Agenda item

Thanet Pathfinder Projects - Procurement Approvals

Minutes:

Louise Askew, Head of Regeneration and Growth introduced the report and made the following points:

 

·  This report was part of the formal process required in delivery of the programme. The Council had been through a process to review the best procurement method for each of the Pathfinder Schemes on the basis of the geographical location of the projects, the timescales for delivery and the value of the projects;

·  The report related to four of the Ramsgate schemes and was a key decision as the contract value was over £250,000. This Panel was asked to note and scrutinise the report and consider any representations to Cabinet in advance of its meeting on 26 October 2024. The proposed recommendation to Cabinet, was as follows:

 

1.  Cabinet is asked to authorise the procurement and award of contracts for a number of procurements for projects in the Simplification Pathfinder Project through the SCAPE Framework. The schemes are Clock House, Pier Yard, and the Highways Works - which are now combined and the Green Campus project;

 

2.  Cabinet is asked to authorise the procurement and award of contracts for a number of procurements for projects in the Simplification Pathfinder Project through the SCAPE Framework.

 

·  The interventions identified in the report had already had approval for their selection in the Future High Street Fund and Levelling Up Fund Bids, and were prioritised as part of the Simplification Pathfinder Pilot investment Plan. This report was part of the procedural requirements of the council to gain approval for the procurement;

·  There were several steps of delivery for these government-funded programmes following the award of funding. This included planning permissions and various Cabinet permissions. It also included different stages of procurement, lease disposals, management and governance arrangements to support the project's delivery. The procurement of contractors; whether they were individual contractors or under a one Tier 1 contract as being proposed, would need a cabinet decision. The Council was at the right stage in the project's delivery to procure the contractors for these Ramsgate projects;

·  The project team worked up the procurement strategy, engaged with the market and discussed the procurement strategy at the relevant internal project meetings. This report did not outline detail about the individual projects and the detail had been presented at various engagement events. Further engagement events would happen where required in each of the projects and most notably was the Pier Yard and Highways interventions.

 

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

 

·  One Member said that the amount of funding available was £1 million less than the original bid. They asked what had the money been spent on due to the clustering of projects, was there a danger that funding for project would be used for another, particularly where there was the Green Campus project which as underfunded;

·  They also asked if the final designs would be shared with councillors and the public;

·  Another member asked whether there were elements of the project that could be pulled out without affecting the project;

·  They further asked if using a single contractor posed a risk that they would sub contract leading to the Council losing control over the project works;

·  One member said that councillors had been advised that the fishing project was not viable. They also said that Phases 1&2 had not been consulted on and that there was no match funding for these phases;

·  Another member said that this was a good news story. Funding was allocated to the Council without adequate notice. It was worth noting that small councils did not have the capacity of large teams to manage such large projects;

·  A member said that the Regeneration team had done a great deal of work to get the projects where they were;

·  They also said that final designs of the two projects should be shared with councillors before implementation;

·  Another ember said that they were concerned by the design of the Pier Yard Car Park. They said that it was imperative that the fishing industry had 24/7 access rather than allocated time slots;

·  A member asked for time scales and the process for awarding the contracts. They said that councillors should be informed first;

·  One member asked if the bus stops near the project sites would be moved.

 

Louise Askew and Lucia Tanner, Regeneration Project Manager responded as follows:

 

·  There would not be any movement of funds between projects even though there was a single contractor managing different projects as each project had its own budget. Cabinet was the decision maker that could make such movements of funds;

·  Fees for processing these projects, staffing resources and consultancy costs were all built into the bid;

·  Pier Yard had a significant amount of work put into it. The Council was using the SCAPE Framework which works on agreed set of rates with contractors;

·  This was a public sector procurement framework that the Finance and Legal Departments had reviewed;

·  Engagement events would be held for the Highways and Pier Yard projects. Council was working with stakeholders that included KCC on these projects;

·  An engagement event had been held for the Green Campus and nothing had changed regarding that project;

·  An engagement event was held in July this year for the Pier Yard project;

·  Cost consultancy had been recommissioned. The Council was keeping the approach for a smaller footprint for the Green Campus;

·  Risk was reduced by having a single contractor managing all these projects and the council was still looking at achieving 10% net gain;

·  This report was about the procurement process. The project had been approved already by government and TDC Cabinet;

·  A place plan workshop was held in Broadstairs and Council received feedback from the public. A number of councillors had attended this workshop;

·  RIBA Stage 2: It was common to have contracts at this stage as the Council would move towards formal contracting;

·  With regards to match funding, Windfarm had had indicated that they would match fund but they had since changed ownership and the Council was still in discussion with them;

·  For a third party operator a decision would need to be made by Cabinet as this would involve a contract of more than seven years;

·  Officers were currently working on models of management for the Green Campus;

·  The Green Campus project had gone to the Planning Committee for a decision regarding planning consent. Pier Yard and Highway schemes were at RIBA Stage 2. A briefing would be offered to councillors to provide a progress update;

·  The issue regarding bus stops could only be dealt with by Stage Coach.

 

Councillor Green proposed, Councillor Fellows seconded and the Panel agreed to forward the following recommendation to Cabinet, that:

 

Cabinet is asked to ensure that the final designs for the Highway Scheme and Pier Yard Scheme will be presented to councillors for information through a councillor briefing before a final decision is made.

Supporting documents: