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

[heybruce]

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.

Read the title of the OP rubl:

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

Have I not consistently argued in favor of the NGO's position? Have I not given reasons based on how honest government contracting works, and explained why non-competitive contract awards are an invitation to corruption? Have you given a reason not to use competitive bidding, other than the fact that doing it correctly is harder than sole-source contracting?

And yet you post:

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

No rubl, you are the one doing these things.

[heybruce]

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?

He didn't reply to anyone's post, neither did he mention your name or mine. He posted intelligent thoughts pertinent to the OP. He's allowed to do that rubl.

I'm tempted to respond to your questions directed to bkkcanuck8, but I have no doubt he can do so himself. That is if he feels it is worth his while to answer questions that have already been answered.

[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.

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?

When a company has an existing relationship with government and officials in that government, it can develop those during the term of the contract. You meet new people through your existing relationships, you invite people out to events - give them free tickets to muay thai events etc. etc. etc. It is no different than in private business, you deepen your relationship through gifts, free trips on corporate jets (if they have them) -- with the hope and intent of having "an in" on future contracts etc. If the government is free to just "negotiate" with the existing operator with no open bidding, I can guarantee you that it will cost the government significantly more.

From my personal life I can tell you that if you have multiple companies in competition for business you will get a better deal. I went into a department store and told them I wanted to buy a range for 20% off the list/posted price (it was a Wolf Range - very expensive). He sort of laughed and said no, it did not work like that. I then went to a store on the outskirts and told them the first store offered me a 10% discount and they offered me 15%. I then went back to the back to the first store and told them I would really like to buy from them, but the other store offered me a 15% discount (close to a $1,000). If they were able to offer me 20% I would commit to buying it. They called the department store manager -- and got approval and they sold me the range for 20% off. Without competitive bidding no company or individual in his right mind is going to cut their margin, since they don't have to if they know the contract is theirs anyways.

Without competitive bidding, the company is free to take part of the larger margin and use it as kickbacks to important government officials to help with their "expenses".

Remember the microphones? I don't think they had competitive bidding for that - and they were VERY expensive.... but then it gave lots of room to pay commissions internal and external.

Lack of competitive bidding can easily adds 30% - 40% on top of any contract.

It also has to be open so that the final bids are known as to prevent two sets of books, the real and the published.

Edited March 15, 2015 by bkkcanuck8

[heybruce]

After all nonsense let's go back to the topic of an NGO opposing no bidding for the operation of the Blue Line extensions.

The MRT Blue Line has been in operation since 2004. The line is being extended from both current termination points. The Blue Line will eventually be a circular line.

From all perspectives a negotiation with the current operator makes sense. The current operator may seem at an advantage, but still needs to negotiate as the government may still opt for an open bidding.

Although an open bidding may be deemed in the interest of the government in saving money, that's not the only, or even the most important aspect. Seemless integration (like Ms. Yingluck told the BKK electorate pushing her candidate for Bangkok governor), reliability, logistics, planning, actual operation, ticketing, user satisfaction. Squeezing an operator, or new operators on price would be counter productive.

Now checking how the BTS Sukhumvit line extension to Baring and the Silom Line extension to BangWa operation was allocated.

BTW still wondering why the head of the "Association for the Protection of Thai Constitution" and the "Anti-Global Warming Association" is concerning himself with this.

"Seemless integration (like Ms. Yingluck told the BKK electorate pushing her candidate for Bangkok governor), reliability, logistics, planning, actual operation, ticketing, user satisfaction."

All of which can be accomplished at the best price for the taxpayers with competitive bidding

"Squeezing an operator, or new operators on price would be counter productive."

With competitive bidding you can be confident the contractors will not submit bids that don't allow them a profit. With sole-source contract negotiations you can be confident the contractor will try for the fattest, most profitable contract possible. Also, since this is Thailand, you can be confident the contractor will offer "incentives" to the government officials responsible for the contract to motivate them to approve a lucrative, gold-plated contract.

Your stubborn opposition to competitive bidding is puzzling. Is this your usual "defend the junta in all things" logic or do you work for a company that benefits from sole-source contracting?

[bkkcanuck8]

I just point to an example of single-source "negotiations".... the microphones, which "cost" the government (originally) 145,000 baht per unit..... after all hell broke lose when people said "<deleted>" the supplier said it would give the government a discount.... to 95,000 per microphone (an attempt to stop the brewing scandal) - which I would argue is a little too expensive per microphone for a government building. Eventually everything was swept under the rug. This is what happens when you don't have open and transparent bidding....

[metisdead]

Nonsense and inflammatory bickering posts and replies. have been removed.