appendix 1 - allerdale 1 … · 49 piccadilly manchester m1 2ap . allerdale borough council interim...

Appendix 1

Issue 1.4

Date: 31 October 2014

GATEWAY 4 REPORT

New Swimming Pool and Leisure

Centre

for

Allerdale Borough Council

Pick Everard Piccadilly House 49 Piccadilly Manchester M1 2AP

Allerdale Borough Council Interim Gateway 4 Report

Workington Leisure Centre

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER A R D

Document History

Issue Date Comment Author Checked

1.4 31.10.14 Gateway 4 Report PD/AL AD



IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER A R D

CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT ..................................................................................................................... 2

3.0 PROJECT BRIEF .............................................................................................................................. 2

4.0 SCAPE GATEWAY APPROVAL PROCESS ..................................................................................... 2

5.0 DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................... 4

6.0 PROGRAMME ................................................................................................................................ 6

7.0 RISK AND COMPENSATION EVENTS ............................................................................................ 7

8.0 COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSURANCE PROCESS ........................................................... 9

9.0 COST AND PROCUREMENT........................................................................................................... 9

10.0 VALUE ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................. 10

11.0 LOCAL SPEND .............................................................................................................................. 11

12.0 VALUE FOR MONEY .................................................................................................................... 12

13.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCAPE FRAMEWORK .......................................................................... 12

14.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY ................................................................................................................... 12

15.0 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................... 12

16.0 RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX A: RCE/WD GATEWAY 4 REPORT 14

APPENDIX B: RISK REGISTER 15

APPENDIX C: LOCAL SPEND 16



1

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an overview on the Scape process undertaken in collaboration with

Robertson Construction England (RCE) and Willmott Dixon (WD), in support of the

approval required from the Council Executive on 12 November 2014 to proceed with

signature of the Delivery Agreement to allow RCE/WD to commence building works to

deliver the Workington Leisure Centre.

The current detailed design submitted at Scape Gateway 4 is generally compliant or

exceeds the scope of facilities approved by the Council Executive on 13 November

2013. The key non-compliance items are noted as follows:

No Jacuzzi is provided within the Health Suite; (following discussion with the

Operator at Gateway 2);

The Fitness Suite includes 90no. station’s not 100;

Three 3G 5 aside pens have been provided in place of an artificial full size 3G

pitch, due to the commitment given by Lakes College;

Vending is provided in the Café area, rather than a Café.

The Building Regulations approval stage is sufficient to allow works to commence on to

site.

Planning consent was approved on 22 July 2014 with 39 conditions associated with the

project. Once Planning Department approval is obtained to the pre-commencement

conditions, works can commence on site from a planning perspective.

The programme identifies a commencement date on 8 December 2014, with

Completion on 21 March 2016. The overall construction period is 67 weeks.

The Council risks are considered minimal and within control to determine and mitigate

prior to contract award.

The Local Spend percentages achieved are only based on progress so far. RCE/WD

have developed a strategy to continue to improve local spend throughout the

construction works, that will be measured as a KPI during the contract and at

Completion.

The proposed Contract Price of £10,369,946 plus the additional sum for Fixtures, Fittings

and Equipment at £60,297 (total Contract Price of £10,430,243) is considered to be

value for money for the Council.

Construction works can now proceed from a Health and safety perspective onto site in

compliance with Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Pick Everard can conclude that the RCE/WD bid submitted on 15 October 2014

represents value for money and is compliant with the Scape Framework The Next

Steps, Pick Everard recommend that the Council can proceed to Scape Gateway 5;

Mobilisation / Construction.



2

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

2.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to set out the progress made since approval was obtained

from the Council Executive on 13 November 2013 to proceed with the New Swimming

Pool and Sports Centre.

This report provides an overview on the Scape process undertaken in collaboration with

RCE/WD, and seeks approval from the Council Executive on 12 November 2014 to

proceed with signature of the Delivery Agreement to allow RCE/WD to commence

building works to deliver the Workington Leisure Centre. (Scape Gateway 5; Mobilisation

/ Construction).

3.0 PROJECT BRIEF

At the Council Executive on 13 November 2013, members’ approval was obtained to

move forward with the procurement of a final design with costs to deliver a new leisure

centre in Workington, located on land adjacent to Brow Top Car Park and the car park

itself as the preferred site. Approval was also obtained to use the Scape Framework.

The proposed facility mix included in item 5.10 of the Council Executive minutes for the

new centre was confirmed as follows:

A 25m x 8 lane pool with small pool for teaching / alternative uses and spectator

seating (this would be a regional facility not currently available in Cumbria)

A spa suite (sauna/ steam room/ Jacuzzi)

Wet and dry changing facilities

4 court sports hall (including soft play area if practical)

Climbing wall

Fitness suite (100 stations) and 2 activity studios (flexible use)

Spinning studio

Artificial full size 3G pitch(es)

2 squash courts

Café

Administration / office provision

At the Council Executive meeting, the proposed facility mix was approved,

supplemented by a Scape Gateway 2 Report (RIBA Stage 1 – Preparation and Brief)

prepared by RCE/WD, dated 25 October 2013.

4.0 SCAPE GATEWAY APPROVAL PROCESS

A Project Order was executed on 6 December 2013 between Willmott Dixon and the

Council for a cost for £582,667.



3

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

The Project Order enabled RCE/WD to develop a client brief working with GT Architects

and other design consultants to progress the design through the Scape Gateway

Process.

Brief

A Client Brief was prepared by RCE/WD that was signed off by the Corporate Director

on 08.01.14.

Background Survey Information

The Project Order also enabled RCE/WD to procure specialist surveys to inform both the

detailed design and later supplement the planning application for the site. This

included but is not limited to the following examples:

Ground Investigation Report;

Bridge Site Investigation Report;

Flood Risk Assessment;

Topographical Survey;

Ecology reports;

Arboricultural Impact Assessment;

Heritage Statement; and

Traffic Impact Assessment.

Scape Gateway Design process

The Scape Framework has a process that needs to be followed for the design

development of projects. From approval of the Brief, the design is progressively

developed in collaboration with the Council, seeking Scape Gateway design stage

approvals as follows:

13.11.13: Council Executive approval to progress the centre;

08.01.14: Scape Gateway 2 approval obtained to proceed to the next stage;

At the recommendation of Pick Everard an additional Scape gateway stage was

introduced to enable the Project Board to approve the Concept Design (RIBA Stage 2 –

Concept Design). The reason for introducing this additional stage was to ensure that

the design was being developed in accordance with the approved Client Brief within

the overall affordability envelope.

17.02.14: Scape Gateway 3.1 approval obtained for additional interim Gateway

(RIBA Stage 2 – Concept Design) by the Corporate Director to proceed to the

formal Scape Gateway 3.

01.05.14: Project Board approval obtained for the formal Scape Gateway 3 –

Pre-Construction Develop Design. (RIBA Stage 3 – Developed Design) to

proceed to the formal Scape Gateway 4.



4

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

The Council also considered and approved planning permission on 22 July 2014 that

was subsequently issued on 17 September 2014.

Council Executive approval is now being sought for Scape Gateway 4 – Pre-

Construction Detailed Design (RIBA Stage 4 – Technical Design) to proceed to Scape

Gateway 5.

Scape Gateway 5 is Construction / Mobilisation (RIBA Stage – Construction).

5.0 DESIGN

The design for the new Workington Leisure Centre at the completion of Scape Gateway

4 closely resembles the Project Brief and complies with Sport England and ASA

guidance, subject to limited derogation that has been applied with consideration to

efficiency and affordability.

The design delivers a modern leisure centre that will contribute to the improved health

of the local and regional community, located in a prime position to benefit the town

centre economy.

The design has also been considered in the context of the site location, with scale and

massing appropriate to the centre’s location.

A fundamental consideration of the design has been the focus around accessibility of

the whole facility, both internally and externally. A high priority has been given to

making the building as accessible as possible to all taking into account the special

needs of people with disabilities, children, ethnic/cultural diversity, women and men as

well as the varying levels of sporting ability.

Following extensive consideration and case study visits, the Council approved the

utilisation of Myrtha stainless steel pool tanks to both the main competition pool and

learner pool as the most suitable and cost efficient pool tank solutions based on

numerous factors. The learner pool also has a moveable floor down to 1.6m to maximise

programme opportunity and use.

The new leisure centre will be sustainable and responsible to environmental issues in

terms of the use of energy and sustainable resources together with considerations to

the control of pollution.

Use of environmentally friendly, sustainable building services and building materials has

been maximised and are also recyclable where possible.

Workington Leisure Centre will be required to achieve a BREEAM ‘Very Good’ rating.

External elevations are to utilise high quality, low maintenance finishes and be

sympathetic to the surrounding environment. Finishes are robust and suitable for

location and use.

The detailed design includes the following leisure centre provision to comply with the

Project Brief as follows:

Site preparation, including earth movement and remediation works.

Raising the site levels to the centre and three 3G 5 aside pens to 7.2m in

accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment.



5

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

8 lane competition swimming pool 25010mm (+10/0) x 17005mm finished with an

allowance for future installation of competition touch pads to a depth falling

from 1000mm to 2000mm and rising back up to 1800mm including a set of easy

access steps and a raised end to the deep end.

186 no. spectator seating gallery to first floor pool hall balcony including fixed

seats plus 4no. disabled viewing positions.

Learner pool 15100mm x 10000mm with moveable floor down to a 1600mm

depth with moveable easy access steps.

Heath suite with sauna and steam room.

Changing village with 2no. Group Change rooms and a separate Dry Change

including toilets and shower facilities.

2no. passenger lifts.

2no. squash courts with spectator seating for 32no. squash spectators plus 2no.

disabled bays

Flexible ‘four court badminton’ sports hall and equipment store and mat store,

for a variety of sports uses.

Climbing wall.

Changing Places room.

Entrance lobby with waiting area / vending area including reception desk.

Fitness suite for 90no. Individual workstations, free weights and stretching and

core work.

Two Dance Studio’s with shared storage.

One Spinning Studio with shared storage.

Dry Male and Dry Female changing rooms, including toilets and showers.

Male and female toilets including accessible toilets, with changing facilities and

a shower for users with disabilities.

Filtration plant room, plant rooms and a sunken external plant deck on the roof.

Ancillary space including store rooms, circulation, stair cores and means of

escape.

8no. new disabled car parking spaces, with 7no. in the existing top car park

Service access road, coach lay-by, drop-off area, service yard, paths and

access bridge.

Three 3G 5 aside football pens inclusive of perimeter fencing, access / egress,

and external lighting.

External works, landscaping and external lighting.



6

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

Protection and enhancement of the existing ecology including to Soapery Beck,

complying with the requirements of Natural England.

Design compliance with Project Brief

The current detailed design submitted at Scape Gateway 4 is generally compliant or

exceeds the scope of facilities approved by the Council Executive on 13 November

2013. The key non-compliance items are noted as follows:

No Jacuzzi is provided within the Health Suite; (following discussion with the

Operator at Gateway 2);

The Fitness Suite includes 90no. station’s not 100;

Three 3G 5 aside pens have been provided in place of an artificial full size 3G

pitch, due to the commitment given by Lakes College;

Vending is provided in the Café area, rather than a Café.

