We're on a rail to nowhere

Network Rail's relationships with its contractors go from bad to worse. For an organisation in charge of straight lines, it is remarkably adept at u-turns.
"We will not be rushed," is its plaintive cry on the issue of awarding new renewals contracts, as if it has been set unreasonable targets. But the targets are its own, and they are already six months behind schedule.
"We will negotiate a deal that is best for the railways," it says, which is understandable. But it might as well add: "And which is most inconvenient for our supply chain." It's hardly in line with best practice procurement principles.
At this rate preferred bidders First Engineering, Jarvis, Grant Rail, Carillion, AmeySECO and Balfour Beatty might be forgiven for secretly hoping that Network Rail performs one last almighty u-turn and takes renewals back in house. That way it can mess itself about.

A "waste" of time
Excavated material from a development site is moved to another location for temporary storage. When the development is complete it is returned to the original site for use in landscaping. But by now it is classified as "waste", and the contractor needs a waste management licence.
"Cut" material from a "cut and fill" road job is classified as "waste", even though it is to be re-used on the same job and has never been removed from site, with the result that the road embankments are classified as inert landfill.
What red-tape-loving bureaucracy would allow such nonsense? Welcome to Britain (see pages 16-18).



"An announcement will be made when negotiations are complete," it insists, as if contractors have tabled some hard-nosed demands that require arbitration. But one preferred bidder says it has been "left in the dark".