Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership … · 2019. 11. 13. · Greater...

Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board Agenda

Thursday 31st October 2019, 09:30 – 11:00 Hampton Suite, Solihull College, Blossomfield Rd, Solihull B91 1SB

Start

Time

Subject Pre Read

Purpose Presenter

1 9.30 Welcome & apologies

N/A - Chair

2 Declarations of interest N/A - Chair

3 Decisions and actions from the last Programme Delivery Board meeting and matters arising

Attached To agree the decisions and actions of the meeting on 4th September 2019 and update on any matters arising.

Sally Agass

4 9.45 Presentations a) Unlocking Stalled Housing

Sites b) University Station

(This report is exempt from disclosure because it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

Attached a) To:

• Receive an update on the USHS projects. Consider and approve the changes to the grant agreement that has been requested by the USHS which is in receipt of LGF capital grant funding

• Decide on funding option for USHS project

b) To:

• Consider the update on University Station Project

Nick Oakley, Head of Property Investments, Finance Birmingham Malcolm Holmes

5 10.25 LEP Funding Programme Update: a) LGF Programme Update

(This report is exempt from disclosure because it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

b) EZ Programme Update (This report is exempt from disclosure because it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any

Attached a) To:

• Consider the update on the status of the Local Growth Fund and Enterprise Zone Programme including spend, risks and outcomes, and forward planning

b) To:

• Consider the update on the status of the Enterprise Zone Programme including spend, risks and outcomes, and forward planning

c) To:

• Consider the update of pipeline prioritisation

Sally Agass

Page 2 12/11/2019 FINAL

Start

Time

Subject Pre Read

Purpose Presenter

particular person (including the authority holding that information).

c) Pipeline Prioritisation update

6 11.05 Project Investment Decisions a) Quantum Technology

Innovation Hub

Attached To:

• Recommend that the PDB approve the allocation of £3,021,000 (three million, twenty one thousand pounds) to the University of Birmingham (UoB) for the delivery of the Quantum Technology Innovation Hub (QTIH) project, in accordance with the GBSLEP Assurance Framework following the submission of the Full Business Case and its Independent Technical Evaluation.

Wendy Edwards

7 11.25 Reports for Noting a) Cannock Engineering

Academy

Attached

8 11.30 Any Other Business

Dates of Future Meetings:

• Wednesday 11th December 2019 – 9.30-11am - Birmingham Hippodrome, Hurst St, Southside, Birmingham B5 4TB

• Wednesday 12th February 2020 – 9.30-11am - Changan UK R&D Centre Ltd., Parkside, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham B37 7YG

Forward Plan Items

• Q 2019/20 Highlight Reports for LGF and EZ

• EZ Smithfield OBC

• University Station OBC

• Star chambers for at risk projects

• Digbeth High Street

• Paradise Circus – Annual Assurance Statement

• Snow Hill Public Realm

Page 3 12/11/2019 FINAL

• A38 M5/M42Junction FBC

• The Outpost

• Construction Skills for work readiness

• Belmont Works SDAF EZ

• MAC

Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board

Programme Delivery Board Meeting

Wednesday 4th September 2019, 09:30 – 11:30

Committee Room 3. Redditch Town Hall, Walter Stranz Square, Redditch B98 8AH

Decisions & Actions

1

Present: Chris Loughran – Deputy Chair for Delivery, GBSLEP (Chair) Alison Jarrett – Assistant Director, Finance and Governance, Birmingham City Council (Accountable Body Representative) Tony McGovern – Managing Director, Cannock Chase District Council Ian Miller – Chief Executive, Wyre Forest District Council Michelle Nutt – Cities and Local Growth Unit Phil Edwards – Assistant Director, Birmingham City Council Simon Marks – GBSLEP Board Member

Apologies: Paul Faulkner – Chief Executive, Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce Patrick Hanlon – GBSLEP Board Member Roger Mendonça – Chief Operating Officer, West Midlands Growth Company Anne Brereton – Director of Managed Growth, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Mike Lyons – Connectivity Director, GBSLEP

In attendance: Rehana Watkinson – PMO Manager, GBSLEP Executive Sally Agass – Interim Programme Director, GBSLEP Executive Wendy Edwards – Project Champion, GBSLEP Lada Zimina – Project Champion, GBSLEP Presenting: Martin Freer -Director, Birmingham Energy Institute, University of Birmingham (Item 4a only) David Boardman - Deputy Director, Birmingham Energy Institute, University of Birmingham (Item 4a only) Kevin O’Flaherty – Senior Project Manager, Estates Department, University of Birmingham (item 4a only) Neil Carney – Head of Delivery, Commonwealth Games (Item 4c only) Richard Hill – Technical Director, Arcadis (Item 4c only) Malcolm Holmes -Executive Director, West Midlands Rail (Item 5a only) Alex Waller - Senior Project Manager, Network Rail (Item 5a only) James Betjemann – BCC – (Item 5f only)





Decisions & Actions

2

#

Subject Decisions Actions Timescales Owner(s)

1 Welcome and apologies

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Programme Delivery Board (PDB) and apologies were noted as above.

2 Declarations of Interest All Declarations of Interest continue as per prior notation.

TMcG requested that a non-financial declaration of interest be noted on the Cannock Chase Engineering Academy of which he is a Governor. The approval of this project was noted at the last meeting

3 Decisions and actions of the last meeting

The decisions and actions of the PDB meeting that took place on 27th June 2019 were agreed with a clarification to Item 4b – Commonwealth Games to make clear that the project has a separate contingency equivalent to 20% (£14m) of the project cost.

