Forth Replacement
Crossing
Major Transport Infrastructure Projects
Buchanan
House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow G4 OHF
•
Direct Line: 0141 2727144,
Fax: 0141 272 7272
Carron.
[email address]
~~
TRANSPORT
SCOTLAND
Mr David Hansen
Your ref:
Email:
[email address]
Our
ref: Fol/09/00858
Date:
23 July 2009
Dear Mr Hansen
Forth Replacement Crossing
I refer to your request of 29 June 2009 for copies of the three Forth Replacement Crossing Peer
Reviews. Your request has been considered under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act
2002. The Peer Reviews were undertaken on 15 June 2007, 18 October 2008 and 23 May
2008. I have attached the reports of these reviews.
Transport Scotland's Publication Scheme adheres to the Scottish Government's commitment to
open government and proactively publishing information where possible.
The publication of
internal correspondence such as minutes of internal meetings relating to the development of
policy, is however, considered on a case by case basis against whether it is in the public interest
to publish this information. Further information regarding the Publication Scheme is available on
the Transport Scotland website at
www.transportscotland.QsLQov.uk.
The Peer Reviews were undertaken to provide internal advice to assist in the governance of the
project. Since the last review in May 2008, the scheme design has been developed and the
managed crossing strategy announced, therefore, some areas of discussion are no longer
relevant to the scheme as it now stands. Transport Scotland has therefore concluded that the
reports of these meeting should not be published, but will be released on request under FO!.
If you are unhappy with this response to your request, you may ask us to carry out an internal
review by writing to the Chief Executive of Transport Scotland, Buchanan House, 58 Port
Dundas Road, Glasgow, G4 OHF. Your request should explain why you wish a review to be
carried out, and should be made within 40 working days of receipt of this letter, and we will reply
within 20 working days of receipt. If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you the
have the right to make a formal complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner.
a'L
Carron Pollock
www.transportscotland.gov.uk
An agency of ~<III The Scottish Government
"
FORTH REPLACEMENT
CROSSING
STUDY
PEER REVIEW
Report of review held at offices ofTtanspQrt Scotland QJ11StD. June 2007
Panel eQlIlposition:
1.
The Panel was drawn from a diveISe background to reflect the mnge of interests
appropriate to a project of this scale and complexity
•
Da'Vid. Orr, Di:rectorNotthem. Ireland Proeurement
Office
•
Prof Quentin Leiper President, Institution
of Ciw EngineeIS & Director,' CariIlion
•
Mr Tngtnar Bjo~
Former Project Diredor of the Oresund Crossil1g Project
•
James Stewart, ChiefExecntive,
Partnerships UK
Pane11temit:
2.
The scope of the Peer Review draws together the wishes of the Strategic Board in
seeking to gi.veassuran~
that the processes fOllowed are robust. To this end the Peer Review
seeks to addresstbe
fullowing five questions:
•
The fi1ness fot putpQse of the p1'oject objectives;
•
The robustness pf the processes followed tp date, including analysis of the b1;Isiness
case and options sifting;
•
The prQject ddin:i:tionand scope;
•
The definition and proposed management
of project and programme risks;
~ The pJ:Oject gOVenJaD.CC structures
Format:
4.
Threemain session& WCI1} held each focusing on particular stages of the Study, and
were fBcilitated by means of a short prescntationon
the main issues.
Copies of the main
xeports had becm.made available to the Panel members (albeit .at short notice).
The Panel
noted that due to :the short lead-in to the Review, their cottm)en:ts were necessarily 'reactiw'
rather than fully~.
S.
The sessions were:
•
Session 1: .8ettimr the Scene
Presentation
of the RepQrts 1 & 2, inclu.dii1g the background
to the project. the
physical and envlromnental c;onstrajnts in the Study area and the development of1he
Objectives of the Study
e.
Session 2: Study Finilinf7~
Presentation on Reports 3 ~ 4, Dnf1ini~ the
6S options that were generated and sifted
leading to consideration
of tunnels and bridges in ~
of corridors C, D and E.
Sumrnaxy of1he details of the proposals, including cross-secti()11S and costslrisks
•
S~on
3: The Way Forward
.
Setting out the governance of the project to date and the emerging structures
for
continuing this in the future, particu1atly with respect to sta,keholders and the project
team.
"
FindiJJgs
6.
