Ernst & Young and Mott MacDonald contract for work at RAF Northolt

David Gurtler made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Defence

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

I am writing with a request to supply information under Freedom of Information and or Environmental Impact Assessment legislation in respect of work undertaken by Ernst & Young in partnership with Mott MacDonald at RAF Northolt.

The reference to this appears in an email dated 29 November 2011 from DFM-BSG-AssetMgt2-Adv3 to Phil Roberts.

Please could you provide me with the following information in relation to this work:

1. Was the work tendered and if so please provide a copy of the tender package?

2. What were the terms of reference for the contract (i.e. what work was being undertaken by Ernst & Young in partnership with Mott MacDonald)?

3. What was the duration of the contract and has it been completed?

4. What was the outcome of the work carried out by Ernst & Young and Mott MacDonald and where is the final report available for viewing?

In anticipation of a swift and complete response.

Yours faithfully,

David Gurtler

DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER),

 

Dear Mr Gurtler,

 

Thank you for your email of 25 June requesting information about a
contract for work at RAF Northolt.

 

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and will be answered within twenty working days. 

 

If you have any queries about this request do not hesitate to contact me.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications

Regards,

 

| Public Affairs| Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Kingston Road | Sutton Coldfield | B75 7RL 

Website: [1]www.gov.uk/dio/

 

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.govd.uk/dio/

Dear DIO Sec-Parli (MULTIUSER),

I wondered if you were going to reply to this earlier request or whether it had slipped through the net. A response was due by 24 July 2014. It may be that you have responded separately, though I would expect it to show up in the trail of correspondence on this website, and I do not see it anywhere.

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

David Gurtler

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Link: [1]File-List

Dear David Gurtler,

 

Your e-mail below has been considered to be a request for information in
accordance with the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000.

 

An internal audit of FOIs has identified that a response to your request
was never completed or forwarded to you, for which I sincerely apologise.

 

Our records indicate that this request was one of a number of associated
requests that you submitted and that it may now have been overtaken by
events.

 

I will assume that this is the case if I do not receive notification from
you to the contrary by 5^th June 2015. If you still wish for this request
to be handled as a FOI, it will have to be re-logged as a new FOI request.

 

Regards,

 

Defence Resources-Secretariat,

Ministry of Defence,

Main Building,

Whitehall,

London.

SW1A 2HB

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for reminding me of this request back on 25 June 2014. You are correct, that the request was overtaken by events, however, I would still like a response if that is OK.

The original request asked:

------------------------------------

I am writing with a request to supply information under Freedom of
Information and or Environmental Impact Assessment legislation in
respect of work undertaken by Ernst & Young in partnership with
Mott MacDonald at RAF Northolt.

The reference to this appears in an email dated 29 November 2011
from DFM-BSG-AssetMgt2-Adv3 to Phil Roberts.

Please could you provide me with the following information in
relation to this work:

1. Was the work tendered and if so please provide a copy of the
tender package?

2. What were the terms of reference for the contract (i.e. what
work was being undertaken by Ernst & Young in partnership with Mott
MacDonald)?

3. What was the duration of the contract and has it been completed?

4. What was the outcome of the work carried out by Ernst & Young
and Mott MacDonald and where is the final report available for
viewing?

--------------------------------------

I look forward to hearing from you with the response.

Yours sincerely,

David Gurtler

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Link: [1]File-List

Dear Mr Gurtler,

 

Your request below has been considered to be a request for information in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and has been given
reference number FOI2015/04500.

 

Regards,

 

Defence Resources-Secretariat,

Ministry of Defence,

Main Building,

Whitehall,

London.

SW1A 2HB

 

 

show quoted sections

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Link: [1]File-List

Dear Mr Gurtler

 

Your correspondence dated 20 May 15 has been considered to be a request
fro information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 
You requested the following information:

 

Dear DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

 

Thank you for reminding me of this request back on 25 June 2014.  You are
correct, that the request was overtaken by events, however,  I would still
like a response if that is OK.

 

The original request asked:

 

------------------------------------

 

I am writing with a request to supply information under Freedom of

 Information and or Environmental Impact Assessment legislation in

 respect of work undertaken by Ernst & Young in partnership with

 Mott MacDonald at RAF Northolt.

 

The reference to this appears in an email dated 29 November 2011

 from DFM-BSG-AssetMgt2-Adv3 to Phil Roberts.

 

Please could you provide me with the following information in

 relation to this work:

 

1. Was the work tendered and if so please provide a copy of the

 tender package?

 

2. What were the terms of reference for the contract (i.e. what

 work was being undertaken by Ernst & Young in partnership with Mott

 MacDonald)?