RW to amend actions and decisions from meeting of 27th June 2019

11th Sept 19

RW

4 Project Investment Decisions and Investment Recommendations to LEP Board

The PDB:

a) TSESRIC





Decisions & Actions

3

#


a) TSESRIC b) Burton Washlands and Flood Defence c) Commonwealth Games (This report is exempt from disclosure because it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

• Received a presentation summarising the strategic and

economic benefits related to the TSESRIC project (copy

available)

• Noted the amendment to the Investment Report to allow

for development funding

• Noted the £3m investment from University of Birmingham

that has already been committed to the Energy Park

• Received assurance that the risk around the current £2.8m

funding gap rests with University of Birmingham and noted

the confidence of securing that funding through current

bids

• Noted the aggressive timeline for delivery and the

assurance that this was planned for

• Approved the conditional allocation of £7,000,000 [seven

million pounds] of LGF capital grant to the University of

Birmingham for the delivery of the TSESRIC project

• Recommended that LEP Executive encourage University of





Decisions & Actions

4

#


Birmingham to collaborate with other universities currently

working in this field.

b) Burton Washlands and Flood Defence

• Approved the allocation of £3,000,000 (three million

pounds) of LGF capital grant to East Staffordshire Borough

Council for the delivery of The River Trent in Burton; Town

Centre Regeneration and Flood Defence Improvements

project conditional on completion of the actions identified

in the Independent Technical Evaluation

c) Commonwealth Games

• Received an update on progress on the project

• Noted that skills outputs were confirmed with Birmingham

City University and the project would deliver 1,000 learners

in Sports Science with 600 learners delivered by 2022.

• TMcG noted that the FBC was much stronger and more

focused on the outputs that GBSLEP were looking to

support. Clarification was sought over the 75/25 (%)

National/Local split of funding and it was confirmed that,





Decisions & Actions

5

#


with overall spend, this would be the case

• Noted that if the £14m contingency is not spent, it should

flow back to funding sponsors and the government but this

is currently being negotiated and will be clarified in the

Funding Agreement

• IM sought assurance that BCC has the contractual

commitment to deliver the stadium and the backing of this

project was not dependant on the GBSLEP contribution. AJ

confirmed that the revenue implications beyond the Games

were committed to by BCC within the Medium-Term

Financial Plan and embedded in the base budget

• CL requested a better understanding of the financial model

and the assumptions that underlie it before submission to

the main LEP Board. This would give the main LEP Board

clarity as to where figures have come from including around

the unusually high BCR for Phase 2 of the project.

• MN noted that the outcomes now stack up for the LEP in

terms of learner numbers and therefore the Project can be





Decisions & Actions

6

#


supported.

• MN recommended that a note of clarification goes through

to main LEP Board along with PDB recommendation putting

the project into context of the wider programme

• Recommend submission to GBSLEP Board for allocation of

£20,000,000 (twenty million pounds) of LGF capital grant to

Birmingham City Council for the delivery of the project

subject to the conditions noted above

WE to ensure that LEP Board receive clarification and context around this project

9th Sept 19

WE

5 Project Investment Decisions - for Noting

a) University Station

b) Changan c) Clean Air

Hydrogen Bus d) Longbridge

Multi-storey Car Park

e) Hagley Road

The PDB:

a) University Station

• Received a presentation on progress since May 2019 (copy

available)

• CL noted that there has been minimal movement on

funding partners commitment with only 5 of 7 partners at

draft Funding Agreement stage

• CL noted that contract award was programmed for May





Decisions & Actions

7

#


SPRINT f) Garrison Data

Centre

2020 but there was no firm commitment from NHS as to

their £5m contribution

• CL sought assurance that LGF funding would be the first to

be claimed

• TMcG requested confirmation of contingency measures if

NHS funding was not available or if the costs rose above the

£40m budgeted. Options presented in mitigation included

monetising income from station through DfT, WMCA

contribution or using net proceeds

• Noted that this was still a high-risk project and the

reassurance expected from this presentation at PDB was

insufficient to allay concerns

b) Changan

• Noted and agreed the reduction in jobs outcomes due to

fluctuations in the market impacted by Brexit.

• Noted that the project was now closed and the final

amount of unclaimed funding would be returned to the

programme in lieu of reduced jobs outcomes





Decisions & Actions

8

#


c) to e)

• Approved all changes

f) Garrison Data Centre

• Noted the progress on the EZ Garrison Data Centre project

since May 2019

• Noted that the LEP has got the desired benefits from their

investment whatever the outcome of the project

• Noted that legal charge on the property on Curzon Street

has been released and the sum of £500K has been paid to

the LEP to reduce the loan

• Noted that £2.5m is due to be repaid in full by June 2020

• Noted that the Chair and Director for Access to Finance

(Board Members) have agreed, under delegated authority

from the PDB granted in May 2019, that amendments to

the security waterfall can only be agreed if the treatment of

interest on the EZ loan is pari-passu with the arrangements

agreed with Downing LLP.