The findings of the Peer Review are su.:n:m:mrlsedbe10wand
-grouped under four
headings: AssessmeJ;Jt Comttl'QDication, Risk and Oovetnanee:
1'he$e have been con~
and
commentmhlpon
by the individual panel mem'bers, with amendments incorporated.
•
Notwithstanding
the issues raised in the reports in respect of environmental and other
issues~ the CQ$tdiffere~:ti~s between the options cannot be ignored.
The p.refened
solution should be identified through
a comparison
of a set of factors. i.e. cost,
env.iromnental impact, pIOgra.m.rne~constmction
risks, health and safety during
construction and ()petati~
assessment of geoteclmicaU conditi~
flexibilfur off~
to different traffic modes, impact fro1n maintenance
on opcn-ation, tra,nspoItation of
dangerous goods. life cycle cost. Based on this analysis a preferred crossing should
be recommended to the politicians and made public.
".
In ~
of the origins of trips and their captivi1;yto mode, the sensitivities set out in
the early Reports should be made clear
•
The :first Objective (to m~i'J'l~iQ cross-Forth. transport links fur all I1IOdesto at least the
level of service off~
in 2006) is unclear and should be .revised to provide claritY on
the fundamental purpose of the project; it seems to conflict with the third Objective
(to improve the reliability ofjo'lI1'!leYtimes for all modes)
•
The. impact
the ep-monmentai
objectives
outlined
in the reports
have on the
distribution of etOss-F.ortn tmvel a,nd the scope of the pr~jectshou1d be explained
•
Impo.rtant to be clear about the long term operation of the existing Forth Road Bridge;
accepted the ne~
for a reP1acement crossing now and opportunities this offers for the
refurbishment
(and level ofinvestment)
in the existing crossing. Highlight that during
re::tUrbishment of the existiDg Bridge. the replacement crossing alone would fultiI the
objectives oftbe Study.
•
The Panel were greatly ~
by the. work that had been undertaken on costs for
.the project, noting that they had been bencnm1\tked against other projects and checked
by being developed both 'bottom up'and
'top doWn'. The use of Optimism B~
at
the levels in the Reports is apP1:OPriate(being the muimuni
allowed under Treasury
guidance for tunnels and bridges), although. the base c:ostsused for tunnelling are felt
to be low.
•
Noted that within the ovem11 scheme costs, smne £450 mi1ijon aUocated to road.
oonnecti.ons
•
Use of ground :freezing to consf:ruct connec1:iJ.1.g
tunne1B between the :m.ainbores was.
questioned fto~ on grounds ofpractica1ity, cost, implementation {"mtenns of ~
a suitably large supply of nitrog~2 and health and SafetY..risks.
•
Proposed that a 'decision~1ree' be developed to aid the articulation 9f the findings of
the Study.
This could be informed by acolour-coded
matrix of the key issues by
option agQ.inst the following headings: cost, environment and planning environment,
health and safety ~ congestion, 1ime, maintenance
(inc. future replacement
of main
structura1 elements), security and risk.
•
The Panel felt that a directly comparable
tunnel ·option to the opetation
of 1he
proposed bridge option should be developed, which would aid the comparison of the
two approaches
•
One posst'ble piece of work would be to develop. the case for a tunnel and the case for
a bridge· independently
from an envitomnental
standpoint and test the areas where
disagreement occurs
•
Noted tbat the evidence of the Reports does support the conclusion that a bridge in
Corridor D is the best option, With a cable-stayed solution being prefemd..
Noted that
the xnam risks with. this SQlution are p1annine .and environmental issues.
CommunicBtioll.
•
Comxmmica1ing the autcom,es of the Study will be key (suggestion that a 30-minure
presentation be prep~
which sets out the salient points and issues)
•
I:p:J.portantto convey the differing 'operatingcondi1ions
afforded by 1he tunnel and
bridge. cross-secti~
and the res(rictiotlS which couId 1x: placed upon a tw:Jne1 in
respect of c:1angerou$ goods. Noted the ])lOre limited options offered by a tunnel as a
consequence of ovenill size of tunnel and need to have a third tmmelto acconwtoda1e
multi-mQdal options.
The use of D2 with hard shou1ders is strongly prefeaed
to
provide the resilience in ~
of vehicle breakdown
and to give future flexibility .•.
pat1;icularly in relation to public tmnsporl
•
Need to articulate the futu:r¢ opc.ra1ion of the crossings in terms of the p'arming
objectives D9Ung tte challenges such networkmanagemen.t
poses.
