(03 Jun 2014, 10:25 pm)Dan wrote The expectation should be zero? In an ideal world, perhaps. In reality; vehicles will always break down, there will often be traffic issues, and unforeseen VORs can often lead to depots struggling a lot more than usual (indeed there was one period last year where both of Deptford's "Nexus" branded Solos were VOR for quite some time).

I could be completely wrong, but I'm sure the level of non-compliance fines will be higher for the likes of CCT/GCT when taking into account the number of contracts operated. eezypeazy did mention this in the thread you made originally.

Yes - the internal expectation should be zero.

If you bid for a contract that has an expectation of zero instances of non-compliance (as outlined in ITT documentation), then the contractors own expectation should be no different. As far as Nexus are concerned, the contractor has agreed they can do the work to a required standard. I doubt they could give a monkey's chuff about how many vehicles the contractor has off the road etc. That's the contractors problem, and they should have continuity planning around it.

(03 Jun 2014, 10:35 pm)aureolin wrote Yes - the internal expectation should be zero.

If you bid for a contract that has an expectation of zero instances of non-compliance (as outlined in ITT documentation), then the contractors own expectation should be no different. As far as Nexus are concerned, the contractor has agreed they can do the work to a required standard. I doubt they could give a monkey's chuff about how many vehicles the contractor has off the road etc. That's the contractors problem, and they should have continuity planning around it.

Wasn't it said that Nexus-secured services have 'optimistic' timings? When those timings are a little less 'optimistic', then perhaps traffic won't be such an issue and operators stand more of a chance of being able to stick to time and/or not have to run light to make up time. Maybe then we can look forward to zero expected instances of fines.

(03 Jun 2014, 10:28 pm)Dan wrote I can't do anything other than repeat myself, and as I'm sure you've read my posts, I shan't.

Regarding fleet size - should we not be looking at spare vehicle percentage at each depot (or overall company) opposed to the fleet size in total? I'm not aware of any documents available on the public domain that do allow us to have such information, though. We must remember that Go North East often don't have control of this, as Go-Ahead will set group targets in which operators do have to comply. If they set a target of 12% spare vehicles at each depot, Percy Main can't be having 18%...

Not sure what you mean by the first bit of your post or which part of my post you are referring to...

As for the second bit, why spare vehicle percentage?
Genuine question.

Compass spare vehicle allocation will be miniscule compared to say GNE's.
The chances of a Compass spare vehicle meeting Nexus spec is smaller than one of GNE's meeting the spec.

So in theory, each time a Compass vehicle is off the road for whatever reason, the chances of obtaining a fine is greatly increased.

GNE, despite having a bigger fleet within a specific depot and whatever the dedicated percentage of spare vehicles is (of which a percentage will meet Nexus spec), they still manage to incur fines on a regular basis.

(03 Jun 2014, 10:38 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Not sure what you mean by the first bit of your post or which part of my post you are referring to...

As for the second bit, why spare vehicle percentage?
Genuine question.

Compass spare vehicle allocation will be miniscule compared to say GNE's.
The chances of a Compass spare vehicle meeting Nexus spec is smaller than one of GNE's meeting the spec.

So in theory, each time a Compass vehicle is off the road for whatever reason, the chances of obtaining a fine is greatly increased.

GNE, despite having a bigger fleet within a specific depot and whatever the dedicated percentage of spare vehicles is (of which a percentage will meet Nexus spec), they still manage to incur fines on a regular basis.

It's really getting on and as I'm typing all of this from my phone, I'm in no position to start quoting above posts in the middle of this post and all that malarkey.

Using the overall amount of vehicles in the fleet would be a silly figure to go from, in my opinion. When the majority of those vehicles are occupied on normal commercial work or other contracted services, they're not available in the depot for use on the contracted service which requires a vehicle because its usual allocation is VOR.

And if Compass' spare vehicle percentage is miniscule compared to that of the larger operators, why are they being trusted to operate services on behalf of Nexus? Does that not immediately suggest the service quality will be lower, some journeys will be missed due to no vehicles being available, etc?

Great - just what we want. Extra money in Nexus' back pocket because they want to give the contract to the lowest bidder no matter what the quality will be as a result.