Decisions & Actions

9

#


• Noted that company management will be presenting an

updated Business Plan in November 2020 which will set out

the future of the business

6 Reports for Noting a) Midlands Arts

Centre Extension

The PDB:

• Noted the approval by the GBSLEP Director on 15 August

2019 under the delegated authority and in accordance with the

GBSLEP Assurance Framework, for Programme level entry and

conditional allocation of £350,000 (three hundred and fifty

thousand pounds) of LGF capital grant to Midlands Arts Centre

for its Future Resilience Project, including of up to £35,000

(thirty-five thousand pounds) as Project Development Funding.

7 GBSLEP Q4 2018/19 Highlight Report for Local Growth Fund and Enterprise Zone

The PDB:

• Noted the Q1 2019-20 Programme Update for Local Growth

Fund and Enterprise Zone

• Requested that, at future meetings, the update on the

Programme overall take place before project level

considerations

Financial information for Enterprise Zone to be presented in a different format that provides greater clarity

10th Oct 19

SA





Decisions & Actions

10

#


• Requested an update on outcomes and work towards

achieving outcome targets

Outcomes and outputs policy to be completed and brought to PDB

10th Oct 19

RW

Future meeting dates of the Programme Delivery Board for 2018: ▪ Thursday 31st October 2019 – 9.30-11am – Hampton Suite, Solihull College, Blossomfield Rd, Solihull B91 1SB ▪ Wednesday 11th December 2019 – 9.30-11am - Birmingham Hippodrome, Hurst St, Southside, Birmingham B5 4TB

KEY:

CR PH TMcG

Chris Loughran Phil Edwards Tony McGovern

IM MN PF

Ian Miller Michelle Nutt Paul Faulkner

AB SA AJ

Anne Brereton Sally Agass Alison Jarett

PH SM

Patrick Hanlon Simon Marks

WE JB

Wendy Edwards James Betjemann

RW ML

Rehana Watkinson Mike Lyons

RM Roger Mendonça PDT Programme Delivery Team PBD Programme Delivery Board CLoG EZ

Cities and Local Growth Enterprise Zone

BEIS Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

DCLG PMO

Dept. Communities & Local Government Programme Management Office

LGF Local Growth Fund RIF Revolving Investment Fund FBC Full Business Case

Project Exception Report

Change Management Policy – Appendix C – Project Exception Report Page 1 of 8



Project Name: Unlocking Stalled Housing Sites Programme

Project Sponsor:

Project Manager: LGF Approved Date (actual/forecast)

Project Start On Site Date:

Report Completed by (Sponsor/PM) Report Date October 2019

Background Context of project and funding including current status and reason for change

The programme is aimed to deliver 500 housing units across the GBSLEP area from a total budget of £9m, £8.8m of which can be allocated as funding to developments. The funding is intended to unlock stalled housing sites for reasons such as difficult land conditions, complicated construction or similar reasons that result in either a funding or viability gap in the development. The developments would not happen or be delayed further without GBSLEP intervention. The funding is provided on a grant basis, secured as appropriate to deliver the housing outputs with the grants drip fed into the schemes on a defrayed basis against appropriate spend evidence. The grants are state aid compliant and the schemes are primarily funded by usual lenders and/or developer equity with the grant completing the funding/viability shortfall. Finance Birmingham undertake regular site visits to ensure claims are realistic and no on-site problems are emerging / good quality of build etc. To date the scheme has allocated a total of £7.464m across 22 projects. Should all 22 complete as expected, 727 units are forecast. At time of writing, 8 projects are complete and have delivered 157 units against c£4.5m released. Additionally, we are aware that within this funds released figure, where we await final claims/practical completion evidence, another 5 sites are approaching completed status with another 167 units close to handover. A further 16 units are complete in other staged developments. That gives the scheme a total of 340 units, or 47% of the expected out turn. In addition, the fund is presently pushing for final applications with a residual c£1.3m of unallocated funds. Applications are being called for final submission by the end of the calendar year and a number of potential applications are in course. It is hoped sufficient information will be to hand for outline approval at the October USHSP Board meeting. However, it has become apparent that the spending profile has fallen out of line with the expected estimate of spend profile. Whilst the number of projects grew quickly from launch, spend was behind expectation. That said, we would only raise a current risk over one project that may not go ahead of some £855k, however at this time we are hopeful the issue is close to resolution and that development will commence shortly.



Forward LGF Forecast £’000’s

At time of submission the fund has received three applications totalling £2.23m with potential of a further 140 units. However this represents a position of oversubscription so some scaling back will be expected. This however supports position of full utilisation and negates any “risk” of underspend. Subject to USHSP Board Approval. Within the forecasts above, the unallocated £1.3m has been flatlined across the final four quarters (2020-21). It is requested and recommended based on deliverables to date and expected further successes that the spend estimate is profiled as within this report. Whilst the quarterly expectation may change, we expect full utilisation by March 2021.

