(01-15-2016, 03:28 PM)Walter Sobchak Wrote: Looks like a scene from a modern twist on huis clos.

It sure does, Walter. Pozzied.

Bus stop erected on route with no buses: bit.ly/1npwEex

(01-16-2016, 12:31 PM)Vlad-Stupid Wrote: Bus stop erected on route with no  buses: bit.ly/1npwEex

These new bus shelters have been nothing short of a farce. Seats too high or too low. The shelter not actually giving you any shelter. Stops being placed where there isnt any. Works on shelters starting then waiting weeks for them to be completed while they fuck off and do something else. Fucking horrendous.

Complete racket

(01-16-2016, 12:31 PM)Vlad-Stupid Wrote: Bus stop erected on route with no  buses: bit.ly/1npwEex

That's total Andy Kaufman type stuff

The bus stop isn't all that hard to get - JCD took the contract for the rights to sell advertising.
Just because the stop won't be used doesn't mean they won't get to sell adverts on it.

(01-16-2016, 12:42 PM)Prancer Wrote: The bus stop isn't all that hard to get - JCD took the contract for the rights to sell advertising.
Just because the stop won't be used doesn't  mean they won't get to sell adverts on it.

Its going to get taken out. Not much use to them if its not there.

Prancer, I think everybody knows 'why' they put it up, it's still absurd

(01-16-2016, 12:47 PM)Jeff Resnick Wrote: Its going to get taken out. Not much use to them if its not there.

In which case they'll probably be due money from CEC who no doubt tendered the contract based on so many bus stops. If it turns out CEC included dormant bus stops JCD will be able to argue the contract was less worth.

(01-16-2016, 12:50 PM)Prancer Wrote: In which case they'll probably be due money from CEC who no doubt tendered the contract based on so many bus stops. If it turns out CEC included dormant bus stops JCD will be able to argue the contract was less worth.

Nope. All removals and alterations have come at no cost to the Council.

(It fucking pains me to actually stick up for the Council as well)

(01-16-2016, 12:53 PM)Jeff Resnick Wrote: Nope. All removals and alterations have come at no cost to the Council.

(It fucking pains me to actually stick up for the Council as well)

Of course but JCD tendered for a contract based on selling advertising place based on figures CEC gave them so as an example JCD were told there was 1000 bus stops they will have based their tender price on selling adverts on 1000 bus stops and replacing/maintaining 1000 bus stops.

If it turns out there was actually 900 because CEC included 100 unused ones it compromises the full tender valuation and JCD may have recourse against the council. The income from adverts over the life of the contract is likely to be more than the cost of maintaining and replacing them.

(01-16-2016, 12:57 PM)Prancer Wrote: Of course but JCD tendered for a contract based on selling advertising place based on figures CEC gave them so as an example JCD were told there was 1000 bus stops they will have based their tender price on selling adverts on 1000 bus stops and replacing/maintaining 1000 bus stops.

If it turns out there was actually 900 because CEC included 100 unused ones it compromises the full tender valuation and JCD may have recourse against the council. The income from adverts over the life of the contract is likely to be more than the cost of maintaining and replacing them.

Indeed. But any removals or alterations are coming at no extra cost to the Council. For once, from what I've heard, they've covered their arse on the contract. The one, in this story, says the Council told them about this stop, but JCD went ahead. There's only one side who've made a cock up here and highly surprisingly, its not the useless fucks at Waverley Court.

(01-16-2016, 01:03 PM)Jeff Resnick Wrote: Indeed. But any removals or alterations are coming at no extra cost to the Council. For once, from what I've heard, they've covered their arse on the contract. The one, in this story, says the Council told them about this stop, but JCD went ahead. There's only one side who've made a cock up here and highly surprisingly, its not the useless fucks at Waverley Court.

It will be at cost if JCD challege the contract because CEC tendered incorrect facts. It's no different to me selling you a mercedes then the day after on delivery telling you actually it's a skoda but tough the original prices stand.
As for the next bit JCD didn't fuck up - they decided an unused bus stop was still valuable for selling advertising place and put it up. If the council then tell them to take it down I would imagine they will ask CEC for a financial settlement for the lost revenue through their incorrect contract/tender.

CEC (through Edinburgh transport I would suspect) did fuck up when they included unused stops in their tender process - the list probably should have been verified as being current and necessary rather than just passed on.

What are you even arguing here Prancer?

(01-16-2016, 01:09 PM)Prancer Wrote: It will be at cost if JCD challege the contract because CEC tendered incorrect facts. It's no different to me selling you a mercedes then the day after on delivery telling you actually it's a skoda but tough the original prices stand.
As for the next bit JCD didn't fuck up - they decided an unused bus stop was still valuable for selling advertising place and put it up. If the council then tell them to take it down I would imagine they will ask CEC for a financial settlement for the lost revenue through their incorrect contract/tender.

CEC (through Edinburgh transport I would suspect) did fuck up when they included unused stops in their tender process - the list probably should have been verified as being current and necessary rather than just passed on.

From what I've heard, CEC gave them the up to date list and told them not to put new ones at any disused sites. JCD went ahead anyway.

If JCD were going to challenge the contract, I suspect they'd have already done it, such is the number of fuck ups thats happened and the number already replaced, at no cost to Council. I would also suspect there would be a counter challenge as well.

Whilst I appreciate its difficult to believe the Council haven't fucked up, it seems they haven't for once.

Prancers Mercedes argument then

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-n...rican-gang

 
She could rob from me any time she liked.

It's a no from me.

Guaranteed porker going by the moon face.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Couldn't even bring myself to say 7/10 there. Horrific shout from Dexter.