Now this is just getting redic


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place


  • sockdevs

    @PJH Tha wh hap wh yo cont overp jobsw.


    Fi un: Ju fini th jo, moro



  • @RaceProUK Wh th he ar yo tal ab? It pre ha to und yo.


  • sockdevs

    @thegoryone I kn rig?



  • @PJH Makes sense to me. They were contracted to dig, lay cabling, and replace what they'd removed. It's not their fault if the municipality has let the road markings wear off to the point where they're unreadable, and they weren't contracted to fix those. Coming to them and saying "hey let's negotiate a rate for having us also fix the rest of the missing markings", while seeming sensible, would have opened a can of worms that they didn't want to deal with. And it might've just been flat out impossible without specifying and bidding a whole new contract for that work.

    The whole "hey, while I'm here, I noticed this, would you like us to take care of it too?" thing might sound good in theory, but when you're talking about government contracts, there's a long process to go through before they hire a contractor to do anything. If you're asking to add stuff that wasn't in the original contract, for more money, without going through all the proper channels all over again, it can go sour really quick. Worst case scenario, the contact person is a newbie and says "sure" without realizing the implications, and then their finances department refuses to pay for it on the basis of it not being in the scope of the contract, so the contractor gets screwed out of the payment for the extra work that he did. And the best case scenario isn't a whole lot better because it'll probably take 3 months to go through the whole process of getting proper approval to do it and get paid for it.



  • @RaceProUK said in Now this is just getting redic:

    I kn rig?

    :trumptruck.jpg:



  • @anotherusername yeah, I don't get the outrage. There's probably a fine for going out of bounds, since even if you know what the difference is between "oh, we painted that bit here too" and "oh, we turned the road pink and drew pretty flowers, ain't it nice?", this being public sector you have to codify exactly what constitutes stepping out of bounds.



  • @anotherusername said in Now this is just getting redic:

    The whole "hey, while I'm here, I noticed this, would you like us to take care of it too?" thing might sound good in theory, but when you're talking about government contracts, there's a long process to go through before they hire a contractor to do anything.

    That's if you're lucky.

    If you're unlucky, you'll be sued by the labor union for doing someone else's job.



  • @xaade yep, the municipality might have already granted a contract to some other contractor that includes repainting markings that have worn or faded, and then they could argue that you're stealing work from them. But their contract may not cover painting new markings on freshly-laid pavement (even if the same markings were on the old pavement before it was torn up), so the contract to dig up the street and repair it afterward would have to include repainting the markings, but only on and in the immediate vicinity of the new section of pavement.



  • @anotherusername said in Now this is just getting redic:

    @xaade yep, the municipality might have already granted a contract to some other contractor that includes repainting markings that have worn or faded, and then they could argue that you're stealing work from them. But their contract may not cover painting new markings on freshly-laid pavement (even if the same markings were on the old pavement before it was torn up), so the contract to dig up the street and repair it afterward would have to include repainting the markings, but only on and in the immediate vicinity of the new section of pavement.

    0_1490376827787_upload-3208f4bd-7154-4f6c-94a7-7f4a9b591a72



  • @anotherusername said in Now this is just getting redic:

    And the best case scenario isn't a whole lot better because it'll probably take 3 months years to go through the whole process of getting proper approval to do it and get paid for it.

    FTFG



  • @TimeBandit while that's certainly not an unrealistic timeframe, I wouldn't call it the "best case scenario".



  • @anotherusername You should be glad it doesn't take more time !



  • @anotherusername said in Now this is just getting redic:

    Makes sense to me.

    Yeah, but it's still funny.

    @Maciejasjmj said in Now this is just getting redic:

    yeah, I don't get the outragehumour

    Funny



  • @boomzilla said in Now this is just getting redic:

    Funny

    Not @PJH's outrage, the BBC peanut gallery outrage. The comment section is full of people saying to fine the contractor or not pay them.



  • @Maciejasjmj Oh, you RFTA? Yeah, that's different.



  • @PJH said in Now this is just getting redic:

    I think it's the norm that people who dig the ground will only recover the part they dig on. It happens in Hong Kong too, except that the law here only requires them the "temporarily recover" the road surface. The Highways Department will send people to "remake" the surface of the road after they checked the construction is completed, just to make sure the road condition complies to their standard, and repaint any road sign as needed.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.