•
Need to a:rticu1atethe longer term mm"ntf';l1ance
and whole life cost issues surrounding
both tunnels and bridges,; in particular the opportunities for refurbishment ota bridge
1hat are not avaUabl~ in a tunnel (.further noting that a cable-stayed bridge offers the
most flexibility in this respect)
•
In respect of co.unnunications. hig11lig'ht~ the long timeline to. mS;T1tml1 positive
messages, including providing briefings to Ministers.
Risk
•
Ren1ova1 of tolling will not only :relmse suppressed travel d.en1a:Q.d,but will also
remove one of the most effective means
of m~ae!ne
future. 4emand 'by time of day
and 1;ypeof travel
Recognise t1J.isbas b~
a political decision..
•
Agreement that tbe crossing should use ptoven and recogni$ed technology IUldnot be
a prototype
(good
use
of
oonceptual
.design
including
clarity
of
functional
reqiuremems will be key to achieving this)
•
The level of consultation undertaken to date could make any dec.i~on subject 10 a:
legal challenge GUdicia1 review), and tba.t whilst forward work to build consensus Was
helpful~this risk ietna.ins. Legal advice should be sought to address thiS significant
risk.
•
Health and Safety risks of C()n..strD.qti()tt
crltiGal. parlicu1arly in relation to the more
challenging metPods required fot a tunneL Interfaces between a bored and immersed
tube tunneJ. should be avoided.
•
Risks to the existing Forth Road Bridge need to be made clear in the description of the
time line. for implementation:
for instance a construction period of seven and a ba1f
years for a tunnel lead. to 'there being a greater risk that not replacement crossing will
be in place by tb,e time the crossing may have to. clpse to all traffic (earliest indication
to date of2019)
Governance
•
Reports are technical; theIe is mote work requi:q:d to develop the organisational;
procurement and financial elements of the project
•
The role ofFETA needs to be cleat as to its relatip1)S1dp to the ovezall project
•
The programme
for im,plementati,on of the project need$ to be made clearer (use
cfiagra.ms) to highlight
the need
fur pata1Ie1 work st:rearQ.s In the lead Up to
const.mction beginning
on the new crossing
•
In looking forward there is a need. to be clear about the role of Transport Scotland and
the decisions that remain with it in respect of the Crossing. EVidence froJIJ. the
Oresund Crossing suggests. that a single client must have ownerShip of the 1Dain
decisiODS. Therefore ~ed to be clear wbat role transport
Scotland is taking and what
is being left to the managing consultant (currexnIybeing
procured).
Organisation
charts should be. prepared
together with outlines of roles ·and responsibilities
of
OWner, CQrlsnltant(s) and Conttactor(s).
'Ibis assumes tbat Tra.t1SpOft Scot1and will
be the owner and not some other body (e.g. FETA).
.
•
Panel welcomed the fact m a two-stage decWoD. process: with a decision On the :Conn,
function and location being made first, follo~d
up by the legisl~
procurement
and financial decisions in due ~.
•
Need to have clear role fur the. Project Board (procurement issues) and the
Stakeholder GrolW (communitations)
•
Comment that if project is funded 1i'om tb.e public putse, what else could not be
afforded (hospitaIst schools $)1
.Oyetall the :panel conunented that the reports and work -to date is to be commeJ)ded
ReeoD1D1endations
6.
The following recommendations are therefore :ma.de~
•
Develop greater clarity in cottmnmica1ions plan for project, need to build consensus
onconsuItation
•
Continue to develop orgJI11i~ona1, :fin.ancia1. procurement
.and
legislative
mechanisms
•
Seek a project di:recto:rof ~table
status (begin process now)
•
Whilst reports have solid grounding, fu~
governance needs to build on the existing
struct:ures with clear remits and responst"bilities.
•
A preferred crossing to beidenti:fied
and communicated
Qnc~g
a review of the .
project definition and scope)
•
Develop 'lheimplementa1ion programme highijghting p~el
work streams in the
lead up to construction
.
•
Develop a stJ:a"tegyfor progressing with the environmental
and p}:mniT1g prOCesSes
required..
RESTRICTBD -ADVICE
to MINISTERS
REPLACEMENT
FORm CROSSING
PEER-REVIEW
REPORT OF PEER
R.EVJE\\1 HELD 180crOBER2007
OFFICES OF PAB.TNE~BIPS
UK, LONDON
Attendance
PeeI'Review Ptmel:
Quentin Leiper" President, Institution of Civil Rll&n~
David Ott~ Director of Centra1 Procurement, NI .Civil-Sen:i£e
Jame:5 Stewart, ChiefExecu.tivc; Partnerships UK (part meeting)
TngrnA1" Bj6msson, former Project Director, Oresund Crossing
TI'IIII$J1t!11 Scotland
TIm Barton, Chief Road Engineer
David Anderson, Project Director, Forth ~
Crossing Umn
Law.ren.ce Stladcman. Project Mamger, Forth Rep1acement Crossing team
Apo18gies
~C()1mReed
F1'an(:CS J.)uf(y
A Peer Review was held into the Foitb. Replar=nent Cros~
in advance oftb.e s1)Qmi~on
to Cabinet of a paper seeking a decision on the form fm:iction and IDeation of the rep1acement
Forth Crossing: This Review· built upon the review held in June 2007 at the instmction of the
Strategic Board: -the main comments
m the Peer Review panel are grouped under key
hea~i."gq as follows:
Governance
1.
Noted that the Project Board has a key role in the forward governance, and suggested
strengthening
this with at least two non-executive
directors. Agreed that the Main
Board should keep cleat
of day-to-day issues but m~t-3iJ1 responsibility
for the
stakeholdet cotnmunWations.
Noted that the two NFl) should a1S() sit on the Main
Board. Agreed tbat, with these c.hanges. the proposals meet the immediate needs.
2.
Noted that the Project Board has a cmcial role in the next six mottt:bs ot so to ensure
the progress of the project.
fJigbngl1ted that the structure dQes :not deal with the
delivery vehi~,
but acknowledged thai the governance of the project will iWOlve as
the project moves through its· stages ..
'3.'
stressed that it· is essential to put Pmject Board and ~
Board in place as' soon as
possible~ since there is a clear need for this Board to inform the immedi~ -next steps
to ensure the programme is protected.
4 ..
Co-location
of the project team (with the core members of the consU1tant~s team)
welcomed as a ~
to the earlier comments of the peer review panel
Reminder
that a suitable project director should be appointed as soon as possible.
RESTRIcTED
- ADVICE 1;'0 MINISTERS
RESTRIC1ED -ADVICE TO MINISTERS-
CQmmmrlcation,
5.
Ensure tIutt when comparing bridge and tunnel optiOIl&~a like. for like C01I1pa:rison is
made; particularly with respect to the ctGSS sectionS proposed and their flexibility.
6.
Indicated. that
care will be required
with the
study objective
which' proposes
1TWIhltRin~ level of service for a11:t;nodes to at leaSt the 2006 level; particularly when
this means
that queuesmayst;iIl
form when the rep1acement crossing
opens.
S1,1ggeStedthat this may be a difficult issue. politieaIlyandpremmtationaUy
.
.--. -..---
.•...
7.
It should be demonstrated
how the ex:pected. higher l1emand. will be met in terms of
ditferenttra:f;lie modes, if the objective still is to improve reliability to journey times
for all mOdes. Providing for increasing denumd on the crossing$ xn~ be evaluated in
the terms of the environmental consequences.
8.
In the Iigh.t of the clear direction fur a replacement crossing, and the additional work
on heavy ~
there is a ~
to ~om1Tnmicate a robust analysis of the options
pa,rticu1arly in respect oftb.ec enviromn~
;,s!fQes8$Sociated with the optiOmL
9.
Highlighted that not using the existing grade A listed structure leaves many questions,
especially when the bridge is in a position that it is possible to be repaired.
Agreed
that this would be dealt with through questions and answers rather than direct1yin the
cabinet paper.
10.
The good start with the communications
for the project must be maintained,
and a
eonnnunieauODS strategy for the whole process is required building on this.
In
parti~
it will be esSential to make clear CQ$tStogetb.er with what is- included in
those costs.
-.•
11.
Consultation work undertaken
over the S1JI111D.eJ' praised; and commented that there
has been sufficient
consultation
to allow a decision to be taken by Ministers
on
s1rategic issues, ~ch as the' selection of:a. bridge ora tmmel
Noted that further
consultation will take place throughout the process of developing the cn>ssing.
