|
Post by george on Aug 18, 2019 18:30:13 GMT
Back in 2011 RATP retained the 33 despite not being the lowest bidder because of "Increment justifiable to retain incumbent" was just wondering how common this is?
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Aug 18, 2019 18:41:12 GMT
Back in 2011 RATP retained the 33 despite not being the lowest bidder because of "Increment justifiable to retain incumbent" was just wondering how common this is? What does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 18, 2019 18:46:08 GMT
Back in 2011 RATP retained the 33 despite not being the lowest bidder because of "Increment justifiable to retain incumbent" was just wondering how common this is? What does that mean? haven't got a clue haha
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 18, 2019 19:25:24 GMT
Back in 2011 RATP retained the 33 despite not being the lowest bidder because of "Increment justifiable to retain incumbent" was just wondering how common this is? What does that mean? It means that because there was a negligible difference between the incumbent's bid and the lowest bid, TfL decided to stick with the incumbent. The same thing happened with Abellio and the 407 recently
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 18, 2019 19:34:57 GMT
It means that because there was a negligible difference between the incumbent's bid and the lowest bid, TfL decided to stick with the incumbent. The same thing happened with Abellio and the 407 recently surprised this is aloud surely if you are the lowest bidder you should get the route even if there is very little difference between the two.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 18, 2019 19:54:00 GMT
It means that because there was a negligible difference between the incumbent's bid and the lowest bid, TfL decided to stick with the incumbent. The same thing happened with Abellio and the 407 recently surprised this is aloud surely if you are the lowest bidder you should get the route even if there is very little difference between the two. There’s probably more to it than that. (The recent 275 tender had this too) If the base bid that TfL are paying the operator is slightly bigger than another operator, however if TfL predict that there’ll be less to pay out in bonuses maybe because of a schedule that’s tougher to implement, then it’ll be more cost effective for them to go for the slightly higher base price.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Aug 18, 2019 19:59:30 GMT
It means that because there was a negligible difference between the incumbent's bid and the lowest bid, TfL decided to stick with the incumbent. The same thing happened with Abellio and the 407 recently surprised this is aloud surely if you are the lowest bidder you should get the route even if there is very little difference between the two. It’s TfL’s money and they can spend it however they like. Even if a company puts in the lowest bid, it can be refused if TfL feels it is not workable or realistic
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 18, 2019 20:03:39 GMT
surprised this is aloud surely if you are the lowest bidder you should get the route even if there is very little difference between the two. It’s TfL’s money and they can spend it however they like. Even if a company puts in the lowest bid, it can be refused if TfL feels it is not workable or realistic They clearly got lured in to TT’s appallingly unsustainable bid for the 13 though lol, despite that being totally inoperable.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 18, 2019 20:15:53 GMT
Its a difficult one. Its a shame when good performance isn't rewarded/incentvised enough, but on the flip side, the incumbent's performance stifles competition. I think that with poorly performing routes, TfL should be able to penalise the operator to encourage them to improve. This way, the operator can still bid for the route next time it comes up for tender but they have a greater incentive to operate the route well.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 18, 2019 20:23:54 GMT
Its a difficult one. Its a shame when good performance isn't rewarded/incentvised enough, but on the flip side, the incumbent's performance stifles competition. I think that with poorly performing routes, TfL should be able to penalise the operator to encourage them to improve. This way, the operator can still bid for the route next time it comes up for tender but they have a greater incentive to operate the route well. I think it’s safe to say TT won’t be retaining the 13 on its next renewal. I don’t even think TfL will be able to let them bid for it again with how shambolic their performance is. I mean look at this, anyone would have thought this was a first day operation, not two and a half years in!!! Attachment DeletedAnyway back to RATP, I guess this is mildly related given TT took the route from them (in number terms only lol)
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 18, 2019 20:28:06 GMT
Its a difficult one. Its a shame when good performance isn't rewarded/incentvised enough, but on the flip side, the incumbent's performance stifles competition. I think that with poorly performing routes, TfL should be able to penalise the operator to encourage them to improve. This way, the operator can still bid for the route next time it comes up for tender but they have a greater incentive to operate the route well. I think it’s safe to say TT won’t be retaining the 13 on its next renewal. I don’t even think TfL will be able to let them bid for it again with how shambolic their performance is. I mean look at this, anyone would have thought this was a first day operation, not two and a half years in!!! Anyway back to RATP, I guess this is mildly related given TT took the route from them (in number terms only lol) Well at least they won't be getting a two year extension so passengers won't have to endure the misery for too much longer now
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 18, 2019 20:29:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2019 20:34:19 GMT
So I’m ferrel because I do use the upstairs, usually a seat at the front? Certainly not by a long run everyone that goes upstairs is ferrel ... but most those that are head up that way! More like a minority...
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 18, 2019 20:35:49 GMT
Its a difficult one. Its a shame when good performance isn't rewarded/incentvised enough, but on the flip side, the incumbent's performance stifles competition. I think that with poorly performing routes, TfL should be able to penalise the operator to encourage them to improve. This way, the operator can still bid for the route next time it comes up for tender but they have a greater incentive to operate the route well. I think it’s safe to say TT won’t be retaining the 13 on its next renewal. I don’t even think TfL will be able to let them bid for it again with how shambolic their performance is. I mean look at this, anyone would have thought this was a first day operation, not two and a half years in!!! Anyway back to RATP, I guess this is mildly related given TT took the route from them (in number terms only lol) The 28 is the same too.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 18, 2019 20:40:24 GMT
I think it’s safe to say TT won’t be retaining the 13 on its next renewal. I don’t even think TfL will be able to let them bid for it again with how shambolic their performance is. I mean look at this, anyone would have thought this was a first day operation, not two and a half years in!!! Anyway back to RATP, I guess this is mildly related given TT took the route from them (in number terms only lol) The 28 is the same too. The 28 serves a number of traffic hotspots so would be difficult for any operator to run.
|
|