Carrilion in trouble

[sgtBerbatov]

NDA said:

crankedup said:

Outgoings outpacing income e dry month. Slow income on major projects. = £964 million short .
They are considering a call on shareholders to help bolster the finances. Company has been low balling major projects for years, using cheap labour and outing perfectly good decent companies with thier cheapo substitutes with people on rubbish money. Now it seems the business model is unravelling.
Chickens and roosting coms to mind.

Seems you called it right back in November.

Those in the industry knew that Carillion were in trouble. Plenty of law firms dealing in construction matters - well the good ones anyway - had been warning their clients off of using Carillion in the last few months.

Why? Well like rats off a sinking ship, Hedge Fund managers don't like putting their money in to companies that are going to go bump.

[frankenstein12]

IroningMan said:

voyds9 said:

Yes as soon as we've sent him on a weeks course to learn how to use a mop, another weeks course on the various safety courses, then a final week for a COHSH assessment of the chemicals used.
Then rinse and repeat for using a paint brush, climbing a ladder, use of pesticides, use of gardening implants etc for all the other handyman jobs.
Certification to be repeated on an annual basis.

Training people in the skills they need to do their jobs is generally a good thing. Senior managers at Carillion might even have benefitted from more of it.

Doubtit very much as the training itself is mostly what has partly led to this sorry situation IMHO.

[frankenstein12]

aeropilot said:

Countdown said:

In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

The problem is, accountants rule, and they are always willing to spend £5 to justify and prove a saving of 50p.

Incorrect. Very incorrect. As a rule there are checks and balances to these sort of contracts. Unfortunately often when the Civil service sign the contracts they fail to even read the terms quite literally.

As an example when I write a bid for my company to do an installation I give a detailed description of what is going to happen. So on one project we stated we would install a certain amount of outlets within a room. It was there clear as day in black adn white on the bid proposal.

They accepted our bid and we attended site and carried out the job. They then turned around and got very uppity and stated that we had not installed the right amount of sockets and demanded we install the ones we had "missed". We pointed out that we had stated how many were to be installed on the bid proposal and they then went quiet and said they would get back to us.

When they got back to us they stated they hadn't read the proposal previously they had simply looked at the cost and asked if we could install the extras while on site.

I have become aware its quite common.

[frankenstein12]

Sa Calobra said:

Changing a bulb needing a cherry picker may take alot more than £75 but how many bulbs are there at regular heights that go pop?...

Interserve/Carrillion/Amey etc grew on the back if outsourcing. Nothing will change though. It'll go straight out to tender again.

Birmingham council is currently fighting Amey through the courts over their road repairs and struggling with Capitas new IT systems.

Edited by Sa Calobra on Thursday 18th January 08:26

Not actually the case. I am hearing whispers of change of some public sector stuff that was covered by Carillion going back inhouse.

[eccles]

Harry Biscuit said:

HID lamps at height are usually replaced under bulk maintenance programmes (i.e. all lamps in a given area one after the other).

Spot replacement might not affect the lighting levels if this has been taken into account at design stage.

Maintenance is rarely considered properly in such installations though. Even when the box is ticked.

In our place they have a minimum number of either four or six (I can't remember which) bulbs that have to be gone before they change them, and then they only change the ones that are gone.

[V8 Fettler]

frankenstein12 said:

aeropilot said:

Countdown said:

In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

The problem is, accountants rule, and they are always willing to spend £5 to justify and prove a saving of 50p.

Incorrect. Very incorrect. As a rule there are checks and balances to these sort of contracts. Unfortunately often when the Civil service sign the contracts they fail to even read the terms quite literally.

As an example when I write a bid for my company to do an installation I give a detailed description of what is going to happen. So on one project we stated we would install a certain amount of outlets within a room. It was there clear as day in black adn white on the bid proposal.

They accepted our bid and we attended site and carried out the job. They then turned around and got very uppity and stated that we had not installed the right amount of sockets and demanded we install the ones we had "missed". We pointed out that we had stated how many were to be installed on the bid proposal and they then went quiet and said they would get back to us.

When they got back to us they stated they hadn't read the proposal previously they had simply looked at the cost and asked if we could install the extras while on site.

I have become aware its quite common.

Did the customer's specification state the number of outlets? Or was it a performance spec?

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Random, spotted on Twitter, but made me laugh:

[frankenstein12]

V8 Fettler said:

frankenstein12 said:

aeropilot said:

Countdown said:

In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

The problem is, accountants rule, and they are always willing to spend £5 to justify and prove a saving of 50p.

Incorrect. Very incorrect. As a rule there are checks and balances to these sort of contracts. Unfortunately often when the Civil service sign the contracts they fail to even read the terms quite literally.

As an example when I write a bid for my company to do an installation I give a detailed description of what is going to happen. So on one project we stated we would install a certain amount of outlets within a room. It was there clear as day in black adn white on the bid proposal.

They accepted our bid and we attended site and carried out the job. They then turned around and got very uppity and stated that we had not installed the right amount of sockets and demanded we install the ones we had "missed". We pointed out that we had stated how many were to be installed on the bid proposal and they then went quiet and said they would get back to us.

When they got back to us they stated they hadn't read the proposal previously they had simply looked at the cost and asked if we could install the extras while on site.

I have become aware its quite common.

Did the customer's specification state the number of outlets? Or was it a performance spec?

I cannot really remember it could have been the customer fked up at original survey or it could even be our surveyor made a mistake. Neither makes any difference as they agreed the bid. It was stated on the bid how many outlets would be installed and where.

If there was a mistake made by our surveyor the customer should have picked it up and requested a rectification on receiving our proposal rather than simply glancing at the price and accepting the bid.

[Countdown]

frankenstein12 said:

aeropilot said:

Countdown said:

In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

The problem is, accountants rule, and they are always willing to spend £5 to justify and prove a saving of 50p.

Incorrect. Very incorrect. As a rule there are checks and balances to these sort of contracts. Unfortunately often when the Civil service sign the contracts they fail to even read the terms quite literally.

I'm not saying that "CivService not reading contracts" doesn't happen. However I can state from personal experience that FM providers regularly (both knowingly and through carelessness) submit incorrect/fraudulent invoices. That includes mutliple invoicing for the same work, invoicing for work that hasn't been carried out, and arguing that work is outside of the contract when it patently isn't.

For example "Kitchen to be deep cleaned once every 2 weeks" doesn't mean come in and give it a quick mop and wipe down. But they hope that nobody checks, and if somebody checks then deny and obfuscate. Or when providing catering services to a secure unit. or providing Double Waking Night Cover to a Bail Hostel - Provide half a service and bill for the whole amount.

[frankenstein12]

Countdown said:

frankenstein12 said:

aeropilot said:

Countdown said:

In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

The problem is, accountants rule, and they are always willing to spend £5 to justify and prove a saving of 50p.

Incorrect. Very incorrect. As a rule there are checks and balances to these sort of contracts. Unfortunately often when the Civil service sign the contracts they fail to even read the terms quite literally.

I'm not saying that "CivService not reading contracts" doesn't happen. However I can state from personal experience that FM providers regularly (both knowingly and through carelessness) submit incorrect/fraudulent invoices. That includes mutliple invoicing for the same work, invoicing for work that hasn't been carried out, and arguing that work is outside of the contract when it patently isn't.

For example "Kitchen to be deep cleaned once every 2 weeks" doesn't mean come in and give it a quick mop and wipe down. But they hope that nobody checks, and if somebody checks then deny and obfuscate. Or when providing catering services to a secure unit. or providing Double Waking Night Cover to a Bail Hostel - Provide half a service and bill for the whole amount.