Fmu'ine
ad Pn:JeureDient
12.
Highlighted that"the key question at this stage is whether theproj~
is affordable: the
procurement l'Olltes (and therefQte the, actual cost of the money to deliver it), Will be
developed as the. scope oftbe project becpmes clearer.
13.
Panel advised that further wotk is required on the ptocurement route - wh~
ppp
(perhaps via a DBFO) m' by. conventional
funding (by a conventional Design and
Build con1ract). IT a road user contn"bution is made (and that the level of contnbution
could be relatively stn.aJ.1), this Would make the project more attnI.c1ive to the private
s.ector. Panel concerned. that if'no user' contn1nJtion ~ available, even a PPP project
. - would:remain ~on 1nJIa.ncesheet', with little likelihood pf s1rnctDring a deal whereby it :.-
can be moved 4off balance sheet'.
14.
Considered that if SOIne fann of DBFO is promoted, the programme is some 6-9
months longer than D&B 'and tberefor~ will become a critical path activity.
RESTRIC'J,'Efi - ADVICE
To MINISTERS
R,ESTRICT.EP-AQVICETO.MJNISTERS
Legislation
15.
The Panel ra;i,sed the "questiQn of whether a. decision of cabinet could be subject of
judicial review.
Post meeting note; having spoken. with SGLD .•t1wre is considered to
be a small risk of this, with the example of a decisioIi of wbinet (Westminster) on
airports being challenged.
Programme
16.
Noted that continuity is essential when Wldertaking -surveys to .~
the proper
seoping of these and progrHmm;Tlg of the works to provide the data to the project
development.
Surveys affected include geotechniea1 andmarlne SQtVey8 as well as
topographiQll and environmental
17.
Panel commended the Forth team's ·itrteJttionto plan the key decisions and inputs
from Ministers as 'key s1akeholders for the period up to submitting for authorisation
in
the first instance.
18.
Panel considered that the ptpgramme indicated. is too tight, and advi$ed tbat the
~
of delay are considered.
Stressed that it is important that decisions are
~
Summary
19.
Panel p1eased that the recommendations
of the Iastreview
have been completed
(or
~
in hand where not possible to be completed)
20.
Satisfied that the analysis is robust based on the sttategic level review of the wotk
presented, both at this review and at the earlier one
21.
Having undertaken
a strategic review of the work presented, the Panel was satisfied
that a bridge op1ipn was that most likely to meet the objectives oftbe study taking into
.8CC01mt the factom considered,
including affotWLbility, environme:o.tal
impacts and
fleX1DiIity of response to the objectives.
David Anderson
Economy: Transport Scotland
19 October 2007
RESTRICTED-ADVICE
TOMINISTERS
...
FORT~REPLACEMENT~ROSmNG
PEER REVIEW
REPORT OF PEER REVIEW HELD 23 MAY 2008
TRANSPORT
SCOTLAND. ,GLASGOW
Attendance
Peer ReView Panel:
Ingmar Bjomsson
Former Project.Director of the Oresund Cl'O$SingProject
Quentin Leiper
Director for Enaineering and Environment, Carillion PLC
David Orr
President~Institution of Civil Engineers
James Stewart
Chief Executive, Partnerships UK
Transport Scotland:
Ainslie Mclaughlin
Director of M1RIPS
Lawrence Shackman Project Manager
Alan-Seywright
Commission Project DireCtQf'
Gillian Mawdsley
statutory Processes Manager
Carron Pollock
PoRcyOfficer
Apologies
Malcolm Reed
Chief executive of Transport Scotland
Purpose
To provide a report of the Peer Review held On 23 May 2008 into the Forth Replacement
Cro~ing together with response$ by the Transport scotland Project Team as discussed at
the meeting..
Baekground
Following the Ministerial statement on 19 December 2007, it was agreed by the Strategic
Board that in deve10ping the governance strudure for the project; It would be prudent to
continue With Peer Reviews, and that the same members should continue on the panel if
agreeable. The Peer Review panel met previously in October 2007 to COl1$iderthe current
state of the Forth Replacement Cros$ing Study and associated work fonOWingan eartier
meeting in June 2007 which considered the output and scope of the Forth Replacement
Crossing study. The preVious Peer Reviews took the form of a wide I"aI1gingreView of the
technical documentation available for the p~ct,
and benefited from ttte wide experience of
the panel members themse1ves. Their skills encompass procurement, finance, design,
governance and -construction, The current review was undertaken by way of an interactive
briefing session between the project team Iea~rs and the review panel.
