Bibby Bargain Barge?

[JonathanM]

who is that contract between?

https://inews.co.uk/news/home-office-pays-bibby-stockholm-barge-2668173

Contract documents, first spotted by journalist Russell Scott, were released for the first time by the Home Office this week and show that the Government has paid more than £22m to Corporate Travel Management for lease of the barge over an 18-month period. The Home Office pays weekly for the barge, the contract shows, with the costs equating to more than £287,000 per week.

I can't answer what the rest of the contract is for or on what basis the payments are due.

This isn't an ideological thing for me.

 

[Notch7]

https://inews.co.uk/news/home-office-pays-bibby-stockholm-barge-2668173

yes Ive seen that

it has a link to this government release:

CCTM22A01 Provision of Bridging Accommodation and Travel Services Contract - Contracts Finder

www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk

price for contract = £1,593,535,200

under annexe C pricing details it shows a blank sheet

do you have the details showing where the rest of the money is going?


the contract for the barge element is here on the journalists twitter page

but we still dont know if or what other money is being paid

https://twitter.com/x/status/1709592860129910925

 

[Notch7]

it seems the £22 million doesnt cover management fee, maybe thats where the rest of the £1.6b is going

 

[motorbiking]

@Notch7 This isn't a shop fit, where the contract value is X and you pay X in a series of payments, until the final coat of varnish goes on and the snagging is complete.

So lets start with some basics:

1. Sunak awarded £1.6b barges contract to CTM without any tender process - clearly that is wrong, you just found the Tender.
2. where has our money gone?? - it hasn't gone anywhere.

A contract is valued based on the entire scope of the contract framework. This is a framework under public procurement tender rules.

for example - imagine I own 2000 shops and I want you to tender for the award to refit those 2000 shops. I want a fixed price for each refit. You tender £40,000. The contract value is £80M. But I place my orders with you 1 at a time and I have no obligation to place all of them with you nor do I agree to order the refits.

Thats at a very basic level.

The whole point of these frameworks is to cover a vast scope of possible orders and to avoid the complexity of having to go out to market for each one. Then you have additional service and reoccurring revenue rolled in to the value (e.g. please come back and touch up the paint annually for no more than £1,000.). so on top of the £80M you have £2M, if the framework is 5 years - that a £90M contract.

 

[Notch7]

2. where has our money gone?? - it hasn't gone anywhere

we dont know the information is redacted

A contract is valued based on the entire scope of the contract framework.

so what is that exactly

for example - imagine I own 2000 shops and I want you to tender for the award to refit those 2000 shops. I want a fixed price for each refit. You tender £40,000. The contract value is £80M. But I place my orders with you 1 at a time

OK, using your logic

So far CTM have delivered 1 no barge at £22m

so when do we expect to see the remaining 71 barges?

 

[Notch7]

The whole point of these frameworks is to cover a vast scope of possible orders and to avoid the complexity of having to go out to market for each one

you arent joking

the government have awarded the contract at 71 times bigger than it necessary

is that the sort of "vast scope" one might expect?

 

[motorbiking]

Its a framework contract. So yes.

Imagine the price you'd offer me per store, if I said I had 10,000 stores.

 

[JonathanM]

so when do we expect to see the remaining 71 barges?

The contract isn't just for barges. That is just one part of it. It covers accommodation and travel services for asylum seekers. As @motorbiking has said, £1.6bn is the potential maximum cost of the contract. So far, all we know is the cost for Bibby Stockholm.

These are massively complex contracts beyond the understanding of most of us. I would hazard a guess that if the cost does, in the end, approach £1.6bn then that will mainly be spent on booking hotels and serviced apartments.

 

[Notch7]

It covers accommodation and travel services for asylum seekers

so take £22 million off £1,593,535,200 an you are left with £1,573,535,200

So the £1.57b balance is for “accomodation and travel services”

what are these exactly?

The contract isn't just for barges

It could be virtually all for the Bibby Stockholm

you can’t says it’s not, we don’t know

These are massively complex contracts beyond the understanding of most of us

I hardly think so

how hard can it be?

”here is a list of stuff”:
“here is the price”

in the end, approach £1.6bn then that will mainly be spent on booking hotels and serviced apartments

do you have any evidence of that?

the govt already contract at least 3 companies to provide asylum accomodation

Clear spring Ready Homes
Stay Belvedere
Meres
Serco

and they already have private companies contracted for travel.

So why do they need a contract with an Australian company worth £1.6 as well

 

[motorbiking]

@Notch7 With the greatest respect, how much experience have you had in negotiating complex public sector supply contracts?

Nobody is committing to place orders. This framework will set out the master terms, rates, service levels, penalties for failure to meet, step in rights, liability, limitation etc.

 

[JonathanM]

So why do they need a contract with an Australian company worth £1.6 as well

How am I supposed to know? Maybe the plan is simply to consolidate everything with one provider and the others will be phased out.

It could be virtually all for the Bibby Stockholm

you can’t says it’s not, we don’t know

We know the cost of Bibby Stockholm. We have the contract.

Anyway, I think I'm done. There's only so many ways to say the same thing.

I don't actually support the use of Bibby Stockholm, btw. But this is the wrong way to make an argument.

 

[motorbiking]

It's usual to establish frameworks with multiple suppliers for the same scope. Like a builder who has a list of electricians he likes to use.

except in public sector you cannot just call up Bob the sparks and give him a job. You have to tender it, to prove best value. So you tender for framework suppliers of electrical services and you secure contracts with Bob, Jim, John who are all sparks. The framework will say, how much they get paid, the warranties etc etc. You are then free to ask Bob, Jim or all 3 to do work.

 

[JP_]

It's not true! The cost of renting the Bibby Stockholm for two years is about £30m, not £1.6bn

Various reports contradict that.
£300,000 a week is the cost, according to several sources, eg

Full cost of Bibby Stockholm to remain secret as it is not in public interest, Home Office says

Home Office has been paying £300,000 a week while the controversial barge stands empty, but won't reveal total cost

inews.co.uk

Although the 1.6b figure looks like total cost for hotels and travel.
"The £22,450,772 figure was contained in a variation to the contract with CTM – worth almost £1.6 billion over two years – to provide hotels and travel for asylum seekers." https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...ome-office-cost-portland-dorset-b1126781.html

CTM are doing well either way!

MSN

I wonder why ...

 

[Notch7]

Its a framework contract. So yes.

Imagine the price you'd offer me per store, if I said I had 10,000 stores.

No I wouldn’t.
Its a total BS argument, as you well know

You are trying to claim the govt gave them a massive contract value in order to secure a great price.
That contradicts the fact the contract went to one business without tender.

the govt aren’t interested in competitive price, they give out contracts to vested interests - so the price is way higher than it need be, not lower.

 

[Notch7]

You have to tender it, to prove best value

There was no tender

It's usual to establish frameworks with multiple suppliers for the same scope

When it is the Tory party it is usual to establish frameworks with: mates
of Tories, Tory party donors or even with companies that have a Tory MP receiving “consultancy fees”