# Minimum turnover requirement €25m for NAMA contract



## censuspro (15 Sep 2011)

The tender for Accountancy and Advisory services to NAMA is [broken link removed]

Minimum turnover requirement is €25 million!!! Is this not effectively saying Big 4 firms only need apply?

Anyone interested can look at the other tender award notices [broken link removed]


----------



## onq (16 Sep 2011)

That's a disgrace. Why is it so high? Do they not intend paying them for two years or what?


----------



## kkelliher (16 Sep 2011)

The pre qual requirements for turnovers on nealry all government jobs are rediculous and anti competitive and solely directed at larger companies. A quick review on etenders will confirm


----------



## onq (17 Sep 2011)

I think its the same even for the architectural practices, which is never a guarantee of quality - sometimes its quite the opposite.


----------



## Jim2007 (17 Sep 2011)

onq said:


> That's a disgrace. Why is it so high? Do they not intend paying them for two years or what?



First of all it ensures the independence of the accounting firm, in that no single client should be in a position to exert undue influence on the firm.

Secondly I'd expect that only firms of at least that size would have the experience and skill set necessary to do the job.

Thirdly even if this requirement did not exist, small firms would be prevented from taking on the work in any case because of the public practice rules which requires that no individual client can account for more than a very small percentage of the firms fees.

So I'd say the €25M acts as a filter to ensure that NAMA does not have to deal with time wasters.

Jim2007


----------



## onq (17 Sep 2011)

Thanks Jim,

I didn't know about the accounting rules, bit there is a known rule of thumb in an architectural practice, but there the percentage is usually much bigger because of patronage.

The golden rule for us is "as soon as you get one big client, you have to immediately get another or they'll think they own you."


----------



## Jim2007 (17 Sep 2011)

Well in the case of accountants, there are several situations where he may have to report wrong doing by the client, so it would be hard to do this in a case where the client represents a major portion of the fees.

I guess it is also why accounting firms tend to grow mainly by merger and acquisition.

Jim.


----------



## Complainer (17 Sep 2011)

Jim2007 said:


> Well in the case of accountants, there are several situations where he may have to report wrong doing by the client, so it would be hard to do this in a case where the client represents a major portion of the fees.
> .


Wouldn't it generally be the same for solicitors, barristers, safety inspectors etc?


----------



## onq (17 Sep 2011)

Solicitors perhaps, but not Barristers I should think. Each case is taken on its own merits and there is no "clientilism" per se.

That having been said I know of one or two solicitors who seem to keep using the same Barrister, so you may have a point.

Safety Inspectors, assuming I'm reading you correctly, work for the HSA - people report offenders or notifiable offenses are reported by companies and they call out.


----------



## Complainer (17 Sep 2011)

onq said:


> Safety Inspectors, assuming I'm reading you correctly, work for the HSA - people report offenders or notifiable offenses are reported by companies and they call out.



Actually, I was thinking about private safety advisors and consultants, who could well come across situations that are in breach of safety law during their assignments.


----------



## Jim2007 (17 Sep 2011)

Complainer said:


> Wouldn't it generally be the same for solicitors, barristers, safety inspectors etc?



No, solicitors and barristers have a client privilege relationship and as for safety inspectors I have no idea...

Jim2007


----------



## Jim2007 (17 Sep 2011)

Complainer said:


> Actually, I was thinking about private safety advisors and consultants, who could well come across situations that are in breach of safety law during their assignments.



Do they even have a requirement to report?

Jim.


----------



## onq (18 Sep 2011)

Complainer said:


> Actually, I was thinking about private safety advisors and consultants, who could well come across situations that are in breach of safety law during their assignments.



Sorry, I was distracted by your use of the word Inspector.

Health and Safety Consultants have a duty of care to their employer, his employees and member of the public.
However the legislation is specifically in place in relation to Health, Safety and Welfare AT WORK - not elsewhere.
This link addresses the reporting of accidents, i.e. notifiable occurrences, but by definition, these occur after the fact.

Its not just specialist consultants who have duties of care.

Designers of buildings have a duty under the construction health and safety regulations, generally.
Construction work is so dangerous that over a certain size/time, project supervisors are required by law.
The underlying principle of fire consultants is "safety of occupants from fire", so safety is endemic to their work.
In factories and other places of work the duty of care rests with the employer to provide a safe place of work, training, safety equipment, etc.

I'm not certain that Members of the public have a specific duty of care, but their first posts of call are usually the emergency services, the council, the ESB and Bórd Gáis, for relevant issues.

In general, Health and Safety hazard issues should be reported to someone in control of the place or undertaking, as opposed to an agent, servant, workman, etc.

This person is a "responsible person" so, for example...

- the owner or occupier of a premises
- the main contractor
- the director

...in other words, someone who can take the necessary steps to address the hazard.

I prefer to report hazards to the Health and Safety Authority directly, with a description and photographs.

ONQ

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                               as a defence or support - in and of itself  -         should       legal        action    be      taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                               Real Life with rights to inspect and issue        reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------