The Peer Review is aimed at delivering the Wishes of the Strategic Board in seeking
assuran~
that the processes follQWeCiare robust
The purpose of the Review held on 23
May was to:
•
Take stock O,f the December Ministerial deci$ion in terms ~f the scope of the project
e.9; connecting roads, bridge. multi-mOdalfacilities ete
•
Review proj~
govern-ancaarrangements
1
..
..'
•
Review proposed aaion plan and prpgramme defining the neCessary legislative,
finance and procurement $trategies
.
•
Review programme. cost and risk issues
•
Comment on commuRicationsstrategy
The main comments of the Peer Review 9re included in this Report and are grouped under
key headings relating to the meeting agenda.
Panel Remit and Actions from last Peer Review
1.
The Panel ·stated that· it is impOrtant to ensure there is no duplication with the role of
the Peer Review and the Gateway Review although there WOUldbe some overlap. It was
agreed that a member of the Peer Review should attend the next Project Board or Strategic
Board meeting as appropriate in order to communicate issues:raised by the Panel during this
Review, in particular the areas which the PaneJview as high risk.
2.
The objective "to
maintain crOS&-Forth~nsport
links for all modes to at least the
level of service offered in 2006" was tlarifled1itS iii commitment to retaining twO lanes in each
direction for general traffic and providing additional capaeit)t for sustafnable traffic - high
occupancy vehicles and public transport. This cI.aJifJCation
was welcomed by the Panel. The
panel observed that this could affect the procurement strategy that is adopted,
3.
The Peer Review Panel noted that the project had progressed well since the last
review and that the majority of the actions raised at the previous Review had been
addressed positively.
Issues arising following
December Ministerial S~f!nt
4,
The Panel stated that clarity is required with regards to the future rol.6 of the Forth
Road Bridge. It was explained thatsi~
DeCember 2007, FETA has provided more
informatio.n regarding the progress with their dehumidification scheme and their assessment
of the feasibility of cable replacernentworkS. However, tne long term viability of the exi$ting
bridge remains an issue and the Project Team have held diseus.sionswith the Prqed Board
and Ministers on how to manage the uncertainty. The design of the connecting roads will
take into account the possible scenariO of the Forth Road Bridge coming .t;>ack
into use at a
later date. probably after a major refurbiShment following completion of the replacement
bridge. The Project Team are making the longer term possibility of a Mure twin-crossing
strategy clear through briefings and communications. The Panel observed "thatthis would be
a factor in considering the form of procurement and funding strategy that may be adopted in
the future.
5.
The Panel noted that the title of Forth 'Replacement' Crossing raises a number of
issues regarding the future role of the FRB an.dthat it may be advantageous to change the
name at this stage of the project.
.
6.
The Panel agreed that future proofU1gthe Cl'bSsing,for e)(aJTIple,.
hard shoulde~ and
segregated muIti~moda1corridor provision. as·illustrated in the cr6ss-section diagram. alloWS
operational flexibility which Vilii· be beneficial, particularly -as the political cfimate and
transportation requirements may change between now and 2016) and during the life' of the
·structure.
7.
The Panel asked for crarification as to why the costs pre$ented to the Panel at the
last Review differ from the costs in tQdays presentation. The Project-Team explained that
the curreJit figures (£3.2 to £4.2 billion) are 2016. outlum costs Whi-?hinclude the cost -of
2
·"~..
widening the bridge deck for a future segregated multi-modal corridor, VAT, and optimism
bias of 66% for the bridge it$elf and 44% for the connecting roads. These costs were quoted
by the Cabinet Secretary during· the December Ministerial announcement.
Optirnism Bias
will be refined as the project progresses as the work on cost and risk is upd~,
..
8.
It was·explainecf that the Joint Venture Gonsulfants have been appointed on a long
term fleXible framework contract reflecting the project programme. The Projed
Team
explained that the Joint Venture core team are based in BUchanan House while the location
_ of the wider team is dependant on individual disciplines with core centres in Glasgow and
Edinburgh (for ro<;ids,infrastructure, transportation and environmental services) and London
{for the Main ·Crossing}. The Panel were pleased that the integrated team was in plaC$ and
operating well but also highlighted the co-ordination risks flssociatedwith
multi-office
working.
