Glenn1969
Established Member
Stagecoach requested it be extended another 14 days. Might be a case of still "see you in court DfT"?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
East Midlands franchise won by Abellio
- Thread starter InTheEastMids
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
cactustwirly
Established Member
Well they're quite unreliable with EMT, GC left them in quite a state, these being frequently substituted with a shortformed 222, or a HST.
grumpyoldman01
Member
True, but I haven't seen anything which shows that the Stagecoach request was granted; anyone know if it was?
There's an article on the Civil Service World website at:
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/a...three-rail-franchises-over-non-compliant-bids
which states that a DfT spokesperson said that Stagecoach had disqualified themselves by submitting non-compliant bids which "breached established rules" and proposed "significant changes to the commercial terms", leading to "bids which proposed a significantly different deal to the ones on offer”.
Same DfT quotes from the day after the announcement from the start of the thread. The Stagecoach offer may actually have been better for VfM for taxpayer in the long run but DfT seem desperate to absolve themselves of the pension problem.
DfT have often been happy to work with some non compliances in the past and if this has suddenly changed they should have told the bidders that this tender is different.
10 Working days so this Friday as there were 2 Bank Holidays
ABB125
Established Member
Another two days of speculation and anticipation then!
InTheEastMids
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 727
Not sure the 180s are needed either. Whilst Corby electrification isn't fully complete until Dec 2020, there will be a "priority electrified route" approved for passenger use from May. So if EMUs are available and NR stays on schedule, the Corby services could go electric in May 2020 and release 3-4 222s at that point, allowing the exGC HSTs to be dumped without any other diesel trains being brought in
Well, if they're substantially more unreliable than the 180's, there might be some benefit in getting them in for a few months before the 222's are freed by electrification. Seems like a lot of work for little benefit though.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
It's more complicated than that, as the standstill period is nominally 10 calendar days.
However it can be extended according to this timetable, and some days must be working days:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standstill_period
At least one procurement (non Dft) that was contested recently in the UK, the awarding body (who ended up paying damages and costs to the loser) was told by the judge that 10 days over Christmas and New Year wasn't cricket as all parties should be able to access professional advisers, the legal system and each other uninhibited through out the period. The awarding body is also expected to respond extremely quickly including providing all the required materials for a challenge.
Thankfully DfT go for the more sensible working days approach.
The New Tube for London standstill period ended up being 7 months before the court date was set (for this Autumn to allow sufficient time to prepare). The Contract award in that case being allowed to proceed but 2 losing bidders Bombardier-Hitachi & Alstom are both going after TfL.
Last edited:
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
What are the chances we'll find out more details tomorrow?
grumpyoldman01
Member
Clause 4.15.1 of the ITT states:
"The Department intends to run a voluntary standstill period of at least 10 calendar days in respect of this procurement (although it concludes that it is not presently obliged todo so by Law) and accordingly the basis of such a standstill process shall be as set out in this ITT or as otherwise advised by the Department to Bidders."
Clause 4.4.16 is entitled "Announcement to the London Stock Exchange and information to unsuccessful Bidders", and clause 4.4.16.2 states:
"On the same date that the announcement is made to the London Stock Exchange, the Department will send to each unsuccessful Bidder a letter confirming that they have been unsuccessful, and providing that Bidder’s scores from the evaluation process, relative to the preferred Bidder’s scores. The sending of these letters will commence the voluntary standstill period of at least 10 calendar days. The closing date of that period will be identified to the preferred and the unsuccessful Bidders. The Department will invite each Bidder to a meeting to be held on the same day as the announcement is made to the London Stock Exchange, at which the Department will provide feedback on the Bidder’s Bid."
I've got it in my mind that I've seen somewhere that the standstill period had been set at 14 days, but I've been unable to find any reference to this period when searching over the last couple of days; no update on DfT website about the franchise award so far today.
"The Department intends to run a voluntary standstill period of at least 10 calendar days in respect of this procurement (although it concludes that it is not presently obliged todo so by Law) and accordingly the basis of such a standstill process shall be as set out in this ITT or as otherwise advised by the Department to Bidders."
Clause 4.4.16 is entitled "Announcement to the London Stock Exchange and information to unsuccessful Bidders", and clause 4.4.16.2 states:
"On the same date that the announcement is made to the London Stock Exchange, the Department will send to each unsuccessful Bidder a letter confirming that they have been unsuccessful, and providing that Bidder’s scores from the evaluation process, relative to the preferred Bidder’s scores. The sending of these letters will commence the voluntary standstill period of at least 10 calendar days. The closing date of that period will be identified to the preferred and the unsuccessful Bidders. The Department will invite each Bidder to a meeting to be held on the same day as the announcement is made to the London Stock Exchange, at which the Department will provide feedback on the Bidder’s Bid."
I've got it in my mind that I've seen somewhere that the standstill period had been set at 14 days, but I've been unable to find any reference to this period when searching over the last couple of days; no update on DfT website about the franchise award so far today.
Helvellyn
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,012
Stagecoach have today announced a £60million share buyback. Sounds like a move to bolster the share price and perhaps indicates no legal challenge?
Killingworth
Established Member
Might also indicate Stagecoach are not prepared to throw away any more cash on fruitless tenders for business that once gained has dubious profit potential thanks to moving goal posts. They may still make a challenge, even if they don't expect, or now wish, to take the franchise. It isn't a cost free game preparing a tender and Stagecoach were messed about badly over the last few years thanks to electrification and other issues. A lot of good staff have seen the writing on the wall and already left. Others will follow if Abellio don't hit the ground running..
