NGO opposes no bidding for the right to operate Blue Line extensions

[webfact]

NGO opposes no bidding for the right to operate Blue Line extensions



BANGKOK: -- The Association for the Protection of Thai Constitution has voiced its strong opposition to the cabinet’s recent decision allowing the current operator of the Blue Line to negotiate for the right to operate the extensions of the Blue Line from Hualampong to Bangkhae and from Taopoon to Tha Phra without an open bidding.

The association has also threatened to take the case to the Administrative Court if the cabinet refused to review the decision.

Mr Srisuwan Janya, secretary-general of the association who is also head of the Anti-Global Warming Association, pointed out that the bypassing of an open bidding by direct negotiation with the current operator of the Blue Line might constitute a violation of the Private and Government Sectors Joint Investment Act.

He said that the direct negotiation would give advantage to the private sector which is contrary to an open bidding in which there are several bidders and the government can choose the bidder which offers the most favoured terms.

In normal practice, he claimed that the bidding price would be 15-20 percent lower than the price offered by a single company without any competition.

Citing financial information from the stock market, Mr Srisuwan claimed that the financial status of the current operator of the Blue Line was not so healthy and hence there is a tendency that the company may try to squeeze the utmost benefits in negotiation with the government.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ngo-opposes-no-bidding-for-the-right-to-operate-blue-line-extensions

-- Thai PBS 2015-03-10

[smutcakes]

There has been no bidding for anything.... most notably the train lines... I am sure the bidding was done 'behind closed doors'

[Baa_Mango]

no time like the present to get some transparency on the go

[heybruce]

I've been saying since the coup, if the junta is serious about eliminating corruption it will implement transparency in government spending and require open, competitive on all government contracts, among other things. I've also been saying since the coup that I don't expect to see this, or other serious measures against corruption.

[rubl]

Depending on how the extensions fit in into the existing Blue Line to have the current operator as preferred choice for the extensions. I don't think a case of

- point A to point B: operator N1

- point B to point C: operator N2

- point C to point D: operator N3

would make the business more transparent or even cheaper. Responsibility for the trains going from A to D switched two times, or passengers switching trains two times ?

Mind you, there should still be negotiations. Now how to value the profit for the current operator and how that should be reflected in bidding price.

[heybruce]

Depending on how the extensions fit in into the existing Blue Line to have the current operator as preferred choice for the extensions. I don't think a case of

- point A to point B: operator N1

- point B to point C: operator N2

- point C to point D: operator N3

would make the business more transparent or even cheaper. Responsibility for the trains going from A to D switched two times, or passengers switching trains two times ?

Mind you, there should still be negotiations. Now how to value the profit for the current operator and how that should be reflected in bidding price.

My guess is you don't have a lot of government contracting experience. It is possible to have transparent, competitive bidding for projects that build upon existing infrastructure and programs. It's more work for the government, but when done properly it's a better deal for the taxpayers.

The worst deal for the taxpayers is to stick with the same contractor forever because it's easier than competitive bidding.

[rubl]

Depending on how the extensions fit in into the existing Blue Line to have the current operator as preferred choice for the extensions. I don't think a case of

- point A to point B: operator N1

- point B to point C: operator N2

- point C to point D: operator N3

would make the business more transparent or even cheaper. Responsibility for the trains going from A to D switched two times, or passengers switching trains two times ?

Mind you, there should still be negotiations. Now how to value the profit for the current operator and how that should be reflected in bidding price.

My guess is you don't have a lot of government contracting experience. It is possible to have transparent, competitive bidding for projects that build upon existing infrastructure and programs. It's more work for the government, but when done properly it's a better deal for the taxpayers.

The worst deal for the taxpayers is to stick with the same contractor forever because it's easier than competitive bidding.

My guess is you have general comments, but are unable to provide to the point comments on my questions.

Read my post again and check if with extensions on both sides of the existing Blue Line there is a manageble solution having three operators without forcing passengers to switch trains, without complicated ticketing systems and administration, etc., etc.

You're right that approval should not be automatic, but I also indicated that. When no deal can be made with the current operator, a new bidding process should be started for the two new stretches. I would assume that the current operator, even if not really operating yet, would need to be compensated if a new bidding for the complete stretch would be contemplated.

Edited March 10, 2015 by rubl

[heybruce]

Depending on how the extensions fit in into the existing Blue Line to have the current operator as preferred choice for the extensions. I don't think a case of

- point A to point B: operator N1

- point B to point C: operator N2

- point C to point D: operator N3

would make the business more transparent or even cheaper. Responsibility for the trains going from A to D switched two times, or passengers switching trains two times ?

Mind you, there should still be negotiations. Now how to value the profit for the current operator and how that should be reflected in bidding price.

My guess is you don't have a lot of government contracting experience. It is possible to have transparent, competitive bidding for projects that build upon existing infrastructure and programs. It's more work for the government, but when done properly it's a better deal for the taxpayers.

The worst deal for the taxpayers is to stick with the same contractor forever because it's easier than competitive bidding.

My guess is you have general comments, but are unable to provide to the point comments on my questions.

Read my post again and check if with extensions on both sides of the existing Blue Line there is a manageble solution having three operators without forcing passengers to switch trains, without complicated ticketing systems and administration, etc., etc.

You're right that approval should not be automatic, but I also indicated that. When no deal can be made with the current operator, a new bidding process should be started for the two new stretches. I would assume that the current operator, even if not really operating yet, would need to be compensated if a new bidding for the complete stretch would be contemplated.

Do you want me to develop the contract specifications for the Thai government? Sorry, I'll pass.

In a government interested in honest contracting and getting the best deal for the taxpayers, transparency and competitive bidding are required for all government contracts above a certain dollar value. Competent governments routinely do this for projects far more complicated than extending a subway line.

Sole source contracts awarded without competitive bids are an invitation to overcharging. If these contacts are awarded without full transparency in the financing, complimented with full disclosure of financial assets of all government officials in a position to influence the contract, they are also an invitation to kickbacks. A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption.

[Lupatria]

You see- no matter what government- the system works the same way even after reform. Who says there is no consistency in Thai politics?

Edited March 11, 2015 by Lupatria

[rubl]

Depending on how the extensions fit in into the existing Blue Line to have the current operator as preferred choice for the extensions. I don't think a case of

- point A to point B: operator N1

- point B to point C: operator N2

- point C to point D: operator N3

would make the business more transparent or even cheaper. Responsibility for the trains going from A to D switched two times, or passengers switching trains two times ?

Mind you, there should still be negotiations. Now how to value the profit for the current operator and how that should be reflected in bidding price.

My guess is you don't have a lot of government contracting experience. It is possible to have transparent, competitive bidding for projects that build upon existing infrastructure and programs. It's more work for the government, but when done properly it's a better deal for the taxpayers.