Secured by Design

GT Architects have held discussions with the local Police Architectural Liaison Officer,

who attended a presentation by WD/RCW/WD with the design team on 2 October

2014. The design has been progressed with aspiration to the principles of Secured by

Design, rather than seeking formal certification.

Building Regulations

Meetings have been held with the Council’s Building Control Department during the

design development process. A staged building regulation application was approved

on 28 February 2014. The approval stage is sufficient to allow works to commence on to

site.

Planning Consent

Planning consent was approved on 22 July 2014 with 39 conditions associated with the

project. Information has been submitted by RCE/WD to discharge 8 pre-

commencement conditions for which RCE/WD is awaiting approval from the planning

department that the pre-commencement conditions have been satisfied. Once this

approval is obtained, works can commence on site from a planning perspective.

6.0 PROGRAMME

A Construction Programme has been submitted by RCE/WD as part of the Contractors

Proposals.

The programme identifies mobilisation on 26 November 2014 with commencement of

construction works on 8 December 2014, Completion is on 21 March 2016, based on an

overall construction programme duration of 62 weeks, plus 5 weeks included for

Christmas 2014, Christmas 2015 and statutory holidays during the construction period.

The overall construction period is 67 weeks.

There will also be an additional 2 to 4 week fit out and familiarisation period by Carlisle

Leisure Limited prior to opening the pool and centre to the public.



7

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

The Construction Programme has been interrogated as part of a technical query

review process by Pick Everard. The overall construction period is acceptable, although

enhancement has been suggested to include activities such as the detailed testing

and commissioning regime to Myrtha pool tanks, with additional milestones to monitor

progress and extend the commissioning period.

It has also been suggested that the External Works, 3G Pitch Works and Electric Sub-

station activities are brought forward.

It has been agreed that whilst a significant number of activities are on the critical path

that RCE/WD develop the programme to remove the pool off the critical path due to

the incorporation of the Myrtha pool tanks.

RCE/WD has accepted the comments made by Pick Everard and has committed to

review and develop the programme for consideration of ‘Acceptance’ by Pick Everard

as the Project Manager representing the Council.

Pick Everard would advise that the Construction Programme is realistic, fair but

challenging, given the requirement to raise site levels and that it was not viable to

progress an enabling works package, given the additional financial commitment

required by the Council, prior to receiving a fixed price, lump sum offer at completion

of Scape Gateway 4.

The key milestones that need to be achieved are as follows:

Activity

Date

Commencement of mobilisation works 26.11.14

Commencement of construction Works 08.12.14

Milestone: Structural Frame complete 16.07.15

Milestone: Full Weather tightness achieved 16.10.15

Milestone: Mains water supply on achieved 04.12.15

Milestone: Main Gas supply on 04.12.15

Milestone: Power on achieved 07.12.15

Milestone: Lifts Operational achieved 11.12.15

Completion 21.03.16

In collaboration with RCE, Willmott Dixon have also undertaken a review of the

programme and advised that they generally consider the programme acceptable.

The commencement date has been aligned with the Council Executive Meeting on 12

November 2014, allowing a 10 day Standstill period prior to contract signature, subject

to approval to proceed to Scape Gateway 5.

7.0 RISK AND COMPENSATION EVENTS

A risk register has been developed in collaboration with the Council, RCE/WD and Pick

Everard and an updated risk register has been submitted as part of the Contractors

Proposals.

RCE have provided a commentary on the top five (5) risks as Section 3.0 of the Scape

Gateway 4 Report. Refer Appendix A.

These risks have now been further reviewed and developed at a risk workshop as part

of the commercial and technical review process undertaken by Pick Everard from the 2



8

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

October 2014, and the results of the workshop are recorded in the latest risk register

dated 13 October 2014, Refer to Appendix B.

The risks attributed to the council are:

Risk ID

Risk Cost £

PR7 Sport England legal charge 3,000

SPR07 Building Insurance 16,000

These risks are considered minimal and within the Councils control to determine and

mitigate prior to contract award.

The NEC Engineering and Construction Contract is recommended for use on the Scape

Framework and Option A: Priced contract with activity schedule is to be used. RCE/WD

has submitted a fixed cost, lump sum that will be subject to the conditions of the

Contract.

Risks will continue to be raised, managed or mitigated during construction works at

Scape Gateway 5 in accordance with the Contract. Under Clause 16, the Contractor

and the Project Manager give an early warning by notifying the other as soon as either

becomes aware of any matter which could:

Increase the total of the Prices (post contract changes to the lump sum fixed

price);

Delay Completion;

Delay meeting a Key Date; or

Impair the performance of the works in use.

The Early Warning process will be followed and the process will be Project Managed by

Pick Everard at Risk Reduction Meetings.

There are 19no. compensation events that can be notified by either the Project

Manager or Contractor under Clause 61 of the NEC3 Contract. There is a defined

process to deal with compensation events with each having a prescribed period.

Under Clause 65, once compensation events are implemented, there will be a change

to either or the Prices, the Completion Date and or the Key Dates.

The following are compensation events:

Clause 60.1

Compensation Events (summarised)

(1) Instruction changing the Works Information.

(2) The Employer does not allow access to the Site.

(3) The Employer does not provide something as the programme.

(4) Instruction to start or stop the works.

(5) The Employer or Others do not work within times shown, conditions

stated, work on the site not stated in the Works Information.

(6) The Project Manager or Supervisor does not reply in the period required.

(7) The Project Manager gives an instruction for dealing with an object of

value or historical interest.

(8) The Project Manager or Supervisor changes a decision.

(9) The Project Manager withholds acceptance.

(10) The Supervisor instructs the Contractor to search for a Defect

(11) A test or inspection causes unnecessary delay.



9

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

(12) The Contractor encounters physical conditions.

(13) A weather measurement is recorded less frequently than 10 years.

(14) An event which is an Employer’s risk stated in this contract.

(15) The Project Manager takes over part of the works.

(16) The Employer does not provide materials, facilities and samples for tests.

(17) The Project Manager notifies the correction to an assumption.

(18) A breach of contract by the Employer.

(19) A event which stops the Contractor completing the works.

Pick Everard utilise an online Project Management tool that is web based to assist

administration and compliance by the parties to the Contract.

8.0 COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSURANCE PROCESS

Following the RCE/WD Gateway 4 submission, Pick Everard undertook a commercial

and technical assurance review.

The commercial review has been undertaken to ensure that the submission represents

value for money and is compliant.

The technical review has been undertaken to ensure that all the Councils requirements

have been incorporated into the design and programme.

9.0 COST AND PROCUREMENT

For the background to the submissions noted below please refer to section 5.0, Target

Cost, of the RCE/WD Gateway 4 Report attached as Appendix A.

Current Financial Position

RCE/WD has submitted two financial proposals at the end of the Gateway 4 period as

detailed in table 1 below:

Table 1

Item Total £ Duration (weeks)

Budget - 4 Court Sports England

Compliant

10,362,702 N/A

Financial Proposal - 2 September

2014

10,536,801 67

Financial Proposal - 15 October

2014

10,369,946 67

The revised financial submission on the 15 October 2014 was the result of the

commercial and technical queries raised during the review of the 2 September 20104

submission and agreements made at the commercial meeting held on the 2 October

2014, where RCE/WD committed to better their package returns with the aim for a

minimum 3 (three) returns to comply with Scape (refer below).

During the period from the 15 October 2014 all commercial and technical queries were

closed with RCE/WD and as a result of this process an additional sum for Fixtures, Fittings

and Equipment was agreed at £60,297 giving a revised total and Contract Price of

£10,430,243.



10

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

Trade Package Returns

The revised submission of the 15 October 14 demonstrated the trade packages returns

as summarised in table 2 below. The full details of these packages are held by the

Council and PE and have not been published due to commercial sensitivity.

Table 2

Packages Value (£) Number Percentage

by Package

Percentage

by Value

Three or more

Trade packages

returned

7,783,171 27 43 88

Less than three

trade packages

returned

1,059,488. 36 57 12

Total

8,842,659 63 100 100

Pick Everard have undertaken a complete review and full audit of all the packages

returned and have issued and closed in excess of two hundred and sixty commercial

queries.

The framework agreement commits to market testing 100% of the packages with at

least 3 quotations on every trade package. RCE/WD has obtained 88% by trade

package by value and Scape has acknowledged that 3 quotations are not always

practical. We would therefore confirm the packages with less than 3 returns, with the

majority bar one package value of less than one hundred thousand pounds, contain

rates and sums which are considered competitive and current market rates.

RCE/WD have in recognition of the above short fall in the package returns offered an

adjustment item of £192,893 described as “Target subcontract buying/pricing to meet

clients budget” this adjustment include offered 2.5% Main Contractors Discounts and

accounts for a percentage betterment to the trade packages of 2.2%.

We would therefore conclude the trade package quotation exercise to be Framework

compliant.

Schedule of Cost Components People and Plant

With respect to the Schedule of Cost Components People and Plant RCE/WD have

followed the typical Project C templates, however the extended Assistant Building

Manager to the full project duration was considered by the Project Team to be to the

benefit of the project and to be within the parameters of the Framework.

10.0 VALUE ENGINEERING

During the Gateway process a number of value engineering proposals have been

evaluated by the team and agreed as appropriate for the project without

compromising the design intent



11

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

11.0 LOCAL SPEND

Local Spend is a key issue and extremely important to the Council to ensure the actual

construction works benefits the local economy and also the regional Cumbrian

economy.

The revised submission of the 15 October 14 demonstrated a local spend in table 3

below based on location only as detailed in Appendix D:

Table 3

Description

Framework %

Required at

Completion

Currently

Achieved %

by Package

Value

Assessed %

Package,

People &

Betterment

Total value in 20 mile radius 40 28 50

Total value in 40 mile radius 75 29 51

The local spend commitment in the Framework Agreement commits to a local spend of

40% within a 20 mile radius and a 75% local spend within 40 mile radius of the project.

However Scape has confirmed these targets are over the framework nationally and

therefore RCE/WD will be challenged to improve under the Local Spend KPI

requirements of the project.

The Local Spend percentages achieved are only based on progress so far. RCE/WD

have developed a strategy to continue to improve local spend throughout the

construction works.

The assessment by PE to forecast the local spend (last column of table 3 above) takes

into account the packages as the 15 October 2014 offer, expected site staff based in

Workington, forecast seven more packages been let to local contractors within the 40

mile radius and a forecast of other packages using local merchants and labour.

RCE/WD proposes to better the above figures with the following approach:

RCE/WD will target more of the local Cumbrian contractors who returned a

tender and try and negotiate them to a more competitive level;

Use skilled and unskilled local labour as a priority;

RCE/WD will re-target local Cumbrian contractors who declined to tender;

Promote the use of local contractors and material suppliers with all

subcontractors

RCE/WD have also employed a local Community Engagement Officer.

It is important to note that the local spend percentage is measured and confirmed at

the end of the project. Also the inclusion of the pool tank which is manufactured in

Europe distorts the figures above and could improve the assessed percentages to 56%

(20 mile radius) and 57% (40 mile radius) respectively.



