Taxi Driver Online

It is not the council not offering enough money, that's not how tendering works. It is down to the garage to work out how much they can afford to do the work for. the council can then accept or refuse to accept any tender.

But I'd also say it's the amount of paperwork required that is daunting for all but the biggest of operators. Which is another reason I gave up ph work for the council, and also gave up tendering for school bus work. Far too much paperwork for the return offered.

Any council could accept a standard MoT test if they wanted to.

Indeed, and I maybe should have phrased it slightly different.

But the reality may be a bit different to the theory, and there may be some sort of indicative pricing or informal soundings on price, sort of thing.

The incumbent provider has been in place for at least two years, and it may be common knowledge in the garage trade what the council is paying them, and to that degree no one will tender, because they don't think it would be worth the effort.

On the other hand, if they thought their tender would be accepted at a specific price, no doubt they'd be queuing up, but they're probably aware that the chances of a successful tender at that price are zero.

Some of the 49 local garages may have tendered last time round, but from the article it reads like the current incumbent's contract will be renewed unless they get a cheaper price.

So to that degree the garages will be aware of the kind of price that would need to be tendered, and thus don't think it's worth the effort.

Oh


Tenders for taxi MOT tests received at 11th hour

https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/199 ... 11th-hour/

TWO MOT testing stations have put tenders forward to test Craven taxis.

At a recent meeting of the district council's licensing committee it was heard that not one of the 49 testing stations contacted within the Craven district had responded to a request for tenders and that there was only a matter of day left until the deadline of January 31.

The licensing manager has since said that two tenders were submitted before the deadline and are now being considered.

The contract includes enhanced licensed vehicle checks (ELVC). Currently vehicles over three years of age must have an ELVC every six months.

Committee members had suggested widening the net to beyond Craven if there had been no responses received in time.

'A' day, or 'days'? Who knows, but since that's the crux of the confusion, a bit of basic proofreading might not go amiss.

(Actually, it presumably should have been 'days' rather than 'a day', because the meeting was on 25 January, while the deadline was 31 January.)


Who'd have expected tenders to be submitted just before the deadline?


The meeting was on 25 January, but the article went online 1 February. But the article gave the impression that the position was still the same when the tender deadline had passed.

So not clear whether it's the fault of the journalist or the council, but it was certainly a tad misleading, and in any case at the meeting on 25 January it surely might have been expected that there might be tenders submitted before 31 January.

Anyway, this is the mob who don't know the difference between a grant and a loan, and thought all drivers automatically eligible for the bounce back loans. So maybe better to leave them to it

So they didn't bother checking the post before making that previous statement.

_________________
IDFIMH