The worst deal for the taxpayers is to stick with the same contractor forever because it's easier than competitive bidding.

My guess is you have general comments, but are unable to provide to the point comments on my questions.

Read my post again and check if with extensions on both sides of the existing Blue Line there is a manageble solution having three operators without forcing passengers to switch trains, without complicated ticketing systems and administration, etc., etc.

You're right that approval should not be automatic, but I also indicated that. When no deal can be made with the current operator, a new bidding process should be started for the two new stretches. I would assume that the current operator, even if not really operating yet, would need to be compensated if a new bidding for the complete stretch would be contemplated.

Do you want me to develop the contract specifications for the Thai government? Sorry, I'll pass.

In a government interested in honest contracting and getting the best deal for the taxpayers, transparency and competitive bidding are required for all government contracts above a certain dollar value. Competent governments routinely do this for projects far more complicated than extending a subway line.

Sole source contracts awarded without competitive bids are an invitation to overcharging. If these contacts are awarded without full transparency in the financing, complimented with full disclosure of financial assets of all government officials in a position to influence the contract, they are also an invitation to kickbacks. A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption.

Well, while you go on about the theory I'll try to be a bit more pragmatic. A single operator for this particular case could be acceptable under certain conditions.

I would assume too many operator's on a 'line' should be avoided as un-manageble, with complicated reporting lines, technical solutions to be matched, etc., etc. This would also increase the total price even if the bidding with three companoes led to lower bidding prices. Remember that even after a bidder is selected there's still negociations on the price. In the case with no bidding offered, the lucky company would be well warned to lower it's price or the offer would be withdrawn.

The have an open bidding just because that's the normal, western escepted way of doing things should not obstruct either this special case or the operation of the Blue Line.

Oh, BTW "A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption."

Try not to get blinded by your absolute dislike of the current government.

Edited March 11, 2015 by rubl

[heybruce]

My guess is you don't have a lot of government contracting experience. It is possible to have transparent, competitive bidding for projects that build upon existing infrastructure and programs. It's more work for the government, but when done properly it's a better deal for the taxpayers.

The worst deal for the taxpayers is to stick with the same contractor forever because it's easier than competitive bidding.

My guess is you have general comments, but are unable to provide to the point comments on my questions.

Read my post again and check if with extensions on both sides of the existing Blue Line there is a manageble solution having three operators without forcing passengers to switch trains, without complicated ticketing systems and administration, etc., etc.

You're right that approval should not be automatic, but I also indicated that. When no deal can be made with the current operator, a new bidding process should be started for the two new stretches. I would assume that the current operator, even if not really operating yet, would need to be compensated if a new bidding for the complete stretch would be contemplated.

Do you want me to develop the contract specifications for the Thai government? Sorry, I'll pass.

In a government interested in honest contracting and getting the best deal for the taxpayers, transparency and competitive bidding are required for all government contracts above a certain dollar value. Competent governments routinely do this for projects far more complicated than extending a subway line.

Sole source contracts awarded without competitive bids are an invitation to overcharging. If these contacts are awarded without full transparency in the financing, complimented with full disclosure of financial assets of all government officials in a position to influence the contract, they are also an invitation to kickbacks. A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption.

Well, while you go on about the theory I'll try to be a bit more pragmatic. A single operator for this particular case could be acceptable under certain conditions.

I would assume too many operator's on a 'line' should be avoided as un-manageble, with complicated reporting lines, technical solutions to be matched, etc., etc. This would also increase the total price even if the bidding with three companoes led to lower bidding prices. Remember that even after a bidder is selected there's still negociations on the price. In the case with no bidding offered, the lucky company would be well warned to lower it's price or the offer would be withdrawn.

The have an open bidding just because that's the normal, western escepted way of doing things should not obstruct either this special case or the operation of the Blue Line.

Oh, BTW "A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption."

Try not to get blinded by your absolute dislike of the current government.

"I would assume too many operator's on a 'line' should be avoided as un-manageble, with complicated reporting lines, technical solutions to be matched, etc., etc.'

In other words, you don't know how the transit system is managed so you are assuming a single bidder on an extension is unmanageable. You are confirming my earlier assumption that you have little experience in contracting. Management of an ongoing government service is also part of the contract specifications in a competitive contract bidding process. It is also part of a transparent competitive contracting process that makes the process more difficult for the government contract managers but provides better value for the taxpayers and makes it harder to hide kickbacks and other corrupt practices.

Regarding my statement about the "reform" government, the only reasons I can think of to not have transparent competitive bidding on government contracts are laziness, incompetence, corruption, or a combination of these three. Without speculating on a process you seem to know little about, can you give another reason?

[rubl]

My guess is you have general comments, but are unable to provide to the point comments on my questions.

Read my post again and check if with extensions on both sides of the existing Blue Line there is a manageble solution having three operators without forcing passengers to switch trains, without complicated ticketing systems and administration, etc., etc.

You're right that approval should not be automatic, but I also indicated that. When no deal can be made with the current operator, a new bidding process should be started for the two new stretches. I would assume that the current operator, even if not really operating yet, would need to be compensated if a new bidding for the complete stretch would be contemplated.

Do you want me to develop the contract specifications for the Thai government? Sorry, I'll pass.

In a government interested in honest contracting and getting the best deal for the taxpayers, transparency and competitive bidding are required for all government contracts above a certain dollar value. Competent governments routinely do this for projects far more complicated than extending a subway line.

Sole source contracts awarded without competitive bids are an invitation to overcharging. If these contacts are awarded without full transparency in the financing, complimented with full disclosure of financial assets of all government officials in a position to influence the contract, they are also an invitation to kickbacks. A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption.

Well, while you go on about the theory I'll try to be a bit more pragmatic. A single operator for this particular case could be acceptable under certain conditions.

I would assume too many operator's on a 'line' should be avoided as un-manageble, with complicated reporting lines, technical solutions to be matched, etc., etc. This would also increase the total price even if the bidding with three companoes led to lower bidding prices. Remember that even after a bidder is selected there's still negociations on the price. In the case with no bidding offered, the lucky company would be well warned to lower it's price or the offer would be withdrawn.

The have an open bidding just because that's the normal, western escepted way of doing things should not obstruct either this special case or the operation of the Blue Line.

Oh, BTW "A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption."

Try not to get blinded by your absolute dislike of the current government.

"I would assume too many operator's on a 'line' should be avoided as un-manageble, with complicated reporting lines, technical solutions to be matched, etc., etc.'

In other words, you don't know how the transit system is managed so you are assuming a single bidder on an extension is unmanageable. You are confirming my earlier assumption that you have little experience in contracting. Management of an ongoing government service is also part of the contract specifications in a competitive contract bidding process. It is also part of a transparent competitive contracting process that makes the process more difficult for the government contract managers but provides better value for the taxpayers and makes it harder to hide kickbacks and other corrupt practices.