It's a shame that loosing seems to mean court action these days.
I appreciate the Government is in many ways incompetent, but each bidder is in the same position (of entering a questionable competition) and at the end of the day, nobody is forcing anyone to enter.
I appreciate the Government is in many ways incompetent, but each bidder is in the same position (of entering a questionable competition) and at the end of the day, nobody is forcing anyone to enter.
P&O are now suing DfT because Eurotunnel were successful in getting an out of court settlement. You don't even need to bid for anything to get some compensation these days!
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,518
According to The Times, a week long extension was granted on Wednesday after the DfT 'received fresh information from a third party'
grumpyoldman01
Member
I was able to read the full article on my phone, but not on the Times website on my computer without payment - try this link, and good luck:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...erail-east-midlands-train-franchise-77f6b88jc
If unable to access the full article, the final paragraph reads:
"The alleged breach occured on August 22, a fortnight before the deadline for bids. A senior official at Network Rail apparently emailed details of Stagecoach's bid to Abellio. The email included details of Stagecoach's train service and fleet strategy."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...erail-east-midlands-train-franchise-77f6b88jc
If unable to access the full article, the final paragraph reads:
"The alleged breach occured on August 22, a fortnight before the deadline for bids. A senior official at Network Rail apparently emailed details of Stagecoach's bid to Abellio. The email included details of Stagecoach's train service and fleet strategy."
Killingworth
Established Member
My concern is that the DfT must have been aware at a very early stage that 2 out of 3 bidders were non-compliant and would have to be rejected. That being the case any contact between the DfT and Arriva/DB and Stagecoach was pointless, time consuming, and costly for all concerned. However, they were kept hanging on strings, presumably in case Abellio decided to withdraw, or was unacceptable in some other way. Whether Arriva/DB and Stagecoach colluded in any way to submit non-compliant bids is another question, as is whether Abellio was aware of that aspect of their bids and decided not to take that route.
Lawyers will no doubt be seeking ways to recover costs for the unsuccessful bidders, and other lawyers probably seeking ways to mitigate what now may be perceived as an over generous bid by the winners! A one week delay may not be enough. This case will have repercussions.
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
Meanwhile, the 2020prm deadline moves ever closer...
The DaFT should have never offered the franchise extensions without dealing with this problem. The ones who will suffer the consequences of this terrible mismanagement will no doubt be the passengers.
The DaFT should have never offered the franchise extensions without dealing with this problem. The ones who will suffer the consequences of this terrible mismanagement will no doubt be the passengers.
Killingworth
Established Member
The bidders knew they should be able to count on dispensations to continue operating some non-compliant stock into 2020. The word used was dispensation not derogation. How big and for how long the dispensations will need to be are the questions awaiting answers
Robertj21a
On Moderation
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 7,518
Quite agree. I hope that the DfT can fully explain their actions and, if appropriate, whether communication to all tenderers was accurate and timely. My gut reaction suggests that the DfT may be found deficient in some matters.
317 forever
Established Member
I agree that the spare 185s from north Trans Pennine would be good for Liverpool - Nottingham. Hard to say whether it should go to Northern - who duplicate Liverpool - Warrington Central - Manchester or TPE - who duplicate Manchester - Stockport - Sheffield.
Those of us involved in bidding have been aware for some time that there was something delaying the award of franchises. The logical explanation is that DfT were thinking long and hard (and taking copious legal advice) about their approach to bidders who were refusing to take the pension risk.
They are non-compliant; that is simple fact, but of course there are always other considerations. I feel it is commercially naive to expect bidders to take this risk, when it is out of their control and of an unknown quantum. However, some bidders have accepted that risk.
I don’t know about Arriva, but the decision on Stagecoach may have been simplified by the fact that every indication is that their bids were not very competitive price-wise in any case.
As for sending Stagecoach bid documents to Abellio, I don’t understand how that could happen; documents are not emailed in general - it’s why they have the Award system. However it happened, it’s a monumental cock-up, but I expect that whoever was responsible will get a light slap on the wrist; after all no-one lost their job over the WCML fiasco.
Burgerstahl
Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 22
Northern also duplicate Sheffield - Nottingham.
Killingworth
Established Member
Well over a year ago I was hearing TPE seeming to assume that they'd redeploy 185s to the Liverpool-Nottingham route as soon as they were released and available. They are heartily fed up with prevarication by DfT, but the units aren't available yet anyway!
Once they are and they've gone to Ireland the position may change again. Surely the DfT can make a decision on this route before then. Maybe not until any potential legal challenge to the refranchising is lifted.
Won't all franchise bids involve splitting Liverpool-Norwich? If so then a delay awarding the franchise won't make a difference to splitting the route.
Killingworth
Established Member
In theory, no, it should have been split as soon as they made the decision and it's practical to do so. Like when 185s become available - earlier than public statements so far.
The email was from NR rather than DfT.
The interesting thing will be to see if stagecoach are right on the overall Taxpayer VfM of their pension proposal being better than what DfT were proposing.
It would also be interesting to know what the new 3rd party info was that DfT received.
Post the collapse of outsourcing providers recently one of the initial lessons has been that there are some thing that can't be outsourced effectively and the provide sector is incapable of accurately pricing some risks if they create a winning bid.
- Status