12

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

12.0 VALUE FOR MONEY

Historic cost data/bench marking data for leisure centres are held primarily on the BCIS

(Building Cost Information Service) cost data base and the published data held by

Sports England on affordable sports centre and pool models.

Reviewing the Sports England affordable sports centre data and comparing like for like

elements the elemental cost totals in the revised financial submission on the 15 October

2014 generally compare favourably. This has been further verified by Sports England’s

independent cost consultant (Abacus Cost Management) during the Sport England

funding proposal taking into account variances for site abnormal, higher end envelope

treatments and the mechanical and electrical works.

The project expressed per metre square of GIFA (gross internal floor area) based on the

RCE/WD 15 October 2014 submission is £ 2,312/m2 of GIFA. This compared with the

Sports England affordable sports centre model uplifted to current day value and

reflecting the schemes GIFA (4,512m2) gives a cost of £2,245/m2 of GIFA.

BCIS cost data also supports the RCE/WD figure of £ 2,312/m2 to be competitive and

correct and therefore we can conclude the proposed contract value of £10,430,243 to

be value for money for the Council.

13.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE SCAPE FRAMEWORK

Pick Everard can confirm that the RCE submission of the 15 October 2014 is compliant

with the Scape Framework,

14.0 HEALTH AND SAFETY

Pick Everard’s were appointed by the council as CDM co-ordinator (CDM-C) to monitor

compliance of duties in respect to the Client, Principal Contractor (RCE/WD) and

Designers to in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management)

Regulations 2007.

The CDM-C has and reviewed Designer Risk Assessments and coordinated required

notifications to the Health and Safety Executive.

The CDM-C has attended design meetings and tracked queries via a Pre-Construction

Information Tracker that enabled the CDM-C to prepare a required Pre-Construction

Information required under the regulations.

The Construction Phase Plan was subsequently approved by the CDM-C on 6 August

2014 to allow construction works to commence onto site.

15.0 NEXT STEPS

To close the Scape Gateway 4 stage the following actions need to be addressed by

the project team in order to sign a Delivery Agreement and proceed to Scape

Gateway 5, Construction Mobilisation:

Table 6

No. Item Action

1 Close out all technical queries RCE/WD

2 Close out all commercial Queries RCE/WD



13

IN19-8 Rev A

PI CK EV ER AR D

3 Formalise Appointments RCE/WD

4 Finalise Works Information Team

5 Ongoing Value Engineering Team

6 Continue liaison with Planning – concluded, subject to

Council approval on Pre-commencement Conditions

Council

7 Finalise Risk Register Team

8 Finalise Programme Team

9 KPI Review At Scape Gateway 4 Team

10 Finalise Contract Data Part 1 and part 2 ABC/RCE/

WD

11 Finalise the Professional Service Contract ABC/RCE/

WD

12 Sign Memorandum of Agreement – Work in Progress

ABC/RCE/

WD

The proposal is that the documents noted above would need to be agreed and

amended by 7 November 2014. The full set of proposed Contract Documents would

then have to be reissued to Pick Everard to double check actions have been

addressed satisfactorily during the proposed standstill period to allow signature of the

Delivery Agreement on or around 26 November 2014.

16.0 RECOMMENDATION

Pick Everard can conclude that the RCE/WD bid submitted on 15 October 2014

represents value for money and is compliant with the Scape Framework for the Next

Steps, Pick Everard recommend that the Council can proceed to Scape Gateway 5;

Mobilisation / Construction.

Appendix A

17.1 Scape Gateway 4 Report

SCAPE FRAMEWORK 3


Workington Leisure Centre Page 1 of 19 Contractors Proposals

Scape Framework 3


Gateway 4 Report

Detailed Design & Construction Mobilisation

(RIBA Stage 4 )

September 2014


Revision History

Rev 00 – 30/07/14 – Initial Draft

Rev 01 – 14/08/14 – Updated to incorporate comment and feedback from project team

Rev 02 – 18/08/14 – Updated to reflect Interim Cost Report

Rev 03 – 20/08/14 – Updated to reflect revised Risk Register

Rev 04 – 26/08/14 – Final Version

Author Position Approved Position Date

Chris Price Contracts

Manager

Andy Mcleod Managing

Director

27/08/14


Executive Summary

The Workington Leisure Centre scheme is being procured through the SCAPE 3 Framework with Robertson CE

Ltd being the contractor allocated by Allerdale Borough Council.

As noted within the Gateway 3 report dated April 2014, the Framework is a partnership agreement between

Allerdale Borough Council and Robertson CE Ltd. The partnership is working very well and yielding good

results for the project.

The following report summaries progress up to Gateway 4, Pre Construction Detailed Design & Construction

Mobilisation (RIBA Stage 4). This stage develops the design from the Gateway 3 report, Planning submission

and Building Control application. During the Gateway 4 period tender information and tender packages have

been developed to allow market testing to be undertaken and a target cost developed.

The principal design team consultants have been appointed for the project. The Architect being GT Architects,

with WYG providing Multi Discipline Engineering design services. Both parties were chosen through a design

competition and have integrated well into the project team.

In addition to the primary design team members, specialist consultants have been appointed to the project, in

particular SKM Jacobs (Transport Consultant), WYG (Planning Consultant), Sub Surface (Site Investigation and

Flood Risk) and Devin Consulting (Aquatic Consultants). All parties have integrated into the project team and

have performed well.

The layouts developed during Gateway 3 have been further developed into the detailed Contractors Proposals

contained within this report. Throughout this gateway a number of consultations and design reviews have

been undertaken with Allerdale Borough Council, Carlisle Leisure, Sport England, other statutory consultees

and the general public. Where practicable the comments received have been incorporated into the design

proposals.

Furthermore during this gateway and in consultation with all members of the project team, Allerdale Borough

Council have advised that they wish to utilise a stainless steel pool tank (Myrtha System). The Contractors

Proposals contained within this report reflect this requirement.

Throughout the Gateway 4 period, the project team have been continually reviewing the layout to maximise

the usable area and reduce wasted space, for example the incorporation of the climbing wall within the main

reception area saves on additional floor space but also provides a USP for the Leisure Centre.

Build ability has also been considered throughout this process and as part of the costing exercise with

enquires sent out to the market place for all packages and key supply chain partners engaged to provide

costing, programme and technical advice.

Furthermore, Building Control have been consulted on a continuous basis to ensure that all design proposals

meet the requirements of the Building Regulations and that all necessary pre commencement conditions have

been met.

Planning permission for the project was granted on 22nd

July 2014, with 39 conditions associated with the

project, 8 number conditions are required to be discharged prior to the commencement of Gateway 5.

During the design development period a number of risk reduction workshops have been undertaken with

Allerdale Borough Council and the project team to review the risk register and to implement a number of

strategies for mitigating the risks associated with the project.

In addition to the aforementioned risk reduction workshops, specific client workshops have been undertaken.

These workshops assessed the clients and end users principles, requirements and the ethos for the project to

ensure they are being included in the design. These workshops also covered the social and environmental

principles for the project.

Key performance Indicators have been set and will be assessed following sign off of this gateway.

The project is progressing to budget and to the agreed timescales and is presented at Gateway 4 (RIBA Stage

4) for approval and sign off.


Contents

1.0 Statutory Consents

1.1 Planning Permission

1.2 Building Control

1.3 Utilities

2.0 Design

2.1 Contractors Proposals

3.0 Risk Register

3.1 Commentary & Top 5 Risks

4.0 KPI Review

5.0 Target Cost

5.1 Tender Report

5.1.1 Budget

5.1.2 Proposed Tender Lists

5.1.3 Procurement Strategy

5.1.4 Tender Evaluation Process

5.1.5 Cost saving Exercise

5.1.6 Final Agreed Target Costs

5.1.7 Option A Proposal

6.0 Contract Data

6.1 Summary of Status

7.0 Programme

7.1 Construction Programme

7.2 Schedule of Key Dates


1.0 Statutory Consents

1.1 Planning Permission

Allerdale Borough Council confirmed acceptance of the Gateway 3 proposals in March 2014, with design

freeze achieved on 27th

March 2014. The planning application was submitted on 14th

April 2014.

Following the initial planning submission a letter of non support was received from the Environmental Agency.

The Environment Agency raised concerns relating to the flood risk associated with the site. Further flood risk

assessment work and modelling was undertaken and a revised planning application was submitted on 11th

June 2014.

Planning approval for the project was obtained on 22nd

July 2014, and the current planning status is as follows;

Planning Reference – 2 / 2014 / 0271

Planning Officer – Claire Chambers

Date of Approval – 22nd

July 2014

Conditions – 39 conditions are associated with the planning permission for the project, 8 number of which are

pre commencement conditions.

A copy of the Planning Permission notice, associated conditions and discharge matrix is contained within

section 17.10 of the Contract Data.

1.2 Building Control

Throughout the Gateway 4 period regular meetings have been undertaken with Allerdale Borough Council,

Building Control. The purpose of these meetings was to review the design proposals and ensure compliance

with the Building Regulations. Where comments have been received from Building Control they have been

incorporated into the design proposals and re submitted for approval.

The current Building Control status is as follows;

Building Control Reference – FPAP / 2014 / 0154

Building Control Officer – Robert Doran

Compliance Achieved – Stage Approval Obtained (B1 – B5 & G1)

Ongoing submissions will be made to Building Control prior to works commencing onsite and as works

progress to ensure compliance with the Building Regulations.

A copy of the Building Control notices are contained within section 18.1 of the Contract Data.


1.3 Utilities

Applications for all permanent supplies have been made to the relevant utility provider during the Gateway 4

period. All costs associated with the permanent site supplies have been identified on the cost plan for

inclusion within the final project cost.

It can be noted that the expiry dates on the main utility quotes will be reached prior to works commencing

onsite, Robertson confirm that discussions have been ongoing with the relevant utility provider and that

revised quotations have been obtained.

Quotations have also been obtained for the temporary site supplies. These works will be progressed prior to

commencing onsite upon signing of the Delivery Agreement.

A utility matrix has been established and is shown below.


2.0 Design

As noted within the executive summary of this report the design has been developed throughout the Gateway

4 period to enable full market testing to be undertaken and planning permission obtained.

Design team meetings and design review with project stakeholders have been held on a 2 weekly basis during

the period, with all comments fed back into the finalised design proposals.

2.1 Contractors Proposals

The finalised design proposals for the project are contained within the Works Specification and Drawings,

which is contained within section 17 of the Contract Data. The Works Specification and Drawings have been

subdivided into the following elements;

• 17.1 Gateway 4 Report

• 17.2 Schedule of Accommodation

• 17.3 Architectural Drawings and Specifications

• 17.4 Civil and Structural Engineering Drawings and Specifications

• 17.5 Building Services Engineering Drawings and Specifications

• 17.6 Aquatic Consultant – Filtration Plant Drawings and Specification

• 17.7 Aquatic Consultant – Moveable Floor Drawings and Specification

• 17.8 External Works / Landscaping Drawings and Specification

• 17.9 3G Five a Side Pitches, Fencing and Floodlighting

• 17.10 Planning Information – Planning Consent and Planning Condition Matrix

• 17.11 Building Control – Approval Notices

• 17.12 Acoustic Design Strategy Report

• 17.13 BREEAM Status / Credit Report

• 17.14 Room Data Sheets

• 17.15 FF&E Schedule

• 17.16 Design and Access Statement

• 17.17 Secured by Design

• 17.18 Design Life Strategy

• 17.19 Crime Prevention Plan

• 17.20 Disabled Access Statement

• 17.21 Acoustic Survey

• 17.22 Pool Timing System

Any subsequent changes to the aforementioned design proposals will be governed by the change control

process contained within the Project Execution Plan (PEP).