Funding Agreement/SLA Project End Date 31/3/2021

Current Forecast Project End Date 31/3/2021

Variance + / - (months)

Reason for time variance

Funding Agreement/SLA Forecast Total Project Cost

~£9,000,000 Current Forecast Total Project Spend

~£9,000,000 Variance + / -

£

Funding Agreement/SLA Total LGF Allocation

£ Current Forecast Total LGF Required/Allocated

£ Variance + / -

£

Reason for required/allocated LGF variance

Funding Agreement/SLA Forecast LGF Claims to date

£ Actual LGF Claimed to date

£ Variance + / -

£

Reason for claim variance



2017/2018 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

SLA/Funding agreement profile £2,703,000

Current Profile £2,109,787

2018/2019 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

SLA/Funding agreement profile £4,543,000

Current Profile £1,326,827

2019/2020 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

SLA/Funding agreement profile N/a N/a N/a N/a £1,679,000

Current Profile 515,000 (act) 372,000 (act) 913,000 1,164,000 £2,964,000

2020/2021 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total

SLA/Funding agreement profile N/a N/a N/a N/a Nil

Current Profile 952,000 353,000 505,000 425,000 £2,235,000

Note – the figures in the illustration below are provided by Finance Birmingham. GBSLEP are reconciling the actuals with the figures provided by BCC

FY2016/17 FY2017/18 FY2018/19 FY2019/20 FY2020/21

SLA profile £73,000 £2,703,000 £4,543,000 £1,679,000 £0Actual / Forecast

Expenditure £49,202 £2,109,787 £1,326,827 £2,964,000 £2,235,000

£0

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

FY2016/17 FY2017/18 FY2018/19 FY2019/20 FY2020/21

Unlocking Stalled Housing Sites Expenditure Profile 2016 onwards

SLA profile Actual / Forecast Expenditure



Key Risks and Issues (showstoppers) Planned mitigation / contingency

No showstoppers expected across ongoing projects.

Unallocated spend (c£1.3m) Applications to hand to meet available unallocated funds.

Critical milestones completed this quarter/year

Critical milestones DUE but NOT completed this quarter/year

Reason not completed and planned date(s) for completion

Critical milestones to still be completed Date for completion

500 unit target on track to be surpassed. 340 units delivered to date. March 2021



Forecast Outputs (inc date(s), as per

SLA/Funding Agreement) Forecast variance to outputs Reason for variance

Decision required

Define any decision required from PDB e.g. agreement to slip funding or changes to outputs or scope including rational and impact should agreement not be given; Financial profile (estimate) to be considered and approved as sought.

Supporting information



GBSLEP use only

LEP Project Champion: Project Support: Report Received Date

Programme Team Review

PDB Decision Date

ACTIONS

Action By who By when Status 1

2

3

4

Insert/Append any supporting documents/visuals/site plan here



Project Risk RAG

Risk type RAG Time Benefits Cost

RAG Status key:

Green On target to hit original forecast (including within agreed tolerance)

Amber Current - No longer on target to meet original forecast & minor impact on the overall project Future – At risk of missing original forecast & minor impact on the overall project

Red Current - No longer on target to meet original forecast & significant impact on the overall project Future – At risk of missing original forecast & significant impact on the overall project

Item 4c

1 of 2

GREATER BIRMINGHAM & SOLIHULL LEP PROGRAMME DELIVERY BOARD

31 October 2019

GROWTH PROGRAMME PIPELINE PRIORITISATION

Recommendations

The Programme Delivery Board (PDB) is requested to:

i. Note the outcome of the Growth Programme pipeline 6-month prioritisation review.

Background

1. As agreed at PDB in May 2019 the project pipeline has been reviewed against the criteria

previously set out i.e. 50% deliverability and 25% each for strategic fit and economic impact.

2. Each of the individual projects are scored 0 to 9 for the three criteria with 9 being high. As the

deliverability criterion has twice the weighting of the others, it has in effect a maximum score of

18. The maximum score is therefore 36. This score results in a RAG assessment for the project.

3. If a project is assessed to have any 'red' areas then it will automatically be prioritised behind

those without.

4. The pipeline relates to projects that have conditional allocation or have submitted an Expression

of Interest

5. Six projects that were previously included have now achieved full funding approval and have

been removed from the pipeline as below:

Outcome of the review

6. Remaining pipeline projects with conditional approval have been reviewed and assessed as

follows:

Project Total project cost LGF funds

Burton Regeneration and Flood Defence 33.900 3.000

Cannock Chase Engineering Academy 2.000 0.500

Redditch Gateway 84.000 1.840

Churchfields Urban Village 5.518 1.494

A34 Major Scheme - Package 1 Phase 1 Barley Mow 0.480 0.115

Commonwealth Games 2022 72.400 20.000

TOTAL 198.298 26.949

Project Total project cost

LGF funds

Priority assessment

The Outpost 0.957 0.427 26

Quantum Technology Innovation Hub 6.680 3.021 26

TSESRIC 16.000 7.000 24

Precision Technologies Accelerator (Life Sciences Park)

10.000 10.000 21

Item xx

2 of 2

7. Finally, the following projects are working towards conditional or full approval:

Project (Expressions of Interest) Total project cost

LGF funds

Priority assessment

ASTUTE 30.000 15.000 14

Kidderminster College Centre 5.169 2.500 16

The Junction Works 2.560 0.600 17

Distributed Energy Challenge Centre 1.920 0.960 11

Alliance House Development 0.586 0.293 12

5G 75.000 10.000 6

Birmingham International Station Integrated Transport Hub

286.000 TBC Pre-assessment

Redditch Town Centre Regeneration 10.000 5.000 Pre-assessment

Open House REP 2.830 1.500 Pre-assessment

Institute of Technology 11.000 1.000 Pre-assessment

Solihull Business Hub 0.250 0.250 Pre-assessment

Old Print Works 0.995 0.845 Pre-assessment

TOTAL 426.31 37.948

Conclusion

8. Out of a total allocation of £186.05m a sum of £165.55m is either already spent or contractually

committed, leaving a sum of £20.5m available to grant. £38.39m is conditionally allocated

against the available sum ( intentional “overprogramming”). The value of pipeline working

towards conditional approval (7 above) is £37.95m.