Regarding my statement about the "reform" government, the only reasons I can think of to not have transparent competitive bidding on government contracts are laziness, incompetence, corruption, or a combination of these three. Without speculating on a process you seem to know little about, can you give another reason?

If you're trying to annoy me with obfuscation, you are succeeding, my dear chap.

I wonder about the two line extensions and how having more than one operator could be profitable for the country and the passengers. The middle part is allocated to one operator one or two years ago. The part on the left and right are being added. That suggest we would have possibly one, two or three operators.

Now pray explain to me how in initial negotiations allowing the existing operator to extend the government would not be able to lower the bidding price substantially, offer more convenience to passengers and allow a more simple management/operation organisation which is to be preferred. Even if the negotiations fail, the government can still open bids.

As for your statement, you base it on an assumption which you assume right. That's tricky.

[heybruce]

Do you want me to develop the contract specifications for the Thai government? Sorry, I'll pass.

In a government interested in honest contracting and getting the best deal for the taxpayers, transparency and competitive bidding are required for all government contracts above a certain dollar value. Competent governments routinely do this for projects far more complicated than extending a subway line.

Sole source contracts awarded without competitive bids are an invitation to overcharging. If these contacts are awarded without full transparency in the financing, complimented with full disclosure of financial assets of all government officials in a position to influence the contract, they are also an invitation to kickbacks. A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption.

Well, while you go on about the theory I'll try to be a bit more pragmatic. A single operator for this particular case could be acceptable under certain conditions.

I would assume too many operator's on a 'line' should be avoided as un-manageble, with complicated reporting lines, technical solutions to be matched, etc., etc. This would also increase the total price even if the bidding with three companoes led to lower bidding prices. Remember that even after a bidder is selected there's still negociations on the price. In the case with no bidding offered, the lucky company would be well warned to lower it's price or the offer would be withdrawn.

The have an open bidding just because that's the normal, western escepted way of doing things should not obstruct either this special case or the operation of the Blue Line.

Oh, BTW "A "reform" government that claims to be committed to fighting corruption but then spends taxpayer money in this manner raises valid questions about its commitment to fighting corruption."

Try not to get blinded by your absolute dislike of the current government.

"I would assume too many operator's on a 'line' should be avoided as un-manageble, with complicated reporting lines, technical solutions to be matched, etc., etc.'

In other words, you don't know how the transit system is managed so you are assuming a single bidder on an extension is unmanageable. You are confirming my earlier assumption that you have little experience in contracting. Management of an ongoing government service is also part of the contract specifications in a competitive contract bidding process. It is also part of a transparent competitive contracting process that makes the process more difficult for the government contract managers but provides better value for the taxpayers and makes it harder to hide kickbacks and other corrupt practices.

Regarding my statement about the "reform" government, the only reasons I can think of to not have transparent competitive bidding on government contracts are laziness, incompetence, corruption, or a combination of these three. Without speculating on a process you seem to know little about, can you give another reason?

If you're trying to annoy me with obfuscation, you are succeeding, my dear chap.

I wonder about the two line extensions and how having more than one operator could be profitable for the country and the passengers. The middle part is allocated to one operator one or two years ago. The part on the left and right are being added. That suggest we would have possibly one, two or three operators.

Now pray explain to me how in initial negotiations allowing the existing operator to extend the government would not be able to lower the bidding price substantially, offer more convenience to passengers and allow a more simple management/operation organisation which is to be preferred. Even if the negotiations fail, the government can still open bids.

As for your statement, you base it on an assumption which you assume right. That's tricky.

"I wonder about the two line extensions and how having more than one operator could be profitable for the country and the passengers."

Sorry, I forgot I was replying to someone who doesn't understand contracts and project management. One of many possible solutions is for a competitively bid contract for a single operator to have overall project management, with subordinate contractors reporting to this top level manager. Another is for the government to hold overall project management responsibility. As I posted earlier, it depends on the specifications the government puts into the invitation to bid for the contract.

[rubl]

"I wonder about the two line extensions and how having more than one operator could be profitable for the country and the passengers."

Sorry, I forgot I was replying to someone who doesn't understand contracts and project management. One of many possible solutions is for a competitively bid contract for a single operator to have overall project management, with subordinate contractors reporting to this top level manager. Another is for the government to hold overall project management responsibility. As I posted earlier, it depends on the specifications the government puts into the invitation to bid for the contract.

Terribly sorry and all that, I should know you're just speaking from ivory tower theory.

In the mean time we have a Blue Line for which an operator was selected (to exploit the rail link when operational) and now with two extensions being build those two extensions need to be operated when finished.

I doubt the government should be involved in the actual operation by selected operators. Furthermore I see possibilities for the government to negotiate with the current operator which should be profitable for government, operator and the passengers for the complete Blue Line. Please note that an operator has to be able to make a profit otherwise he would accept non-viable business which would help neither the operator nor the government trying to squeeze the operator.

Now if the topic would be on bidding for building the extensions than we would have a completely different matter of course.

[IsaanUSA]

I guess it really just depends on what the operator actually must do. If company A is contracted to operate the new left extension, does that mean they just have to staff the stations, sell the tickets (which must work with the original operator's tickets), and guard the platforms? Or does it mean they have to maintain their section of track, maintain trains, etc?

I'm sure there is a contract that says what they must and cannot do. I don't really know how this stuff works, but it seems strange to me to have 2 or 3 different companies operating different sections of the same line. It seems like some miscommunications could mean disaster.

[heybruce]

"I wonder about the two line extensions and how having more than one operator could be profitable for the country and the passengers."

Sorry, I forgot I was replying to someone who doesn't understand contracts and project management. One of many possible solutions is for a competitively bid contract for a single operator to have overall project management, with subordinate contractors reporting to this top level manager. Another is for the government to hold overall project management responsibility. As I posted earlier, it depends on the specifications the government puts into the invitation to bid for the contract.

Terribly sorry and all that, I should know you're just speaking from ivory tower theory.

In the mean time we have a Blue Line for which an operator was selected (to exploit the rail link when operational) and now with two extensions being build those two extensions need to be operated when finished.

I doubt the government should be involved in the actual operation by selected operators. Furthermore I see possibilities for the government to negotiate with the current operator which should be profitable for government, operator and the passengers for the complete Blue Line. Please note that an operator has to be able to make a profit otherwise he would accept non-viable business which would help neither the operator nor the government trying to squeeze the operator.

Now if the topic would be on bidding for building the extensions than we would have a completely different matter of course.