3.0 Risk Register

3.1 Commentary and Top 5 risks

A project Risk Register has been developed for the project and actions are being taken to minimise risk as the

design progresses.

The risk register is subject to continual review by the project team.

A number of risk review workshops have been held during the Gateway 4 process and the Risk Register has

been updated to reflect the outcome of each workshop.

During the market testing process the Risk Register was reviewed and specific package risks have been

incorporated that account for deficiencies or exclusions in the tenders received.

Whilst formulating the target cost, the risks identified within the aforementioned Risk Register were assessed

in order to further quantify them in terms of time and cost on a most likely and worst case basis. Upon

completion of this exercise, the sum of the most likely estimates was utilised to ascertain the level of overall

risk.

The project is to be delivered via NEC3 option A and the Risk Register has been developed in accordance with

the requirements of NEC3 form of contract with each risk allocated to either Robertson or Allerdale Borough

Council.

The current Risk Register which will be included within the contract documentation is contained within section

20 of the Contract Data.

A summary of the 5 key risks for the project are identified below:


RISK Owner Value Comments

Abortive costs

incurred for bridge

design if FEC is

constructed

Allerdale £30,000 Bridge location identified onsite plan,

awaiting confirmation of Masterplan

proposals – Refer to SPR 8 on Risk Register

Agreement of Mineral

Rights, Restrictive

Covenants and Access

Rights to site

Allerdale £25,000 Legal agreement in place with Lonsdale

Estates, awaiting execution of contracts –

Refer to LEG 5 on Risk Register

Client unable to obtain

Insurance due to flood

risk

Allerdale £20,000 Monies identified are for potential uplift in

premium. Currently awaiting feedback from

Insurance provider – Refer to SPR 7 on Risk

Register

Diversion /

Strengthening of

existing Gas Main

Robertson £20,000 Awaiting feedback from Northern Gas

Network on specific requirements

Protection works to

United Utilities

detention tank

Robertson £20,000 Awaiting feedback from United Utilities on

specific requirements


4.0 KPI Review

There are a number of KPI’s which are measured throughout the Scape process and they fall into one of the

following 4 categories:

• Time & Cost

• Quality

• Social

• Environmental

At the Gateway 4 stage the main KPI’s that are measured relate to Time & Cost Predictability for the

Preconstruction element of the project. The KPI targets are set at Feasibility stage (Gateway 2) and are

reviewed on a monthly basis throughout the design development stages (Gateways 3 & 4).

Updates are contained in following screenshots from the KPI Reporting System - MiProject:


As the project progresses and enters the construction phase the following KPI’s will be activated and monthly

reporting against these elements will commence;

KPI Category KPI’s

Time & Cost Time Predictability - Construction

Cost Predictability – Construction

Defects

Quality Client Satisfaction - Product

Client Satisfaction - Service

Client Satisfaction – Value for money

Client Satisfaction – Whole life performance

Client Satisfaction – Settlement of final account

Health & Safety

Social Employment & Skills Plan

Fair Payment

Considerate Constructor

Local Labour

Local Spend

SME Engagement

SME Spend

Environmental Energy use – Process

Waste diverted from landfill


5 .0 Target Cost

5.1 Tender Report

5.1.1 Budget

As identified within the Gateway 3 report, dated 17th

April 2014, the Project Budget was developed as part of

the design development process (RIBA Stages 2 & 3), with a detailed cost plan prepared by Robertson. The

project budget at this stage was set at;

Gateway 3 Report

£9,916,702 based upon a GIFA of

4527m2

Excluding Client Direct Fees and Costs

Full copies of the Gateway 3 Cost Plan Summary the project are contained within the Gateway 3 report, dated

17th

April 2014.

Notwithstanding the above, the targeted budget advised by Allerdale Borough Council is currently set at

£9,916,702.

5.1.2 Proposed Tender Lists

Prior to commencing the market testing exercise, a detailed list of work packages and proposed supply chain

partners for each package was prepared by Robertson.

The proposed list of supply chain partners was subsequently issued to all members of the project team for

comment and review. Upon receipt of comments from all parties the finalised tender list was agreed and

tender documents for each work package was issued in line with the requirements of the Pre Construction

Programme.

A copy of the finalised work package and supply chain list is contained within section 1 of the Contract Data.

5.1.3 Procurement Strategy

Robertson have prepared a full set of Bills of Quantities / Pricing Schedules in house for all of the designed

information.

Tender lists were subsequently prepared with the Scape requirement of a minimum of three enquiries being

met or exceeded in all instances and with additional emphasis being placed on the requirement to satisfy the

further obligations in respect of local spend. A separate commentary in respect of the local spend criteria is

contained within the Employment Skills Plan, a copy of which is contained within section 21 of the Contract

Data.

The following Subcontract Packages have been prepared for pricing purposes:

Air Test Bill

Automatic Doors Bill

Balustrade & Handrailing Bill

Bird Proofing Bill

Blinds Bill

Brick & Blockwork Bill

Ceramic Tiling Bill

Cubicles, Vanity Units, IPS, Lockers Bill

Climbing Wall Bill

Decoration Bill

Excavation/Earthworks Bill

External Doors Bill


Fencing & Gates Bill

Fire Protection Bill

FF&E Bill

Foundations Bill

General Joinery Bill

Glazed Screens Bill

Ground Floor Slab Bill

Hard Landscaping Bill

Internal Doors Bill

Ironmongery Bill

Lift Bill

Louvres Bill

Mechanical, Electrical, AGD, Sanitaryware Plan & Spec

Metaldecking Bill

Metalwork Bill

Mirrors Bill

Plastered/Rendered coatings Bill

Pool Filtration Plan & Spec

Pool Tank Plan & Spec

Pre-cast lift shaft Bill

Pre-cast stairs Bill

Purpose made joinery Bill

Rainscreen & Composite cladding Bill

Sauna & Steam Room Plan & Spec

Scaffolding Schedule

Screed Bill

Signage Bill

Single Ply Roofing Bill

Soft Floor Finishes Bill

Soft Landscaping Bill

Sports Pitches Plan & Spec

Sto Render Bill

Street Furniture Bill

Structural Steel Frame Plan & Spec

Stud Partitions Bill

Surfacing Bill

Suspended Ceilings Bill

Syphonic Drainage Bill

Timber Floors Bill

Windows & Curtain Walling Bill

Upon receipt of the tender information from GT Architects and WYG, a bill of quantities was prepared and a

tender enquiry was issued to the Supply Chain for tender purposes together with the relevant Design

Drawings, Specifications, Programme, Site Information, Scope of Works Documents and other Subcontract

Information so as to allow the various packages to be competitively priced.


5.1.4 Tender Evaluation Process

Copies of all the subcontractor tender returns will be issued to Pick Everard on 2nd September 2014, in order

for them to identify any queries and carry out their own checking / auditing process.

In conjunction with Pick Everard, the tender returns were evaluated on a package by package basis during

which the optimum subcontract price was selected in terms of competitiveness and compliance. During the

same process any clarifications and adjustments for errors and / or omissions were also addressed.

Upon completion of the individual Sub-Contract Package Reviews and Assessments, Main Contractor

Preliminaries were addressed and agreed in conjunction with Pick Everard and the Risk Registers were jointly

updated to reflect the known matters / risks.

Consultant Fees and Survey Costs were agreed in with Pick Everard and after the application of the 1.75% On-

Cost for Willmott Dixon / RNE Overheads and Profit and the 0.5% Scape Fee initial Target Cost values were

determined.

5.1.5 Cost Saving Exercise

As identified within the Gateway 3 Report dated 17th

April 2014, the client budget is currently set at

£9,916,702. Throughout the Gateway 4 period and as the design has developed a number of additions have

been requested by both the Client and Sport England, details of which are shown below;

Items requested by Sport England - £471,000

Items requested by the Client - £335,000

Items requested by Carlisle Leisure - £25,600

Value Engineering Proposals not Achieved in Period - £105,000

Following a detailed review by all parties a Value Engineering exercise has been undertaken and a number of

savings identified. Details of the proposed Value Engineering List and associated costs are contained within

Section 1, Priced Activity Schedule.

5.1.6 Final Agreed Target Costs

A final Target costs will be issued to Allerdale Borough Council on 2nd

September 2014 with the final

agreement of the Target Costs to be made with Allerdale Borough Council on or before 8th

October 2014.

The agreed Target Cost figures are contained within the priced activity schedule contained within section 1 of

the Contract Data.

It should be noted that the figures contained within our Target Cost are based upon the Contract being

awarded on the basis of NEC3 Option A.

5.1.7 Option A Proposal

As identified within 3.1 of this report a detailed risk register has been developed for the project with a

number of risks have been identified with associated mitigation measures. Each risk has been allocated to

either Robertson or Allerdale Borough Council, with both a maximum risk cost and factored risk cost

identified.

The adjustment to the overall risk allowance is shown below;

Robertson Allerdale Borough Council Total Risk Allowance

£43,056 (Factored Cost) £59,000 (Factored Cost) £102,056(Factored Cost)


Taking the above factored risks into account a maximum risk allowance and design contingency has been

taken forward within the cost plan. The total cost of the project based upon an Option A proposal has been

adjusted accordingly as identified within the Option A Cost Summary Page and Priced Activity Schedule is

contained within section of the Contract Data.


6.0 Contract Data

6.1 Summary of status

Throughout the Gateway 4 period a number meetings have been undertaken with Allerdale Borough Council

and Pick Everard to develop and review the contract data and appendices in line with the requirements of the

Pre Construction Programme.

The contract data has been prepared in line with the NEC3 option A proposal, dated 2nd

September 2014 and

the following documents;


7.0 Programme

7.1 Key Dates

As the design has been developed during the Gateway 4 period, Robertson have continually developed the

Construction Programme with the design team and principle supply chain partners.

Presently, the Pre Construction Programme 61097/ Pre Con/ Rev P, dated 23rd

July 2014 identifies that

construction works will commence onsite on 3rd

November 2014, based upon receipt of the Delivery

Agreement on 20th

October 2014.

As identified on the aforementioned Pre Construction Programme a number of key tasks are required to be

completed to allow works to commence, these key tasks are identified below;

• Conclusion of cost savings exercise (Dependent upon results of market testing) *

• Review of outstanding design comments and revision of works information to reflect savings outcome

of cost savings exercise *

• Agreement of contract and signing of Delivery Agreement

• Discharge of all pre commencement planning conditions

• Approval of Gateway 4 report and Contractors Proposals

• Submission of utility applications for site establishment

• Uplifting of design proposals to construction status

• Finalisation of site logistics and site establishment requirements

• Procurement of initial subcontractors and subcontract design packages

*Action to be determined based upon acceptance of Option A cost proposal of 2nd

September 2014.

