Zero Release Bus Contract Tender with Large Mammals in the Room

The term ‘neglecting an elephant in a room’ applies to situations where such a significant problem exists. After all, who would want to believe that as a person grows older, he will be able to control the stresses of life, that there is a large, often decent mammal nearby, that it can explode and disintegrate at any time? Look the best in another way, look like an ostrich and appear on the king’s new robe.

It is ridiculous to use such powerful illustrations, metaphors, and illustrations in the most convenient and attractive field of bus transportation. A.D. In 2007, David Ashmore submitted a paper stating that the bidding for a large bus area would not be considered a good result for the public purse because of the high cost of land when the existing operator owns buses and depots. Other operators are less likely to bid as they are less competitive (Myers and Ashmore, 2007). In such cases, a bidding process may lead to undesirable results (Ashmore and Melor, 2010). Ignoring this will reduce the elephant in the room – the question of property ownership. Over time, practical negotiations with the acquisition of property were a call for action, and the government of New South Wales chose this acquisition model.

David Henscher (2021), this year alone, began talking about ‘gorillas in the room’ again, in the context of the big bus franchising. Elephants and gorillas can be different animals, but they do not want to be around each other when they are angry. In this example, the gorilla in the room was again associated with capital assets, but over a decade has passed and the problem has changed. There was a lot of interest in the train to promote both battery-powered electric and hydrogen ships, and now the issue was not just property ownership but mass transfer. Exit with petrol pumps and large chargers. With variable fuel prices and large electric contracts. With all the safety issues with diesel mechanics and spanners and electrical and hydrogen repairs. And, perhaps, the biggest gorilla of all – ‘charging’ in and out, unrestricted range of battery capacity – what does this mean for the schedule (Ashmore et al, 2021)?

The problem is not technology and migration, but the current bus franchise and bidding limitations. After years of successful bidding for strategic assets, regulators are now asking, ‘How can a high-risk, uncertain, risk and compare bidding? On what basis does one ‘buy’ it? When the final whistle blows, who will win the race but the midfield is full of obstacles, which will cost the government literally billions? What happens if someone pays a ‘hunter’ bid – offer a low bid in the hope that future risks will be resolved in the future, but may not be, and the contract will be terminated (Alexandersson and Hultén, 2006). Bidding only works when the details and concerns have been cleared. Otherwise the risk must be shared along the way. This points to partnerships. But is this a theoretically competitive market? What is the right of a person to negotiate and lock up other suppliers? And, of course, if an operator were to make a smart move by placing a large quantity of electrical and hydrogen equipment in depots before bidding, would it be impossible to make a financial promise? Tis a catch 22 – Stay away from both gorillas and elephants.

The important thing is that the operating Frances are not built for dramatic change. They are service contracts, suppliers are paid to operate something to a certain extent and in turn are paid for service miles, hours of work and annual shipping. The property is usually kept with the state and all operators do it to suit the purpose and provide high quality services to the public. They take a bit of efficiency – a few miles here and there, a few more standard-designed buses, but, they should not be attacked by large mammals, that big capital program or significant technological change.

Of course, now is the time to return to the basics and ask what the desired outcome is, but not to stick too far in your current purchasing process. These threats are now a combination of huge infrastructure acquisition and service delivery. The supply chain has changed, the threat to the parties must accommodate new players. With partnership support, Collier and others. (20231) “The human brain has evolved from being a low-tech computer to evolutionary decisions, and decisions can enable people to learn faster by experimenting and copying into groups they naturally interact with. This is the basis of Hensher (2021a) for the significant benefit of energy suppliers, bus manufacturers and network infrastructure specialists, from the traditional contract to the symbolic change of contract between government and operator, to contracts, power suppliers, bus manufacturers and network infrastructure specialists. Or the general supply chain: energy, original manufacturer, property owners and operators may be more appropriate to enter into agreements between the government and the consortium to ensure continued service to the government during the ZEB era. It is not uncommon for all parties to the action to be part of the agreement. The supply chain procurement model shares its risks and benefits and encourages a competitive distribution of the supply chain (Figure 1).


Leave a Comment