Crisp & Even

Hither, page, and stand by me!
A Cumbrian Blog
'Agree With Everything - Deny Nothing - Embellish All
If you've come here looking for pictures of a camp Roman soldier - click on this link

Dwarskloof Farm – Greyton South Africa 13 November 2008:
It has rained solidly for almost 3 days. We had 55mm of rain on Tuesday; 72mm of rain Wednesday and, so far, in the first 5 hours of Thursday another 22mm. it continues. The vines were due to have their second drink on Tuesday a mere (forgive pun) 5mm. They have now had the equivalent of 6 months of rain – if it only worked like that. In 3 days the sun will bake the ground and I will be trying to get the irrigation system to work.
The result of this excess is that I now know that the water reticulation works and that the dam is full and that the gateway to the farm is/was blocked. Greyton too is cut-off and this merited a mention on the national TV (SABC 1, 2, 3). I laboured with the mini-digger for a couple of hours in the pissing rain and cleared a way BUT fear that now, 12 hours and 50mm of more rain later, that my toil was in vain
Talking of Blocks. Al 'n' Val has had to put off their adventure to the animal park at Inverdoorn until the water abates. We have broken into the emergency red and white wine stock (the unmarked 65p a bottle stuff).
It's almost a year to the day since the last once in a hundred year storm. Surely it should have been another 99 years?
The young vines look well though. They haven't been washed out of the ground and there is evidence of budding.
A South African farmer was interviewed tonight, on the SABC News, about the fact that his harvest of table grapes would more than likely be wiped out by the storm. He agreed with the reporter and smiled and shrugged and said 'hell that's nature'.
I await the dawn to see what havoc nature has wrought.
I feel most sorry for Al 'n' Val. Their first trip to SA and marooned with us. No Monopoly board games and dwindling emergency wine stocks.
A technical note:
55mm of rain is equivalent of 55litres per square metre. 55 litres is roughly 11 UK gallons. Each vine has a catchment of 1 square meter.
Isn't that interesting?
The vines need 5 litres of water each in the first few days and (yippee) we've just had the equivalent of 10litres in the last 24 hrs - see graph and also http://www.thedawes.net/.
I forgot to say that on top of everything else we decided to bring our trail hound ben(digo) to this South African house and farm.I'd always meant to write a contemporary account of the planning and building of the South African project and of our complex travelling and living arrangements between the Western Cape and West Cumbria. However I'm pretty sure it is almost impossible to devote probably 1 hour a day to the journal whilst doing the project. SOOO…. what I've decided to do is to start now, at the planting milestone, to try my best to write up the vineyard project on a weekly going forward schedule and also try and intersperse the contemporary stuff with a commentary on the past 3 years. I've got notebooks, sketch pads and correspondence going back 10 years so it should be easy. History, as we all know, is only 1 person's interpretation of what actually happened. I'm not going to spend a load of time polishing and 'byuddy shining' it (to quote my 3 year old grand-daughter). I would appreciate though some editorial help from Nick (please?) and Emma (please please?) to keep me within the rules of written English and any possible libel action.
I'm also going to publish to the blog as I go. That way it's out there, not skulking on my hard-drive, and it will encourage me to get the records up to date. Good theory!
The vineyard project started I think in early 2005, though technically it had been brewing (sorry) since we bought a house in Greyton in May 2001 - or maybe 1996 when Di and I first travelled together to SA or maybe when I worked in SA during the 70's and first visited the wine lands. Hell - I don't know.
Anyways – in January 2005 we decided to buy a piece of farm land from Steve and Jane Collins with the intent I seem to remember of creating a wilderness reserve and maybe building a small house once we had sold our place in Greyton and also our share in a café and gallery there. Complicated or what?
The chronology (is there such a word) gets a bit blurred but I think it went:
May 2005 – buy 90 hectares of land from S&J Collins – eventually agree to share it with them – they have South West side we have North East – see Map later.
May 2006 – after a lot of walking round decide on place for the house and start building
July 2006 – Sell Greyton House
December 2006 – sell Café and Gallery
April 2007 - House substantially complete – move in
September 2007 – electricity switched on
October 2007 – retire from paid employment in UK
March April 2008 – rip and prepare the land for planting
May June 2008 – install stainless steel support system to half of vineyard
July August 2008 Install Irrigation system
Aug September 2008 – intend to plant vines – FAIL
November 2008 .. here we go
Looks simple doesn't it – but just wait there's 36 months to account for.
The view this morning
There is interest in the set up of Community Interest companies in Cumbria associated with Energy - (Energy Coast paper (see previous blogrant)). An agency was approached to gauge interest and I suppose ultimately some funding. The response, though positive, ended: The problem …. with Social Enterprises is what they do in a Gross Value Added (GVA) model. Not for Profit companies don't contribute much to The Economy.
Community Interest companies have better buy in and more success over private 'incomers' - so why the caveat?