9.
The Pn?ject Team explained that the consultants' brief is sprtt into work packages
with separate budgets for each cflScipline.Monitoring of spend, progress and earned value is
carried out monthly.
Change
control and performance monitoring is carned out in
accordance with Transport Scotland's Project Execution Plan.
GovemanceStructu~
10.
It was agreed that the appointment of a Project Director should ~
undertaken S$
quickly as possible.
The Project Team noted that consideration is being given to the
appointment of an interim Project Director for the next (; months as this is the likely timescale
for the appointment of a pennanent Project Director.
11.
The Panel recpgnised the necessity of the varipus layers of project governance given
the size and strategic imporhimce of the project. However, the Panel did question whether
there was sufficient experience on the Project Board and noted that this experience was
likely to be found in the private sedor.
The Panel members. undertook to consider
suggesting names of appropriate candidates for this role.
12.
The Panel also discussed the i$slJe of who was representing the client function for
the project. On other large public sector led infrastructure projects the roles of alient and
delivery have been clearly separated.
The Panel considered both roles can be fulfilled by
Transport Scotland. supported by the various Boards, provided there is a clear definition of
the separate roles within the o~anisation_ This might well invdlve the client sid~ engaging
independent advice on key issues. but mindful of the need to avoid duplication and negative
tension.
13.
The Panel noted that the Forth Replacement Crossing and the work to maintain the
eXisting Forth Road Bridge are separate remits and managed by two separate statutory
bodies. The Panel suggested that it may be advantageous to have a member of FETA on
the Project Board in order to better manage is.sue5arising regarding the future of the existing
bridge.
Critical Pathsl Key Milestones! Programme
14.
The Panel recommended that the Project Board identify specific review points Which
would be built into the programme at key stages. Selection of preferred option, design
finalisation and pre-promotion were exarrtples. In additiOn, the Panel commented that any
go/ no go decision points in the programme $hould also be identified,
15.
The benefits of having an overall programme to illustrate all aspects of the~eJjvery of
the project were highlighted by the Panel. The prbgramme should include the key political
3
decision
process and key programme impactS sUch as utilities. land acquisition.
procurement, construction and commissioning.
16.
It wa~ agreed that a discussion on the project Risk Register should be InclucfedIn the
agenda for the next Peer Review: The project team will ~ntinue to update the Risk Register
on a mpnthly basis and will report any movement of risks to the Project Board.
Legislative Options
17.
The Paner noted that the Legislative Paper clearly shows Option 3. a free-standing
Bill. ~ being the best performing option against. the evaluation criteria. The Project Team
explained that this recommendation still requil1*i Mhiisterial approval. The Panel members
agreed With this recommendation..
Finance and Procurement
18.
It was agreed that finance and procurement are now critical path activities. The Panel
emphasised the need to fully consider what will be required With regard$ to the procurement
process and alsOthe need to start pranningand development Work as soon as possible.
19.
The Panel highlighted the Importance of .ensuring that the procurement strategy is
clear and transparent for tenderers to consider.
20.
The Panel emphasised that affordabilit;y has to be addreSSed and supported
resolution of this before g.oingto the market, to ensure credibility.
21,
The Panel noted that bringing In a Contrsctor.~ an early stage may have impfications.
on the timing of funding required 'for land acquisition.
The Project Team stated that a
buildabifity audit would be undertaken as a reqUirement of Transport Scotland to ~nsute:J.
amongst other issues, that sufficlenf land was purchased ta bUildthe project.
22.
The Panel commented on the need for both an In-house and extemal team when
looking at taking procurement forward.
It was agreed that there ~
be a need for
specialists to become involved.
Communications
23.
It was noted that the media reaction to the DeCEm1ber Ministerial announcement had
been largely positiVe although there was an increase In correspondence from tunnel
lobbyists.
The Project Team has actively engaged with a wide range of stakeholders
I~.
ranging from MSPs, Local Authuri'tjes and Commonily Councils aver the
couple of
months through stakeholder briefing sessions and will continue to' do so. However, the
communications plan wIll take a forward looking approach and foCUSon the benefits of the
replacement crossing.
24.
The Panel commented that the communications strategy should clearly communicate
the project objectives.
4
Document Outline
