Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Sign in to follow this  
Max Power

Government Contracts, Chancers?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Kopek said:

Teapot, the scaffolding has been kept in place to keep the govt workers dry on their walk into work!!!

Andy. If any due diligence is to be carried out during procurement, I don't think the procurement dept are set up to do this. The treasury have highly paid, financial officers, who presumably, are better placed to do this. The procurement dept are simply the go between for the the govt dept requiring a " fair and equitable" ( !!! ) tender process. Another layer of govt?

I wonder how many Depts have ignored procurements advice to make their own decision as to who they will award the contract to???

If you didn't have the procurement department the various departments would just allow contracts to roll over from year to year ad infinitum because the deparments in question couldn't be arsed to see if they were getting good vfm.  As a result the contractor in question remains unchecked and starts charging whatever they want. I know of one TT contract to do with putting stuff out in the course which when tendered resulted in a 6 figure sum saving per annum! 

Small contracts aren't subject to the procurement process, that is just putting a quote in. 

Treasury aren't best placed to do due diligence... because it isn't their problem. That's how they see it!

You are probably right about Departments ignoring the process...they probably think the crime is getting caught!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how small Government quotations go, I stopped falling for this after a while ....

You are contacted and asked to quote for XYZ, you spend some hours putting together a quotation then speak to a competitor, who are also friends in the business who tell you " we know who is doing that, its already awarded, they only need your estimate to make up the three"

I fell for this a number of times until I told them to get stuffed on every occasion !

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, asitis said:

Here's how small Government quotations go, I stopped falling for this after a while ....

You are contacted and asked to quote for XYZ, you spend some hours putting together a quotation then speak to a competitor, who are also friends in the business who tell you " we know who is doing that, its already awarded, they only need your estimate to make up the three"

I fell for this a number of times until I told them to get stuffed on every occasion !

 

Exactly the problem if Departments are left to their own devices

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, buncha wankas said:

What the hell is a cruise consultant

It would appear from this news release that Peter B is inside the tent whilst his wife is the consultant outside? Not saying that is the case, or wrong.. However this is DFe, so who knows 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/welcome-incentive-scheme-launched-for-cruuise-passengers/

This was awarded over three years ago to what was a different set up 

http://isleofman.com/News/details/70834/new-cruise-consultant-appointed

https://www.visitisleofman.com/trade/cruise/meet-the-team 

Good luck to them if it's all legit

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, english zloty said:

It would appear from this news release that Peter B is inside the tent whilst his wife is the consultant outside? Not saying that is the case, or wrong.. However this is DFe, so who knows 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/welcome-incentive-scheme-launched-for-cruuise-passengers/

This was awarded over three years ago to what was a different set up 

http://isleofman.com/News/details/70834/new-cruise-consultant-appointed

https://www.visitisleofman.com/trade/cruise/meet-the-team 

Good luck to them if it's all legit

 

There’s a whole mass of apparent conflicts there.

Toohey has come back from the dead more times than Lazarus considering our cruise industry has consisted of about 20 years of pretty consistent failure to deliver. So he retired not long ago now back with the very same agency that replaced him. Retired civil servants really can’t help themselves for coming back for more gravy from the gravy train can they? 

http://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/news-headlines/isle-of-man-tourism-marketeer-terry-toohey-retires-after-a-30-year-stint.html

Edited by MrPB
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 8:56 PM, TheTeapot said:

Questions should be asked about NI firm SCRABO, who came over, did mostly government work for a bit, and then pissed off. You'll note that there is scaffolding up on Murray house again, after SCRABO spent a considerable amount of time there a couple of years ago.

I wondered why scaffolding had gone up again so soon after the last works. Buchanan & Pitts were all over it last time, as I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/2/2019 at 8:56 PM, TheTeapot said:

Questions should be asked about NI firm SCRABO, who came over, did mostly government work for a bit, and then pissed off. You'll note that there is scaffolding up on Murray house again, after SCRABO spent a considerable amount of time there a couple of years ago.

Questions should be asked about the awarding of contracts to off-island concerns who were brought over to fell acres of plantations due to the "ash dieback" and infected larch concerns and who worked until the money/budget ran out then pissed off leaving said plantations looking like WW1 battlefields and areas that could still be affected still standing.

I understand that local forestry operators are now being engaged by Govt to try and clean the mess up.

Edited by Non-Believer
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Questions should be asked about the awarding of contracts to off-island concerns who were brought over to fell acres of plantations due to the "ash dieback" and infected larch concerns and who worked until the money/budget ran out then pissed off leaving said plantations looking like WW1 battlefields and areas that could still be affected still standing.

I understand that local forestry operators are now being engaged by Govt to try and clean the mess up.

Bloody hell. I had no idea that was the case. I thought our local forestry workers did all the work. Am I a little naive here.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Bloody hell. I had no idea that was the case. I thought our local forestry workers did all the work. Am I a little naive here.?

Take a walk around, for instance, Ballaugh or Sulby Ohio plantations please. Or anywhere else. Pure destruction on a scale that could not have been wrought by our local contractors. DEFA employs no more than a handful to stand around these days.

Then ask questions of locals.

Then post on here please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Non-Believer said:

Take a walk around, for instance, Ballaugh or Sulby Ohio plantations please. Or anywhere else. Pure destruction on a scale that could not have been wrought by our local contractors. DEFA employs no more than a handful to stand around these days.

Then ask questions of locals.

Then post on here please?

We drove up from Ballaugh through Druidale a week or two ago and I was staggered at the destruction of the trees. I told my wife that the reason was that they had to reduce the tree count by 10% to ensure survival of the remaining 90%

Seems that was just bollocks. :sweat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was because of disease.....Larch die back?.......the trees have to be felled and dealt with at the gov. saw mill

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was a piece in the local rag a year or so ago about this. The disease had to be dealt with pdq and forestry didn't have the required equipment to deal with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, doc.fixit said:

I thought it was because of disease.....Larch die back?.......the trees have to be felled and dealt with at the gov. saw mill

A lot of what was felled was just left in situ. Hence the engagement of local contractors to clear the mess up, a huge task. I've only seen a couple of the northern plantations, I'm told elsewhere some are even worse. Some areas are utterly unrecognisable from what they were previously, rivers and gulleys blocked with debris and now overflowing and washing away the established  forestry roads and tracks. 

If it was to do with the spread of the disease, only half a job has been done, some areas have been left untouched in the middle of felled areas. Why wouldn't those areas be infected if that was the case?

I'm TOLD that the budget ran out and the contractors simply packed up and went.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 8:56 PM, TheTeapot said:

Questions should be asked about NI firm SCRABO, who came over, did mostly government work for a bit, and then pissed off. You'll note that there is scaffolding up on Murray house again, after SCRABO spent a considerable amount of time there a couple of years ago.

Scrabo originally did the work last year at Murray House and from what I believe it was the roof and other external factors (windows) were done. However as with most capital projects on Fantasy Island, all isn’t as it seems. Scaffolding was re-erected this year and work being done on the windows - which are alluminium double glazed units. 

It could be that work is being done putting things right? Perhaps certain people within Government and it’s associated goons and henchmen are not up to the job of project management? It does however seem stupid that scaffolding is erected less than a year later and external works carried out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...