Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
La Liga said:
Large organisations have wastage and inefficiencies. The common demonstrator is that people create wastage and inefficiencies.
In the public sector I worked with incompetents, but they knew that as long as they didn't do anything which was either gross misconduct or criminal, they had jobs for life. In the private sector, make a costly mistake, and chances are you were being handed your P45.
Maybe that's where the difference lies?
omegac said:
Derek...Just to add, in case you're not aware, Chief Medical Officer advice is now just that, advice.
I know because my wife had been put on certain duties by the CMO after suffering a minor stroke in January, yesterday she was informed that her management (obviously all qualified doctors) have decided she is fit to go back to full duties.
It was heading that way when I was there but I never thought it would happen.I know because my wife had been put on certain duties by the CMO after suffering a minor stroke in January, yesterday she was informed that her management (obviously all qualified doctors) have decided she is fit to go back to full duties.
I was assessed by three doctors who all came to more or less the same conclusion. The force hired their own who didn't examine me and came to the conclusion that the others were all wrong. I (via the fed) appealed and again three people, all non-specialists, decided the specialists were talking rubbish.
The fed then went via legal means and got things sorted - no wonder Cameron and May want to destroy it. It's what bullies do.
I'm ever so sorry for your wife. I hope things turn out well for the pair of you.
Just what you need when you are convalescing.
omegac said:
Valid point, and one I was trying to think of a counter argument for and can't. The only thought that came to my mind is maybe the difference, public vs private, is what happens to the staff that makes those mistakes?
In the public sector I worked with incompetents, but they knew that as long as they didn't do anything which was either gross misconduct or criminal, they had jobs for life. In the private sector, make a costly mistake, and chances are you were being handed your P45.
Maybe that's where the difference lies?
I think the difference is one of strategic risk. You can make an awful strategic decision in the public sector and you'll never go out of business because it's not going to harm the non-existent profit. Big, costly IT failures come to mind. Nor are there opportunity costs when it comes to finances in the same way. In the public sector I worked with incompetents, but they knew that as long as they didn't do anything which was either gross misconduct or criminal, they had jobs for life. In the private sector, make a costly mistake, and chances are you were being handed your P45.
Maybe that's where the difference lies?
La Liga said:
think the difference is one of strategic risk. You can make an awful strategic decision in the public sector and you'll never go out of business because it's not going to harm the non-existent profit. Big, costly IT failures come to mind. Nor are there opportunity costs when it comes to finances in the same way.
We went for an extension to an existing CCTV set-up. Tenders were sent out and we had a number of takers, one of which was considerably lower than the rest. Obviously we did not want to touch that one and instead go with the original team which did an excellent job. However, rules, not those made by the police, but those in control of them, are rules and we picked the tender that was cheapest. We had penalty clauses but they had lawyers. We wanted a new IT system. We again put out tenders and again we, as we had to, accepted the lowest bidder. On paper it looked good. What happened was failure. The contractors then negotiated a deal as, had we refused to be flexible, they would have gone bust and we would have been left with a useless system, rather than one which had to be rebooted every day - that was an improvement.
To give the company its due, they put an office in the building, staffed with a number of people full time, and with lots of machines. It must have cost them a fortune, although probably not as much as us.
The problem with the police is that they have to follow the rules, which are not theirs, are not sensible, and when it all goes wrong they get the blame.
I've read in Private Eye that some public sector contracts have been a total waste of money but, from the two I know about and was involved with (post contracts being signed) the service did not want to accept either bid but, because it was public money, those with little care about the outcome limited sensible choice.
Actually three I was involved with. PFI, now there was a massive waste of money for the department I was in. When we had a meeting of top and middle managers, the first thing the chap in charge stated was that his ability to influence the contract was limited. He had no flexibility and that there was no point in putting forward sensible suggestions and there was nothing he could do. We all knew, as the bloke in charge knew, that it would be a massive waste of money. But we were wrong, I have since been told. All our plans were based on the work load going up slowly over the years. But, with the >20% cut to funding, the demand has dropped significantly. Yet the job still has to pay nearly the same amount of money (there was a clause to give some flexibility) despite the PFI company being able to sack a third of its staff. So a bigger than massive waste of money.
I suppose the public sector will get the blame there as well.
Derek Smith said:
Stuff about contracts.
Surely if you have written your requirements down fully and got correct specifications for the job the cheapest bidder will be just as good as the highest?They have to deliver what you asked for, if they don't it is your fault and nobody elses.
ETA I would also expect you to check that the person/company bidding is actually capable of delivering before accepting the bid.
Edited by NoNeed on Monday 26th May 21:22
NoNeed said:
Derek Smith said:
Stuff about contracts.
Surely if you have written your requirements down fully and got correct specifications for the job the cheapest bidder will be just as good as the highest?They have to deliver what you asked for, if they don't it is your fault and nobody elses.
ETA I would also expect you to check that the person/company bidding is actually capable of delivering before accepting the bid.
Edited by NoNeed on Monday 26th May 21:22
Dangerous ground letting a contract to a supplier where said contract could bankrupt the supplier, pre-qualification should avoid that.
Rovinghawk said:
If the work is done according to contract/specification but is nevertheless unsuitable for purpose, then surely the contract has not been written properly?
Any fault is therefore with the procurer rather than the supplier.
Depends on the contract and the specification. Design and build places a responsibility for design on the contractor, as do several other forms of contract.Any fault is therefore with the procurer rather than the supplier.
