London bus route tendering. Interested in details

[arrivaarriva]

So those making the decisions decide to oust the current operator from a major high frequency route (18, for example) and hand the route to another major operator.
What exactly happens both in an administrative sense and also in a vehicles and staff sense from the moment that decision is made?
Staying with the 18, the only thing the passenger is aware of is that one day his bus has Metroline branding and the next day, a different vehicle type ambles along (which he is likely to notice) with London United branding (which he may miss completely at first).

[snowman]

Every bidder has to pre qualify so only companies that can demonstrate a standing are permitted to bid

TfL issues Invitations to Tender (ITT) to those on it’s approved list, it lists all sorts of details of the route, any bids then need to be submitted by a date on the tender schedule (about 6 weeks after ITT)

A big route like 18 is only going to go to a major Operator as part of evaluation will be checking Operator can handle it, TfL allows about 3 months to evaluate bids (but often takes longer). In addition to compliant bids (those that deliver what is requested in ITT), Operators often submit alternative bids (bigger buses, extensions to their garage or whatever)

Once the route is announced, the Operator needs to source the buses for start day about 8 months later, (less if TfL announces late). Staff will either come from it’s own, or some may transfer, or a mix

In the case of the 18 it was awarded with new hybrids (and 12 buses transferred from aborted double decking of 72). Clearly RATP needed a garage and managed to secure a 10 year lease on the vacated temporary Crossrail garage (which was a replacement for part of X being used as a construction site). No idea if they will get another extension on the site in 8 years of if they need to find another garage

The staffing is the hardest bit because the number of staff transferring only becomes clear a couple of weeks before (and no guarantee someone on transfer list actually moves rather than leaves and getsjob elsewhere). So difficult to know how many to employ. All the relevant staff need to learn the route and have familiarisation with the proposed vehicle type.

[ServerKing]

I guess mileage, age of vehicles used on the contract (exception made for 318, lol), salaries, who can bid the lowest and provide the best service within such parameters has a bearing too?

For instance, NP has been swapping out most of it's 2010/11 reg B9TL's for much older 2006 E400's, Not sure if this is to eventually retain the 476 / 191 if new buses are put on the route as part of the contract?
They have lost the 20 and 357 is in doubt so I'm not sure if that also has a bearing???

So there's no Tombola then, as I wondered what the process was?

[Deleted]

Mar 17, 2019 16:16:30 GMT ServerKing said:

I guess mileage, age of vehicles used on the contract (exception made for 318, lol), salaries, who can bid the lowest and provide the best service within such parameters has a bearing too?

For instance, NP has been swapping out most of it's 2010/11 reg B9TL's for much older 2006 E400's, Not sure if this is to eventually retain the 476 / 191 if new buses are put on the route as part of the contract?
They have lost the 20 and 357 is in doubt so I'm not sure if that also has a bearing???

So there's no Tombola then, as I wondered what the process was?

Are the older bus not there for the 20 / 357 as the buses were needed elsewhere ? But for some reason end up on the 191 and 476 more than anything.

[busoccultation]

Mar 17, 2019 16:43:26 GMT @dannyb said:

Mar 17, 2019 16:16:30 GMT ServerKing said:

I guess mileage, age of vehicles used on the contract (exception made for 318, lol), salaries, who can bid the lowest and provide the best service within such parameters has a bearing too?

For instance, NP has been swapping out most of it's 2010/11 reg B9TL's for much older 2006 E400's, Not sure if this is to eventually retain the 476 / 191 if new buses are put on the route as part of the contract?
They have lost the 20 and 357 is in doubt so I'm not sure if that also has a bearing???

So there's no Tombola then, as I wondered what the process was?

Are the older bus not there for the 20 / 357 as the buses were needed elsewhere ? But for some reason end up on the 191 and 476 more than anything.

Yes the 56 reg E's are meant to be for the 20 & 357 with its WVL/WVN buses are going to BX for the 486.

[ServerKing]

Mar 17, 2019 16:48:53 GMT busoccultation said:

Mar 17, 2019 16:43:26 GMT @dannyb said:

Are the older bus not there for the 20 / 357 as the buses were needed elsewhere ? But for some reason end up on the 191 and 476 more than anything.

Yes the 56 reg E's are meant to be for the 20 & 357 with its WVL/WVN buses are going to BX for the 486.

In Loughton the other day, and saw nothing but WVNs on the 20... the E's are on the 191. I guess with the 20 getting shiny new kit from CT Plus, its no big deal in the final weeks. The only newish stuff at NP will be single deckers, such as more SEe's for the 214, plus the 232 Streetlites. They will need something new for the 476, MHV's or even StreetDecks would be nice

[southlondonbus]

I have heard that if an incumbents bid is not the lowest TFL go back to them and give them the chance to lower it? If this is true then is this something tendering clause that the incumbent must always have this chance of just TFL simply thinking it's easier if a route does stay with the same operator from a potential vehicle/staffing angle?

[vjaska]

Mar 17, 2019 18:27:57 GMT ServerKing said:

Mar 17, 2019 16:48:53 GMT busoccultation said:

Yes the 56 reg E's are meant to be for the 20 & 357 with its WVL/WVN buses are going to BX for the 486.

In Loughton the other day, and saw nothing but WVNs on the 20... the E's are on the 191. I guess with the 20 getting shiny new kit from CT Plus, its no big deal in the final weeks. The only newish stuff at NP will be single deckers, such as more SEe's for the 214, plus the 232 Streetlites. They will need something new for the 476, MHV's or a even StreetDecks would be nice

The 476’s contract specifies WVN’s and will continue to do so - the buses have been refurbished for the current contract which has a few years still to run.

[southlondonbus]

A couple of those WVNs may become spare if the 476 cuts to Kings Cross.

[snoggle]

Mar 17, 2019 18:37:02 GMT southlondonbus said:

I have heard that if an incumbents bid is not the lowest TFL go back to them and give them the chance to lower it? If this is true then is this something tendering clause that the incumbent must always have this chance of just TFL simply thinking it's easier if a route does stay with the same operator from a potential vehicle/staffing angle?

I don't see how TfL can legally do this. This is public sector procurement subject to EU law. If TfL don't operate the process fairly and objectively within the rules then unsuccessful bidders can challenge contract awards and potentially, if the breach is very serious, TfL can be fined a percentage of its turnover. Given TfL turnover is in the billions of pounds even a 1% fine would be severely damaging.

I can see why people might think this happens - after all it's all a great big game and con trick if you believe the gossip. I just can't see skilled procurement people at TfL and in the bus companies tolerating this sort of thing. The fact is that the process is now *very* well established - the participants know how it works and they will know how to get the best outcomes although there are no guarantees at all. The nature of things is that some operators gain work and lose garage and fleet flexibility while other lose in the short term but end up with capacity to win other work that other operators may find to defend / retain / win. We see these cycles very regularly.

[snoggle]

In terms of the administrative aspects here are a few things that must happen to varying degrees.

TfL

- TfL has to prepare to close down the contract and all the payments and liabilities with the operator who has lost the route.
- TfL has to prepare for the new contract with the new operator and establish the performance measurement process for when they take over. There may be new targets that have to be put into the system or changes to the route.
- TfL has to amend all of its systems to reflect the new schedules. This includes online systems like the TfL website and Journey Planner
- TfL will have to allocate new vehicle IDs for I-Bus and radio systems if new buses are to be used. Similar might be needed if buses transfer between garages or operators.
- TfL has to publish new timetables and post new panel timetables with the new times / operator details.
- TfL has to amend all of its standing paperwork that lists which operators run what routes. This will cover Centrecomm, area managers, infrastructure people etc
- TfL has to ensure the account managers (for the bus contracts) know they are losing/gaining work.
- TfL has to ensure ticket and radio equipment is removed from old withdrawn buses and installed on new buses.
- TfL will have to amend its financial forecasts and budgets to reflect the expected costs of new contracts and the likely level of performance. As money comes in and goes out on a fortnightly cycle on bus contracts this is a very important process to make sure TfL has enough money in the bank on the right day for payments to operators to be paid. Don't imagine that TfL sits there with billions just sloshing in its bank account. It doesn't work like that. TfL has multiple bank accounts and has huge monetary inflows and outflows to manage.

Operators

- Operators have to prepare to close down the contract from their viewpoint and ensure they are paid what they are due. They may not be overly fussed about actual performance in the dying weeks of a contract because there is little that can be done to amend their expected payment levels. They just to ensure they don't do something daft like finish a day early.
- Conversely the new operator has to adjust its internal systems (accounting, performance measurement, asset management, payroll) to reflect the gain of new work.
- Garages and engineers have to prepare for the loss of old vehicles or gain of new vehicles. This will include preparing leased vehicles for return to lessors or disposal / transfer of owned vehicles. This will involve assisting TfL in the removal of TfL owned systems plus any specific company systems like driver monitoring kit or engineering systems. The asset management systems that track how each vehicle performs, what fuel it uses and what parts and repairs are made plus all the costs have to be changed to reflect fleet changes.
- Operators may have to prepare to close down / mothball / open garages and engineering facilities.
- Operators have to negotiate with trade unions about the effect of losing or gaining work in terms of more / fewer drivers, controllers and garage engineers / maintainers. As Snowman has said the driver coverage is by far the most serious issue.
- Controllers will have to learn new routes that they will have to manage (if work is gained) or be prepared for different workloads if work is lost.
- The big groups who have head offices that oversee their entire operations will have to ensure that work losses / gains in London are reflected at subsidiary and group level for financial and accounting purposes.
- If new buses are required then operators will have to order (the correct - ahem!) vehicles for new route contracts. They may have established supply contracts with bus manufacturers or they may go out to market each time or they may order vehicles via a leasing company. All of this has to be done pretty quickly to ensure that the buses can actually turn up in good time to allow for driver / engineer familiarisation, pre-delivery checks, equipment fitting and ideally a few days pre-service running to "shake down" any issues. We see this with some operators who put new buses out on other routes in the week before a new contract starts.


I am sure I've missed a load of things but there's a lot to do.

[redexpress]

Mar 17, 2019 18:37:02 GMT southlondonbus said:

I have heard that if an incumbents bid is not the lowest TFL go back to them and give them the chance to lower it? If this is true then is this something tendering clause that the incumbent must always have this chance of just TFL simply thinking it's easier if a route does stay with the same operator from a potential vehicle/staffing angle?

I believe there used to be a rule (unwritten?) that if the incumbent was only undercut by a very small margin *and* they had performed well on the route, they would retain the contract anyway, on the basis that changing operators does involve some costs and risks for TfL.  Presumably the reason for not awarding to the lowest bidder would then be given as "incumbent's good performance".  So there is/was a mechanism for favouring the incumbent.  However that is very different from going back to the tenderer and asking them to lower their bid.  As snoggle has explained, that would not be allowed under procurement law; AIUI if one bidder is given an opportunity to lower their bid, the other bidders must be given that opportunity as well.

[M1104]

Back in the 90s there were isolated instances of one operator subtracting a route to another, subject to the agreement of London Buses (TfL of the time). Two examples of this (if I remember correctly) were London General and South London (now Arriva) subcontracting the C3 and G1 respectively to Limebourne, them being long-term arrangements.

Speaking strictly theoretically could that still be done in present day between London operators subject to the agreement of TfL?

[snoggle]

Mar 18, 2019 13:02:51 GMT M1104 said:

Back in the 90s there were isolated instances of one operator subtracting a route to another, subject to the agreement of London Buses (TfL of the time). Two examples of this (if I remember correctly) were London General and South London (now Arriva) subcontracting the C3 and G1 respectively to Limebourne, them being long-term arrangements.

Speaking strictly theoretically could that still be done in present day between London operators subject to the agreement of TfL?

I don't see why not. There would have to be clarity about who takes the financial hit or gain in terms of the route's operation. In essence that would be between the operator holding the main contract and the sub contractor but I'd expect TfL to want to know and approve the details. You would ideally want a full pass through to avoid a mismatch of incentives / remedies if the sub contractor doesn't perform well. I suspect the past subcontracts were on simpler contract terms than the QIC regime that applies now.

Sub contracting and novating (transfering) contracts are standard aspects of contract practice but TfL would always reserve the right to sanction any such changes. Otherwise you could end up with all sorts of nonsense going on which could put TfL at a disadvantage. As TfL hold the purse strings as contracting authority they will always protect their position.

[sid]

Mar 18, 2019 13:02:51 GMT M1104 said:

Back in the 90s there were isolated instances of one operator subtracting a route to another, subject to the agreement of London Buses (TfL of the time). Two examples of this (if I remember correctly) were London General and South London (now Arriva) subcontracting the C3 and G1 respectively to Limebourne, them being long-term arrangements.

Speaking strictly theoretically could that still be done in present day between London operators subject to the agreement of TfL?

I think there have been quite a few examples and I wondered whether the 452 could have been sub contracted to another operator allowing TT to continue running the 25 to Oxford Circus until Crossrail opens.

There was a swap over of routes when Arriva (may have been Cowie at the time?) closed the Dunton Green garage and the 227 and 320 moved to Stagecoach at TB and the 166 and 198 went to TC and TH respectively.