North East Buses

(04 Jun 2014, 4:28 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]No idea, but presuming Tfl follow EU legislation, it will fall under the MEAT evaluation.
There is mention of it in that link I gave you earlier, but in summary:

So has Nexus chosen to opt-out of the MEAT evaluation in favour of the 'Lowest price approach'?
I did briefly skim through the document you gave in the link before but it was too word-heavy so I chose not to read it all!

I do note the following re: Lowest Price -

The lowest price approach is generally only suitable for simple procurements for short-term, low-level services or goods of a standard specification, such as some stationery or linen.

Tyresmoke will be able to confirm, but I don't think these are short-term contracts? Some more than others could be described as 'low-level services', but still think services such as the 37/73 do not fall under this bracket.

(04 Jun 2014, 4:31 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]So has Nexus chosen to opt-out of the MEAT evaluation in favour of the 'Lowest price approach'?
I did briefly skim through the document you gave in the link before but it was too word-heavy so I chose not to read it all!

I do note the following re: Lowest Price -

Tyresmoke will be able to confirm, but I don't think these are short-term contracts? Some more than others could be described as 'low-level services', but still think services such as the 37/73 do not fall under this bracket.

You missed out the following from your quote on lowest price contracts.

This approach may also be useful in the procurement of a clearly-specified product, service or works, which has sufficient mandatory aspects that would allow a simple choice on the basis of lowest price.

I have a feeling this could apply in relation to Nexus contracts.

(04 Jun 2014, 4:31 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]So has Nexus chosen to opt-out of the MEAT evaluation in favour of the 'Lowest price approach'?
I did briefly skim through the document you gave in the link before but it was too word-heavy so I chose not to read it all!

I do note the following re: Lowest Price -

Tyresmoke will be able to confirm, but I don't think these are short-term contracts? Some more than others could be described as 'low-level services', but still think services such as the 37/73 do not fall under this bracket.

I can't remember for all of them but majority were 3 year contracts as far as I am aware.

(04 Jun 2014, 4:43 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]You missed out the following from your quote on lowest price contracts.

I have a feeling this could apply in relation to Nexus contracts.

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 wrote [ -> ]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)?

I think the quote could mean a number of things, but have a feeling your interpretation ties in with the ideas of Nexus.

The quote you provided from Nexus, would also tie in with your theory.
Nexus specify the minimum levels expected of them and any bids which do not meet the criteria, are excluded - regardless of the value of the bid.

My opinion of the minimum levels, are that they were not deliberately set to be low at the early stages of the exercise.
They set the bar, operators have not always met or exceeded the bar and as a result, Nexus have decided to raise it.

The point you make about the Solars is interesting and probably goes back to what we were discussing last night, relating to the spare allocations operators have.
However, the Solars and Renowns also have the potential to not meet requirements - based on route suitability.

Re the contractor terminating contracts early - do they stick or twist?
Terminate the contract and scramble around looking for an alternative, that may lead to the same issues?
or...
Open dialogue, remind operators of the contract specifications, fine and if repeated failures/breaches occur, automatically discount them from future contract tenders?

As I said yesterday, it isn't just the independents who breach contracts.
It isn't just independents who are 'advised/requested' to ensure vehicle reliability is sorted either.

(04 Jun 2014, 6:22 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]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)?

The sample Nexus contract I posted some time ago answers most of these questions.

7. FORMAL WARNINGS

Formal Warnings may be issued by Nexus to the Contractor in respect of:-

a. Persistent failure to provide a reliable service.

b. Unreasonable use of damaged and/or dirty buses.

c. Operation of Services in a manner leading to justifiable public complaints.

d. Non observance by the Contractor of any of its obligations or duties specified in any of the Schedules detailed at Appendix A to this Agreement

8. TERMINATION

If more than three warnings are given in any twelve months period, Nexus will have the right to terminate the Agreement without notice. For the purpose of this clause if Nexus issues a breach notice in accordance with Clause 13(3) of this Agreement, and the Contractor remedies the breach, it will be counted as a Formal Warning.

Regarding point d. Appendix A contains the seven schedules, which include service spec, vehicle and driver spec, fares, etc.

7b...






Appreciate they're a charity and all, but not only does this present Go North East in a bad light (evening/Sunday operation of service 38), it also presents Nexus in a bad light.

I am not surprised they have seemingly lost a lot of work this time around.

(04 Jun 2014, 7:50 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Appreciate they're a charity and all, but not only does this present Go North East in a bad light (evening/Sunday operation of service 38), it also presents Nexus in a bad light.

I am not surprised they have seemingly lost a lot of work this time around.

I'm not surprised at the loss of work, but if we wanted to talk about vehicles that are overdue a wash, we could potentially be here all week.

(04 Jun 2014, 7:50 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]7b...






Appreciate they're a charity and all, but not only does this present Go North East in a bad light (evening/Sunday operation of service 38), it also presents Nexus in a bad light.

I am not surprised they have seemingly lost a lot of work this time around.

I have Seven Photos of the Compass Fleet with Dirt all over them dating back to 18th December 2012, Clearly Nexus have let this Issue with Compass slide for the Past 18 Months, As Between me and you Dan there is 11 Cases of "Point B", and no doubt many more among other Enthusiasts, But no doubt this a Daily Occurance.