Actually the topic is about an NGO objecting to the no-bid award of the contract to operate the Blue Line extensions. The NGO presented its case well. I supplemented their case with reasons why transparent competitive bids are the best way to award government contracts, and reasons why no-bid contracts are open to abuse. That was too 'ivory tower' for you.

Your rambling third paragraph once again indicates that you don't understand how contracting works in societies that want to get the best value for the taxpayers while making life difficult for corrupt officials. The process should be:

1. The government decides on the work necessary and budgets for the work.

2. The government develops contract specifications and publishes them with an invitation to submit proposals showing the cost, deliveries and schedules that meet the contract specifications.

3. Interested contractors develop plans and cost estimates and submit bids to satisfy the contract specifications, with the intent to submit the best value bid for the government and still earn a reasonable profit.

4. The government goes over the proposals and, ideally, selects the best value proposal and negotiates a contract with this contractor.

None of this is easy, all of it requires knowledgeable people with the appropriate skills working together, and frequently there are back and forth negotiations about contract specifications, budget, delivery and payment schedules, and many other tedious details. Also, none of this is ivory tower, this is how competitive bidding for government projects takes place.

Your argument seems to be that it's cheaper to just award a contract without a competitive bid, which I concede is easier and not the least bit ivory tower. However it doesn't lead to the best deal for the taxpayer and it opens the door to corruption.

Edited March 11, 2015 by heybruce

[bkkcanuck8]

There should be no problem running the system with more than one vendor while looking like it is a single vendor. You have both entry and exit data for every passenger, which can be split based on a formula on what percentage was on one line vs another (Tokyo does this for multiple different lines operated by different vendors but run as a single to passengers). The staffing of the booths in each segment is easy. The trains that run the lines can be split based percentage etc. There is a way to do that..... therefore there is no reason to only negotiate with the existing vendor. They should follow the law or face corruption charges.

[rubl]

There should be no problem running the system with more than one vendor while looking like it is a single vendor. You have both entry and exit data for every passenger, which can be split based on a formula on what percentage was on one line vs another (Tokyo does this for multiple different lines operated by different vendors but run as a single to passengers). The staffing of the booths in each segment is easy. The trains that run the lines can be split based percentage etc. There is a way to do that..... therefore there is no reason to only negotiate with the existing vendor. They should follow the law or face corruption charges.

The Blue Line is a single line. Trains are provided. The extensions are to the left and to the right of the 'existing' line.

A single operator would be preferable, while still letting the government negotiate with the current operator to make clear there are other possibilities. A multi-operator setup might be possible, but doesn't seem cheaper with all the extra things to take care of. Someone would pay for the extras and I'm afraid it would be the potential passengers. Oh, and whereas a complex multi-vendor set-up might work in Tokyo, Japan (a country known for getting 'just-in-time' to work), pragmatically it would assume a wee bit too much for the Thai ability to excel in logistics and other planning.

BTW 'follow the law'? Even the secretary-general of the Association for the Protection of the Thai Constitution (and head of the Anti-Global Warming Association), only states bypassing an open bid "might constitute a violation of the Private and Government Sectors Joint Investment Act."

PS it would seem this anti-global warming head is making a lot of hot air which has nothing to do with protecting the constitution.

[rubl]

"I wonder about the two line extensions and how having more than one operator could be profitable for the country and the passengers."

Sorry, I forgot I was replying to someone who doesn't understand contracts and project management. One of many possible solutions is for a competitively bid contract for a single operator to have overall project management, with subordinate contractors reporting to this top level manager. Another is for the government to hold overall project management responsibility. As I posted earlier, it depends on the specifications the government puts into the invitation to bid for the contract.

Terribly sorry and all that, I should know you're just speaking from ivory tower theory.

In the mean time we have a Blue Line for which an operator was selected (to exploit the rail link when operational) and now with two extensions being build those two extensions need to be operated when finished.

I doubt the government should be involved in the actual operation by selected operators. Furthermore I see possibilities for the government to negotiate with the current operator which should be profitable for government, operator and the passengers for the complete Blue Line. Please note that an operator has to be able to make a profit otherwise he would accept non-viable business which would help neither the operator nor the government trying to squeeze the operator.

Now if the topic would be on bidding for building the extensions than we would have a completely different matter of course.

Actually the topic is about an NGO objecting to the no-bid award of the contract to operate the Blue Line extensions. The NGO presented its case well. I supplemented their case with reasons why transparent competitive bids are the best way to award government contracts, and reasons why no-bid contracts are open to abuse. That was too 'ivory tower' for you.

Your rambling third paragraph once again indicates that you don't understand how contracting works in societies that want to get the best value for the taxpayers while making life difficult for corrupt officials. The process should be:

1. The government decides on the work necessary and budgets for the work.

2. The government develops contract specifications and publishes them with an invitation to submit proposals showing the cost, deliveries and schedules that meet the contract specifications.

3. Interested contractors develop plans and cost estimates and submit bids to satisfy the contract specifications, with the intent to submit the best value bid for the government and still earn a reasonable profit.

4. The government goes over the proposals and, ideally, selects the best value proposal and negotiates a contract with this contractor.

None of this is easy, all of it requires knowledgeable people with the appropriate skills working together, and frequently there are back and forth negotiations about contract specifications, budget, delivery and payment schedules, and many other tedious details. Also, none of this is ivory tower, this is how competitive bidding for government projects takes place.

Your argument seems to be that it's cheaper to just award a contract without a competitive bid, which I concede is easier and not the least bit ivory tower. However it doesn't lead to the best deal for the taxpayer and it opens the door to corruption.

Heybruce, you started with your usual anti-Prayut government stuff and blinded by it you assumed the topic was construction rather than operation. I gave you an easy opt-out in my last post. Mistakes happen and I never have a problem to acknowledge I made a mistake and have no problem others do the same.

Now you continue with your usual nonsense as if nothing happened.

You also interpret my writings and with your interpretation start to blame me for being wrong. For example "Your argument seems to be that it's cheaper to just award a contract without a competitive bid" totally ignores I wrote about the need for negotiations which is for most people not the same as 'just award a contract'

Furthermore you still ignore that this is about operating the total Blue Line with tracks, tunnels and trains provided. Three segments and the middle segment has an operator.

Well, so be it. I'll refrain from saying what comes to mind.

[rubl]

For those interested:

The "Blue Line" is the existing MRT subway line from Hua Lamphong to Bang Su, in operation since 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRT_(Bangkok)

[heybruce]

"I wonder about the two line extensions and how having more than one operator could be profitable for the country and the passengers."

Sorry, I forgot I was replying to someone who doesn't understand contracts and project management. One of many possible solutions is for a competitively bid contract for a single operator to have overall project management, with subordinate contractors reporting to this top level manager. Another is for the government to hold overall project management responsibility. As I posted earlier, it depends on the specifications the government puts into the invitation to bid for the contract.

