MY littlebirchwoo
Well-Known Member
For those that make it up onto the Broads, you will know that BA recently took responsibility for Breydon Water and are basically being blooming difficult with anyone not a hire craft... well now they are not just wasting toll payers money with non-compliant markings but also getting involved in some pretty unusual business practice too
http://eastcoastboating.co.uk/wordpress/?p=3877
Concern is rising over the procedural integrity of Broads Authority fund holders after questions were asked as to how a company who once awarded a major contract were then able to sub-contract the work to another much-cheaper company who had been part of the original bidding process.
Earlier this year the Broads Authority took over navigational responsibility for the lower River Bure and Breydon Water – which included responsibility for maintenance and improvement. It was subsequently agreed that an amount of £100,000 be set aside for necessary improvements – one of which was the replacement of a marker post which had caused users, mainly inexperienced hirers, to become confused and ending up running aground.
—
The previous post marking the beginning of Breydon Water
Following an initial an assessment, BA’s own works team agreed that they would be able to undertake the work of replacing this post and the provisioning for new posts, however, in line with Section 11 of the Broads Authority Standing Orders Relating to Contracts, this work was put out to commercial tender with an expected overall cost of around £25,000 to £30,000.
In all four companies were approached: May Gurney, Bam Nutall, Land and Water Servicing Ltd and Red 7 Marine.
The contract was awarded to Land and Water Servicing Limited for a total of £60,944.77, however Land and Water, instead of carrying out this work themselves subsequently sub-contracted Red 7 Marine to carry out the work.
Because of the ‘vague nature’ of how the contract was awarded and enforced a Matter of Urgent Business was raised at the meeting of the Navigation Committee on 13th December 2012, the details of which were published this week - but the facts make disturbing reading.
In the supporting literature a number of letters to the Broads Authority questioning the actions of the Financial Scrutiny and Audit Committee (FSAC) were presented. These letters questioned not just the nature of whether the contract was awarded correctly but how the decision was made and also whether the contract should have been legally awarded at all given the circumstances.
One writer has even gone as far as pointing out that ‘the vast amount of this overspend is very similar to the amount of the tolls increase suffered by toll payers.’
Mr Paul Greasley, member of the Navigation Committee, writes: ‘I am concerned that this huge variation in estimated contract price has not been reported back to members for further advice, even though it is far in excess of the original estimate, and feel that we should have stopped and reassessed the situation. As this matter was being considered by officers around the date of our last Navigation Committee meeting, I would have thought it advisable to consult the committee as we have many specialists on the Navigation Committee who could have offered advice. This was the very point that I made to Stephen and yourself at my office earlier in the week. The Authority has on its committee elected members representing the industry and as an advisory group should be used for such a purpose.
I am concerned that local and traditional Broads contractors were not also asked to quote for the work. Reading the replies, Land and Water seemed to be involved somehow in the specification of the works, and that methodology then seemed to narrow the range of firms that could do this work. Also given that they appear to be a business partner and tenant of ours and that Red7 did not tender but were given the practical task to do at allegedly much less cost; that seems to be very worrying. There also appears to have been some sort of simplification and reduction in the methodology, by negotiation with Land and Water afterwards, which, if re-tendered, might have allowed other(s) to quote.’
A formal question to the Financial Scrutiny and Audit Committee from Mr D Broad stated: ‘Are the Chief Executive, Director of Operations and Director of Change Management and Resources fully satisfied that all proper contractual procedures were followed with regard to the letting of works to replace markers in the Bure mouth portion of Breydon Water.
‘Are the same officers also satisfied that best value was obtained for Toll Payers when it is alleged (and is it true) that a principle contract was let to Land and Water subcontracted by them to Red7 of Ipswich for less money.
‘Is it further true that members of our direct works team felt that they were capable of undertaking the works after checking that labour and equipment resources available and were not given a full explanation of why this course of action was not considered and reported upon. Also that local firms who felt that they were capable of doing the works were not invited to tender to do so?’
—
Guy McGregor (Photo: Broads Authority)
In a reply, the chairman of the FSAC, Mr Guy McGregor, appointed by Suffolk COunty Council, seemed somewhat vague in many aspects of his responses and quoted that the contract for the work was awarded to Land and Water Services Ltd on 11th October as the Authority did not have either the equipment nor expertise to carry out the work in this area.
He went on to say: ‘The method statement and risk assessment were developed further on award of the contract and prior to completing the works by Land and Water Services Ltd who also supervised the contract, completed the procurement and arranged for the waste disposal arising from the works. Land and Water Services Ltd subcontracted Red7 Marine (who had been invited to quote but declined to provide a response) to undertake the site works which included the post removal and pile driving.’
Defending the outlay, Mr McGregor comments ‘members had previously agreed the budget for Breydon Water maintenance works in excess of £100,000 for this financial year, and this contract was therefore within budget.’
In conclusion McGregor said ‘Having followed due process, which included cost estimation, a full consideration of the scope of works, the ability of the Broads Authority to undertake such work, and subsequent competitive quotation process in accordance with Standing Orders procedure (section 11) the Chief Executive, Director of Operations and Director of Change Management and Resources have satisfied me that all proper contractual procedures were followed with regard to the letting of works to replace markers in the Bure mouth portion of Breydon Water, and that the Broads Authority has secured best value in this regard.’
Although this matter was dicussed in the public section of the Navigation Committee meeting, the Broads Authority refused to comment further on this Matter of Urgent Business yesterday.