(04 Jun 2014, 8:07 pm)NEBCD Malarkey wrote [ -> ]I have Seven Photos of the Compass Fleet with Dirt all over them dating back to 18th December 2012, Clearly Nexus have let this Issue with Compass slide for the Past 18 Months, As Between me and you Dan there is 11 Cases of "Point B", and no doubt many more among other Enthusiasts, But no doubt this a Daily Occurance.

They have. There's absolutely no doubt about it in compass' case. It's not just the cleanliness though. It's vehicles, reliability, and failing to have the required equipment on top of that. The 23 saga went on far too long in my opinion.

(04 Jun 2014, 8:11 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]They have. There's absolutely no doubt about it in compass' case. It's not just the cleanliness though. It's vehicles, reliability, and failing to have the required equipment on top of that. The 23 saga went on far too long in my opinion.

It's shocking to be fair - I'd be embarrassed if I sent out a bus looking like that. Aye, the 23 problems were shocking, Phoenix provide an outstanding service, as they do on every service they operate, and take pride in their fleet.

(04 Jun 2014, 8:11 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]They have. There's absolutely no doubt about it in compass' case. It's not just the cleanliness though. It's vehicles, reliability, and failing to have the required equipment on top of that. The 23 saga went on far too long in my opinion.

Don't forget my lovely 37 and 8X, which is still ongoing! Was tempted to go out for a photo of the 8X tonight just to see the allocation (given that I haven't had an update from the enthusiast I mentioned for a while), but decided to give it a miss.

(04 Jun 2014, 7:50 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]7b...






Appreciate they're a charity and all, but not only does this present Go North East in a bad light (evening/Sunday operation of service 38), it also presents Nexus in a bad light.

I am not surprised they have seemingly lost a lot of work this time around.

I noticed the Solo on the 79 as I followed it along Golf Course Road last week. It was filthy.

As for the Cadet, nowt a few spray flaps wouldn't fix.
The main part of the vehicle is clean on each of your photo's - apart from behind each of the wheel arches.

(04 Jun 2014, 8:17 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Don't forget my lovely 37 and 8X, which is still ongoing! Was tempted to go out for a photo of the 8X tonight just to see the allocation (given that I haven't had an update from the enthusiast I mentioned for a while), but decided to give it a miss.

You should write to Nexus and request the info from them. They should hand it over no problems at all, but if not, ask them to handle it as an FOI. Mind you, I wonder how many people complain directly to the bus company about the bus, rather than to Nexus? With secured services I always made a point of going to Nexus directly about it.

(04 Jun 2014, 8:19 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]I noticed the Solo on the 79 as I followed it along Golf Course Road last week. It was filthy.

As for the Cadet, nowt a few spray flaps wouldn't fix.
The main part of the vehicle is clean on each of your photo's - apart from behind each of the wheel arches.

Other operators are still operating much cleaner vehicles on Nexus-secured services (also in Nexus livery - something which seems to have gone a miss in the tender spec this time around?)...






One more.. can't resist..

(04 Jun 2014, 8:25 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Other operators are still operating much cleaner vehicles on Nexus-secured services (also in Nexus livery - something which seems to have gone a miss in the tender spec this time around?)...






One more.. can't resist..

A lot of it depends on time of year too though. Winter time will always be worse with the amount of spray/salt on the roads.

(04 Jun 2014, 8:28 pm)tyresmoke wrote [ -> ]A lot of it depends on time of year too though. Winter time will always be worse with the amount of spray/salt on the roads.

I don't think any of the photographs I showed above were taken in winter-time, most being in the summer months but with one or two around February/March too iirc.
The top photo of the Compass Cadet was November, but it had been fairly pleasant if my memory serves.

(04 Jun 2014, 8:30 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]I don't think any of the photographs I showed above were taken in winter-time, most being in the summer months but with one or two around February/March too iirc.
The top photo of the Compass Cadet was November, but it had been fairly pleasant if my memory serves.

I'm not defending a bus looking like that on the exterior, but perhaps it's more visible on a white bus than it is on the grey examples you posted? Another two you've taken of white buses:

Exterior shot of Go North East's 563, Transbus MPD/Transbus Mini Pointer by danielgrahamm, on Flickr

Exterior shot of A-LINE's T601JBA, Dennis Dart SLF/Marshall Capital by danielgrahamm, on Flickr

(04 Jun 2014, 8:43 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]I'm not defending a bus looking like that on the exterior, but perhaps it's more visible on a white bus than it is on the grey examples you posted? Another two you've taken of white buses:

Exterior shot of Go North East's 563, Transbus MPD/Transbus Mini Pointer by danielgrahamm, on Flickr

Exterior shot of A-LINE's T601JBA, Dennis Dart SLF/Marshall Capital by danielgrahamm, on Flickr

Perhaps if Compass' fleet were in Nexus livery, we wouldn't have this issue then..?

Both of those vehicles were pictured looking rather more worse for wear than usual. I'm guessing there was some sort of muck on the road judging by the photo of 563...

I've just searched for more photos of 563 and that is by far the dirtiest of them all; indeed, excluding one other photo, I think 563 is fairly clean on all the photos whilst in white.

(04 Jun 2014, 8:43 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]I'm not defending a bus looking like that on the exterior, but perhaps it's more visible on a white bus than it is on the grey examples you posted? Another two you've taken of white buses:

Exterior shot of Go North East's 563, Transbus MPD/Transbus Mini Pointer by danielgrahamm, on Flickr

Exterior shot of A-LINE's T601JBA, Dennis Dart SLF/Marshall Capital by danielgrahamm, on Flickr

That M1 looks shockingly filthy :p
Same with the white van from the papershop!