9 years to sign a contract though?

(PsychoChomp, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:34, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

Do you have any idea of the amount of pre contract work that has to be undertaken
before any company could even vaguely calculate a bid for doing such extensive work?

No, you clearly don't. The engineering involved in this project is enormous, and the fact that it's running on time and under budget is in fact testament to a well planned project.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:36, Reply)

9 years? 9 years?
That's surely more time than the actual contract will last?
(PsychoChomp, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:39, Reply)

probably needed a lot of legal advice on it

( rachelswipe with a fork, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:41, Reply)

there's an awful lot that could go wrong
I imagine the liabilities alone took a very long time to sort out.

9 years is a long time, but as it's unusual for even a small project to run on time or to budget they are doing quite well.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:44, Reply)

I want to extend my house
To do this I have to have a ground investigation to see how strong the ground is. To get this I have to ask for quotes from various companies, to produce these quotes the companies have to get an idea of what they would expect the project to entail and base their works on that. Once I've got the ground details I have to get a structural engineer to design the extension based on the ground conditions.

But my extension covers about 10 square metres and doesn't have to allow millions of cars a year to drive through it, so a little more advance planning is required, because if a company submits a poor bid it could easily bankrupt itself, which means the project doesn't actually get done.

Again, if you actually understood the scale of the works involved with the widening scheme you would understand this.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:45, Reply)

actually understood the scale of the works involved with the widening scheme weren't such a spastic
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:48, Reply)

I'm sorry for agreeing with an actual report
by people who've seen the documents and interviewed the staff involved.
I'm such a spastic.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:50, Reply)

you being a spastic is not because of this report
it just compromises your ability to understand it.

edit: also, what Al and Badger said
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:53, Reply)

They aren't, though.
they are a political focus group with a fucking huge axe to grind.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:53, Reply)

No, you're agreeing with a BBC news article

(Bazongaloid, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:54, Reply)

for agreeing with an actual report by people who've seen the documents and interviewed the staff involved.

Well, it's good that you've come to terms with it, and apologised. Maybe soon you can move into big boy pants!
( Agnostic Antichrist Baltimora, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 10:55, Reply)