There will be a follow up review of pipeline prioritisation in 6 months’ time to confirm delivery

confidence.

Report by: Sally Agass Interim Programme Director

Contact: [email protected]

Date Created: 22 October 2019

Construction Skills for work-readiness 0.712 0.332 21

Hagley Road SPRINT (£3.4m conditional allocation in the current FA subject to a scope change request)

14.650 3.400 19

A38 Bromsgrove Major Scheme – Package 1 Phase 2- M5 Junction 4 and M42 Junction 1

7.591 2.262 18

Extension of mac Birmingham 0.900 0.350 18

University Station 29.900 10.000 16

A34 corridor-Perry Barr Phase 2 6.080 1.600 8

TOTAL 93.470 38.392

Item 6a (i)

Investment Report Template v0.1 Update with Document title 1 of 5

GREATER BIRMINGHAM & SOLIHULL LEP

REPORT FOR PROGRAMME DELIVERY BOARD 31st October 2019

LOCAL GROWTH FUND INVESTMENT REPORT

Quantum Technology Innovation Hub

Recommendation The GBSLEP Programme Delivery Board is requested to:

i. Approve the allocation of £3,021,000 (three million, twenty-one thousand pounds) to the University of Birmingham (UoB) for the delivery of the Quantum Technology Innovation Hub (QTIH) project, in accordance with the GBSLEP Assurance Framework following the submission of the Full Business Case and its Independent Technical Evaluation.

Background

1. In May 2018, the University of Birmingham submitted an Expression of Interest for LGF

support and received a B rating for strategic fit.

2. The total capital project cost is £6,813,284, with a funding gap of £3,021,000 requested

from LGF to create a physical facility with specialist equipment inside the Metallurgy and

Materials building at the University of Birmingham.

3. The Outline Business Case was submitted 28th January 2019 and approved by

Programme Delivery Board on 29th May 2019

4. The Programme Team has worked with the UoB to develop the FBC and a final

submission was received on the 25th September 2019. The independent technical

evaluation was undertaken and report produced by Aecom on the 14th October 2019.

The evaluation concluded that the project has satisfied GBSLEP’s assurance

requirements for deliverability and value for money in line with Green Book guidance.

5. The evaluation report (Appendix A), along with the business case has been used as the

basis to recommend the approval of LGF grant investment.

Case for change

6. Quantum is a disruptive technology growing at pace and this project aims to maximise

the benefit for the region, the approach aligns with the government strategy for

commercialising quantum technologies. The outcomes of the project will support key

sectors including life science, manufacturing, engineering and transportation contributing

to the aims of the GBSLEP SEP and Local Industrial Strategy.

Item 6a (i)


7. The QTIH will provide a ‘local’ demonstration, test and validation facility for

entrepreneurial researchers, sensor technologists, systems engineers and businesses,

with links to the National Physics Laboratory expertise. Collectively, these facilities will

help to accelerate the development of proof of concepts & prototypes for innovative, new

scientific instruments and products which are built around commercial applications of

quantum technology and advanced metrology.

8. The QTIH will be co-located at UoB complimenting the UK National Quantum

Technology Hub in Sensors & Metrology and the West Midlands National Physical

Laboratory (NPL) Hub and create infrastructure for the ERDF revenue funded Centre for

Innovation in Advanced Measurement in Manufacturing (CIAMM).

9. The project has commenced refurbishment of an area and LGF will be used to procure

specialist equipment for the facility inside the Metallurgy and Materials building at UoB

also linked to the Centre for Human Brain Health.

10. QTIH will help cement NPLs presence in the region and provide a route to sustainability

for CIAMM. The project will also support the creation of a shielded room in the Centre for

Human Brain Health, to house magnetoencephalography (MEG) scanners to support

quantum technology research into brain health and develop the next generation of

interventions and tools for personalised brain healthcare.

11. The facility will act as a catalyst to attract commercial scientific instrument and metrology

firms to the region, to further translate the region’s expertise and assets into economic

benefit.

Outputs

12. The following are the project outputs:

Output Description Output quantity

Jobs - Direct 56

Jobs - Indirect 29

Apprentices 10

Skills – new learners assisted

56

Commercial / employment floorspace refurbished

300m2

Table 1

Outcomes

13. The following are the project outcomes:

Outcome Description

8 Collaborative Research Projects initiated to benefit companies in the LEP area by 2027

£10million Growth in GVA contribution from the QT sector by 2030

Improved utilisation of key national research infrastructure from 3.5% to 5.0% (like NPL).

Table 2

Item 6a (i)


The project demonstrates a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of 5.07 (high value for money)

Funding Profile

2019/20 2020/21 Future Years Total

£ £ £ £

Capital (GBSLEP) £2.42m £0.60m £3.02

Capital UoB £3.79m 0 £3.79

Total £6.21m £6.81.

Table 3

Independent Technical Evaluation

14. The outcome of the Independent Technical Evaluation (ITE) carried out by Aecom and

finalised in October 2019 is shown at Appendix A. It gave the following recommendation:

• Based on the findings in the report, the FBC has been strengthened and demonstrates that the scheme will deliver high value for money. In order to fully align with best practice and provide full confidence in the BCR, we would advise that the applicant clarify the outstanding issues raised in Section 3.