Superficially the agency is correct. Not for Profit companies shouldn't contribute losses to the economy. However there are quite a few For Profit companies (big ones too - Northern Rock – to name but one) that have not contributed much to the GVA. (Work through that last sentence again before moving on – it's a wee bit convoluted but I think I know what I mean).
It's a very fine line to walk: the one between profit seeking, sharp suited entrepreneurs and sandaled, socialist do-gooders. The former is seen as dodgy to fund and the latter is also dodgy; but for different reasons. The fact is that government agencies would rather give money to the profit seeking, sharp suited entrepreneur.
Social Enterprises are not agencies redirecting public money for a fee. (Agencies that sometimes spend less on themselves than the money they are given to redistribute). Social Enterprise are sustainable - not for loss (as I prefer to call them) organizations meeting their own costs and able to make a difference and add to the GVA whilst putting any profits back into other social ventures or repaying the funder. They need to have all the controls and processes that normal businesses have – where sensible and appropriate of course. However their focus is to provide jobs and services for the common good and pay fairly its employees and supply partners.
On a GVA basis I would do away with all government funded agencies and just let me decide who gets the money.
Rant over for today.
I am not fond of some of the 'big' contracting outfits in the UK and thus am loathe to think well of them whilst they undergo the Office of Fair Trading investigation of uncompetitive practices and collusion. However, I do have a lot of sympathy as I believe that it's the Competition Laws and government buying policies that drive companies to collude or collaborate. The practice is widespread it seems so for some they have colluded unwittingly.
The Office of Fair Trading police are there to find unfair trading, on their dawn raids – and so they will and have done. Their powers are terrifying and encourage people to NOT bid for publicly funded projects. I've very recently retired from a contracting company – they don't build schools or hospitals and are very much of the mechanical/electrical discipline rather than building or civils – so collaboration is unnatural -we don't trust our contracting colleagues (sorry). Nevertheless I am sure that we will have transgressed the competition laws and no doubt we will have colluded.
The whole competitive process is unfair and stacked against the idea of competitive sustainable contracting. We are not talking about cartels here or' ringing' prices for commodities such as cement, bricks and bolts. We are talking about guessing the price of something very complex, like a school or hospital, and then being able to deliver and make 2% net profit. In my experience it is all too easy to guess, I mean, estimate, low by 10%. Making 2% net is pretty good, especially as costs have been known to go up over the life of a project.
About 10 years back I was involved with an initiative driven by the DTI to make contractors more competitive – ACTIVE it was/is called, born out of something called CRINE. Analysis of the acronyms reveals:
- Achieving Competitiveness through Innovation and Value Engineering (if I remember correctly) and,
- Cost Reduction in a New Era.
Basically these mean: early collaboration by clients with contractors; choosing the best contractor most able to do the job; don't compete on price – compete on ability; concentrate on the engineering and project management not on the provision of a cost that equals or is less than the budget; carry out cost and value analysis at every stage of a project; don't replicate roles within client and contractor teams; encourage collaboration through the supply chain … and so on. I know it works, because that's the way my company worked and I saw in ACTIVE the way forward for a sustainable contracting industry.
However, at the same time, government was pushing the answer to life the universe and everything – COMPETITION. How would they build hospitals? How would they decommission the nuclear industry? How would they restore our heritage? - COMPETITION.
I found myself at an ACTIVE workshop at the DTI offices in the morning of the same day, where in the afternoon I attended a seminar at the same office on - COMPETITION. Competition, as described by the men in grey suits, is all to do with getting as many companies as possible to bid for the work and also to bid with the best safety record; best engineering record; best quality record; best corporate social record; best administration record; best financial record. All very laudable but guaranteed under PFI and PPP projects to put costs up drive projects into over-run and companies and clients out of business. 15% of the costs of a PFI are taken up with getting the contract wording 'right' and policing to make sure the contractor doesn't rip off the client. A £10million project thus only has £8.5m available to the contractor to actually build. Where's the 2% profit? The industry is littered with write-offs by PFI contractors.
So, why does competition drive people to collude?.
The tendering process demands much more of the contractor. The ACTIVE approach discourages the growth of pre-contract resources (pre-engineering ?) and claims/clever estimate driven quantity surveying departments. The COMPETITION process does the opposite – confrontation and counter actions cost much more than facilitation and action. My retired from company specialises in Nuclear Decommissioning and Heritage Restoration and they saw their marketing and tendering and post contract effort increase from 2% of staff effort to 9%. These costs have to be recovered from the client thus putting further pressure on the 2% margin.
