|
The National Assembly for Wales’ new building, the Senedd, was delivered broadly on time, cost and quality once the project was re-started in 2002, according to a new report by the Auditor General for Wales. It found that, overall the Assembly Government and the project team did a good job and met set objectives. Although the completion of the Senedd was six months later than initially planned, mainly because of Information and Communications and Technology (ICT) problems, this delay had no adverse consequences for the operations of the National Assembly. The final outturn cost of the project was £70 million, against the revised estimate of £66 million. |
|
Questions and answers
Why does the report not cover pre-2002?
The events of the first phase of the project have been reported on twice. In November 2000, the Auditor General reported on accommodation arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales. This was followed by an update report in November 2002. This current report focuses on the second phase of the project only.
Why was the project over budget and late? Who paid for this?
The project was £4 million over budget, mainly due to client variations during the course of construction, which were therefore paid for by the Assembly Government. The project was subject to a six month delay, mainly due to ICT issues. Full details of cost overruns and the timetable are found in paragraphs 1.2 to 1.23 of the report.
Why was the first phase of the project so different from the second phase?
The main differences came about following a careful reappraisal of the project after it stopped in 2001 which resulted in:
- a revised project management structure;
- the use of a fixed price design and build contract (as opposed to management contracting); and
- lessons learnt from the first phase being taken on board.
See paragraph 2.1 of the report for more details.
What happened to the Richard Rogers Partnership?
The Richard Rogers Partnership remained on the project after it started again in 2002, as the architect in the Taylor Woodrow construction consortium.
Given the history of the first phase, did the presence of the Richard Rogers Partnership in the second phase of the project cause any problems between them and the Assembly Government?
No. The Richard Rogers Partnership were managed by Taylor Woodrow during the second phase of the project.
What happened in regard to the much publicised leaking roof and cracking desks? Who paid for the repairs?
These issues have still to be fully resolved. The cost of repair however, is covered under the defects liability period as part of the construction contract and the furniture contract and is therefore paid by the contractor.
Why did the building end up costing £70 million when the original budget was between only £12 million £17 million?
Original estimates for the cost of the building were carried out prior to any detailed design being carried out.
Why was the Scottish Parliament building so expensive in comparison to the Senedd?
There were two main reasons for this:
- The nature of the Scottish Parliament building is different to that of the Senedd. The Senedd comprises almost entirely of a debating chamber and committee rooms whilst the Scottish Parliament building includes offices.
- The buildings were procured under different contracts. During the second phase, the Senedd was procured using a fixed price design and build contract which prioritised cost. The Scottish Parliament building was procured using a construction management method which prioritised time but at the expense of cost certainty.
Why was there such little market response to wanting to build the Senedd?
Whilst there is no definitive answer, it is likely that the private sector was cautious about taking on the risks of such a project, given its history during the first phase and the problems associated with the construction of the Scottish Parliament building.
Two of the bidders also pulled out the process because of the form of contract which placed all the risk on the contractor.
What was the cost of making the building so sustainable?
It has not been possible to put an exact figure on the cost of making the building so sustainable and achieving a BREEAM rating of ‘excellent.’ However, where possible, the project team used whole life costing. This is a systematic approach which balances capital with revenue costs to achieve an optimum solution over a building’s whole life.
When does the Audit Committee meet to take evidence on findings of the report?
No definite date has been set, but the Audit Committee are likely to take evidence on the report during the National Assembly’s summer term.
Was the £7.5 million spent in the first phase of the project wasted?
No, nearly half of this amount was spent on the design of the building, with another sizable proportion spent on the initial construction (eg piling).
Do all Assembly Ministers like the Senedd?
We did not speak to all Assembly Members, but those that we did speak to liked the building.
What work did you do to reach your conclusions?
See Appendix 7 of the report.
Why was the delivery of Merlin delayed?
This issue was dealt with in the Auditor General’s 2006 report on the procurement of the Merlin contract.
Why did the National Assembly feel the need to construct a new building? Why did they not use an existing building?
This issue was dealt with in the Auditor General’s first report on the Assembly building (November 2000).
Why was the Richard Rogers Partnership employment terminated in phase one of the project? And why was the project stopped?
This issue was dealt with in the Auditor General’s second report on the Assembly building (November 2002).
Will the Auditor General be reporting on the Assembly Government’s relocation strategy?
No decision has been made. The Auditor General will report as he sees appropriate if the need arises.
Can the costs of the Senedd be compared with other major public sector building projects?
Benchmarking is not straightforward because of differences in utilisation and the fact that these buildings are designed to be unique and iconic. See paragraphs 1.24 to 1.26 and Figure 6 of the report.
Who owns the Senedd?
The Assembly Commission owns the Senedd.
Could the Senedd cope with an increase in the number of AMs as outlined in the Richard Commission report?
Yes – the Senedd was designed to deal with an increase in Assembly Members.
How much does the building cost to run?
The Assembly Commission is still in the process of establishing a baseline for which running costs for the Senedd can be established.
Why was a design and build fixed price procurement route not chosen from the start of the project?
The priority at the start of the project was time. However, when the project restarted in 2002, the main priority was cost certainty.
|