• Based on this appraisal, and assuming that the higher levels of match-funding are confirmed, we recommend the scheme be considered by the GBSLEP for funding.

15. The items referred to in Section 3 of the report are as follows:

• Clarify treatment of GVA from start-ups

• Further detail on the groups / areas likely to most benefit from the project could be valuable but is not necessary.

16. All further actions identified in the ITE were categorised as ‘Green’, the definition of which is the information requested is useful, provided it is not too costly to gather or report against. The GSBLEP will follow up and clarify outstanding issues in accordance with this definition.

Conclusions 17. On the basis that the QTIH project:

i. aims to maximise the benefits of Quantum technology for the LEP area, aligning with regional and national strategy

ii. has demonstrated a high BCR through the Full Business Case and Independent Technical Evaluation

iii. LGF will be used to purchase equipment therefor spend should be achieved relatively quickly aiming to deliver majority in the 2019/2020 and the remainder early 2020/2021. The project is affordable to LGF across this period.

18. It is recommended that Programme Delivery Board Approve the allocation of £3,021,000

(three million, twenty-one thousand pounds) to the UoB for the delivery of the QTIH project. This approval is subject to:

a. the higher levels of match-funding being confirmed.

Item 6a (i)


Appendices

Appendix A 191014_QTIH FBC_ Due Diligence Report- Final

Prepared by: Wendy Edwards Reviewed by: Sally Agass

Contact: Email: [email protected]

Mobile no: 07548 712827 Date prepared: 15.10.2019

Item 6a (i)


Decision The GBSLEP Director/PDB has reviewed the investment report for [project name] and decided to;

Decision Comment/action

Approve

Approve with conditions

Not Approve

Date: Signed: Print Name:

Quantum Technology Innovation Hub (QTIH)

Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership

11th October 2019

Quantum Technology Innovation Hub (QTIH) Application Appraisal

Prepared for: Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership

AECOM

Quality information

Prepared by Checked by Verified by Approved by

Selina Pazos-Rotter,

Graduate Consultant

Stephanie Cesbron

Associate Director

Stephanie Cesbron

Associate Director

Stephanie Cesbron

Associate Director

Revision History

Document Name

Ref Prepared for Prepared by Date Reviewed by

V1.1 Final Draft GBSLEP Selina Pazos-Rotter

30/08/2019 Stephanie Cesbron

V1.2 Final Report -revised

GBSLEP Stephanie Cesbron

15/10/2019 Stephanie Cesbron



AECOM

Prepared for:

Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership

Prepared by:

Selina Pazos-Rotter and Stephanie Cesbron

AECOM Limited

Aldgate Tower

2 Leman Street

London E1 8FA

United Kingdom

aecom.com

© 2019 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in

accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference

agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has

not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party

may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.



AECOM

Executive Summary

Scheme Summary

The University of Birmingham (UoB) is applying to GBSLEP for £3 million of grant funding towards the £6.8 million Quantum Technology Innovation Hub (QTIH)– 300m2 (GIA) of high quality commercial floorspace (office and laboratory) and testing/validation space. The fit out of the QTIH facility has been completed and all that is left is to buy and install the equipment within the facility. The GBSLEP grant fund would go towards purchasing most of the equipment needed for QTIH.

The proposed funding for the QTIH is as follows:

• GBSLEP: £3.02m

• University of Birmingham and other public sector: £3.79m.

The application is being appraised against the requirements of an FBC which are as follows1:

• Strategic case: this needs to be completed including a full analysis of needs, objectives, interdependencies and risks.

• Economic case: options have to be appraised and value for money position determined.

• Financial case: details of the costs, their phasing, breakdown by those parties on whom they fall and risk allowance must be provided as well as funding sources.

• Commercial case: at the conclusion of the OBC, senior management should be in a position to consent to the procurement phase of the project. This means that the procurement strategy must include details of the sourcing options, proposed procurement route and supporting information. Payment and charging mechanism must also be outlined. An assessment of how the types of risk might be apportioned or shared needs to be presented as well as a high level view of implementation timescales.

• Management case: dependencies need to be set out as well as key milestones, a critical path and arrangements for risk management. The project’s plan through to completion should be appropriately detailed and realistic, including any contract management strategy. Funding availability for the whole project must be confirmed.

Scheme Objectives

The main objectives of the scheme are:

• To raise awareness and understanding of the potential for quantum technologies in the region’s business through demonstration, training and development.

• To develop a high quality QT demonstrator, hot desking and test/validation facilities to drive up awareness/understanding/demand for advanced metrology services.

• To develop a truly collaborative environment between academia and business to increase knowledge exchange, leading to increased commercial opportunities.

• To establish Birmingham as the global centre for quantum technologies, to stimulate direct and indirect employment increases, both through construction and the related supply chains and through the operation of the QTIH.

• To close the current skills gap so that Birmingham has a sufficient pool of skilled resource to develop, attract and retain businesses in quantum technology development.

Anticipated Impact of Scheme

The Business Case and clarification question responses identify the following benefits of the scheme:

• Jobs: The scheme will generate 56 direct new jobs within the research facility.

• Skills and Education: The scheme will support 56 new learners and 10 apprenticeships.

• Net Present Value: It is estimated that the scheme will generate a Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of £29.6m over a 10 year period. Considering the Present Value of Costs (PVC) of £5.8m, the scheme would achieve a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of 5.07 (high value for money).