Terribly sorry and all that, I should know you're just speaking from ivory tower theory.

In the mean time we have a Blue Line for which an operator was selected (to exploit the rail link when operational) and now with two extensions being build those two extensions need to be operated when finished.

I doubt the government should be involved in the actual operation by selected operators. Furthermore I see possibilities for the government to negotiate with the current operator which should be profitable for government, operator and the passengers for the complete Blue Line. Please note that an operator has to be able to make a profit otherwise he would accept non-viable business which would help neither the operator nor the government trying to squeeze the operator.

Now if the topic would be on bidding for building the extensions than we would have a completely different matter of course.

Actually the topic is about an NGO objecting to the no-bid award of the contract to operate the Blue Line extensions. The NGO presented its case well. I supplemented their case with reasons why transparent competitive bids are the best way to award government contracts, and reasons why no-bid contracts are open to abuse. That was too 'ivory tower' for you.

Your rambling third paragraph once again indicates that you don't understand how contracting works in societies that want to get the best value for the taxpayers while making life difficult for corrupt officials. The process should be:

1. The government decides on the work necessary and budgets for the work.

2. The government develops contract specifications and publishes them with an invitation to submit proposals showing the cost, deliveries and schedules that meet the contract specifications.

3. Interested contractors develop plans and cost estimates and submit bids to satisfy the contract specifications, with the intent to submit the best value bid for the government and still earn a reasonable profit.

4. The government goes over the proposals and, ideally, selects the best value proposal and negotiates a contract with this contractor.

None of this is easy, all of it requires knowledgeable people with the appropriate skills working together, and frequently there are back and forth negotiations about contract specifications, budget, delivery and payment schedules, and many other tedious details. Also, none of this is ivory tower, this is how competitive bidding for government projects takes place.

Your argument seems to be that it's cheaper to just award a contract without a competitive bid, which I concede is easier and not the least bit ivory tower. However it doesn't lead to the best deal for the taxpayer and it opens the door to corruption.

Heybruce, you started with your usual anti-Prayut government stuff and blinded by it you assumed the topic was construction rather than operation. I gave you an easy opt-out in my last post. Mistakes happen and I never have a problem to acknowledge I made a mistake and have no problem others do the same.

Now you continue with your usual nonsense as if nothing happened.

You also interpret my writings and with your interpretation start to blame me for being wrong. For example "Your argument seems to be that it's cheaper to just award a contract without a competitive bid" totally ignores I wrote about the need for negotiations which is for most people not the same as 'just award a contract'

Furthermore you still ignore that this is about operating the total Blue Line with tracks, tunnels and trains provided. Three segments and the middle segment has an operator.

Well, so be it. I'll refrain from saying what comes to mind.

I started by supporting the OP's claim that competitive bidding results in lower cost to the taxpayer, and pointed out that opaque sole-source contracts invite corruption. You responded with speculation about how difficult it would be to bring in another contractor. I gave a high level description of how competitive bidding for contracts worked, which you rejected as being too ivory tower. I pointed out that negotiations are part of competitive bidding, along with the competition, you ignore the benefit of competition and assume negotiation alone will solve everything.

So now I'll attempt to illustrate the advantage of negotiating with competition. Assume you want to have a house built. Which approach will put you in the best negotiating position:

1. Describing the house you want built to three contractors, then telling them you will choose the contractor who offers the best proposal.

or:

2. Selecting a contractor, explaining you will only allow him to build the house, then negotiating for the best price you can get.

[rubl]

Heybruce, you started with your usual anti-Prayut government stuff and blinded by it you assumed the topic was construction rather than operation. I gave you an easy opt-out in my last post. Mistakes happen and I never have a problem to acknowledge I made a mistake and have no problem others do the same.

Now you continue with your usual nonsense as if nothing happened.

You also interpret my writings and with your interpretation start to blame me for being wrong. For example "Your argument seems to be that it's cheaper to just award a contract without a competitive bid" totally ignores I wrote about the need for negotiations which is for most people not the same as 'just award a contract'

Furthermore you still ignore that this is about operating the total Blue Line with tracks, tunnels and trains provided. Three segments and the middle segment has an operator.

Well, so be it. I'll refrain from saying what comes to mind.

I started by supporting the OP's claim that competitive bidding results in lower cost to the taxpayer, and pointed out that opaque sole-source contracts invite corruption. You responded with speculation about how difficult it would be to bring in another contractor. I gave a high level description of how competitive bidding for contracts worked, which you rejected as being too ivory tower. I pointed out that negotiations are part of competitive bidding, along with the competition, you ignore the benefit of competition and assume negotiation alone will solve everything.

So now I'll attempt to illustrate the advantage of negotiating with competition. Assume you want to have a house built. Which approach will put you in the best negotiating position:

1. Describing the house you want built to three contractors, then telling them you will choose the contractor who offers the best proposal.

or:

2. Selecting a contractor, explaining you will only allow him to build the house, then negotiating for the best price you can get.

You started with your usual anti-government attitude. You seemed to assume contracting was for construction, but it's for actual running the extended Blue Line. The Blue Line has been running since 2004 and is operated as such.

Now this ring is being extended to the left and to the right. Assuming there is no dissatisfaction with the current operator, assuming the current operator still has 15 to 20 years contracted, it makes sense to use the same operator. The government of course should negotiate, but it should be clear that a single operator can have advantage to both the operator as well as the government AND the passengers. Please note that price alone has only a certain value. Ease of passenger comfort, reliability, continuity, etc., etc. I do not say that awarding the extensions to the current operator should be automatic, but seeing this is a single line a single operator would have various advantages. Furthermore the operator would be aware that to get the extensions he would need to offer value in bid price, service, length of contract (preferably to coincide with ending of contract first stretch). The operator would be aware that failure to come to an agreement would open the gates for competitors. As I wrote the lowest price may be to no ones advantage.

So, train operation, an extension to an existing, in operation stretch. Dig out the contract documents from 12 years ago. Make up-to-date where necessary (incorporate new law updates, operating norms, etc.).

BTW still looking forward to using the extension by late 2017. That's assuming no one will listen to HB Consultancy.

Edited March 12, 2015 by rubl

[heybruce]

Heybruce, you started with your usual anti-Prayut government stuff and blinded by it you assumed the topic was construction rather than operation. I gave you an easy opt-out in my last post. Mistakes happen and I never have a problem to acknowledge I made a mistake and have no problem others do the same.

Now you continue with your usual nonsense as if nothing happened.

You also interpret my writings and with your interpretation start to blame me for being wrong. For example "Your argument seems to be that it's cheaper to just award a contract without a competitive bid" totally ignores I wrote about the need for negotiations which is for most people not the same as 'just award a contract'

Furthermore you still ignore that this is about operating the total Blue Line with tracks, tunnels and trains provided. Three segments and the middle segment has an operator.

Well, so be it. I'll refrain from saying what comes to mind.

I started by supporting the OP's claim that competitive bidding results in lower cost to the taxpayer, and pointed out that opaque sole-source contracts invite corruption. You responded with speculation about how difficult it would be to bring in another contractor. I gave a high level description of how competitive bidding for contracts worked, which you rejected as being too ivory tower. I pointed out that negotiations are part of competitive bidding, along with the competition, you ignore the benefit of competition and assume negotiation alone will solve everything.

So now I'll attempt to illustrate the advantage of negotiating with competition. Assume you want to have a house built. Which approach will put you in the best negotiating position:

1. Describing the house you want built to three contractors, then telling them you will choose the contractor who offers the best proposal.

or:

2. Selecting a contractor, explaining you will only allow him to build the house, then negotiating for the best price you can get.

You started with your usual anti-government attitude. You seemed to assume contracting was for construction, but it's for actual running the extended Blue Line. The Blue Line has been running since 2004 and is operated as such.

Now this ring is being extended to the left and to the right. Assuming there is no dissatisfaction with the current operator, assuming the current operator still has 15 to 20 years contracted, it makes sense to use the same operator. The government of course should negotiate, but it should be clear that a single operator can have advantage to both the operator as well as the government AND the passengers. Please note that price alone has only a certain value. Ease of passenger comfort, reliability, continuity, etc., etc. I do not say that awarding the extensions to the current operator should be automatic, but seeing this is a single line a single operator would have various advantages. Furthermore the operator would be aware that to get the extensions he would need to offer value in bid price, service, length of contract (preferably to coincide with ending of contract first stretch). The operator would be aware that failure to come to an agreement would open the gates for competitors. As I wrote the lowest price may be to no ones advantage.

So, train operation, an extension to an existing, in operation stretch. Dig out the contract documents from 12 years ago. Make up-to-date where necessary (incorporate new law updates, operating norms, etc.).

BTW still looking forward to using the extension by late 2017. That's assuming no one will listen to HB Consultancy.

I'm not against all government, but I am against the military ones that come to power by toppling an elected government. Also, my comments have been about the advantages of competitive bidding in general for all types of contracts.

I started with:

"I've been saying since the coup, if the junta is serious about eliminating corruption it will implement transparency in government spending and require open, competitive on all government contracts, among other things. I've also been saying since the coup that I don't expect to see this, or other serious measures against corruption."

I see no reason to retract that post, but I will make a correction, I meant to post "...require open, competitive bidding on all government contracts..."

You are in your typical "defend that junta in all things" mode. You should pick your battles more carefully. You have yet to give a coherent reason why this contract should not have been put out for competitive bid, and in your last reply you addressed nothing that I posted.

You seem obsessed with the idea that the incumbent contractor should be allowed to operate the Blue Line extension. Reread my posts rubl; did I ever state that the incumbent should not be allowed to do so? I have simply pointed out, striving for the simplest explanation possible, that the best deal will be reached by putting the contract out for competitive bid. The incumbent contractor should be in an excellent position to provide the best proposal, but with the knowledge that if it gets too greedy or sloppy the contract will go to a competitor. Why do you object to that?

[rubl]

You started with your usual anti-government attitude. You seemed to assume contracting was for construction, but it's for actual running the extended Blue Line. The Blue Line has been running since 2004 and is operated as such.

Now this ring is being extended to the left and to the right. Assuming there is no dissatisfaction with the current operator, assuming the current operator still has 15 to 20 years contracted, it makes sense to use the same operator. The government of course should negotiate, but it should be clear that a single operator can have advantage to both the operator as well as the government AND the passengers. Please note that price alone has only a certain value. Ease of passenger comfort, reliability, continuity, etc., etc. I do not say that awarding the extensions to the current operator should be automatic, but seeing this is a single line a single operator would have various advantages. Furthermore the operator would be aware that to get the extensions he would need to offer value in bid price, service, length of contract (preferably to coincide with ending of contract first stretch). The operator would be aware that failure to come to an agreement would open the gates for competitors. As I wrote the lowest price may be to no ones advantage.

So, train operation, an extension to an existing, in operation stretch. Dig out the contract documents from 12 years ago. Make up-to-date where necessary (incorporate new law updates, operating norms, etc.).

BTW still looking forward to using the extension by late 2017. That's assuming no one will listen to HB Consultancy.

I'm not against all government, but I am against the military ones that come to power by toppling an elected government. Also, my comments have been about the advantages of competitive bidding in general for all types of contracts.

I started with:

"I've been saying since the coup, if the junta is serious about eliminating corruption it will implement transparency in government spending and require open, competitive on all government contracts, among other things. I've also been saying since the coup that I don't expect to see this, or other serious measures against corruption."

I see no reason to retract that post, but I will make a correction, I meant to post "...require open, competitive bidding on all government contracts..."

You are in your typical "defend that junta in all things" mode. You should pick your battles more carefully. You have yet to give a coherent reason why this contract should not have been put out for competitive bid, and in your last reply you addressed nothing that I posted.

You seem obsessed with the idea that the incumbent contractor should be allowed to operate the Blue Line extension. Reread my posts rubl; did I ever state that the incumbent should not be allowed to do so? I have simply pointed out, striving for the simplest explanation possible, that the best deal will be reached by putting the contract out for competitive bid. The incumbent contractor should be in an excellent position to provide the best proposal, but with the knowledge that if it gets too greedy or sloppy the contract will go to a competitor. Why do you object to that?

The usual twisting and turned. Why should I be surprised.

I suggested the government starts with negotiating with the current operator. The current operator knows the government does not need to select him, so a fair deal should be possible. If not, open the bid.

Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me.

[heybruce]

You started with your usual anti-government attitude. You seemed to assume contracting was for construction, but it's for actual running the extended Blue Line. The Blue Line has been running since 2004 and is operated as such.

Now this ring is being extended to the left and to the right. Assuming there is no dissatisfaction with the current operator, assuming the current operator still has 15 to 20 years contracted, it makes sense to use the same operator. The government of course should negotiate, but it should be clear that a single operator can have advantage to both the operator as well as the government AND the passengers. Please note that price alone has only a certain value. Ease of passenger comfort, reliability, continuity, etc., etc. I do not say that awarding the extensions to the current operator should be automatic, but seeing this is a single line a single operator would have various advantages. Furthermore the operator would be aware that to get the extensions he would need to offer value in bid price, service, length of contract (preferably to coincide with ending of contract first stretch). The operator would be aware that failure to come to an agreement would open the gates for competitors. As I wrote the lowest price may be to no ones advantage.

So, train operation, an extension to an existing, in operation stretch. Dig out the contract documents from 12 years ago. Make up-to-date where necessary (incorporate new law updates, operating norms, etc.).

BTW still looking forward to using the extension by late 2017. That's assuming no one will listen to HB Consultancy.

I'm not against all government, but I am against the military ones that come to power by toppling an elected government. Also, my comments have been about the advantages of competitive bidding in general for all types of contracts.

I started with:

"I've been saying since the coup, if the junta is serious about eliminating corruption it will implement transparency in government spending and require open, competitive on all government contracts, among other things. I've also been saying since the coup that I don't expect to see this, or other serious measures against corruption."

I see no reason to retract that post, but I will make a correction, I meant to post "...require open, competitive bidding on all government contracts..."

You are in your typical "defend that junta in all things" mode. You should pick your battles more carefully. You have yet to give a coherent reason why this contract should not have been put out for competitive bid, and in your last reply you addressed nothing that I posted.

You seem obsessed with the idea that the incumbent contractor should be allowed to operate the Blue Line extension. Reread my posts rubl; did I ever state that the incumbent should not be allowed to do so? I have simply pointed out, striving for the simplest explanation possible, that the best deal will be reached by putting the contract out for competitive bid. The incumbent contractor should be in an excellent position to provide the best proposal, but with the knowledge that if it gets too greedy or sloppy the contract will go to a competitor. Why do you object to that?

The usual twisting and turned. Why should I be surprised.

I suggested the government starts with negotiating with the current operator. The current operator knows the government does not need to select him, so a fair deal should be possible. If not, open the bid.

Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me.

Running out of anything to post, so posting the same false accusations. The OP is about the need for competitive bidding, and in every one of my posts I support the OP and have explained why. That's not twisting and turning, that's you running out of ideas for arguing.

You suggest the junta start with opaque, sole-source negotiations with the contractor. You trust the junta to do this without succumbing to the temptation for kickbacks, and to negotiate the best possible deal without having in hand alternate proposals from competing contractors. I and a lot of others don't have the same faith in the junta. I and the OP prefer that the process begin with competitive bidding so the contract goes to the contractor that offers the best deal.

I've explained this many times and still you twist facts to conclude:

"Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me."

You are blatantly twisting my post by ignoring my repeatedly stating the process should start with competitive bidding. If you can't reply to what I post, then don't reply to my posts.

Edited March 13, 2015 by heybruce

[rubl]

The usual twisting and turned. Why should I be surprised.

I suggested the government starts with negotiating with the current operator. The current operator knows the government does not need to select him, so a fair deal should be possible. If not, open the bid.

Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me.

Running out of anything to post, so posting the same false accusations. The OP is about the need for competitive bidding, and in every one of my posts I support the OP and have explained why. That's not twisting and turning, that's you running out of ideas for arguing.

You suggest the junta start with opaque, sole-source negotiations with the contractor. You trust the junta to do this without succumbing to the temptation for kickbacks, and to negotiate the best possible deal without having in hand alternate proposals from competing contractors. I and a lot of others don't have the same faith in the junta. I and the OP prefer that the process begin with competitive bidding so the contract goes to the contractor that offers the best deal.

I've explained this many times and still you twist facts to conclude:

"Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me."

You are blatantly twisting my post by ignoring my repeatedly stating the process should start with competitive bidding. If you can't reply to what I post, then don't reply to my posts.

My dear chap, I realise it's Friday the 13th but that no reason to become abusive.

You ignore that I started with stating

"Depending on how the extensions fit in into the existing Blue Line to have the current operator as preferred choice for the extensions. I don't think a case of

- point A to point B: operator N1

- point B to point C: operator N2

- point C to point D: operator N3

would make the business more transparent or even cheaper. Responsibility for the trains going from A to D switched two times, or passengers switching trains two times ?

Mind you, there should still be negotiations. Now how to value the profit for the current operator and how that should be reflected in bidding price."

You replied to that and from there on things went down again.

Now you seem to 'prefer' which is not the same as 'should' which you also wrote. Furthermore you seem to like unnecessary government mandated overhead and oversight and even another commission if more than one operator would be chosen on this single, circular line. Here we're not talking about building a line, we are talking about operating it once all is finished.

BTW ever looked at the operation of the London Underground?

"The current operator, London Underground Limited (LUL), is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transport for London (TfL), the statutory corporation responsible for most elements of the transport network in Greater London. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground

May I recommend the 2012 TV series. Fascinating. The work involved in keeping schedules, keeping clean, keep running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tube_(2012_TV_series)

Edited March 13, 2015 by rubl

[heybruce]

The usual twisting and turned. Why should I be surprised.

I suggested the government starts with negotiating with the current operator. The current operator knows the government does not need to select him, so a fair deal should be possible. If not, open the bid.

Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me.

Running out of anything to post, so posting the same false accusations. The OP is about the need for competitive bidding, and in every one of my posts I support the OP and have explained why. That's not twisting and turning, that's you running out of ideas for arguing.

You suggest the junta start with opaque, sole-source negotiations with the contractor. You trust the junta to do this without succumbing to the temptation for kickbacks, and to negotiate the best possible deal without having in hand alternate proposals from competing contractors. I and a lot of others don't have the same faith in the junta. I and the OP prefer that the process begin with competitive bidding so the contract goes to the contractor that offers the best deal.

I've explained this many times and still you twist facts to conclude:

"Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me."

You are blatantly twisting my post by ignoring my repeatedly stating the process should start with competitive bidding. If you can't reply to what I post, then don't reply to my posts.

My dear chap, I realise it's Friday the 13th but that no reason to become abusive.

You ignore that I started with stating

"Depending on how the extensions fit in into the existing Blue Line to have the current operator as preferred choice for the extensions. I don't think a case of

- point A to point B: operator N1

- point B to point C: operator N2

- point C to point D: operator N3

would make the business more transparent or even cheaper. Responsibility for the trains going from A to D switched two times, or passengers switching trains two times ?

Mind you, there should still be negotiations. Now how to value the profit for the current operator and how that should be reflected in bidding price."

You replied to that and from there on things went down again.

Now you seem to 'prefer' which is not the same as 'should' which you also wrote. Furthermore you seem to like unnecessary government mandated overhead and oversight and even another commission if more than one operator would be chosen on this single, circular line. Here we're not talking about building a line, we are talking about operating it once all is finished.

BTW ever looked at the operation of the London Underground?

"The current operator, London Underground Limited (LUL), is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transport for London (TfL), the statutory corporation responsible for most elements of the transport network in Greater London. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground

May I recommend the 2012 TV series. Fascinating. The work involved in keeping schedules, keeping clean, keep running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tube_(2012_TV_series)

Ahhh, did I hurt your feelings? You opened your post with:

"The usual twisting and turned. Why should I be surprised."

and then closed with an intentionally misleading edit of my post to misrepresent my position. I pointed out that your opening was a diversionary lie, and your closing showed that you couldn't provide an intelligent reply to what I actually posted. If the truth offends you, tough.

The OP is about the advantages of competitive bidding for government contracts. I agreed with the OP and gave reasons why it is a good idea. Your responses have consisted of stating that competitive bidding seems complicated and it's easier to just negotiate with the current operator. I gave reasons why this is a bad idea, but you stick to your "too hard" argument against competitive bidding.

What is your point with the operation of the London Underground? Do you think the Thai government should put the Bangkok Metro system under one contractor? I have no problem with that, provided the contractor is chosen using a proper competitive bidding process.

Edited March 13, 2015 by heybruce

[bkkcanuck8]

There are reasons why governments are forced towards open and transparent bidding systems for projects..... Lower cost, less room for corruption. Of course the RFP "request for proposal" etc. can be tailored, but it still provides less room. There are reasons why governing parties tend to hate it.... it gives less room to reward people that helped get them elected or friends. Such a large project, with large expenditures should not be allowed to be rewarded to specific companies without an open and transparent bidding system.

The only thing that crosses the border on a single line that may add complications are the trains themselves. Kiosks, stations, etc. can be run by a different corporation. In fact the system operating ticketing should also be open, which would allow seamless transfers between systems..... BTS and MRT should look like one system to the outside world. Now the running of the trains between differently managed corporations is no different than many municipalities face everyday with bus systems. Municipalities side-by-side often make arrangements for buses on certain routes that cross boundaries to operate as if they are one system. It can be by sharing routes (intermingling), sharing of cost/revenue for that line etc.

Corruption flourishes when allowed to operate in the dark and with companies or individuals that are already connected.

[rubl]

The usual twisting and turned. Why should I be surprised.

I suggested the government starts with negotiating with the current operator. The current operator knows the government does not need to select him, so a fair deal should be possible. If not, open the bid.

Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me.

Running out of anything to post, so posting the same false accusations. The OP is about the need for competitive bidding, and in every one of my posts I support the OP and have explained why. That's not twisting and turning, that's you running out of ideas for arguing.

You suggest the junta start with opaque, sole-source negotiations with the contractor. You trust the junta to do this without succumbing to the temptation for kickbacks, and to negotiate the best possible deal without having in hand alternate proposals from competing contractors. I and a lot of others don't have the same faith in the junta. I and the OP prefer that the process begin with competitive bidding so the contract goes to the contractor that offers the best deal.

I've explained this many times and still you twist facts to conclude:

"Now you state that I 'seem' obsessed with the incumbent contractor operator and then you finish with incumbent should be in excellent position, but if greedy may miss out.

So, it would seem you agree with me."

You are blatantly twisting my post by ignoring my repeatedly stating the process should start with competitive bidding. If you can't reply to what I post, then don't reply to my posts.

My dear chap, I realise it's Friday the 13th but that no reason to become abusive.

You ignore that I started with stating

"Depending on how the extensions fit in into the existing Blue Line to have the current operator as preferred choice for the extensions. I don't think a case of

- point A to point B: operator N1

- point B to point C: operator N2

- point C to point D: operator N3

would make the business more transparent or even cheaper. Responsibility for the trains going from A to D switched two times, or passengers switching trains two times ?

Mind you, there should still be negotiations. Now how to value the profit for the current operator and how that should be reflected in bidding price."

You replied to that and from there on things went down again.

Now you seem to 'prefer' which is not the same as 'should' which you also wrote. Furthermore you seem to like unnecessary government mandated overhead and oversight and even another commission if more than one operator would be chosen on this single, circular line. Here we're not talking about building a line, we are talking about operating it once all is finished.

BTW ever looked at the operation of the London Underground?

"The current operator, London Underground Limited (LUL), is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transport for London (TfL), the statutory corporation responsible for most elements of the transport network in Greater London. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground

May I recommend the 2012 TV series. Fascinating. The work involved in keeping schedules, keeping clean, keep running.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tube_(2012_TV_series)

Ahhh, did I hurt your feelings? You opened your post with:

"The usual twisting and turned. Why should I be surprised."

and then closed with an intentionally misleading edit of my post to misrepresent my position. I pointed out that your opening was a diversionary lie, and your closing showed that you couldn't provide an intelligent reply to what I actually posted. If the truth offends you, tough.

The OP is about the advantages of competitive bidding for government contracts. I agreed with the OP and gave reasons why it is a good idea. Your responses have consisted of stating that competitive bidding seems complicated and it's easier to just negotiate with the current operator. I gave reasons why this is a bad idea, but you stick to your "too hard" argument against competitive bidding.

What is your point with the operation of the London Underground? Do you think the Thai government should put the Bangkok Metro system under one contractor? I have no problem with that, provided the contractor is chosen using a proper competitive bidding process.

Still twisting, turning, obfuscating, close to lying and no real replies on the topic or my post.

Heybruce, you seem only interested in annoying other posters, without real positive contribution to a topic.

My opinion. Now hop along and go annoy other people.

In the mean time the government should start negotiations with the current operator of the MRT 'Blue Line' and try to come to an agreement for the operation of the two extensions. A single operator on what will be a circular route is to be preferred of course, but if no deal acceptable to all parties can be reached, the bid can be opened.

Oh, btw, the London Tube. Well, I thought you might want to know what all this is about. A service provided to the public.

[rubl]

There are reasons why governments are forced towards open and transparent bidding systems for projects..... Lower cost, less room for corruption. Of course the RFP "request for proposal" etc. can be tailored, but it still provides less room. There are reasons why governing parties tend to hate it.... it gives less room to reward people that helped get them elected or friends. Such a large project, with large expenditures should not be allowed to be rewarded to specific companies without an open and transparent bidding system.

The only thing that crosses the border on a single line that may add complications are the trains themselves. Kiosks, stations, etc. can be run by a different corporation. In fact the system operating ticketing should also be open, which would allow seamless transfers between systems..... BTS and MRT should look like one system to the outside world. Now the running of the trains between differently managed corporations is no different than many municipalities face everyday with bus systems. Municipalities side-by-side often make arrangements for buses on certain routes that cross boundaries to operate as if they are one system. It can be by sharing routes (intermingling), sharing of cost/revenue for that line etc.

Corruption flourishes when allowed to operate in the dark and with companies or individuals that are already connected.

Do you really think heybruce needs help?

So, what does all this have to do with choosing an operator for the extensions of the current MRT 'Blue Line' which will be a circular route? What's wrong with first negotiating with the existing operator? Do you really think that more than one operator on the total Blue Line will automatically lower costs?