Upon completion of the aforementioned key tasks, construction works will commence. The following key

dates have been identified on Construction Programme 61097 / CP /GW4 / Final dated 15th

August 2014.

Workington Leisure Centre Commence Complete

Site Establishment 10/11/14 21/11/14

Enabling Works 03/11/14 06/03/15

Substructure Works 15/12/14 02/07/15

Superstructure Works 12/01/15 03/11/15

Weather tight (Full) 11/09/15

Fit Out Works 12/06/15 15/02/16

External Works 10/08/15 15/02/16

Project Complete 15/02/16

7.2 Programme

A copy of the aforementioned Construction Programme 61097 / CP /GW4 / Final dated 15th

August 2014 is

contained within section 21 of the Contract Data.

Appendix B

Project Risk Profile

User Guide & Notes

Introduction.

User Guide

Step 1 Enter the Project Title and Number on the "Report" tab

Step 2Step 2.1Step 2.2Step 2.3Step 2.4Step 2.5Step 2.6

1 (rare) : may only occur in exceptional circumstances.2 (unlikely) : Could occur at some time.3 (possible) : Might occur.4 (likely) : Will probably occur.5 (Almost certain) : Can be expected to occur.

Step 2.71 (None)2 (Low)3 (Moderate)4 (High)5 (Severe)

Step 2.8Step 2.9Step 2.10Step 2.11

Column J = Factored cost. Cost proportioned to Risk Score, with cost expressed in 1000's. Column K = Risk Category, based on Risk Score, High (20 > 25), Med (15 > 20), Low ( 0 > 15) The Risk is defined as High when the Impact is score as 5 irrespective of the Likelihood rating or risk

Column H = Risk Score - Likelihood x Impact

Column D = Describe possible effect.Column E = Describe Mitigation Action

Column I = Potential maximum cost expressed in 1000's

The Bid Manager is responsible for completing and maintaining the Risk Management Register during the Preconstruction Phase.

The residual value owner by Willmott Dixon must be carried forward and entered into the pricing document.

It is recommend that a formal Risk Meeting is arranged immediately after the project launch meeting and at regular intervals thereafter. Every team member, consultants, client and stake holders should contribute to the risk evaluation.

During the Production Phase the Construction Manager shall be responsible for updating the Risk Management Register

Column G = Impact or consequence to programme or cost. - rated between 1(low) and 5 (high)

Enter known risks for each of the Risk categories and complete as example shown belowColumn A = Risk item No : The Grey Button allow the item to be sorted by item number.Column B = Selection of applicable items selecting the "Y" using the dropdown box.Column C = Risk description

Column F = Likelihood - rated between 1(low) and 5 (high) as expected frequency.

Com

plete 11 risk W

orksheets

Enter Project Details

Risk Meeting

Appoint Manager

Step 2.12Step 2.13Step 2.14Step 2.15

Step 3.1Step 3.2

Step 4.1Step 4.2Step 4.3

Step 5

Step 6

General Notes

Column L = Risk Owner (liability of cost)

Risk is defined as High when the Impact is score as 5 irrespective of the Likelihood rating or risk score.

Column M = Organisation/person who is responsible for mitigation action.Column N = Action target close date.Column O = Notes

Select the "Create Summary" button to generate a collection of High Category RisksHigh, High/Med or All risks may be displayed by using the Grey Button.

The Risks may be sorted by "Item" or "Risk Cat" by selecting the button which are available above the appropriate column.

A summary of the risks is created by using the "Summary" worksheet

Risk Tracker worksheet is to be completed at agreed milestones/meeting.

Note. To refresh the Summary, use the "clear " button followed by the "Create Summary" button.

Complete each of the 11 worksheets

Note. Any apparent incorrect formatting may be corrected by selecting the "Format" button

Printing : A "Print All Sheet" function is available below (please do not print until the "Summary" has been created.

Return to the "Report" worksheet. This analyses the risk by Score and Cost allocation.

If a Macro Visual Basic error message appears when creating the summary : select "End", followed by selecting the "Clear Data" and "Create Summary" buttons.

This displays a Risk Management profile.

Progress Tracker

Report

Create Summary


£0.00 £0.00

ItemSelect

Description Possible Effect Mitigation ActionLikelihood(1 Low -5 High)

(a)

Impact(1 Low -5 High)

(b)

Risk

Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk CatRisk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

Total All Risks

Project : Workington Leisure Centre

High Risk Summary13-Oct-14

Project No. 61097

Format

FM-PC-07 Issue 1 Effective Date 01/01/2012

Project Risk Profile Date

Project

Project No.

Max Risk Factored WD Client Other

FF 1.FF Financial and Funding 143 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 4 2 4

CC 2.CC Contract Conditions 99 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 2 3 2

LEG3.LEG Legal - Easements / Party Walls etc 107 £22,000.0 £7,040.0 £7,040.0 £0.0 £0.0 3 1 6

DES4.DES Design (inc CDP) 109 £25,519.0 £1,020.8 £1,020.8 £0.0 £0.0 1 2 13

PL 5.PL Planning 125 £15,000.0 £8,800.0 £8,800.0 £0.0 £0.0 3 1 7

SA 6.SA Statutory Authorities 85 £40,000.0 £25,600.0 £25,600.0 £0.0 £0.0 0 4 2

ENV7.EV Environmental 88 £500.0 £80.0 £80.0 £0.0 £0.0 2 2 2

HS 8.HS Health & Safety 41 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 0 1 3

QL 9.QL Quality 69 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 0 0 8

PR 10.PR Programme 110 £5,000.0 £3,000.0 £0.0 £3,000.0 £0.0 1 5 1

SPR11.SPR Specific Project Risks 132 £20,000.0 £16,000.0 £0.0 £16,000.0 £0.0 3 4 1

Total > 1,108 £128,019.0 £61,540.8 £42,540.8 £19,000.0 £0.0 19 25 49


13 October 2014

HIGH MED

Precon Bid Manager Chris Price

Ian Johnstone

LOW

61097

Data SummaryContents

Risk

ScoreRisk TitleItem

Total Risk Cost (1000's)

Construction Manager

20%

27%53%

HIGH MED LOW

£10,000.0

£15,000.0

£20,000.0

£25,000.0

£30,000.0

£35,000.0

£40,000.0

£45,000.0

Val

ue

Risk Value (1000's) WD Client Other

Risk Proportion

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Fin

anci

al a

nd F

undi

ng

Con

trac

t Con

ditio

ns

Lega

l -

Eas

emen

ts /

Par

ty W

alls

etc

Des

ign

(inc

CD

P)

Pla

nnin

g

Sta

tuto

ry A

utho

ritie

s

Env

ironm

enta

l

Hea

lth &

Saf

ety

Qua

lity

Pro

gram

me

Spe

cific

Pro

ject

Ris

ks

Risk Score

£0.0

£5,000.0

£10,000.0

WD Client Other

Risk Owner



Project

Project No.

Risk

Score

Risk

Score

Risk

Score13/10/2014 30/04/2014 06/03/2014

FF 1 Financial and Funding 143 77 77

CC 2 Contract Conditions 99 61 61

LEG 3 Legal - Easements / Party Walls etc 107 78 78

DES 4 Design (inc CDP) 109 132 132

PL 5 Planning 125 144 144

SA 6 Statutory Authorities 85 101 101

ENV 7 Environmental 88 109 109

HS 8 Health & Safety 41 8 8

QL 9 Quality 69 34 34

61097


Risk ItemItem

PR 10 Programme 110 40 40

SPR 11 Specific Project Risks 132 99 99

Total > 1,108 883 883

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

06/03/2014

09/03/2014

12/03/2014

15/03/2014

18/03/2014

21/03/2014

24/03/2014

27/03/2014

30/03/2014

02/04/2014

05/04/2014

08/04/2014

11/04/2014

14/04/2014

17/04/2014

20/04/2014

23/04/2014

26/04/2014

29/04/2014

02/05/2014

05/05/2014

08/05/2014

11/05/2014

14/05/2014

17/05/2014

20/05/2014

23/05/2014

26/05/2014

29/05/2014

01/06/2014

04/06/2014

07/06/2014

10/06/2014

13/06/2014

16/06/2014

19/06/2014

22/06/2014

25/06/2014

28/06/2014

01/07/2014

04/07/2014

07/07/2014

10/07/2014

13/07/2014

16/07/2014

19/07/2014

22/07/2014

25/07/201428/07/2014

31/07/2014

03/08/2014

06/08/2014

09/08/2014

12/08/2014

15/08/2014

18/08/2014

21/08/2014

24/08/2014

27/08/2014

30/08/2014

02/09/2014

05/09/2014

08/09/2014

11/09/2014

14/09/2014

17/09/2014

20/09/2014

23/09/2014

26/09/2014

29/09/2014

02/10/2014

05/10/2014

08/10/2014

11/10/2014

Series1



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

FF1

Insufficient design fees included

within Project Order / Cost Plan.

Increased costs and failure to

deliver the design to meet the

requirements of the project.

Additional fees incurred to WYG

for bridge design and the

appointment of Devin Consulting.

Determine how overspend on

Project Order will be addressed.

5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Costs to be included within final cost

plan within design fees

FF2

Client budget & brief remain

unfixed in relation to 2 court / 4

court sports hall

Abortive design, increased costs

incurred and delays to

programme

Client decision required no later

than 17th March 20144 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED Client

Instruction received 28/03/14

FF3Inflation & Increased material

costs

Increased costs make scheme

unaffordable

Identify monies to offset costs

during development &

construction period

4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WDAllowance to be made within cost

plan as contract is GMP

FF4

Failure to secure Sport England

funding

4 court Sports Hall becomes

unaffordable plus omission of

fundamental Sport England

items and impact to programme

Early engagement with potential

funders such as Sport England.

Abortive fee costs have been

ascertained for the fundamental

Sport England items. (2nd

drainage channel, 2nd lift and

moveable floor to the learner

pool)

4 5 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH Client

Expression of Interest to Sport

England was successful. Stage 2

meeting held with Sport England on

15.07.14. Sport England decision will

not be known until review by Sport

England Board on 15.09.14.

FF5VAT not included within cost plan Scheme becomes unaffordable Allerdale BC have confirmed that

VAT can be reclaimed.2 3 6 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Allerdale BC to reclaim VAT.

FF6Agreement and signing of PSA Delay to payments and potential

impact upon commencement

date

Review wording and resolve

issues with legal team 3 4 12 £0.0 £0.0 LOW ClientScape have advised Pick Everard that

Agreement can not be changed.

FF7

Inclusion of 2nd drainage

channel, 2nd lift and moveable

floor as fundamental Sport

England items.

Omission of fundamental Sport

England items on 15th

September 2014 if Allerdale BC

is not successful.

Abortive fee cost established.

