Compass Community Transport
Compass Community Transport
(04 Jun 2014, 6:22 pm)Dan I did not fully understand the given quote, which is why I chose not to include it. I did have a number of different interpretations of what it meant, with the one most sensible (in my eyes) being that the contractor clearly specifies the minimum requirements for the services the tender concerns; as such, the tender can be awarded to the operator who has the cheapest bid, given that it will meet the minimum requirements as set by the contractor.
I note that the invitation to tender for the provision of bus services on behalf on Nexus for July 2014 states clearly:
'Tenders which do not meet the required minimum specification stated herein will NOT be considered.'
I do not believe this is usually the case, as non-conforming tenders were discussed yesterday here. Thankfully, it does seem that Nexus is cracking down on this?
Do we think that the specification is sufficient to provide 'quality' services? I feel in previous tenders, Nexus (and other parties) have been a little lenient with their minimum requirement specifications. However, having read a few documents, I do think that the minimum requirements in terms of quality has been increased. I also think that this is likely to reflect a better passenger experience when the winning operators take over the services next month - provided that the allocated vehicles are to that specification.
In terms of vehicle specification, the tender invitation states that operators have to include:
- the make/type of the vehicles which they intend to use for the service
- whether the vehicles are low-floor or not
- whether the vehicles meet the required total capacity or not
- whether CCTV is fitted to the vehicles or not
- whether two-way communications will be provided or not (radio or mobile telephone)
- whether ticket machines will be used or not, and if not, whether the operator agrees to obtain ticket machines within three months.
I must add that one of Go North East's Volvo B10BLE/Wright Renowns or Scania L94UB/Wright Solars would comply with the above - would we suggest that they provide a 'quality' passenger experience? These vehicles, in my opinion, are more susceptible to breakdowns compared to new Euro 5 vehicles. Obviously smaller operators are less likely to be able to provide these, but larger operators are more likely to be able to provide them.
To keep this on-topic, I will use Compass Community Transport's service 37 as an example.
Assuming that CCT stated that their allocated vehicle for service 37 should have been a Bluebird (which is low floor, meets total capacity for contract, and has a driver who is able to contact depot), the alternative vehicles which have been allocated (Iveco vans) do not seem to tick all of the boxes: the vans are not low floor, I do not believe they have CCTV (but I don't think any of the fleet does) and ticket machines are not used (see my description of the ticketing process which took place on one of the vans yesterday here).
If this is repeatedly occurring, can the contractor terminate the agreement early? If not, would this not be worth considering opposed to repeat fines for the same reasons each time (with customers ultimately paying the price due to the lower quality of service received)?
(04 Jun 2014, 6:22 pm)Dan I did not fully understand the given quote, which is why I chose not to include it. I did have a number of different interpretations of what it meant, with the one most sensible (in my eyes) being that the contractor clearly specifies the minimum requirements for the services the tender concerns; as such, the tender can be awarded to the operator who has the cheapest bid, given that it will meet the minimum requirements as set by the contractor.
I note that the invitation to tender for the provision of bus services on behalf on Nexus for July 2014 states clearly:
'Tenders which do not meet the required minimum specification stated herein will NOT be considered.'
I do not believe this is usually the case, as non-conforming tenders were discussed yesterday here. Thankfully, it does seem that Nexus is cracking down on this?
Do we think that the specification is sufficient to provide 'quality' services? I feel in previous tenders, Nexus (and other parties) have been a little lenient with their minimum requirement specifications. However, having read a few documents, I do think that the minimum requirements in terms of quality has been increased. I also think that this is likely to reflect a better passenger experience when the winning operators take over the services next month - provided that the allocated vehicles are to that specification.
In terms of vehicle specification, the tender invitation states that operators have to include:
- the make/type of the vehicles which they intend to use for the service
- whether the vehicles are low-floor or not
- whether the vehicles meet the required total capacity or not
- whether CCTV is fitted to the vehicles or not
- whether two-way communications will be provided or not (radio or mobile telephone)
- whether ticket machines will be used or not, and if not, whether the operator agrees to obtain ticket machines within three months.
I must add that one of Go North East's Volvo B10BLE/Wright Renowns or Scania L94UB/Wright Solars would comply with the above - would we suggest that they provide a 'quality' passenger experience? These vehicles, in my opinion, are more susceptible to breakdowns compared to new Euro 5 vehicles. Obviously smaller operators are less likely to be able to provide these, but larger operators are more likely to be able to provide them.
To keep this on-topic, I will use Compass Community Transport's service 37 as an example.
Assuming that CCT stated that their allocated vehicle for service 37 should have been a Bluebird (which is low floor, meets total capacity for contract, and has a driver who is able to contact depot), the alternative vehicles which have been allocated (Iveco vans) do not seem to tick all of the boxes: the vans are not low floor, I do not believe they have CCTV (but I don't think any of the fleet does) and ticket machines are not used (see my description of the ticketing process which took place on one of the vans yesterday here).
If this is repeatedly occurring, can the contractor terminate the agreement early? If not, would this not be worth considering opposed to repeat fines for the same reasons each time (with customers ultimately paying the price due to the lower quality of service received)?
