1.      INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1     At the July 2017 committee meeting the committee requested that the plans for the car park improvement works were progressed. At the January 2018 committee meeting, following a procurement exercise carried out with the Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) Procurement Team, committee agreed with the recommendation to progress with the appointment of a main contractor to undertake the car park improvement works and for the appointment a project manager to oversee the works.

1.2     The combined cost of the works was £214,500. This included a provisional sum of £10,000 to carry out extra works to the bottom car park and a further £10,000 to appoint a project manager.

1.3     The contractor appointment would be under a traditional contract meaning there would be no design requirement from the contractor as they would use all design information contained with the contract.

1.4     To oversee the scheme an independent project manager was appointed. They were provided with the tender documents to review ahead of the formal appointment of the contractor being made. Their review highlighted potential shortcomings with the design information that, if the scheme had progressed on the tendered basis, could have led to the car park continuing to experience the issues that currently occur i.e. being very wet during the winter months and very dusty in the summer.

1.5     The design information contained within the tender documents lacked sufficient detail. When designs of this nature are prepared, consultants usually undertake a number of surveys. These mainly consist of topographical and levels surveys, soil tests, calculations for the drainage designs demonstrating it will be able to cope with the water volumes being produced, percolation tests for the soils and surrounding areas to ensure that rain water will drain efficiently.

1.6     As the tender information did not contain this information the project manager recommended this data be obtained to inform a more detailed design that would meet the brief.

1.7     The surveys were commissioned via the project management consultant. Using Kent County Council’s standard detail as a specification for a car park, the new design information increased the scope of works considerably. New drainage and surface formation was proposed which added to the materials and time required for the works to be undertaken. The new design information was put to the successful contractor to see what impact it would have on the value of the works. The successful contractor advised that due to the increase in materials and time required to undertake the works the value would almost double in price.

1.8     Since receiving the revised design information some market testing has been undertaken. This has demonstrated that the works, if tendered as a design and build contract, with an acceptable car park specification, could be delivered for a figure similar to the original budget.

1.9     Due to the change in scope for the works and the proposed increase in contract cost we have informed the successful contractor that the Council will not be progressing with this appointment. Instead the tender exercise will be re-run as a design and build (D&B) contract therefore passing the risk on to the contractor as they will have completed design responsibility.

1.10 To prepare the D&B contract and ensure the brief is robust a new project manager or Employer’s Agent appointment with experience in this type of work will be necessary.

1.11 Total fees incurred to date are £11,750 and include project management (£3,250), surveys (£2,800) and design information (£5,700). A further £10,000 will be required for the appointment of a suitably experienced Employer’s Agent to oversee the works and £6,000 will be required for MBC project management time.

1.12 As described in 1.2 above the original budget for this work was £214,500. A cost estimate provided by the previous project manager in spring 2017 estimated the scheme costs to be £296,600 inclusive of construction, design and management fees. Based on the recent design information and the limited market testing undertaken the scheme could be delivered within approximately 20% of the original budget (£256,000).

2.        AVAILABLE OPTIONS

2.1     Do nothing

This option would see a continuation and possible worsening of the current situation. The car park would continue to be very wet in the winter months and very dusty in the summer. In addition the ability to maximum use of the car park and thus revenue would not be realized.

2.2     Proceed with the current tender

The option to proceed with the existing tender is a risky one. The design information is lacking sufficient detail and has been deemed not fit for purpose. If the scheme were progressed on this basis the car park may continue to be very wet in the winter albeit with a new surface. The new surface could deteriorate earlier than expected. Design liability sits with the Council and not with the contractor.

2.3     Re-run the tender as a design and build contract

This option allows for a new design and build contract to be prepared and procured. Setting out a clear design brief will be key, so it is recommended that an experienced Employer’s Agent is commissioned to work with MBC officers to help prepare the contract documents and to manage the contractor when on site. Due to the fees spent to date a further £10,000 will be required for this appointment along with £6,000 for MBC project management fees and an increased design and build cost of £41,500 bring the total cost to £256,000.

3.        PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1     The recommendation is to proceed with Option 2.3 above and to re-run the tender exercise as a design and build contact. This shall see design liability placed on the contractor relieving MBC of risk.

3.2     Recent design information coupled with early market testing suggests the brief can be met within 20% of the current budget. However if the tender returns result in the project being over this (£256,000) a further report will be presented to the Committee.

4.       RISK

4.1    The risks associated with this proposal, including the risks if the Council does not act as recommended, have been considered in line with the Council’s Risk Management Framework.  We are satisfied that the risks associated are within the Council’s risk appetite and will be managed as per the Policy.

5.       CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

5.1     No formal consultation has taken place regarding the refurbishment of the car park, however direct feedback from customers coupled with comments on social media confirm that it is the most regular complaint received about the park.

6.       NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION

6.1     We shall proceed with the preparation of the Design and Build contract and will re-run the tender exercise. On completion of evaluation we shall report back to committee with the results at which time a further recommendation shall be made if the scheme is over budget.

7.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

8.        REPORT APPENDICES

The following documents are to be published with this report and form part of the report:

·         Appendix 1: January 2018 Committee Report

9.        BACKGROUND PAPERS

None