Certainly I expect that happens quite a bit and frankly where that is concerned I do believe the firm should face very serious consequences for breach of contract by losing the contract and being barred from bidding on future Public Sector contracts if serious enough.

Where we make mistakes we accept them and pay to fix them. If we are paid to do a job we do it.

[iphonedyou]

Vocal Minority said:

If this leads to a world where a public tender is at least equally weighted between cost and quality I am all for it.

Generally 60 / 40 in favour of quality this neck of the woods. Have seen as high as 80 / 20 quality / price.

Unfortunately when it comes to assessment and moderation, the fear of challenge during standstill is so strong, and their ability to defend so poor, that the prevailing advice is 'full marks unless you absolutely have to drop marks'.

And, when everybody scores full marks, it matters not whether it's 60 / 40 or 30 / 70.

Behind every one of these contract awards to Carillion will be a team of private sector consultants vainly warning the contracting authority that it's not a great idea despite what their award metrics say. Madness.

Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 18th January 19:25

[iphonedyou]

crankedup said:

Ever wished you you could turn back time

I know it’s mean but as you pulled me on a spelling error it’s worthy!

Stand by my original statement; they weren't low balling projects for the fun of it. Obviously.

[crankedup]

^^^^^
I notice you left out the part of your post which contradicts my ‘chickens coming home to roost’. As much to say that I was wrong to start a thread regarding the business, own up, you gave me a small mouthful and you are wrong.
Also good for you to stand by your opinion regarding low balling on tenders. Obviously you have no idea about this Company and the damage sustained by its management model.
Do you really want a bigger shovel?

[crankedup]

V8 Fettler said:

Countdown said:

V8 Fettler said:

Does no-one on the client's team read and understand the proposed contract before the contract award stage? For contracts of a larger value, does not the client write the contract?

Lots of different reasons/issues.

In some cases the contracts are read by Civil Servants who weren't necessarily property or FM experts. In many other cases the services provided by the in-house staff wasn't fully identified or appreciated so, for example, Geoff the caretaker might do what was in his Job Description but over the last 30 years he's informally taken on a wide range of other jobs which nobody identified when the contract was being written. Or assumed it was covered under "General maintenance". Then there was the "one size fits all" approach where the contract might be appropriate for a City centre Hospital but not necessarily for a village clinic.

And all of the above is before you take into account the fact that the Outsourcer will use the cheapest staff, minimum headcount to provide as little of the contracted service as possible. Some of the subcontractors they sent us would be excellent and would be shocked at how much we were paying the Putsourcer compared with what the Outsourcer was paying them. And gradually none of the decent subbies would work for them which meant they would subcontract to "Gibbering Buffoon & Son" which then introduced another layer of fraud and incompetence into the mix.

These people shouldn't be involved in the procurement process.

Then who should?

[aeropilot]

frankenstein12 said:

aeropilot said:

Countdown said:

In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

The problem is, accountants rule, and they are always willing to spend £5 to justify and prove a saving of 50p.

Incorrect. Very incorrect. As a rule there are checks and balances to these sort of contracts. Unfortunately often when the Civil service sign the contracts they fail to even read the terms quite literally.

As an example when I write a bid for my company to do an installation I give a detailed description of what is going to happen. So on one project we stated we would install a certain amount of outlets within a room. It was there clear as day in black adn white on the bid proposal.

They accepted our bid and we attended site and carried out the job. They then turned around and got very uppity and stated that we had not installed the right amount of sockets and demanded we install the ones we had "missed". We pointed out that we had stated how many were to be installed on the bid proposal and they then went quiet and said they would get back to us.

When they got back to us they stated they hadn't read the proposal previously they had simply looked at the cost and asked if we could install the extras while on site.

That's not the sort of thing I was referring to with my comment, which I still stand by, after nearly 40 years in the business.

