"Charlie Hulme" <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote in message
news:JUokk.105645$9I1.91398@newsfe16.ams2...
> mcp@nildram.co.uk wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:46:20 +0100, Paul Corfield
> > <aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And we get the entirely and utterly predictable outcome of Virgin doing
> >> the work. Shame DfT had to waste months of time and goodness knows how
> >> much cash to end up with the most sensible solution.
> >
> > But if they hadn't put the work out to tender they would have had to
> > accept whatever price Virgin wanted to charge.
>
> Why? Surely they could have insisted on a breakdown of
> the costs, and had the submission audited?
>
They couldn't compel Virgin to do the work, only get Virgin's agreement to
do it at a price acceptable to Virgin. Even then, it would be difficult to
counter arguments that Virgin were ripping off the DfT. By all accounts,
until the work went out to tender, Virgin were adamant they'd only do it in
return for a franchise extension.
Peter
Virgin gets Pendolino lengthening "franchise" 