As yet the minutes of the Navigation Committee meeting from 13th December 2012 have not been made public.
http://eastcoastboating.co.uk/wordpress/?p=3877
Concern is rising over the procedural integrity of Broads Authority fund holders after questions were asked as to how a company who once awarded a major contract were then able to sub-contract the work to another much-cheaper company who had been part of the original bidding process.
Earlier this year the Broads Authority took over navigational responsibility for the lower River Bure and Breydon Water – which included responsibility for maintenance and improvement. It was subsequently agreed that an amount of £100,000 be set aside for necessary improvements – one of which was the replacement of a marker post which had caused users, mainly inexperienced hirers, to become confused and ending up running aground.
—
The previous post marking the beginning of Breydon Water
Following an initial an assessment, BA’s own works team agreed that they would be able to undertake the work of replacing this post and the provisioning for new posts, however, in line with Section 11 of the Broads Authority Standing Orders Relating to Contracts, this work was put out to commercial tender with an expected overall cost of around £25,000 to £30,000.
In all four companies were approached: May Gurney, Bam Nutall, Land and Water Servicing Ltd and Red 7 Marine.
The contract was awarded to Land and Water Servicing Limited for a total of £60,944.77, however Land and Water, instead of carrying out this work themselves subsequently sub-contracted Red 7 Marine to carry out the work.
Because of the ‘vague nature’ of how the contract was awarded and enforced a Matter of Urgent Business was raised at the meeting of the Navigation Committee on 13th December 2012, the details of which were published this week - but the facts make disturbing reading.
In the supporting literature a number of letters to the Broads Authority questioning the actions of the Financial Scrutiny and Audit Committee (FSAC) were presented. These letters questioned not just the nature of whether the contract was awarded correctly but how the decision was made and also whether the contract should have been legally awarded at all given the circumstances.
One writer has even gone as far as pointing out that ‘the vast amount of this overspend is very similar to the amount of the tolls increase suffered by toll payers.’
Mr Paul Greasley, member of the Navigation Committee, writes: ‘I am concerned that this huge variation in estimated contract price has not been reported back to members for further advice, even though it is far in excess of the original estimate, and feel that we should have stopped and reassessed the situation. As this matter was being considered by officers around the date of our last Navigation Committee meeting, I would have thought it advisable to consult the committee as we have many specialists on the Navigation Committee who could have offered advice. This was the very point that I made to Stephen and yourself at my office earlier in the week. The Authority has on its committee elected members representing the industry and as an advisory group should be used for such a purpose.
I am concerned that local and traditional Broads contractors were not also asked to quote for the work. Reading the replies, Land and Water seemed to be involved somehow in the specification of the works, and that methodology then seemed to narrow the range of firms that could do this work. Also given that they appear to be a business partner and tenant of ours and that Red7 did not tender but were given the practical task to do at allegedly much less cost; that seems to be very worrying. There also appears to have been some sort of simplification and reduction in the methodology, by negotiation with Land and Water afterwards, which, if re-tendered, might have allowed other(s) to quote.’
A formal question to the Financial Scrutiny and Audit Committee from Mr D Broad stated: ‘Are the Chief Executive, Director of Operations and Director of Change Management and Resources fully satisfied that all proper contractual procedures were followed with regard to the letting of works to replace markers in the Bure mouth portion of Breydon Water.
‘Are the same officers also satisfied that best value was obtained for Toll Payers when it is alleged (and is it true) that a principle contract was let to Land and Water subcontracted by them to Red7 of Ipswich for less money.
‘Is it further true that members of our direct works team felt that they were capable of undertaking the works after checking that labour and equipment resources available and were not given a full explanation of why this course of action was not considered and reported upon. Also that local firms who felt that they were capable of doing the works were not invited to tender to do so?’
—
Guy McGregor (Photo: Broads Authority)
In a reply, the chairman of the FSAC, Mr Guy McGregor, appointed by Suffolk COunty Council, seemed somewhat vague in many aspects of his responses and quoted that the contract for the work was awarded to Land and Water Services Ltd on 11th October as the Authority did not have either the equipment nor expertise to carry out the work in this area.
He went on to say: ‘The method statement and risk assessment were developed further on award of the contract and prior to completing the works by Land and Water Services Ltd who also supervised the contract, completed the procurement and arranged for the waste disposal arising from the works. Land and Water Services Ltd subcontracted Red7 Marine (who had been invited to quote but declined to provide a response) to undertake the site works which included the post removal and pile driving.’
Defending the outlay, Mr McGregor comments ‘members had previously agreed the budget for Breydon Water maintenance works in excess of £100,000 for this financial year, and this contract was therefore within budget.’
In conclusion McGregor said ‘Having followed due process, which included cost estimation, a full consideration of the scope of works, the ability of the Broads Authority to undertake such work, and subsequent competitive quotation process in accordance with Standing Orders procedure (section 11) the Chief Executive, Director of Operations and Director of Change Management and Resources have satisfied me that all proper contractual procedures were followed with regard to the letting of works to replace markers in the Bure mouth portion of Breydon Water, and that the Broads Authority has secured best value in this regard.’
Although this matter was dicussed in the public section of the Navigation Committee meeting, the Broads Authority refused to comment further on this Matter of Urgent Business yesterday.
As yet the minutes of the Navigation Committee meeting from 13th December 2012 have not been made public.