- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 22 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer whether Bovis will be appointed to manage the fit-out of the new Parliament building; whose decision this will be and when it will be taken.
Answer
The fit-out of the new Parliament building will be managed by the Holyrood Project Team acting together with the Scottish Parliament Procurement Office. It is envisaged that Bovis Lend Lease may have a role as the Parliament's agent in procuring some elements of the fit-out, given their considerable understanding of the finished building and their existing responsibilities as Construction Manager for the project.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 21 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer whether the terms of agreement between the various members of the Holyrood design team and the client and between the construction manager and the client have been re-considered in terms of paragraph 6.9 of the Spencely Report and what the financial impact of any such re-consideration has been.
Answer
I understand from the Convener of the Holyrood Progress Group that the Design Team and Construction Manager's contracts have been revised in line with the increase in construction costs of the Holyrood building to £108 million agreed by Parliament on 5 April 2000. The individual fee amounts are percentage based and increase proportionately in relation to the construction cost. The overall cost of fees is contained within the project budget of £195 million.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 21 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer what progress has been made in improving communications and management in terms of paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 of the Spencely Report on the Holyrood building project.
Answer
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has established the Holyrood Progress Group (HPG) in accordance with the resolution passed by Parliament on 5 April 2000. In addition, the responsibilities of the previous Project Sponsor have been split between the recently appointed Project Director and a Financial Controller, and a new post of secretary to the HPG has been established. Both of these initiatives have been commended by the Auditor General for Scotland in his recent report into the management of the Holyrood Project.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 21 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer, further to the answers to questions S1W-233 and S1W-5937 by the Presiding Officer on 8 July 1999 and 5 April 2000 respectively, whether individual works packages are each allocated a budget to cover all costs associated with the package, or whether contingency allowances are not allocated to individual works packages and, if there has been a change in procedures, when and why the change took place.
Answer
I understand from the Convener of the Holyrood Progress Group that individual works packages each have a budget allocation to cover all identified costs. The contingency is contained within a global sum from which amounts can be drawn down in the event of unforeseen eventualities, with the approval of the Holyrood Progress Group. No change of procedure has been involved.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 21 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer whether letting the first eleven works packages of the Holyrood building project has provided the project's cost consultants with sufficient evidence to assess the reliability of their projections and whether the contracts let to date have produced savings or over-runs in expenditure and by what amounts.
Answer
I understand from the Convener of the Holyrood Progress Group that the collective value of the eleven works packages let to date is in line with the total of the individual expenditure projections. The details of the individual tender values are commercially confidential.
Construction management is a dynamic procurement method under which projections are routinely re-assessed in the light of experience. With advice from the construction manager and cost consultants, the Holyrood Progress Group will continue to monitor the value of packages let against the established budget.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 21 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer what the outcome was of the review of the basic construction costs recommended in paragraphs 6.3 and 6.8 of the Spencely Report on the Holyrood building project.
Answer
Following the debate on 5 April 2000, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body proceeded on the basis of the resolution that had been approved by Parliament, which endorsed the terms of SPCB report No 4 of 30 March 2000 and established a budget of £195 million. I understand from the Convener of the Holyrood Progress Group that, as the tendering process continues, the Design Team is carrying out an ongoing review of opportunities to identify any potential for savings.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 21 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer whether savings have been identified on the projected costs of the Parliament's existing accommodation in the event that MSPs and their staff occupy the new MSP block in advance of completion of the Holyrood building project, and if so, what the estimated savings are.
Answer
The contract with the construction manager for the Parliament project does not allow for phased occupation of the Holyrood complex. The Holyrood Progress Group and the Corporate Body revisited this issue earlier in the year and concluded that it would be neither appropriate nor cost-efficient to seek to alter this arrangement.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 21 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer what fees the Holyrood project design team estimate would be charged on a traditional single stage lump sum procured building project worth #108 million and what the estimated comparable fees are for the Holyrood project under the procurement system being used.
Answer
The Convener of the Holyrood Progress Group has informed me that there is no basis on which such a speculative exercise to estimate costs could be carried out. The overall figure for fees will be contained within the total project budget of £195 million, as approved by Parliament on 5th April 2000.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 01 September 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 21 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer who the Holyrood project's cost consultants are and what work they have done to date.
Answer
As members will have read in numerous previous publications, the cost consultants for the Holyrood Project are Davis Langdon & Everest (DLE), one of the largest quantity surveyor practices in the world. Since their appointment in April 1998 DLE have undertaken the standard range of professional cost consultancy duties required in connection with the Holyrood Project.
- Asked by: Murray Tosh, MSP for South of Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 29 August 2000
-
Current Status:
Answered by David Steel on 20 September 2000
To ask the Presiding Officer, further to his statement in his answer to question S1W-4753 on 10 March 2000 that "details of the amount of fees to all the professional consultants are commercially confidential" why the Spencely Report was able to reveal the estimated value of professional fees for the Holyrood Project.
Answer
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body regards details of the amount of fees paid to professional consultants as commercially confidential since the publication of such information could prejudice consultants' legitimate commercial interests and impede fair competition between them and their competitors. Disclosure would be in breach of the individual tender agreements and could not be made without the agreement of the firms involved. The Spencely report correctly treated the individual fee amounts as commercially confidential, whilst indicating a total figure for professional fees.
