a difference to the end result.
  9. Doitonce

    TT 2018

    Would it really make a difference? Car heading one way, bikes other, on 'closed' roads. If the supposed 'limit' on the car was 90, and it hits a bike, sorry, the bike(r) is getting hurt. Suggestions that the car was supposedly doing over 100mph (how do witnesses know - can they tell the difference between 90mph and 100mph, without speed cameras?), with a 'non police' driver, result is still the same - bike(r) is getting hurt. I'm not excusing anything here, but finger pointing/willy waving (delete as appropriate), by people who are unaware of the facts (as they HAVEN'T seen the report) is pointless. Further, tbf, Derek has provided some interesting insight, that few, if any of us are aware of regarding the logistics involved in responding to such an incident, which for one, I value. I would also suggest that Derek has done very well to resist replying in kind to your multiple, unjustified jabs - fortunately, restraint has never been my strong suite, so I will say what everyone else is thinking - Buncha - you have a clear agenda, and you are acting like a cunt.
  10. The general gist of it Gizo, is the fact that you rarely have to chase money where government is concerned, so you aren't so reliant on the general public, where a percentage can be slow to pay. For me personally, the appeal is only for a limited number of contracts, with my target being long running contracts i.e., 5 year terms where you are the sole contractor, as this assists with budgeting purposes. This combined with prompt payment is very valuable to small businesses. For me, the so called 'reputable' tag, and free sticker aren't worth a carrot - I don't need MACCS, or anyone else, to endorse my credentials or workmanship.
  11. I'll take things further again - are MACCS checking the professional qualifications of the companies on their list? Another example, on the list I have provided above, there are 6 companies that offer tree surgery to their customers, one of which being the government. The problem with this is, there are multiple 'layers' of qualifications required to work in this field. A basic chainsaw qualification does not qualify someone to climb a tree, or to dismantle a windblown tree for example, yet there are examples of members of MACCS undertaking these works on behalf of private clients, and government departments, where their qualifications do not extend to cover the level of works that they are undertaking, thereby rendering their insurance for said tasks null and void, as well as being bloody dangerous.. The subscription is little more than an opportunity to put a sticker on one's van which 'suggests' they are a reputable tradesman, when the reality of the situation is that in some cases, there are no checks being carried out which prove that the work is being carried out by reputable tradesman, the quality of the work isn't checked/measured against industry best practice, and where situations arise like the football pitch referred to above, a situation which puts people in significant danger, there is no sanction or comment from MACCS. I could go on and on about this, but there is more than enough content contained in this thread to show this shambles for what it is.
  12. So, reputable tradesman ehh? I will make one example here, and whilst i'm not knocking or criticising any contractors here, can anyone tell me how a current MACCS accredited contractor (with no qualifications for this type of work, or work in this arena) was permitted to spread 100 tonnes of sand, heavily contaminated with glass onto one of the islands football pitches, leading to a significant 6 figure rebuild, ensuring the new surface was safe, and free of all glass fragments, yet not receive any sanction from MACCS, or removal from the so called 'list of reputable tradesman'. What makes this more ironic is the following statement from the MACCS constitution: "Clause 5.4.2 - Membership shall cease and all privileges shall be forfeited if the Executive Council orders the name of the Member to be removed from the list of members because the Executive Council believes it not to be in the interests of the Federation for such a Member to remain in membership. The Executive can only take such measures at, or after, a meeting to which the member has been invited within fourteen days notice, and at which the Member has been given the opportunity to present their case and be heard. The Executive Council shall not invoke this article vexatiously." To take the above a stage further, when the owner of one of the companies that took part in the repair works (and milked significant sum off it) is a board member of MACCS, it smacks in the face somewhat. This is one example of many, similar scenarios which have occurred, courtesy of these 'reputable contractors'....
  13. So, some MACCS members: A.M. Tree Care Ace Carpets Ltd Blastaway Ltd Castle Carpets Curtains & Blinds Chris Bell Tree Surgery Ltd Cleervu Aerial Specialists Ltd Countryside & Garden Contractors Ltd Countryside Maintenance Ltd D.G. Wood & Son Garden Maintenance Dave The White Van Man David Noble Gardening Discount Plastic Merchants How many of the above are construction companies? The list goes on - this is only a small amount of companies who do not fall under the category of construction for their core services. So, MACCS accreditation is clearly, and PROVEN, to not be required for Government work, if the work is not construction related. If this is the case, why are the above contractors afforded the opportunity to be awarded government work in their specific, non construction related fields, but other contractors in the same line of business, not allowed, due to them being unwilling to stump up the £250 odd quid to pay for membership of the prawn and pork pie brigade. Stinks.
  14. Ohh the irony! Register yourself on the gov tender portal and look at how many of their non construction related tenders supposedly requires MACCS accreditation. Furthermore, take a look at the MACCS member list - you will see company make sandwiches (does constructing a sandwich class as construction?), tree surgeons, gardeners, farmers, fencing companies and various other non construction related companies. This is the whole problem with the scheme. Treasury make no ruling for MACCS accreditation, unless works are construction based. Other gov departments, say DOI, Utilities etc say MACCS accreditation is required for all works as Treasury apparently say so (but Treasury do not say this), so say you go for the current grass cutting tender for utilities (mowing the grass at the pumping stations), Utilities say MACCS registration is required. Since when was cutting grass classed as construction work? To my knowledge, it isn't. I have challenged this with several government departments, and got them to back down and allow me to tender, and win work, based on the fact that I have proven them wrong. MACCS have basically 'spread their wings' and are now offering registration to ANY form of company, irrespective of the line of business. The issue here is, some government departments have misinterpreted the criteria set out by Treasury, and expect ALL companies, in ANY line of work to be registered with MACCS, which is an erroneous conclusion, discriminatory, and illegal.
×
×
  • Create New...