Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
London To Edinburgh Train Line
They 'overbid' and are set to loose £200m and end their contract early.
I am the first to admit I don't know how these contracts work but if you loose £200m surely the system is working at a huge loss (obviously lol) and so how could anyone, government or private business, make money from it? How does it even cover costs as a not for profit endeavour as Corbyn wants.
I can't see how it works.
I am the first to admit I don't know how these contracts work but if you loose £200m surely the system is working at a huge loss (obviously lol) and so how could anyone, government or private business, make money from it? How does it even cover costs as a not for profit endeavour as Corbyn wants.
I can't see how it works.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//but never mind, they're to be allowed to bid for more franchises. What do you have to do to be seen as a bad risk? //
I had you down for someone who would have a far better understanding of contracts.
Just because you bid does not mean you will get it. At bidding stage the risk will be assessed and if you dont pass then you dont get.
I had you down for someone who would have a far better understanding of contracts.
Just because you bid does not mean you will get it. At bidding stage the risk will be assessed and if you dont pass then you dont get.
At bidding stage the risk will be assessed and if you dont pass then you dont get.
so how did that work out on the east coast line?
It's all too easy to see how this contract worked: bid a ludicrous amount of money, get the contract, fail hopelessly (less than three years of an eight-year contract, was it?), and back out with a slap on the wrist.
so how did that work out on the east coast line?
It's all too easy to see how this contract worked: bid a ludicrous amount of money, get the contract, fail hopelessly (less than three years of an eight-year contract, was it?), and back out with a slap on the wrist.
Interesting how it was supposed to be all sweetness and light:
https:/
https:/
jno, I'm guessing you have never been involved with risk assessments for third party work?
Clearly it went wrong in the case of the East Coast line. I would have expected that the person requesting the RFI did not review correctly, if at all. So although some blame lies with StageCoach equally some blame lies with the individuals(s) reviewing the RFI.
Clearly it went wrong in the case of the East Coast line. I would have expected that the person requesting the RFI did not review correctly, if at all. So although some blame lies with StageCoach equally some blame lies with the individuals(s) reviewing the RFI.
indeed, ZM
Detailed financial analysis from the Office of Rail Regulation shows it [the company when it was state-run was one of two firms to make a net contribution to government coffers over the last two years, paying in more than it received in subsidy or indirect grants]
Mayeb there's something in this nationalisation lark after all?
Detailed financial analysis from the Office of Rail Regulation shows it [the company when it was state-run was one of two firms to make a net contribution to government coffers over the last two years, paying in more than it received in subsidy or indirect grants]
Mayeb there's something in this nationalisation lark after all?
jno, I'm guessing you have never been involved with risk assessments for third party work
no, I'm unique in that respect, I just pay the bills. Sack the assessors and blacklist the company for (at least) a while would be a reasonable response. Running out of money in year 7 of 8 would be an infraction, doing so in year 3 suggests neither is remotely competent and shouldn't be allowed near national infrastructure.
no, I'm unique in that respect, I just pay the bills. Sack the assessors and blacklist the company for (at least) a while would be a reasonable response. Running out of money in year 7 of 8 would be an infraction, doing so in year 3 suggests neither is remotely competent and shouldn't be allowed near national infrastructure.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.