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
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