 

3. What was the duration of the contract and has it been completed?

 

4. What was the outcome of the work carried out by Ernst & Young

 and Mott MacDonald and where is the final report available for

 viewing?

 

--------------------------------------

 

I look forward to hearing from you with the response.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Gurtler

 

This e-mail is to inform you that the MOD holds information related to
your request, but that we believe the information may fall within the
scope of the following qualified exemption(s): [2]Section 43 - Commercial
Guidance. As such it is necessary for us to decide whether, in all the
circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the
exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

The Freedom of Information Act requires us to respond to requests
promptly, and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving
your request. However, when a qualified exemption applies to the
information and the public interest test has to be conducted, the Act
allows the time for response to be longer than 20 working days.  A full
response must be provided within such time as is reasonable in all
circumstances of the case and, in relation to your request, we estimate
that it will take an additional 20 working days to take a final decision
on where the balance of public interest lies.  We therefore plan to let
you have a response by 20 July 15. If it appears that it will take longer
than this to reach a conclusion we will let you know.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you may apply for an
independent internal review by contacting the Information Rights
Compliance team, 1^st Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB
(e-mail [email address]). Please note that any request for an internal
review must be made within 40 working days of the date of this letter.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
http://www.ico.org.uk.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

Business Strategy and Governance - GPSS Sale Team

Level 3, Zone M| MOD Main Building | Whitehall | London | SW1A 2HB

 

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/cid:filelist.xml@01D0ACFA.38757E50
2. http://defenceintranet.diif.r.mil.uk/lib...

Dear DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

I have been waiting for the reply for over a year now, so this does seem to be slightly ridiculous that you should now require an additional 20 working days to answer what are in fact very simple questions.

Please provide a response by return.

Yours sincerely,

David Gurtler

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data

Dear Mr Gurtler,

 

The MOD’s response to your request for information below has now been
completed but as the file size is over 42 MB it is not possible to send it
via e-mail.

 

Would you therefore please provide a postal address so that a CD
containing the answer can be posted to you?

 

Regards,

 

Defence Resources-Secretariat,

Ministry of Defence,

Main Building,

Whitehall,

London.

SW1A 2HB

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER)
Sent: 21 May 2015 14:11
To: 'David Gurtler'
Cc: DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER)
Subject: 20150521-FOI request - Ernst & Young and Mott MacDonald contract
for work at RAF Northolt - FOI2015/04500 - David Gurtler-O

 

Dear Mr Gurtler,

 

Your request below has been considered to be a request for information in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and has been given
reference number FOI2015/04500.

 

Regards,

 

Defence Resources-Secretariat,

Ministry of Defence,

Main Building,

Whitehall,

London.

SW1A 2HB

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Please could you send the CD to:

[address removed]

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

David Gurtler

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Thank you very much for providing me with a copy of the various documents associated with the Ernst and Young Report. I understand that they have been redacted, however, it is not clear why certain parts have been redacted.

Consequently I am requesting an internal review to consider what has been redacted and whether it was appropriate to redact all the information and to explain exactly why the different elements have been redacted.

For ease I shall list the redacted elements and in some cases provide commentary. However, it would appear that there has been little thought to the appropriateness of redacting and someone has chosen to redact any figure with a '£' sign in front, without consideration as to whether the information in each qualifies to be redacted:

