3 ms·
Not awarding the project as a whole to a single contractor seems like a good way to derisk it. There might be problems with one or the other contractor but a co
by _Microft 7y ago
Not awarding the project as a whole to a single contractor seems like a good way to derisk it. There might be problems with one or the other contractor but a complete failure seems more unlikely because of that.
Is my intuition correct here?
- mhandley 7y agoFrom the Google maps satellite images, it looks like there's a range of technologies that have been chosen for the panels and trackers too. That also presumably reduces risk of a large single failure mode as the panels/trackers/inverters start to age.
- beat 7y agoIt also reduces the capital requirements for any single contractor.
- Analemma_ 7y agoAs yet another bonus, it seems like a good way to head off corruption (assuming they had a maximum number of plots per contractor): you can only bribe your way up to a ceiling number of plots.
- londons_explore 7y agoSet up new company, receive new allowance of plots...
- thekid314 7y agoI'd really like to see the details of who these 200-300 contractors are. There is a major problem with Egyptian government contracts being awarded to the military or companies owned by generals. I hope it was as competitive and efficient as the article alluded to but have my doubts.