• GVA: £8.4 additional GVA will be generated by firms collaborating with the facility.

1 Department for Transport (January 2013) The transport business cases / HM Treasury (2018) Guide to developing the project business case



AECOM

• Collaborative Research Projects: 8 new research projects will be created within the research facility.

Key Review Findings

The strength of the five cases is summarised below along with key information gaps and issues to be addressed:

• The Strategic Case makes a strong argument for the scheme based on the potential to meet the growing demand for innovation spaces within the region and create a hub for academics and businesses to collaborate and innovate within the quantum technology sector.

• The Economic Case provides a detailed narrative of the long listed and short listed options and the process used to select the Preferred Option based on a set of critical success factors. A detailed approach has been used to monetise the likely benefits of the QTIH facility. Previously identified issues have been addressed and the Economic Case is strengthened as a result.

• The Financial Case has details of match funding and its source. Cost estimates are based on detailed quotes. However, match-funding levels have increased since the last version of the FBC so a new confirmation letter, specifying the new amount of match-funding, should be provided.

• The Commercial Case has provided a procurement strategy which has been developed by the University as part of its established policy and processes for procuring goods and services. A Risk Register has also been provided and covers the main potential risks of the scheme and has identified a Risk Owner who will be responsible for the purchasing and installation of equipment.

• The Management Case has provided a programme for the scheme with key milestones. The track record provided has highlighted the variety of similar projects the University has been involved with and the outcomes of those schemes. Once a supplier has been contracted the scheme promoter should ensure GBSLEP is informed of any variations to the project delivery programme.

Recommendations

Based on the findings above, the FBC has been strengthened and demonstrates that the scheme will deliver high value for money. In order to fully align with best practice and provide full confidence in the BCR, we would advise that the applicant clarify the outstanding issues raised in Section 3.

Based on this appraisal, and assuming that the higher levels of match-funding are confirmed, we

recommend the scheme be considered by the GBSLEP for funding.



AECOM

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 7

1.1 The Purpose of this Report ........................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Approach .................................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................. 9

1.4 Document Structure ................................................................................................................. 10

1.6 Declaration ............................................................................................................................... 10

2. Strategic Case Review .......................................................................... 12

3 Economic Case Review ........................................................................ 16

4 Financial Case Review .......................................................................... 22

5 Commercial Case Review ..................................................................... 26

6 Management Case Review ................................................................... 30

7 Appendix 1 – AECOM Clarification Questions: Applicant Responses ...................................................................................................... 34

Tables

Table 1. Summary of Documents Considered in Full Business Case Independent Review ................. 8 Table 2. Assessment Criteria.................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3. Summary of Review Results .................................................................................................... 9



AECOM

1. Introduction

1.1 The Purpose of this Report AECOM has been asked to review the updated Full Business Case for the Quantum Technology

Innovation Hub (QITH) scheme submitted on 25th September 2019. This report summarises the findings

of the review which inform our recommendations to GBSLEP.

The review methodology is based upon criteria set out in the HM Treasury Green Book Checklist for

Assessment of Business Cases and supporting guidance (e.g. MHCLG Appraisal Guide [Dec 2017],

HCA Additionality Guide [2014]). The review has also taken account of the GBSLEP Assurance

Framework. More specifically, AECOM have considered the extent to which:

• The Strategic Case articulates a strong case for change and demonstrates a clear rationale for

investment;

• The Economic Case examines the environmental, social and distributional impacts of the

proposed scheme to demonstrate the extent to which its benefits outweigh its costs;

• The Financial Case demonstrates that the project is affordable and has been subjected to

appropriate scrutiny in the Change Request and the Outline Business Case; and

• The Commercial Case is underpinned by a robust consideration of the commercial viability of

the proposal, early contract considerations and the approach to risk management and transfer.

• The Management Case assesses the overall deliverability of the proposal, taking into

consideration elements of project planning, governance structure, risk management,

communications and stakeholder management, benefits realisation and assurance.

A list of key documents considered in this review is summarised in Table 1.



AECOM

Table 1. Summary of Documents Considered in Full Business Case Independent Review

Key Documents

Full Business Case Application Form – QTIH

QTIH Appendices:

• Appendix 4 - QTIH Output and Outcome Forecast Profile

• Appendix 5- QTIH Funding profile

• Appendix 6- QTIH Risk Register

• QTIH FINAL BCR Calculation

• QTIH Counterfactual Incubation only

• QTIH Counterfactual Test Facility only

• QITH equipment list – ALL v5.0

• QITH LGF State Aid form

• Sensitivity all except jobs and GVA

• Sensitivity increasing costs

• Sensitivity reducing benefits to 5 years

• Sensitivity remove all benefits except jobs

• Sensitivity removing all jobs

• Sensitivity to 3 years

• Sensitivity Summary

• J Moore CV

• R Jevons CV

1.2 Approach Headline Assessment

Our standard approach for undertaking Local Growth Fund application reviews for GBSLEP is set out

below.

On receipt of the scheme business cases from GBSLEP, AECOM undertake a headline assessment.

This desk-based assessment is completed independently by the core project team and based on a

customised template derived from the five-stage business case model.

In undertaking the initial assessment process:

• Members of the core project team complete a general review of the available business cases to

consider their completeness and compliance with the relevant funding guidance.