Perhaps when the police fed bloke said 'that woman', he didn't mean Theresa May?:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2649035/Th...
I don't suppose they could do the job they're supposed to be doing rather than playing politics?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2649035/Th...
I don't suppose they could do the job they're supposed to be doing rather than playing politics?
Well who's running for the leadership? May or her Spin Doctor?
Did Fiona Cunningham write May's BIC speech to the Fed?
When we elect MPs are we picking a sales Rep. with the real work and substance done behind? They're like Avon representatives but for political parties rather than lippy?
Did Fiona Cunningham write May's BIC speech to the Fed?
When we elect MPs are we picking a sales Rep. with the real work and substance done behind? They're like Avon representatives but for political parties rather than lippy?
V8 Fettler said:
Depends on the contract and the specification. Design and build places a responsibility for design on the contractor, as do several other forms of contract.
We wanted a hard-wired system but, because of the demand to go for the cheapest option, we had to go for wi-fi. We knew the system would not be as good as the existing type but, because we had to go for the cheapest, we went for the cheapest.The suggestion that the police drafted the tender is wrong. We got a professional to do it, one who knew the limitations imposed by the government. Had we not done so then there is little doubt that someone would have seen the non-compliance and had we not picked them, they would have sued.
Whilst I take on board the universally superior knowledge on all matters relating to the police service by one of the posters on here (no having a dig a V8F) I am aware that the professionals we brought in were very good at their job but they could not allow us to put forward a spec sheet that limited the applicants' ability to tender. It is the law so the police had to follow it. The fact that this meant we could not get the type of system we wanted was just one of those thing.
Obviously not suggesting anything against the contractor who supplied the quote for the job I'm talking about, but another outside-sourced job I was involved in, we were told that the penalty clauses we wanted in the contract would be easy to sidestep and so they proved. It wasn't so much that we'd done anything wrong, I mean other than leave a gap that the contractor could exploit. If we did invoke it then there would have been a counter claim and we'd end up paying the same amount of money whatever the decision.
Derek Smith said:
We wanted a hard-wired system but, because of the demand to go for the cheapest option, we had to go for wi-fi. We knew the system would not be as good as the existing type but, because we had to go for the cheapest, we went for the cheapest.
You wanted a hard wired system why not just get quotes for a hard wired system? Why get quotes for something you don't want?You didn't get the cheapest quote for a hard wired system what you probably got was most probably an expensive WiFi system.
I see that as wanting a police van yet buying a bicycle, surely if you went up top with three quotes for a hard wired system it is easy to pick the cheapest.
NoNeed said:
Derek Smith said:
We wanted a hard-wired system but, because of the demand to go for the cheapest option, we had to go for wi-fi. We knew the system would not be as good as the existing type but, because we had to go for the cheapest, we went for the cheapest.
You wanted a hard wired system why not just get quotes for a hard wired system? Why get quotes for something you don't want?You didn't get the cheapest quote for a hard wired system what you probably got was most probably an expensive WiFi system.
I see that as wanting a police van yet buying a bicycle, surely if you went up top with three quotes for a hard wired system it is easy to pick the cheapest.
XCP said:
They wanted a system. It had to be the cheapest.
They couldn't afford one so got the other.
is, of course, the answer. Although not the complete one. They couldn't afford one so got the other.
The police cannot just go for the best system out there, or even the system that best suits their purpose. They have to go for the cheapest. It wasn't so much that we couldn't afford the better system, as the increase in price was irritatingly low, but that we were forbidden by regulations so we couldn't just pay a bit more. If just a couple of receivers had to be moved, or additional ones placed, because of, for instance, new buildings or long term construction work, then the price would have been all but the same. But arguments did not so much fall on deaf ears as never reached them.
Sooner or later the government will go for centralised purchasing, despite it costing forces more. Further, the choice of, for instance, vehicles will hardly be extensive and forces will have to pay more for vehicles that do not completely suit their purpose. Some private company, probably one with a G, a 4 and an S in its name if history is anything to go by, will get the contract and you and I, the public, will read how much money the move has saved and the voice of the forces will be unheard. And we'll be conned again.
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
Depends on the contract and the specification. Design and build places a responsibility for design on the contractor, as do several other forms of contract.
We wanted a hard-wired system but, because of the demand to go for the cheapest option, we had to go for wi-fi. We knew the system would not be as good as the existing type but, because we had to go for the cheapest, we went for the cheapest.The suggestion that the police drafted the tender is wrong. We got a professional to do it, one who knew the limitations imposed by the government. Had we not done so then there is little doubt that someone would have seen the non-compliance and had we not picked them, they would have sued.
Whilst I take on board the universally superior knowledge on all matters relating to the police service by one of the posters on here (no having a dig a V8F) I am aware that the professionals we brought in were very good at their job but they could not allow us to put forward a spec sheet that limited the applicants' ability to tender. It is the law so the police had to follow it. The fact that this meant we could not get the type of system we wanted was just one of those thing.
Obviously not suggesting anything against the contractor who supplied the quote for the job I'm talking about, but another outside-sourced job I was involved in, we were told that the penalty clauses we wanted in the contract would be easy to sidestep and so they proved. It wasn't so much that we'd done anything wrong, I mean other than leave a gap that the contractor could exploit. If we did invoke it then there would have been a counter claim and we'd end up paying the same amount of money whatever the decision.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff