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

30
2.68 In October 2002 project
management approved programme
6B for issue, aiming for completion
of the debating chamber by June
2003. In earlier drafts the
construction manager had suggested
November 2003 was more realistic
but after presentation to the Progress
Group project, management had
requested measures to better this
date. Programme 6B as issued did
forecast June 2003 completion, but
remained heavily qualified
(Exhibit 15).
2.69 In November 2002 the Progress
Group had advice from the
construction manager calling for
fundamental changes to the
production and management of
design information by the design
team. At the same time the
architectural joint venture provided a
rebuttal of this. Project management
continued to question how well
resources were being targeted in all
areas of the project.
2.70 In November 2002 project
management and the Progress
Group briefed the Corporate Body on
progress with the project. Further
increases in potential project costs
were expected.
2.71 In December 2002, in the light
of the difficulties facing the project
the Corporate Body discussed three
possible courses of action: stopping
the project; instructing a further
‘Spenceley’ type review; and putting
a cap on costs. The Corporate Body
was concerned that no one knew
what was happening, when the
project would be complete and how
much it would cost.
From January 2003 the aim was to
complete the project as quickly as
possible as the best way of
containing costs
2.72 Previously, in October 2002 the
cost consultant had advised the
16 & 17 Excluding £14 million landscaping costs.
Progress Group that the main risks to
costs was associated with timing
issues. The Progress Group and
project management advised the
Corporate Body that the cost
consultant’s advice was that the
biggest single risk to cost was delay
and the aim should therefore be to
drive the project forward to the
earliest possible completion.
2.73 In December 2002:
• The Corporate Body reported to
the Finance Committee that the
estimated project costs including
potential risks costs had increased
to £311 million 16
. This was 14%
more than the maximum £274
million potential cost reported to
the Committee in January 2002
• With regard to the programme,
the latest completion target
(programme 6B final) was June
2003 (albeit in the same month
the Corporate Body had already
reported to the Finance
Committee that some important
areas could not be completed
until August 2003).
2.74 Just a month later, in January
2003, the cost consultants advised
that the most likely outturn was £324
million 17
. Because of the problems
with the project the Progress Group
considered project management
should seek to clarify the management
structure of the design team, and to
give the construction manager a lead
role in driving progress forward.
2.75 In subsequent months the
construction manager continued to
suggest a range of measures to
improve project management and
design team effectiveness, in the
interests of achieving the programme
and cost objectives. Actions included,
for example:
• In January 2003 the design team
introduced twice weekly
meetings to resolve design
issues, with participation from
both project management and the
construction manager.
• Project management requested
that the architectural joint venture
provide a named deputy for its
lead partner responsible for
oversight of design, to expedite
decision-making when necessary.
• There was renewed emphasis on
priorities and identifying and
resolving detailed design related
and interface/interdependency
issues, as part of the continuing
programme monitoring and review
process. In April 2003 at the
construction manager’s
suggestion, project management
wrote to all parties seeking to
impose a ‘design freeze’ on all
packages at the end of that month.
• Monitoring of individual trade
contractors performance, including
initiatives to step in and assist
management where necessary.
2.76 In April 2003 construction
activity on site was starting to peak.
There were 1,100 people working on
the site, including trade contractors
and their suppliers, project
management and representatives of
all the consultants.
2.77 Also in April 2003, however, the
construction manager reported that
progress was four months behind
programme 6B final issued in January
2003. A new and final programme 7
was therefore required to be
prepared and agreed. Programme 7
was first prepared in May 2003 and
issued in August 2003. The May
2003 draft programme sought
completion by September 2003, but
when the final version was issued in
August 2003 the agreed target for
completion of the debating chamber
was April 2004. This was ten months
later than the June 2003 target for