2 2 4 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Costs contained within cost plan as a

measured works item

Council instruct full size 3G pitch Impact on business case / future capable of being sub-divided into Full size 3G pitch omitted from

Project No. 61097


Financial and Funding

13-Oct-14

FF8Council instruct full size 3G pitch

in July 14

Impact on business case / future

revenue

capable of being sub-divided into

3G 5 aside pitches. 3 3 9 £0.0 £0.0 LOW ClientFull size 3G pitch omitted from

scheme

FF9

Council instruct full size 3G pitch

in July 14

Increased cost to raise the site

levels of a full size 3G pitch to

7.2m

GT Architects have verified that

full size 3G pitch will fit.

However, it will impact on the

open space in front of the leisure

centre.

5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH Client

Full size 3G pitch omitted from

scheme

FF10

Sport England Funding (Lottery

Heritage Fund)

It must be demonstrated that

the formal Council Executive

wish to progress the new leisure

centre on 08.10.14 to enable the

Lottery Funding Agreement to be

put in place. This may delay

actual contract signature by the

council.

Council to consider and advise.

5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH Client

FF11 0 £0.0

FF12 0 £0.0

FF13 0 £0.0

FF14 0 £0.0

FF15 0 £0.0

FF16 0 £0.0

FF17 0 £0.0

FF18 0 £0.0

FF19 0 £0.0

FF20 0 £0.0

FF21 0 £0.0

FF22 0 £0.0

FF23 0 £0.0

FF24 0 £0.0

FF25 0 £0.0

FF26 0 £0.0

FF27 0 £0.0

FF28 0 £0.0

FF29 0 £0.0

FF30 0 £0.0



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

CC1

Provision of Performance Bond Increased costs associated with

provision of performance bond

Identify bond costs and offer

PCG in lieu of bond. Pick Everard

to determine if PCG is

acceptable.

4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

Offer of PCG accepted, no Bond to be

provided

CC2

Design team do not accept terms

& conditions of appointment /

contract

Increased costs and delays to

Pre Construction Programme

Scape have now advised that

Contract terms can not be

changed.4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

Design team have confirmed

acceptance of terms within PSA.

CC3

Interface with Carlisle Leisure

(Operator)

Potential contract amendments

to incorporate interface &

requirements

Carlisle Leisure are being

consulted in Scape Gateway 4. 2 3 6 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Manufacturer list has been developed

& agreed with Carlisle Leisure

CC4

Exclusion of Flood Risk by

Contractor / Design Team

Unable to agree contract terms

and sign Delivery Agreement.

Engagement with EA to ascertain

flood modelling data. Ensure

appropriate due diligence.

Finished floor level now

increased from 7.05m to 7.2m

2 3 6 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Agreed site level contained with

revised FRA and subsquent planning

approval

CC5

Failure to agree drafting of

Delivery Agreement



Prepare early draft of the

Delivery Agreement for review

by all parties and ensure early

agreement

5 3 15 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

Delivery Agreement to be based

upon standard drafting with no

additional Z clauses

CC6

Failure to agree drafting of

Consultant Appointment

documents



Prepare early draft of the

Delivery Agreement for review

by all parties and ensure early

agreement

5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

PSA in place and replaced with

Delivery Agreement

CC7

Timescale to conclude the

Robertson PSC Contract

Delay signature of the consultant

appointment, warranties and the

Delivery Agreement.

Additional legal support obtained

to Allerdale BC Solicitor.5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH Client

Delivery Agrreement will replace PSA

CC8 0 £0.0

CC9 0 £0.0

Project No. 61097


Contract Conditions

13-Oct-14

CC9 0 £0.0

CC10 0 £0.0

CC11 0 £0.0

CC12 0 £0.0

CC13 0 £0.0

CC14 0 £0.0

CC15 0 £0.0

CC16 0 £0.0

CC17 0 £0.0

CC18 0 £0.0

CC19 0 £0.0

CC20 0 £0.0

CC21 0 £0.0

CC22 0 £0.0

CC23 0 £0.0

CC24 0 £0.0

CC25 0 £0.0

CC26 0 £0.0

CC27 0 £0.0

CC28 0 £0.0

CC29 0 £0.0

CC30 0 £0.0



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

LEG1

Change in Building Regulations /

Statutory Compliance

Increased costs and amended

design to meet changes in

legislation (Part L)

Undertake initial discussions with

Building Control & Planning to

ascertain changes.2 1 2 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Application made on 25th Feb 2014.

Building Control have confirmed

acceptance of 2010 regulations.

LEG2

Red Line Boundary & Legal Title

to be confirmed

Increased costs and potential

delays in order to resolve legal

issues

Confirmation of RLB & Title

required by client 2 1 2 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

All title information now obtained

LEG3

Construction access via rear

track

Alternative access to be via

Griffin Street

Allerdale BC agreement

established with Lonsdale

Estates to use the rear access

road.

4 2 8 £22,000.0 £7,040.0 LOW WD

LEG4

Building & Contents Insurance Problems obtaining building

insurance due to site being

located within a flood zone

Early discussions required with

Insurance provider, possible anti

flooding measures required4 5 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH Client

Closed: moved to Specific Project

Risks (SPR 07)

LEG5

Agreement of Mineral Rights and

restrictive covenants, and access

rights to site



issues

Early engagement of legal team

and discussions with rights

holder3 2 6 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Agreement has been reached with

Lonsdale Estates, agreement is still

to be executed

LEG6

Site becomes subject to village

green status



issues

Early review by legal team to

ensure no village green status is

applicable3 2 6 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

No village green issues identified,

planning permission obtained

LEG7

28th February 1992: Easement

(gas supply pipe)

Robertson need WYG to verify if

the Easement relates to the cast

iron pipe or Yellow pipe

discovered during investigation

works to establish the exact

location of the cast iron pipe.

WYG also need to verify what

the cast iron pipe and Yellow

pipe serves with the utility

WYG need to urgently determine

what the cast iron pipe is and if

it is redundant. WYG need to

urgently verify what the Yellow

pipe is and its location.

Early engagement of legal team

with County Council and Utility

Company to ascertain ownership

4 5 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Trial holes have indicated that the

pipe is outside the site boundary

Project No. 61097


Legal - Easements / Party Walls etc

13-Oct-14

pipe serves with the utility

companies.

Company to ascertain ownership

and potential diversion works.

LEG8

Public Right OF Way (PROW) Delays to programme and

increased costs associated with

PROW

SKM have established that the

PROW was not closed and is

incorrectly identified. The PROW

should have been diverted along

the top of the embankment by

Cumbria County Council. SKM

have advised Cumbria County

Council. Robertson to pursue

update.

4 2 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

No public right of ways issues

identified, planning permission

obtained

LEG9

Establish if what the cast iron

pipe is and whether it is active or

not which runs along the site

boundary.

Delays to programme and

increased costs associated with

PROW

WYG to review the utility plans

4 5 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Further investigation works required

to ascertain ownership of the pipe

LEG10

Legal requirement relating to

security of land through the Land

Registry by Sport England for 25

years if the bid application is

successful

Impose legal charge on the

leisure centre.

Programme delay if this needs to

be in place prior to contract

signature.


5 3 15 £0.0 £0.0 MED Client

Legal charge to be made, further

information required.

LEG11 0 £0.0

LEG12 0 £0.0

LEG13 0 £0.0

LEG14 0 £0.0

LEG15 0 £0.0

LEG16 0 £0.0

LEG17 0 £0.0

LEG18 0 £0.0

LEG19 0 £0.0

LEG20 0 £0.0

LEG21 0 £0.0

LEG22 0 £0.0

LEG23 0 £0.0

LEG24 0 £0.0

LEG25 0 £0.0

LEG27

LEG28


LEG29

LEG30

FM-PC-07 Issue 1 Effective Date 01/01/2012FM-PC-07 Issue 1 Effective Date 01/01/2012


Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk

Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

DES1

Pool / Filtration Design Failure Increased costs, design issues

and programme delays

Devin consulting have been

appointed to deliver a design,

tender and site monitoring role. 1 1 1 £25,519.0 £1,020.8 LOW WD

Detailed performance specification

prepared by Aquatic Consultation and

full turnkey sub contract package

established

DES2Specialist design interface and

design development

Increased costs, design issues


Dealt with via detailed design

development 2 2 4 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

DES3

Design does not meet the clients

brief

Potential political & financial

implications to client and

abortive design costs

Early establishment of

affordability and design brief.

Regular reviews and updates

required with client

1 4 4 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Regular dialogue ongoing with the

client. Frozen design now obtained

DES4

Flood Risk & Establishment of

site datum level

Abortive design and delays to

programme due to additional EA

flood modelling

Detailed discussions held

between the EA and FRA.

Finished floor slab level set at

7.200m.

2 5 10 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Site datum level established via

revised FRA

DES5Delays in obtaining updated flood

modelling data from EA

Increased costs, abortive design


Engage with EA and request

updated model information 1 4 4 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WDDiscussion held with the EA. Flood

data and approach now received.

DES6

Delays in confirming 2 court / 4

court sports hall option

Increased costs, abortive design


Ongoing discussions with client.

Design freeze required no later

than 17th March 14.

1 3 3 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Instruction received 28/03/14 and

Frozen design agreed

DES7

Access road and embankment

interface

Abortive design and delays to

programme due to additional

design requirements

Relocate access road and

building footprint to avoid

embankment works1 3 3 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Considered by GT Architects in the

design and building location.

DES8

Additional credits to achieve

BREEAM rating

BREEAM Very Good instructed.

Increased cost and design works

to achieve rating

undertake detailed pre

assessment to ascertain

requirement2 3 6 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Initial Pre Assessment indicates

61.8% and achieves Very Good

DES9

Additional seating and design

requirement to meet


programme

Instruction issued to Robertson

to increase the spectator seating 5 1 5 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Additional seating costed within

measured works items

Project No. 61097


Design (inc CDP)

13-Oct-14

DES9requirement to meet

requirements of sport England

and sports clubs

programme to increase the spectator seating

from 135 to 186.5 1 5 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

measured works items

DES10Additional surveys required to

inform the design


programme

Review with planners and

building control 3 3 9 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WDno further survey works required,

Planning Approval obtained

DES11

Removal of Sport England

fundamental items at late stage

if funding bid is not successful on

15.09.14 (2nd drainage channel,

2nd lift and moveable floor to the

learner pool

Late amendment required to the

internal design

Abortive fees established which

increase each month.

2 1 2 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

DES12

Council can not afford 4 court

sports hall if Sport England bid

unsuccessful on 15.09.14

Redesign back to 2 courts. Project Board have authorised

Total Overall Cost up to £9.7M.

This decision needs to be

formally endorsed by the formal

Council Executive on 08.10.14.

2 4 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

4 Court option instructed and

contained within cost plan

DES13

5 aside 3G pitches can not flood Damage to 3G playing surface 5 aside 3G pitches need to be

raised to height of 7.2m in line

with finished slab level.3 3 9 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Monies included within cost plan to

raise level of pitches

DES14

Council decide to instruct full size

3G pitch at the end of July 14 if

Lakes College unsuccessful

Impact on derogated Dry Change

with possible additional external

change facility required.





centre.

3 3 9 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client


scheme

DES15

Pool tank strategy Delay to programme Pool tank strategy report

produced. Case study visit

undertaken to see stainless steel

tank option. Current actions with

Robertson. Potential programme

delay if not concluded by

18.07.14.

