02.03.2013 Views

Management of the Holyrood building project (PDF ... - Audit Scotland

Management of the Holyrood building project (PDF ... - Audit Scotland

Management of the Holyrood building project (PDF ... - Audit Scotland

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

18<br />

Exhibit 6<br />

<strong>Holyrood</strong> <strong>project</strong> – analysis <strong>of</strong> current forecast costs<br />

£42m<br />

£28m<br />

£68m<br />

£18m £6m<br />

£10m<br />

£20m<br />

Source: Report to Finance Committee May 2004<br />

2.14 While it is likely that <strong>the</strong><br />

<strong>building</strong>s will be in a state capable <strong>of</strong><br />

being partially occupied <strong>the</strong> risk is<br />

that by <strong>the</strong> current target for<br />

completion <strong>of</strong> August 2004<br />

significant areas may be incomplete<br />

in o<strong>the</strong>r ways. Consequently <strong>the</strong><br />

construction manager and <strong>the</strong> trade<br />

contractors may have to spend<br />

several months or even longer in <strong>the</strong><br />

<strong>building</strong> continuing after handover to<br />

<strong>the</strong> client to complete unfinished<br />

works and snagging.<br />

2.15 The Corporate Body is<br />

implementing a migration strategy for<br />

users based on <strong>the</strong> assumption that<br />

<strong>the</strong>re is enough time to complete<br />

construction to allow occupation and<br />

use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>building</strong> in <strong>the</strong> late<br />

summer 2004. The Chief Executive<br />

established a dedicated<br />

implementation team <strong>of</strong> staff to<br />

promote effective planning and<br />

delivery <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> move to <strong>the</strong> new<br />

<strong>building</strong>. There is close coordination<br />

between <strong>the</strong> <strong>Holyrood</strong> <strong>project</strong> team<br />

and <strong>the</strong> consultants with <strong>the</strong> new<br />

implementation team.<br />

£241m<br />

Item Cost<br />

Construction £241m<br />

Fees and site organisation £68m<br />

Irrecoverable VAT on construction £42m<br />

Reserve (including VAT) £28m<br />

Fit out £20m<br />

Programe contingency £10m<br />

Landscaping £18m<br />

Site, demolition and archaeology £6m<br />

Grand total £431 million<br />

In summer 2000, compared to<br />

earlier difficulties, <strong>the</strong>re seemed a<br />

firm basis for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Holyrood</strong> <strong>project</strong><br />

to move forward<br />

2.16 In September 2000 I reported<br />

<strong>the</strong> significant challenges that had<br />

previously affected <strong>the</strong> <strong>project</strong>:<br />

• Concerns in 1998 and 1999 about<br />

<strong>the</strong> overall size and consequently<br />

<strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> initial designs.<br />

• Uncertainty about cost estimates<br />

throughout 1998, 1999 and early<br />

2000, with predicted costs which<br />

consistently exceeded <strong>the</strong><br />

approved budget.<br />

• Major changes in <strong>the</strong><br />

requirements for <strong>the</strong> area and<br />

layout <strong>of</strong> parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>building</strong>,<br />

with <strong>the</strong> client unable to freeze its<br />

requirements and consequently<br />

<strong>the</strong> design until June 2000.<br />

2.17 At <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> my September<br />

2000 report on <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>project</strong>, construction was at a<br />

comparatively early stage.<br />

Construction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> MSP <strong>building</strong><br />

frame had commenced but <strong>the</strong> main<br />

assembly <strong>building</strong> structure to <strong>the</strong><br />

east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> site was not ‘out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

ground’.<br />

2.18 In September 2000, however,<br />

while much remained to be done to<br />

ensure completion, <strong>the</strong>re seemed a<br />

firmer basis for <strong>the</strong> <strong>project</strong> to move<br />

forward:<br />

• In June 2000 <strong>the</strong> Corporate Body<br />

as client had approved <strong>the</strong> final<br />

scheme design proposals from<br />

<strong>the</strong> design team (known as <strong>the</strong><br />

‘Stage D’ report).<br />

• The Corporate Body had selected<br />

<strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new<br />

<strong>Holyrood</strong> Progress Group, with a<br />

remit to work with <strong>the</strong> progress<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>project</strong>, and <strong>the</strong> Group had<br />

started its business.<br />

• The Corporate Body approved <strong>the</strong><br />

Stage D design on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong><br />

confirmation from all <strong>the</strong> main<br />

parties that <strong>the</strong> <strong>building</strong> could be<br />

completed by <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> 2002<br />

within a target construction cost<br />

<strong>of</strong> £108 million (£119 million<br />

including construction<br />

contingency). This figure was

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!