Stop the squabbling and just get on with the job

ANOTHER day, and more depressing developments in the already depressing saga of the faltering plans to modernise the transport infrastructure of Scotland's capital city.

It is clear that relations between TIE, Edinburgh city council's arms-length company that manages the trams project, and the construction consortium that is installing the line have almost completely broken down.

The kind of constructive relationship that is vital in such a complex endeavour seems non-existent in the case of TIE and engineer Bilfinger Berger.

The latest shots in the battle between the two sides were fired yesterday by TIE, which has finally decided to play hardball with the German firm.

It appointed Tony Rush, a construction expert with a reputation as a tough guy, to co-ordinate the "contractual strategy" and warned that Bilfinger could be hit by fines of up to 1 million a month if the contract overruns beyond the new completion date of June 2012.

There is a threat to take action against the firm if it continues to stop work every time a conflict between the two sides is referred to the disputes adjudicator. It is also being unsubtly pointed out that the company is operating on a fixed-price 545m contract.

To the ordinary citizens of the capital, it will seem extraordinary such disputes are dogging this project. How can it be that, if the contracts say the work should continue while disputes are resolved, it grinds to a halt?

Bilfinger argues work must be halted as the decisions of the adjudicator can set a precedent, and it can point to the fact that three of the four decisions so far have gone its way.

Although it is banned from commenting publicly by the terms of the contract with TIE, Bilfinger is likely to be sanguine over the loss of up to 24m if the project is not completed until 2014. What is 24m if the whole project is, in the firm's view, set to run 100m over budget.

Although there are faults on both sides, this attitude is simply not good enough. The company entered into a fixed-price contract and knew the terms it was operating under from the start. It may or may not be legally within its rights to stop work during disputes, but by being so obstinate, it is losing any public sympathy it might have had.

Bilfinger cannot go on behaving in this way. It should get back to work on the disputed areas whilst showing more willingness to complete other areas of the project – for example, the relatively straightforward complex for the trams at Gogarburn, where there is little evidence of any work being done.

The firm may think it holds most of the cards, but it should also remember that, embarrassing though it would be for the politicians driving this project and potentially costly for the city, TIE can still pull out of the deal if it can prove its contractors have not kept to their side of the bargain.

It is to be hoped this nuclear option will not be necessary, but Bilfinger might like to consider it and come to the table in, dare we say it, a constructive spirit to get this project finished.