4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

Pool tank strategy confirmed,

instruction received from client to

progress with Myrtha system


DES16

Raised end to shallow end of the

main pool

Future injury to user due to

diving into shallow water

Do not provide raised end to

shallow end.

Consider removable option to

reduce turning board set up.

Council instruction required to GT

Architects.

4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED

Monies included within cost plan to

include raised end to one end of main

pool only


DES17 0 £0.0

DES18 0 £0.0

DES19 0 £0.0

DES20 0 £0.0

DES22 0 £0.0

DES23 0 £0.0

DES25

DES26 0 £0.0

DES27 0 £0.0

DES28 0 £0.0

DES29 0 £0.0

DES30 0 £0.0



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

PL1

Results of FRA require anti

flooding measures to be

implemented

Requirement to provide anti

flood measures or lift building

levels, results in increased costs

& programme time

Finished floor slab level raised to

7.2m5 2 10 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Site levels lifted to 7.200 and

included within measured works

PL2

Planning authority refuse

application due to site being

within a flood zone

Political and financial implications

and increased programme time

Post application meeting held

with the EA that resulted in

finished floor level being raised

from 7.050 to 7.200. EA have

informally advised that objection

will be removed.

5 2 10 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Discussions ongoing with Planning

Authority and EA. Site re-classed as

Flood zone 2 due to 2009 floods.

PL3 Y

Existing road network requires

upgrading to deal with increased

traffic for development

Increased costs and programme

time to upgrade existing road

network

Detailed TIA to be prepared as

part of the planning application2 2 4 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Scoping requirements now

determined by Cumbria County

Council and included within TIA

PL4

Discharging Planning Conditions Additional time and cost to

enable conditions to be

discharged

Early engagement with planning

authority held. Negotiation held

to influence pre-commencement

and pre-start conditions.

3 4 12 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Pre Commencement conditions

identifed and information submitted

to planners for approval

PL5

Additional Ecological Surveys

required

Delay to programme as certain

surveys are time bound

Survey expanded and included in

the planning application

submission.4 2 8 £5,000.0 £1,600.0 LOW WD

Ecologist to advise if any trees

require removing from site

PL6

Planning documents do not

match design proposals

Planning application rejected due

to inaccuracies within documents

/ design proposals

Planning application submitted

on 14.04.14 1 5 5 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Resolved as application is now

validated

PL7

Planning objections Redesign and abortive costs to

obtain planning approval

Objections received. Meetings

held with the EA and Natural

England. Paper produced to

address cricket club concerns. 5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Planning permission obtained for

development

Project No. 61097


Planning

13-Oct-14

PL7 address cricket club concerns.

Continue dialogue with planning

and council officers.

5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

PL8

Potential noise & light pollution

due to location of 3G pitch / 5 a

side courts

Increased costs and design in

order to relocate pitch / provide

mitigation measures

Undertake early discussions with

Environmental Health to

ascertain requirements3 4 12 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Planning permission obtained and

information issued to EH to discharge

associated condition

PL9Additional planning & TIA issues

due to proposed Ice Rink

Additional time and cost due to

impact upon pre commissioned

surveys

Carlisle Leisure to confirm

requirements to client 0 £0.0 £0.0 ClientIce rink removed from scheme

PL10Potential S106 agreement for

street lighting to underpass

Additional costs associated with

discharging S106 agreement

Discussions required with

planners & Cumbria CC 2 4 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WDNo S106 agreements expected due

to applicant being Allerdale

PL11

Amendments to Griffin Street car

Park

Additional costs associated with

realigning car park

Car park strategy to be

confirmed by the council

including conclusion of speed

bumps / payment options.

5 4 20 £5,000.0 £4,000.0 HIGH WD

Discussions are currently ongoing

with Client & SKM in relation to

revised car parking strategy

PL12

Council decide to instruct full size

3G pitch at the end of July 14 if

Lakes College unsuccessful

Amendment to the planning

consent, subject to approval

being obtained on 22.07.14.





centre.

4 4 16 £5,000.0 £3,200.0 MED WD


scheme

PL13 0 £0.0

PL14 0 £0.0

PL15 0 £0.0

PL16 0 £0.0

PL17 0 £0.0

PL18 0 £0.0

PL19 0 £0.0

PL20 0 £0.0

PL21 0 £0.0

PL22 0 £0.0

PL23 0 £0.0

PL24 0 £0.0

PL25 0 £0.0

PL26 0 £0.0

PL27 0 £0.0

PL28 0 £0.0

PL29 0 £0.0

PL30 0 £0.0



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

SA1

Surveys identify unknown

services

Increased costs to deal with

relocation/ diversion of services

Undertake detailed discussions

with all utility providers to

ascertain existing infrastructure3 3 9 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Allowance to be made for additional

investigations prior to commencing

onsite

SA2EA / United Utilities request

Water Impact Assessment

Increased costs and delay to

programme


EA / United Utilities to establish

requirements

3 4 12 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WDUnited Utilities have confirmed that

no water impact Assessment is

required

SA3

Protection / easement required

to existing United Utilities

detention tank

Increased costs & programme

time due to protection works or

alternative design solutions

being required


United Utilities to establish

requirements4 4 16 £10,000.0 £6,400.0 MED WD

Currently awaiting confirmation of

requirements from United Utilities

SA4

Late or non response from utility

companies in response to

applications


time due to temporary supplies

being required

Undertake early discussions with

utility providers to ascertain

costs and programme durations4 4 16 £10,000.0 £6,400.0 MED WD

Revised quotes have been requested

from the relevant utility providers,

currently awaiting update

SA5Diversion / Strengthening works

to gas main


time to undertake works

Discussions required with

National Grid / Fulcrum to

ascertain requirements

4 4 16 £20,000.0 £12,800.0 MED WDCurrently awaiting confirmation of

requirements from Northern Gas

Networks

SA6

Reduced / limited discharge

rates from United Utilities for

foul /surface water drainage

additional cost and programme

time to develop attenuation

systems

Engage with United Utility and

agree discharge rates 4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

Discharge rate received from United

Utilties and design developed to

reflect agreed rates

SA7

Provision of additional

infrastructure to facilitate

development


time to undertake works

Early engagement with utility

providers to ascertain as built

information and design proposals0 £0.0 £0.0 WD

As built information and budget

proposals received

SA8 0 £0.0

SA9 0 £0.0

SA10 0 £0.0

SA11 0 £0.0

SA12 0 £0.0

Project No. 61097


Statutory Authorities

13-Oct-14

SA12 0 £0.0

SA13 0 £0.0

SA14 0 £0.0

SA15 0 £0.0

SA16 0 £0.0

SA17 0 £0.0

SA18 0 £0.0

SA19 0 £0.0

SA20 0 £0.0

SA21 0 £0.0

SA22 0 £0.0

SA23 0 £0.0

SA24 0 £0.0

SA25 0 £0.0

SA26 0 £0.0

SA27 0 £0.0

SA28 0 £0.0

SA29 0 £0.0

SA30 0 £0.0



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

EV1

Additional surveys indicate

presence of protected species

Programme impact as surveys

and removal are time bound

Early engagement with Ecologist

held. Himalayan Balsam present. 5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Surveys have indicated no protected

species onsite

EV2Removal of invasive species Removal works are time bound

and may result in increased costs

Identify species and agree

removal methodology with

specialist

4 5 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WDCosts contained with cost plan for

removal of invasive species

EV3

Mine shafts / mine workings

located within site boundary

Additional time and cost due to

geotechnical works required to

stabilise ground

There are records of a coal seam

at between 150m and 160m

depth last being worked in 1900.

It is considered that any ground

movement from these workings

would have stopped by now. Sub

Surface concludes that the

abandoned mine workings are of

such depth and character that

they present little risk to ground

stability beneath the site.

2 3 6 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Draft assessments received from

Coal Authority, no mine works

present onsite.

No notices of subsidence have been

served and there are no recorded

mine entries within 20m of the site

boundary.

EV4

Ground contamination & ground

water


time due to requirement to

undertake remedial works

Sub Surface concluded that there

are no contaminants requiring

remediation and/or precautions

to be taken for the proposed

development.

2 3 6 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

EV5

Delays in obtaining permits /

licences from EA and statutory

bodies

Increased programme time Early engagement with EA to

establish requirements 2 2 4 £500.0 £80.0 LOW WD

EV6Delay in obtaining updated flood

modelling data from EA

Delays to programme and

planning application as FRA can

not be finalised

Updated flood modelling data

now received. 4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WDMonies contained within CC4

Presence of Atlantic Salmon and Delays to enabling / culvert Detailed discussions required Ecology report indicates no Atlantic

Project No. 61097


Environmental

13-Oct-14

EV7Presence of Atlantic Salmon and

Lamprey within Soapery Beck

Delays to enabling / culvert

works as the migration season is

time bound

Detailed discussions required

with Ecologist to establish

presence and proposals

4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WDEcology report indicates no Atlantic

Salmon and Soapery Beck

EV8 0 £0.0

EV9 0 £0.0

EV10 0 £0.0

EV11 0 £0.0

EV12 0 £0.0

EV13 0 £0.0

EV14 0 £0.0

EV15 0 £0.0

EV16 0 £0.0

EV17 0 £0.0

EV18 0 £0.0

EV19 0 £0.0

EV20 0 £0.0

EV21 0 £0.0

EV22 0 £0.0

EV23 0 £0.0

EV24 0 £0.0

EV25 0 £0.0

EV26

EV27

EV28

EV29

EV30



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

HS1Client Understanding of CDM

responsibilities


delays due client amendments

Appointment of CDMC and

understanding of duties4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED Client

CDM-C now appointed and client

duties explained

HS2Design risk assessments Non-compliance with CDM

Regulations

Design risk assessment strategy

agreed and identified on

drawings

2 2 4 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WDDesign Risk Assessments received for

all disciplines

HS3CDM-C presentation To ensure CDM-C updated Presentation to be coordinated at

specific meeting. 4 3 12 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WDPresentation arranged for 04/09/14

HS4Pre-construction information Non-compliance with CDM

Regulations

Produce Pre-construction

Information early for CDM-C

review

3 3 9 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WDPre Construction Info received and

included within CPH&S Plan

HS5 0 £0.0

HS6 0 £0.0

HS7 0 £0.0

HS8 0 £0.0

HS9 0 £0.0

HS10 0 £0.0

HS11 0 £0.0

HS12 0 £0.0

HS13 0 £0.0

HS14 0 £0.0

HS15 0 £0.0

HS16 0 £0.0

HS17 0 £0.0

HS18 0 £0.0

HS19 0 £0.0

HS20 0 £0.0

HS21 0 £0.0

HS22 0 £0.0

HS23 0 £0.0

HS24 0 £0.0

HS25 0 £0.0

Project No. 61097


Health & Safety

13-Oct-14

HS25 0 £0.0

HS26 0 £0.0

HS27 0 £0.0

HS28 0 £0.0

HS29 0 £0.0

HS30 0 £0.0



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

QL1

Sub contractor / supply chain

failure


programme

Utilise robust, local supply chain

partners. Undertake full financial

health check prior to order2 4 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Detailed supply chain list developed

with all parties

QL2

Insufficient tender returns during

market testing

Best value is not achieved Utilise robust, local supply chain

partners. Undertake full financial

health check prior to order3 4 12 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Meet the buyer event undertaken

and adverts placed in local press

QL3

Cost plan does not allow client

aspirations

Political and financial implications

for client

Robust cost checking exercise to

be undertaken as design

develops3 3 9 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Detailed reviews ongoing with Client,

Pick Everard and Design Team.