(03 Jun 2014, 10:44 pm)Dan wrote It's really getting on and as I'm typing all of this from my phone, I'm in no position to start quoting above posts in the middle of this post and all that malarkey.

Using the overall amount of vehicles in the fleet would be a silly figure to go from, in my opinion. When the majority of those vehicles are occupied on normal commercial work or other contracted services, they're not available in the depot for use on the contracted service which requires a vehicle because its usual allocation is VOR.

And if Compass' spare vehicle percentage is miniscule compared to that of the larger operators, why are they being trusted to operate services on behalf of Nexus? Does that not immediately suggest the service quality will be lower, some journeys will be missed due to no vehicles being available, etc?

Great - just what we want. Extra money in Nexus' back pocket because they want to give the contract to the lowest bidder no matter what the quality will be as a result.

Isn't EU law that the tender goes to the lowest bidder? Nexus may love the bid to go to an operator providing a bid which is much higher - they can't if it is the case re EU law. Their hands are tied.

For all we know, Compass have put their bid in, based on a new vehicle arriving in the depot - either on hire or bought outright, for the deal to fall through, the vehicle to suffer mechanical failure or a whole host of other reasons.

Suppose it isn't that different to GNE bidding for a stack of DCC contracts 10yrs ago and having to acquire deckers from all over the shop in order to fulfill the deal.
There were issues with those acquired vehicles and fortunately, alternatives (although extremely unreliable) were available.

(03 Jun 2014, 10:54 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Isn't EU law that the tender goes to the lowest bidder? Nexus may love the bid to go to an operator providing a bid which is much higher - they can't if it is the case re EU law. Their hands are tied.[/b]

For all we know, Compass have put their bid in, based on a new vehicle arriving in the depot - either on hire or bought outright, for the deal to fall through, the vehicle to suffer mechanical failure or a whole host of other reasons.

Suppose it isn't that different to GNE bidding for a stack of DCC contracts 10yrs ago and having to acquire deckers from all over the shop in order to fulfill the deal.
There were issues with those acquired vehicles and fortunately, alternatives (although extremely unreliable) were available.

I personally hadn't realised that? Does seem like quite a silly law unless you know the reasoning behind it..?

(04 Jun 2014, 5:50 am)Dan wrote I personally hadn't realised that? Does seem like quite a silly law unless you know the reasoning behind it..?

Neither did I, until seeing it on here and hearing about it elsewhere.
Presumably the aim is to increase competition in the private sector, whilst lowering costs in the public sector.

Get your teeth around this: http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-386-8761?se...blicsector#

(04 Jun 2014, 6:15 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Neither did I, until seeing it on here and hearing about it elsewhere.
Presumably the aim is to increase competition in the private sector, whilst lowering costs in the public sector.

Get your teeth around this: http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-386-8761?se...blicsector#

Ta - will have a look later when I'm back on the laptop and more awake!

(04 Jun 2014, 6:15 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Neither did I, until seeing it on here and hearing about it elsewhere.
Presumably the aim is to increase competition in the private sector, whilst lowering costs in the public sector.

Get your teeth around this: http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-386-8761?se...blicsector#

Out of interest, do you know if this differs in London?

The results of all tender competitions are published on the TfL website, including the identity of the winner, the number of bids, the value of the winning bid and, where relevant, the reason for not selecting the lowest cost bid.

Source: http://sti-india-uttoolkit.adb.org/mod3/se3/005_2.html

Judging by the above quote, the lowest cost bid is not always selected by TfL.

(04 Jun 2014, 4:21 pm)Dan wrote Out of interest, do you know if this differs in London?

Source: http://sti-india-uttoolkit.adb.org/mod3/se3/005_2.html

Judging by the above quote, the lowest cost bid is not always selected by TfL.

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:

Most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) approach

A balance between quality and cost

Once an authority has determined that it is appropriate to use the MEAT approach to evaluate the tenders for its procurement, it needs to decide the weighting split between quality and price (or cost). In a MEAT evaluation, the quality and price scores are converted into percentages in accordance with the pre-set weightings to create a combined score that should identify the successful bidder.

(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!