Ernst and Young Report:
1. Ernst and Young letter of 1.2.12
- name of person who letter to (redacted for privacy reasons)
- name of person (and signature) who letter was from (redacted for privacy reasons)
2. Ernst and Young Report - contents page
- title 4.7.5 needlessly redacted (it's just a title)
- title 7.2 in conclusions again apparently needlessly redacted
3. Section 1.2.2 what has been redacted and why?
- first paragraph financial sum?
- Phase 1 paragraph two financial sums?
- Phase 2 a financial sum?
- Phase 3 a financial sum?
4. Section 1.2.3 what has been redacted and why?
- Paragraph (a) two financial sums?
- Paragraph (b) a financial sum?
5. Section 1.2.6 what has been redacted and why?
- Third paragraph two financial sums?
6. Page 12 (continuing on to page 13) why has the complete table been redacted. If it is financially sensitive (which seems unlikely as these are theoretical exercises and not commercially sensitive), why have both tables been completely obliterated - bare minimum the column and row headings should have been shown.
7. Section 1.4 the wing commander's name presumably for privacy reasons.
8. Page 15 MOD transferred cost - why is the information sensitive when it is assumptions on running costs, maintenance and personnel. This is a facility paid for by the tax payers and that information should be publicly accessible for scrutiny.
9. Section 3.2 is the same redacting as per point 3 above (section 1.2.2). Why is this information redacted?
10. Section 3.3 is the same redacting as per point 4 above (section 1.2.3). Why is this information redacted?
11. Section 4.2.3 why is the financial figure relating to potential construction costs of hangarage redacted? This cannot be sensitive information.
12. Section 4.3.3 bullet 3, why is the revenue per pax redacted when the information has been gained by comparing commercial activities at similar size airports (presumably such as Biggin Hill, Cambridge, Farnborough, Gloucestershire and Oxford)? Again this is not sensitive, rather it is a calculation based on information that has been gained from other airports.
13. Section 4.3.3 final paragraph, this is an identical redaction to that in point 8 above and seems unnecessary.
14. Section 4.3.4 bullets (a) and (b) as per points 9 and 3 above.
15. Section 4.3.4 (page 32 two paragraphs), again whilst it is financial information this cannot be considered commercially sensitive, but is a theoretical model and is already dated (the report is 3 years old and so the financial assumptions will be out of date).
16. Section 4.4.3 last paragraph financial sum redacted. Unnecessary as per reasons above.
17. Section 4.5.1 the assumed investment by a private sector operator does not need to be redacted. It is an assumption and not commercially sensitive.
18. 4.7.5 relates to point 2 above, it seems completely unnecessary to redact the title and as a consequence it is not possible to even speculate as to what the content might be and why it has been redacted and whether that censorship meets the tests set out in the relevant legislation.
19. Section 6.1.2 first bullet is the same issue as per point 12 above. Unnecessary to redact.
20. Section 6.1.2 fourth bullet redacts three financial sums for the three options considered. Again it seems unnecessary to have censored this information.
21. Section 6.1.2 sixth bullet is the same issue as per points 12 and 19 above.
22. Section 6.2 the table has been redacted with same issue as per point 6 above.
23. Section 6.4.1 the figure has been redacted as has that in 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 (including the titles of the figures) so it is not even possible to determine what might have been shown (assuming it is value of the different options, this need not be redacted as the information is dated and not sensitive).
24. Section 6.4.2 the paragraph has redacted a financial sum and the figure below is completely obliterated (as per point 23 above).
25. Section 6.4.2 bullet 'Sensitivity 1' has three or four pieces of redacting. This is information about LCY (also making reference to other similar airports) so the redacting seems completely unnecessary.
26. Section 6.4.2 bullet 'Sensitivity 3' has three pieces of redacting - as per point 25 above.
27. Section 6.4.2 bullet 'Sensitivity 6' has three pieces of redacting - as per points 25 and 26 above.
28. Section 6.4.2 'LCY Model Comparison) has two pieces of redacting - as per points 25, 26 and 27 above.
29. Table at the top of page 53 completely redacted. Issue as per point 6 above.
30. Section 6.5 first para two pieces of financial data redacted and also in Figure 12, with the whole table at the bottom of the page redacted.
31. Section 6.6 has a number of financial sums redacted, these are valuations, but since this is not an exercise associated with the sale of an asset, these valuations cannot be commercially sensitive, but are rather showing potential benefit to the taxpayer. There seems no logical reason for the information to have been redacted.
32. Section 6.7.1 again this is a valuation exercise and since it may give an indication of the amount the MOD may expect from a lease, this appears to be the only piece of financial information that may be commercially sensitive.
33. Footnote at the base of Section 6.7.2, unclear why this is redacted as it relates to Farnborough and is very old information.
34. Table on page 55 completely redacted.
35. Section 6.7.3 final bullet point has two financial pieces of information redacted, yet it is clear that the option was not being pursued so completely unnecessary to redact the information.
36. The summary has the same information redacted as outlined above from the main body of the report, notably:
- Section 7.1.1 final paragraph two figures redacted
- Section 7.1.2 final paragraph two figures redacted
- Section 7.1.3 final paragraph two figures redacted
37. As per the comment re the contents page (point 2 above) the whole of Section 7.2 has been redacted, so not even the title is visible nor any of the bullet points, paragraphs or figures. It is therefore not even possible to speculate why this may have been redacted and whether it was necessary or appropriate.
38. Appendix A page 61 two pieces of redacting - financial information.
39. Appendix A page 62 four pieces of financial information redacted and three bullet points redacted (no idea what the bullet points may have covered and whether the whole should have been redacted).
40. Appendix A page 63 nine pieces of redacting - financial information.
41. Appendix A page 64 four pieces of redacting - financial information.
42. Appendix B page 67 five pieces of financial information redacted, including old information about Farnborough, continues on to page 68 with a further three redactions.

Mott MacDonald CAA Licence Compliance Report:
1. Issue and revision record names redacted for privacy reasons.
2. Contents page Section 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 titles redacted - unclear as to why the whole needed redacting.
3. Page 2, first paragraph completely redacted. This is within the introduction and it is not possible to speculate as to the reason for this whole paragraph being obliterated.
4. Page 65 the whole of section 10.1 is redacted.
5. Page 66-67 the whole of section 10.2 is redacted.
6. Page 67 the whole of section 10.3 is redacted.

Mott MacDonald Passenger Traffic Report:
1. Issue and revision record names redacted for privacy.

Ernst and Young Appendix F:
1. The four pages of the Ernst and Young Financial Model have been fully redacted.

I would be grateful if you could address each of the points above in your internal review as I do not think that the work of redaction has been carried out without due consideration for the public interest nor as to whether the redaction protects a legitimate economic interest. It appears that a black pen has been taken to any financial figure without considering whether it is necessary to redact that information. Only in one instance does it appear that there might be commercial information the confidentiality of which might need to be protected (re LCY). Additionally where whole sections and their titles have been redacted it is not possible to guess the reason for the confidentiality and what adverse impact would happen through disclosure.

If you could address each point that would at least demonstrate that there has been a thorough and appropriate assessment, though I would draw your attention to recent Tribunal decisions which have required full disclosure in the public interest.

Yours faithfully,

David Gurtler

ISS Des-CMI-IR Compliance4-KIM(Daly, Paul C1),

Link: [1]themeData
Link: [2]colorSchemeMapping

Dear Mr Gurtler

 

Acknowledgement of Request: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Internal
Review

 

I acknowledge your email dated 12 August 2015. MOD will conduct an
internal review of your request for information under the FOIA our
reference FOIA 2015/04500

The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days
and we therefore aim to complete the review and respond to you by 11
September 2015. While we are working hard to achieve this, in the
interests of providing you with a realistic indication of when you should
expect a response, I should advise that the majority are currently taking
between 20 and 40 working days to complete.

 

The review will involve a full, independent reconsideration of the
handling of the case as well as the final decision.

 

Information Rights Compliance Team

 

 

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team | JFC ISS | 01.N.07 MOD Main
Building | Whitehall | London SW1A 2HB |
Please note that MOD out-of-office notifications do not extend beyond
Defence. If you feel you have not had a timely response to an email,
please phone to check that I am in office or email the MOD Information
Rights Compliance team at [3][email address] (FOI/EIR matters) or
[4][email address] (DPA matters). 

 

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/~~themedata~~
2. file:///tmp/~~colorschememapping~~
3. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]

Dear ISS Des-CMI-IR Compliance4-KIM(Daly, Paul C1),

Please could you advise why I have not received the response to my request for an internal review. The request was made on 12 August and on 17 August the MOD advised that a response would be received within 20 working days - that should have been undertaken one month ago.

If I do not receive a reply this week I shall take this matter to the Information Commissioner assuming that my request has been turned down.

Given that the MOD took over a year to deal with my original request - which a cynic might suggest was due to the fact that the information would have been embarrassing and damaging given that the MOD and CAA were in court over the civilian use of RAF Northolt and safety compliance issues - I will ask the Information Commissioner to examine the delays, lack of response and request appropriate sanction.

Yours sincerely,

David Gurtler

Dear Ministry of Defence,

I am forwarding my chasing email that was sent to "ISS Des-CMI-IR Compliance4-KIM(Daly, Paul C1)" as I wish to escalate this matter before resorting to a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner.

The chasing email is below, sent today (13.10.15) at 10.00.

--------------------

Please could you advise why I have not received the response to my
request for an internal review. The request was made on 12 August
and on 17 August the MOD advised that a response would be received
within 20 working days - that should have been undertaken one month
ago.

If I do not receive a reply this week I shall take this matter to
the Information Commissioner assuming that my request has been
turned down.

Given that the MOD took over a year to deal with my original
request - which a cynic might suggest was due to the fact that the
information would have been embarrassing and damaging given that
the MOD and CAA were in court over the civilian use of RAF Northolt
and safety compliance issues - I will ask the Information
Commissioner to examine the delays, lack of response and request
appropriate sanction.

----------------------

Yours faithfully,

David Gurtler

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Dear Mr Gurtler

Please accept my apologises that we have not provided a response to your internal review request to date. The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days and we work hard to achieve this, but some reviews, depending on their complexity, will take longer to complete. Please be assured that your case is a high priority to us and this review is very near completion and I expect to write to you by the 21 October 2015, if not sooner.

MOD Information Rights Team

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

The 21 October has been and gone and I am still awaiting a reply a week later. This request has been handled nearly as badly as the original which was 'lost' for almost a year.

Please can I have the reply by return.

Yours sincerely,

David Gurtler

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Gurtler

Please find attached an Internal review for FOI2015/04500. Please accept my apologises for the delay in providing this review.

Mod Information Rights Compliance