Agenda item

Report of the Hampstead Heath Ponds Project Board.

The Chairman introduced the report on the Hampstead Heath Ponds Project Contractor Tender, noting that whilst the report was public, it was accompanied by two non-public appendices which formed an item in their own right in the non-public section of the agenda, and that the identity of the four contractors (referred to as Contractor A-D in the public report) were given in full in the non-public appendices. He noted that Members will have read the non-public appendices as part of their preparation for the meeting and asked them to bear the information they contained in mind when reaching their recommendations on the public report. He concluded by saying that if members wished to comment on material in the non-public appendices then the Committee would move into non-public session.

The Director of the Built Environment then summarised the report for the Committee. He explained that the four contractors who had submitted tenders had done so as part of a ‘competitive dialogue’ process so that each contractor was afforded the opportunity to understand precisely what was expected of them on the Ponds Project.

He went on to note that Contractor B had won the process by a narrow margin and was therefore the recommended contractor. The reason for this narrow margin was, whilst they had demonstrated a good understanding of the project, they had also offered the most expensive costing. Nevertheless Contractor B had given officers the confidence that they thoroughly understood what the City of London required of the successful contractor and moreover they had demonstrated the willingness to resource the project effectively. Moreover the Director noted that the expensive costing was not necessarily a downside in that it included a ‘menu’ of staffing and resources which the City of London could call upon as and when required.

The Chairman took the opportunity to emphasise that the recommended contractor had been arrived at through a comprehensive process and that he was confident the contractor with the best interests of the Heath at heart had been recommended to the Committee. He noted the decision of the Hampstead Heath Ponds Project Board to base their recommendation on an 80/20 weighting between quality and price respectively.

A Member of the Committee thanked officers for a clear report and noted his agreement with the 80/20 weighting in arriving at the recommended contractor. He said that the City of London should be proud to have overemphasised quality over finance to its own financial detriment.

In response to a question from a Member, the Director of the Built Environment confirmed that he was happy that the safety of the public during project works on the Heath would be adequately catered for.

RESOLVED –

·         That Contractor B be appointed to the Hampstead Heath Ponds Project and the Comptroller and City Solicitor be authorised to enter into the PPC2000 ACA Standard Form of Contract for Project Partnering.

·         That approval be given to release in advance of the main contract a sum of £593,376 from the works provision for pre-construction phase activities only.

·         That approval be given to release £70,000 from the provisional works budget to fund Environmental survey works (for the Environmental Impact Assessment) to be undertaken by Contractor B.

·         That approval be given to release £50,000 from the provisional works budget to fund the Planning Performance Agreement and associated meeting and venue costs.

·         That approval be given to release £30,000 from the provisional works budget to fund City of London external support, to progress detailed technical design.