£800m of Canal maintenance works out for tender.

[jonathanA]

The key here is it's a framework contract. In other words when you are awarded a framework contract it's worth Jack shit. It just means CRT will run a mini  tender process between  the successful bidders for these works.  In other words a waste of time all round but keeps procurement bods in a job and they can claim to have saved loads of money....

[Jen-in-Wellies]

27 minutes ago, Heartland said:

Has it been stated where this work will be done?

Is this, or does it reflect upon, the anticipated repair and maintenance cost ?

Are there any new schemes proposed?

As to restoration are such figures including schemes such as the Chesterfield and the Montgomery ?

The CaRT page about this is here.

In it is says:

Quote

The new Civil Engineering Construction Framework Contract will allow the Trust to undertake engineering, construction, maintenance and renewal works across this unique network. The scope of the contract includes early contractor involvement, scheme design and development, delivery of works, and all associated aspects of project and construction delivery. 

Which to me says pretty much anything civil engineering related in CaRT.

Anyone want to see if they can get the information pack? I'll just stick with making sarky comments.

Jen

[Steve_C]

4 hours ago, Manxcat said:

How about we set up Canalworld Maintenance Ltd and tender for it?

 

I've got a shovel and bucket...

It's a shovel and a bucket more than the contract winners will have. Everthings hired these days.

[cuthound]

Stating the value of the works seems an odd way to let a contract to me.

 

It is more usual to ask potential contractors to bid either for a fixed price contract (risky for the bidder given the age and condition of CRT's assetts) or on a "cost plus" basis, whereby the potential contractor gives labour rates for each skill set needed.

[Captain Pegg]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Stating the value of the works seems an odd way to let a contract to me.

 

It is more usual to ask potential contractors to bid either for a fixed price contract (risky for the bidder given the age and condition of CRT's assetts) or on a "cost plus" basis, whereby the potential contractor gives labour rates for each skill set needed.

I’d have thought it’s pretty standard to give an indicative or guaranteed minimum value of work for a framework contract.

 

The tender will be a schedule of rates to be built up accordingly job by job. It looks like it will be a single contractor per package in which case the tenderers will need to have some idea of value to understand how to price their risk. Offer a zero value contract when you’ve got £800m of budget and you are unlikely to get value for money bids.

 

The other method is to have a zero value contract but have more than one framework contractor for each package and select the deliverer on a job by job basis based on the tendered rates. That takes a lot more administration.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

46 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Stating the value of the works seems an odd way to let a contract to me.

 

It is more usual to ask potential contractors to bid either for a fixed price contract (risky for the bidder given the age and condition of CRT's assetts) or on a "cost plus" basis, whereby the potential contractor gives labour rates for each skill set needed.

Yes, that is weird. The one question you never answer from a potential supplier is "What is your budget".

[jonathanA]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

The other method is to have a zero value contract but have more than one framework contractor for each package and select the deliverer on a job by job basis based on the tendered rates. That takes a lot more administration.

Exactly what I said in post 26. I've bid for a few in the past and you have no guarantee.of getting anything usually.

[Kirk]

I always wonder what CRT pays to complete all this work compared with BWB who did most of it in house with their own staff. I suppose there are some advantages to using contractors but there must also be additional expenses as well.

 

[David Mack]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

1) £200m per annum on a 4 year contract (C&RTs total income 2019-20 was £226m, 2018-19 was £203m - maybe they have found some down the back of the sofa)

 

Its a framework for contracts totalling £800m over 4 years. That doesn't mean that the total value of work commissioned will be £800m, just that they have all the arrangements in place for that amount. So it makes sense to set the total at somehwat higher than you expect to actually spend.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

7 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

Its a framework for contracts totalling £800m over 4 years. That doesn't mean that the total value of work commissioned will be £800m, just that they have all the arrangements in place for that amount. So it makes sense to set the total at somehwat higher than you expect to actually spend.

Phew that's a relief. I'm being interviewed  for the Director of Digital Block Chain Engagement and Diversification position next week and was concerned about the budget for the job! Glad to hear their priorities aren't being skewed by all this maintenance nonsense.

Jen?

[Captain Pegg]

11 hours ago, jonathanA said:

Exactly what I said in post 26. I've bid for a few in the past and you have no guarantee.of getting anything usually.

Yes, although as I said in the post you quoted from there are different models. I have a lot of direct experience of differing forms in a very similar environment. It isn’t unusual in my work to let term contracts to a single contractor using a framework that it is priced on an indicative value of work, albeit the contract itself may or may not be zero value.

[cuthound]

12 hours ago, Kirk said:

I always wonder what CRT pays to complete all this work compared with BWB who did most of it in house with their own staff. I suppose there are some advantages to using contractors but there must also be additional expenses as well.

 

 

One problem of doing work in house these days is the need for the equipment used to be periodically tested and maintained.

 

This can occur a substantial cost in terms of getting and retaining staff with the necessary skills and the test equipment needed, particularly for rarely used equipment against hiring.

 

 

[cuthound]

14 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I’d have thought it’s pretty standard to give an indicative or guaranteed minimum value of work for a framework contract.

 

The tender will be a schedule of rates to be built up accordingly job by job. It looks like it will be a single contractor per package in which case the tenderers will need to have some idea of value to understand how to price their risk. Offer a zero value contract when you’ve got £800m of budget and you are unlikely to get value for money bids.

 

The other method is to have a zero value contract but have more than one framework contractor for each package and select the deliverer on a job by job basis based on the tendered rates. That takes a lot more administration.

 

The press release stated the £800m was value of the work, but as you say it may be an indicative value of the work. We would need to see the tender documentation to understand exactly what it is.

[Captain Pegg]

Just now, cuthound said:

 

The press release stated the £800m was value of the work, but as you say it may be an indicative value of the work. We would need to see the tender documentation to understand exactly what it is.

We really shouldn’t want to see that, it will make for a very boring read. I don’t think there’s much of a story here.

[magpie patrick]

13 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Yes, that is weird. The one question you never answer from a potential supplier is "What is your budget".

We have ways of finding out though!

Actually, for most contract work, some idea of budget is offered as it gives an idea of the client's expectations given that even a comprehensive brief is open to interpretation. I (or rather, my company) runs on two types of contract - fixed fee or time and materials, but the latter have a budget associated with them. 

[cuthound]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

We really shouldn’t want to see that, it will make for a very boring read. I don’t think there’s much of a story here.

 

I agree, I expect the outcome to be as it is today,  but possibly with different contractors for the various work packages.

 

Once the decision to contract out work has been taken and the direct labour skills lost (and that bird flew a long time back), it becomes very expensive to bring it all back in house.

Edited December 19, 2020 by cuthound
Clarification

[Captain Pegg]

7 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I agree, I expect the outcome to be as it is today,  but possibly with different contractors for the various work packages.

 

Once the decision to contract out work has been taken and the direct labour skills lost, it becomes very expensive to bring it all back in house.

I suspect you are correct on the first point.

 

As for the outsource vs in-house debate I’ve spent 25 years working around that boundary with constant movement. Changes are usually enforced - by politicians or the appetite of the market to carry the incumbent risk - rather than made entirely by the will of the client.

 

I also doubt that any canal administration has ever done all of its major civil engineering works in house, for not dis-similar reasons as to why I didn’t raise the turkey we’ll be eating on Friday in our own garden. I’m not sure why people get so excited about this sort of thing.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Captain Pegg