The competition process usually demands that at least 5 contractors are asked to bid and have to show either in a one stage or two stage process that they are capable of doing the work safely, well and without going bust, whilst investing in the local community for the best value price (lowest). The resources and costs required to prepare the bid – with all the bells and whistles can reach £80k (weigh 22kg and be in 12 lever-arch files) or so for a £5M project. £30k for even the smallest of projects. For 4 of these people this is lost money and they may be struggling for resources or borrowing off other projects. Yet we cannot refuse to bid because we have been asked to and may not get asked again and the client needs to make up the numbers to obey the rules. We have been encouraged through ACTIVE and others to collaborate with our competition and supply chain as the projects have become multidiscipline and clients only want to place one contract. Clients also encourage teaming in the supply chain to fulfil the building of capacity in the locality as tenders over a certain amount have to bid across the European union. Being too busy is no excuse – it makes sense then that the contractor with the resource to produce a good bid and estimate of costs does it and uses his supply chain to help him. Hopefully he is able to guess his costs correctly to allow the 2% margin and pay for the tender and fees to the lawyers. If bidding in a team or consortium it is likely that another member might also be bidding with a member of another consortium – how can there be collaboration without breaking of the competition rules. It's inevitable that the 'others' get some idea of the prices and elect to cover the price of the company likely to win rather than lose face by not putting in a bid. Just ringing up a supplier and saying have the others asked you for a price for supply of pipe and then saying can you copy me in I'm too busy to send you the details and quantities separately can be construed as collusion. One company sending out all the specs to the supply chain instead of five all sending out the equivalent of a small forest in Norway must be a better use of the planet's resources.
On TV yesterday an expert reporter was explaining that Company 'A' had won a hospital contract at £12M because companies 'B' and 'C' had 'covered' the company 'A' prices by bidding £12M plus; the client's budget was £10M – meaning that the tax payer had paid £2M too much. I have a feeling that the real price should have been nearer £15M and contractor 'A' got his estimate wrong. Contractors 'B' and 'C' would still have had to have done a load of work submitting the other tender deliverables even if they didn't work up a proper price. A fixed price bid is a wild guess to 3 decimal places – so my old chief estimator used to say.
I have a solution:
The client should put major effort into working up the right price for the job- he could even pay a contractor – 1 only, or a consortium to provide that price and if necessary value engineer it to the budget. The project could then go out for bidding. Contractors would in effect all bid the same price. "Yes – I can do that project for your budget price of £12M and make 2% profit". The client should then make his decision based on who is most capable of doing the work and has the resource to be able to do it in the timescale.
I'd also be prepared to pay 10% more just for peace of mind and the luxury of not having any claims or employing a shed load of quantity surveyors, lawyers and auditors to argue over the final account. Oh- and I'd also scrap all this KPI based payments and bonus nonsense. By all means measure performance and run KPI's but don't make them a reason to pay or not pay.
There are projects that have gone well under the competitive process. I know of an £8m project, where the public client was brave enough to choose and defend to the auditors the 2nd lowest bid because he wanted the specialist experience of this particular contractor. The job went well – the QS's were sent away – effort went into engineering and project management not apportioning of blame for the things that were wrong. The project came in well under budget – slightly late. The contractor made 6% and enhanced his own and the client's reputation. An analysis of this project would make good reading but the grey suits would only say 'they should have taken the lowest price and saved the difference'
I could go on… but… back to my retirement lair.
We are 4 months in to our first 6 months posting to Dwarskloof Farm.
Dwars is an Afrikaans word meaning 'across'or 'challenge'. It certainly has been a challenge. First the lack of electricians then the floods then the worms then the power cuts then the power surge then the visitors then the crickets then the post office then the insurance claim then the gates then the cv joints on the car and …new tyres… It goes on and on .. it's a relentless challenge. Dwarskloof literally means 'across a ravine'.
We seem to cross the ravine every day. Just posting a letter can be stressful. The post office closed with the demise of the petrol station in November. The petrol station (state of the science new pumps no less) was due to open again in January BUT 'they had the wrong sort of electricity' so it remains fenced off (Feb 2008). Post Office has moved to Municipality buildings but has to be manned (personed?) by a duly authorised post office official from Caledon (22kms distant). Post office hours are 12 noon to 3pm with an HOUR for lunch at 1 pm
7.30: rise and prepare myself for the task of posting a letter during the 12 noon to 1 pm time slot.
11.45: I leave home to travel to town (Greyton)
12.05: I join the queue to buy the required stamps to send a small envelope to Cape Town
12.57: Envelope is measured and weighed and declared to be a standard envelope. The uniformed post office official looks disappointed.
12.59: I am proud possessor of stamps.
1.05 pm: I walk to site of fenced off petrol station and post letter through wire with stick and masking tape device (fashioned earlier in the day)
1.10: order 'coke float' at Oak and Vigne to calm fevered brow.
1.35: receive 'coke float'
1.45: leave Oak and Vigne to travel home (forgetting to pay)
2.00: arrive home
Duration of task 2.15 hours. By now the day is almost over - pointless trying to start another task. I'll wait for RW to break open the new bottle of gin at 6 pm and note that the last time we drove to Capetown it took 2 hours.