[iphonedyou]

crankedup said:

^^^^^
I notice you left out the part of your post which contradicts my ‘chickens coming home to roost’. As much to say that I was wrong to start a thread regarding the business, own up, you gave me a small mouthful and you are wrong.
Also good for you to stand by your opinion regarding low balling on tenders. Obviously you have no idea about this Company and the damage sustained by its management model.
Do you really want a bigger shovel?

I genuinely - really, genuinely - haven't a scooby what you're on about.

Enjoy your evening, and keep your shovel. You'll likely need it if you reply.

[crankedup]

iphonedyou said:

crankedup said:

^^^^^
I notice you left out the part of your post which contradicts my ‘chickens coming home to roost’. As much to say that I was wrong to start a thread regarding the business, own up, you gave me a small mouthful and you are wrong.
Also good for you to stand by your opinion regarding low balling on tenders. Obviously you have no idea about this Company and the damage sustained by its management model.
Do you really want a bigger shovel?

I genuinely - really, genuinely - haven't a scooby what you're on about.

Enjoy your evening, and keep your shovel. You'll likely need it if you reply.

It’s patently obvious you don’t have a clue. Top marks for being the only person on the thread and elsewhere outside of this forum to have sympathy for carillion’s low balling. When I. entioned the chickens coming home to roost for them you seem to take the opposite pov denigrating my comments. You were and still are patently wrong in your assertions but perfectly at liberty of course to maintain your position. However, some justifications for your position would be interesting.

[Welshbeef]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/...

Another company which buys contracts and then tries to vary up the charge base to the client.

These 3 companies always go super cheap on pricing that’s the correlation. Buying contracts and buying car too many = sooner or later they lost the profitable contracts which erodes the weighted average margin.

[V8 Fettler]

frankenstein12 said:

V8 Fettler said:

frankenstein12 said:

aeropilot said:

Countdown said:

In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

The problem is, accountants rule, and they are always willing to spend £5 to justify and prove a saving of 50p.

Incorrect. Very incorrect. As a rule there are checks and balances to these sort of contracts. Unfortunately often when the Civil service sign the contracts they fail to even read the terms quite literally.

As an example when I write a bid for my company to do an installation I give a detailed description of what is going to happen. So on one project we stated we would install a certain amount of outlets within a room. It was there clear as day in black adn white on the bid proposal.

They accepted our bid and we attended site and carried out the job. They then turned around and got very uppity and stated that we had not installed the right amount of sockets and demanded we install the ones we had "missed". We pointed out that we had stated how many were to be installed on the bid proposal and they then went quiet and said they would get back to us.

When they got back to us they stated they hadn't read the proposal previously they had simply looked at the cost and asked if we could install the extras while on site.

I have become aware its quite common.

Did the customer's specification state the number of outlets? Or was it a performance spec?

I cannot really remember it could have been the customer fked up at original survey or it could even be our surveyor made a mistake. Neither makes any difference as they agreed the bid. It was stated on the bid how many outlets would be installed and where.

If there was a mistake made by our surveyor the customer should have picked it up and requested a rectification on receiving our proposal rather than simply glancing at the price and accepting the bid.

The customer shouldn't have to go through a tender with a fine-toothed comb to identify non-compliances.

[Digga]

frankenstein12 said:

They accepted our bid and we attended site and carried out the job. They then turned around and got very uppity and stated that we had not installed the right amount of sockets and demanded we install the ones we had "missed". We pointed out that we had stated how many were to be installed on the bid proposal and they then went quiet and said they would get back to us.

When they got back to us they stated they hadn't read the proposal previously they had simply looked at the cost and asked if we could install the extras while on site.

I have become aware its quite common.

I've heard of exactly this happening on other types of contract too.

V8 Fettler said:

The customer shouldn't have to go through a tender with a fine-toothed comb to identify non-compliances.

I don't think that's what he's implying, more that were there a discrepancy, the bid stage is the time to identify it. Putting it the other way around, how would the client check compliance other than by reference to the (same) bid specification?