Frozen design agreed.

QL4

External appearance, quality and

design life does not meet client

aspirations

Negative impact on project

success

Design Life strategy agreed.

Images produced by GT

Architects2 4 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Costs included within cost plan for

external work enhancements

QL5Internal finishes do not meet

client aspirations


success

Mood board presentation held on

08.07.14 2 4 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW ClientInternal finishes identified on mood

board and signed off by all parties

QL6

Building construction does not

achieve required quality

standards expected.


success

NEC Supervisor to be appointed

to ensure compliance with the

Works Information.2 4 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Quality plan to be established with

ongoing inspections by site team and

Quality Manager

QL7



standards for finishes.


success

Sample panels to be produced

on site for prior approval. 2 4 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Sample requirements identified

within the Quality Plan

QL8



standards for finishes.


success

Sample room to be targeted for

early completion. 2 4 8 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

Sample requirements identified

within the Quality Plan

QL9 0 £0.0

QL10 0 £0.0

Project No. 61097


Quality

13-Oct-14

QL10 0 £0.0

QL11 0 £0.0

QL12 0 £0.0

QL13 0 £0.0

QL14 0 £0.0

QL15 0 £0.0

QL16 0 £0.0

QL17 0 £0.0

QL18 0 £0.0

QL19 0 £0.0

QL20 0 £0.0

QL21 0 £0.0

QL22 0 £0.0

QL23 0 £0.0

QL24 0 £0.0

QL25 0 £0.0

QL26 0 £0.0

QL27 0 £0.0

QL28 0 £0.0

QL29 0 £0.0

QL30 0 £0.0



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

PR1

Failure to complete works by

December 2015

Potential political and financial

implications to client

Develop robust and achievable

programmes and ensure full

stakeholder buy in5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Gateway 4 Programme identifies

completion date of February 2016

PR2

Extended Pre Construction Period Increased Pre Construction Costs

and programme time

Client to provide clear direction

and milestones. Detailed

discussions required with all

parties to mitigate risks

3 4 12 £0.0 £0.0 LOW WD

8.6 week delay currently realised,

costs included within current cost

plan. Agreed baseline programme

now in place and costs included in

cost plan.

PR3

Procurement programme

indicated on revision O not

achieved.

Delay to programme Robertson are to provide weekly

updates to Pick Everard on the

procurement status.4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

Gateway 4 GMP to be submitted on

02/09/14 as identified on Pre

Construction Programme

PR4

Pool tank strategy to be

concluded by 18.07.14

Delay to programme Project team to conclude

required actions and agree way

forward on the pool tank

construction by 18.07.14

4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

Pool tank stratergy now identified,

Myrtha System to be utilised

PR5

Procurement and reporting can

not achieve formal Council

Executive

Delay to programme Programme developed to

consider realistic procurement

timetable, commercial actions,

reporting and align with formal

Council Executive meeting on

08.10.14.

4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

All information to beissued to Client

on 02/09/14 to allow Council

Executive to meet on planned date

PR6

Sport England Funding (Lottery

Heritage Fund)

Programme delay between

approval of scheme by formal

Council Executive and contract

signature.


5 3 15 £0.0 £0.0 MED Client

PR7Impose legal charge on the

leisure centre.

Programme delay if this needs to

be in place prior to contract

signature.

Council to obtain smaple, review

and and advise.5 3 15 £5,000.0 £3,000.0 MED Client

PR8 0 £0.0

PR9 0 £0.0

Project No. 61097


Programme

13-Oct-14

PR9 0 £0.0

PR10 0 £0.0

PR11 0 £0.0

PR12 0 £0.0

PR13 0 £0.0

PR14 0 £0.0

PR15 0 £0.0

PR16 0 £0.0

PR17 0 £0.0

PR18 0 £0.0

PR19 0 £0.0

PR20 0 £0.0

PR21 0 £0.0

PR22 0 £0.0

PR23 0 £0.0

PR24 0 £0.0

PR25 0 £0.0

PR26 0 £0.0

PR27 0 £0.0

PR28 0 £0.0

PR29 0 £0.0

PR30 0 £0.0



Item

Select


(a)


(b)

Risk Score(a x b)

Potential

Cost(1000's)

Factored

Cost Risk(1000's)

Risk

Cat

Risk

Owner

Risk

Manager

Target

Close

Date

Notes

SPR01

Construction of Culverts &

bridging systems to Soapery

Beck


in order to undertake works.

Culvert works maybe time bound

WYG instructed to design bridge

to impact as least as possible on

Soapery Beck. Permits &

approval required from EA

5 3 15 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

Bridge design finalised and costs

contained within cost plan

SPR02SI requires additional works to

make construction viable


in order to undertake works

Review SI with Geotechnical

Engineer 4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WDNo site constraints identified within

the finalised SI Report

SPR03

Requirement to increase site

levels to mitigate flood risk


in order to design works

The finished floor slab level has

been agreed by the EA at

7.200m. The leisure centre

management will sign up to the

EA flood warning service and

emergency procedures put in

place for all staff and visitors.

5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH WD

Site levels now set at 7.2m and

incresed material allowance

contained within measured works

SPR04

Undertaking Due Diligence on

FRA


in order to review / amend

works

The finished floor slab level has

been agreed by the EA at

7.200m. 4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED WD

SPR05

Lack of community buy in to

project

Political and PR issues for client Community engagement events

held by the Council in April 2014. 3 3 9 £0.0 £0.0 LOW Client

Ongoing Community Engagement

taking place and CSR Plan developed

SPR06

Development of council Master

plan for the area

Interface with FEC development

and wider redevelopment of

Workington Town Centre

Undertake community

engagement and stakeholder

meetings4 4 16 £0.0 £0.0 MED Client

SPR07

Unable to obtain Building &

Contents Insurance due to the

flood zone designation

Unable to obtain insurance or

obtain insurance at commercially

viable rates

Council meeting held with

insurance provider on 16.07.14. 4 5 20 £20,000.0 £16,000.0 HIGH Client

Monies identified are to cover

increase in Insurance premium

SPR08Abortive costs for bridge if the Abortive fee and construction Consider bridge location as part

5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH ClientAwaiting feedback from Client in

Project No. 61097


Specific Project Risks

13-Oct-14

SPR08Abortive costs for bridge if the

FEC development goes ahead.

Abortive fee and construction

costs

Consider bridge location as part

of the master plan for

Workington.

5 4 20 £0.0 £0.0 HIGH ClientAwaiting feedback from Client in

relation to Master Plan

SPR09 0 £0.0

SPR10 0 £0.0

SPR11 0 £0.0

SPR12 0 £0.0

SPR13 0 £0.0

SPR14 0 £0.0

SPR15 0 £0.0

SPR16 0 £0.0

SPR17 0 £0.0

SPR18 0 £0.0

SPR19 0 £0.0

SPR20 0 £0.0

SPR21

SPR22

SPR23

SPR24

SPR25

SPR26

SPR27

SPR28

SPR29

SPR30


Appendix C

Allerdale Leisure Centre Rev 3Local Spend Profile - Summary 15.10.1415 October 2015

Value (£) Required (£) Required % Achieved %

8,842,660 - - -

2,455,173 3,537,064£ 40% 28

2,593,290 6,631,995£ 75% 29

Notes:

1) Based on package value (verified costs) as WD/RCE revised submission of 15 October 2014.

2) Distance calculated "as the crow flies".

3) The post codes used were taken from the bids and may vary from RCE submission.

Total Project subcontract package value

Total value in 40 mile radius


Description

Page 1

Allerdale Leisure CentreLocal Spend Profile Rev 315 October 2015 15.10.14

RCE Ref. Title No.of Bids No. Enquiries Lowest Bid (£) Contractor Location Post Code Distance from

Allerdale (Miles)

27 Sports Pitches 3 3 201,698 SIS Maryport CA15 8NT 4.5

31 Decoration 1 8 53,498 Peter Wise Ltd Mary Port CA15 8NF 4.5

2 Brick & Blockwork 2 8 260,215 Ashcroft Dearham CA15 7EH 5.5

32 Earthworks / Groundworks & Hard Landscaping 2 5 1,480,944 Ashcroft Maryport CA15 7EH 5.5

33 Fencing & Gates 3 4 10,541 Contract Fencing Ltd Rowrah CA26 3XS 7.5

N7 Site Hoardings 2 2 35,351 Birketts Fencing Frizington CA26 3XS 7.5

8 Plastered/rendered coatings 2 5 18,928 Design Grid Ltd Whitehaven Whitehaven CA28 9QD 8.3

41 Stud partitions & linings suspended ceilings 2 11 354,025 Design Grid Ltd Whitehaven Whitehaven CA28 9QD 8.3

44 Timber Ceilings 1 3 39,972 David Mingins Joinery Ltd Cleator Moor CA25 5BY 8.7

2,455,173£

3,537,064£

Shortfall 1,081,891£

Actual Percentage 28£ The below map indicates the 20 mile radius

Scape requires that 40% of the contract value is spent within a 20 mile radius of the project.

40% total Value


Page 2

Allerdale Leisure CentreLocal Spend Profile Rev 315 October 2015 15.10.14

RCE Ref. Title No.of Bids No. Enquiries Lowest Bid (£) Contractor Location Post Code Distance from

Allerdale (Miles)

27 Sports Pitches 3 3 201,698 SIS Maryport CA15 8NT 4.5

31 Decoration 1 8 53,498 Peter Wise Ltd Mary Port CA15 8NF 4.5

2 Brick & Blockwork 2 8 260,215 Ashcroft Dearham CA15 7EH 5.5

32 Earthworks / Groundworks & Hard Landscaping 2 5 1,480,944 Ashcroft Maryport CA15 7EH 5.5

33 Fencing & Gates 3 4 10,541 Contract Fencing Ltd Rowrah CA26 3XS 7.5

N7 Site Hoardings 2 2 35,351 Birketts Fencing Frizington CA26 3XS 7.5

8 Plastered/rendered coatings 2 5 18,928 Design Grid Ltd Whitehaven Whitehaven CA28 9QD 8.3

41 Stud partitions & linings suspended ceilings 2 11 354,025 Design Grid Ltd Whitehaven Whitehaven CA28 9QD 8.3

44 Timber Ceilings 1 3 39,972 David Mingins Joinery Ltd Cleator Moor CA25 5BY 8.7

N5 Scaffolding 1 1 42,600 Carlisle Scaffolding Ltd Carlisle CA6 4SN 30.6

21 Render 1 7 95,517 JPL Plastering Contractors Ltd Penrith CA11 9BF 31.4

2,593,290£

6,631,995£

Shortfall 4,038,705£

Actual Percentage 29£ The below map indicates the 40 mile radius

Scape requires that 75% of the contract value is spent within a 40 mile radius of the project.

75% total Value


Page 3