On 2009-08-25 12:18:11 +0100, Mizter T said:

BBC News story - "Tube closures to last 'to 2010' "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8219254.stm

TfL press release - "Mayor and TfL challenge Tube Lines to deliver"
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/12435.aspx

Tube Lines has of course already been granted extra weekend closures
on the Jubbly line in order to get the work finished on time - see
this TfL press release from May of this year:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ive/11760.aspx


-----
(Unrelated hint about TfL's press release URLs - after x amount of
time they get moved into the "/archive" hierarchy, so if one
encounters a 404 when linking to an older press release then just add
the "/archive" element to the URL before the press release's number in
order to access it. Bit daft perhaps, but there you go.)

Either
their programming / project planning of the work is inadequate
Or
performance against plan is inadequate

But I don't suppose LUL [or is the client TfL / the Mayor / whoever]
will be able to claim, as in a conventional contract.

Didn't everyone here conclude that the PFI deals were essentially
"heads I win, tails you lose" for the contractor - until of course
Metronet decided that the best way to manage financial and delivery
risk was to sub all the work to its own shareholders, who thought this
meant they would escape VFM scrutiny and be able to book handsome
profits upstream rather than in the JV.

Of couse Tube Lines "tried hard" not to gloat at the time of the M'net
collapse, claiming that their tendering / programming / management
models and processes were all superior.

Obviously not superior enough to ensure on time delivery - and will we
ever learn if the job comes in on price?

Don't expect anything to change in PFI-land. Remember the structure was
invented by the PM's buddy, "Shrieking Shriti" - beg your pardon Milady.

But I heard an interesting bit of "muttering" from a couple of
well-connected Tories the other day, who were saying that Cameron & Co
were convinced that there was lots of mileage in pursuing VFM for the
taxpayer, even at the expense of big business. Admittedly, that was in
the context of defence procurement, but if it is - or becomes - a more
general view, who knows where it could lead...?

Ken
--
Writer / editor on London's River