• The core team then undertake a more detailed assessment of each business case against

specific components of the Five Business Model (e.g. Strategic, Economic, etc.). Between the

core team all five components are covered for each business case.

• The core project team then hold a case review meeting to discuss each business case and

identify:

─ Gaps in the evidence provided

─ Risks and any issues associated with the business case proposals

─ Particular areas requiring further investigation by the technical review panel

─ Information requests and clarifying questions for the applicant organisations

─ Areas for discussion with GBSLEP regarding its priorities and requirements for the Local

Growth Fund and likely approach to contracting and management of funds.

This approach ensures that all members of the core team have a good overview of each business

case, including its strengths and weaknesses, and that each element of the Five Business Case

Model is considered in conjunction with each other.



AECOM

Following the initial review process it is possible to identify the critical issues where specialist

resource should be deployed for detailed analysis and where AECOM can provide support to enhance

the business case.

Engagement with Project Applicants

On completion of the high-level assessment, AECOM contacts the project applicants to discuss the

emerging findings in relation to the scheme, confirm that all relevant information has been provided to

the appraisal team, and to ask a series of clarifying questions that will inform the detailed assessment.

Following an initial request by email, AECOM may hold telephone or face to face discussions with

scheme applicants if it is deemed necessary. Following receipt of supplementary information or

confirmation that requested information is not available, AECOM will commence the detailed appraisal

assessment.

To aid the scheme promoter’s response to the recommendations from this review, a RAG status has

been applied in accordance with the assessment criteria shown in Table 2.

In-Depth Appraisal: Five-Case Review

Following our engagement with the scheme applicants and receipt of any additional information in

response to clarification questions, AECOM review and enhance the headline appraisal through a

detailed due-diligence assessment. Where relevant, this will include input from other AECOM

specialists (e.g. cost consultants, transport planners and modellers, planners).

This detailed appraisal follows a template developed to capture the elements required under each of

the five cases as set out in Government guidance. Each question is assigned a RAG status applied in

accordance with the assessment criteria shown in Table 2. This enables both GBSLEP and the

applicant to clearly identify any issues with the scheme’s business case.

Table 2. Assessment Criteria

Category Description

Red Critical –the gap or shortfall in the information fundamentally undermines the overall business case or specific, critical elements of the case now being assessed. Without resolution of the issues raised, the case cannot move forward for approval.

Amber Important – resolution of the question strengthens the business case providing a higher degree of confidence when seeking approval.

Green Routine – the information requested is useful, provided it is not too costly to gather or report against.

NFA No further action required.

Update FBC

In the case of this scheme, a full appraisal was undertaken in August 2019 outlining a number of

issues which needed to be resolved prior to GBSLEP making any funding decision. In response, the

scheme promoter submitted a revised FBC in September 2019. This report appraises this latest

submission.

1.3 Summary of Findings A breakdown of the review assessment is provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Review Results

Category Red Assessments

(n)

Category Amber Assessments

(n)

Category Green Assessments

(n)

No Further Action (NFA) Assessments (n)

Strategic Case 0 0 0 7

Economic Case 0 0 2 9

Financial Case 0 0 3 9



AECOM

Category Red Assessments

(n)

Category Amber Assessments

(n)

Category Green Assessments

(n)

No Further Action (NFA) Assessments (n)

Commercial Case 0 0 1 11

Management Case 0 0 3 3

Total 0 0 9 39

A summary of key themes is provided in the Executive Summary.

1.4 Document Structure The remainder of this document is structured as follows:

• Section 2 – Review of Strategic Case

• Section 3 – Review of Economic Case

• Section 4 – Review of Financial Case

• Section 5 – Review of Commercial Case

• Section 6 – Review of Management Case

1.6 Declaration This review has been undertaken as part of AECOM’s contract with GBSLEP. The assessment has

been undertaken independently by Selina Pazos-Rotter and Stephanie Cesbron from AECOM’s

Economic Development team based in London. Together, the team has reviewed over 70 outline and

full business cases for five LEPs since 2014. This declaration was made in advance of commencing

the review summarised in this document.



AECOM

Strategic Case Review

02



AECOM

2. Strategic Case Review

Question Answered – Yes or No

Comment / Observation Recommended Actions RAG Status

1 Is it clear what the scheme is seeking to achieve?

Yes • The scheme seeks to deliver QTIH, a new facility inside the University of Birmingham with demonstrator, hot desk and test/validation facilities. The hub will be a 300m2 space located within the Metallurgy and Materials building at the University.

• The QTIH will provide entrepreneurial researchers, sensor technologists, systems engineers and businesses with access to a ‘local’ demonstration, test and validation facility, with onward links to NPL’s significant national facilities.

• Table in 1.1.2 outlines two broader objectives:

─ To establish Birmingham as the global centre for quantum technologies & stimulate direct and indirect employment increases.

─ To close the current skills gap so that Birmingham has a sufficient pool of skilled resources to develop, attract and retain businesses in quantum technology development.

No further action required.

2 Are the problems being addressed by the scheme clearly evidenced?

Yes • Section 1.2.3 of the FBC communicates the problems and market failures the scheme is aiming to address, these are as follows:

─ The UK is constrained by the lack of a suitable skilled workforce due to the lack of programmes and awareness of quantum technologies.

─ There is also a lack of innovation spaces and hubs dedicated solely to quantum technology which are needed in order to move quantum




AECOM



technologies from the laboratory to the industry.

─ The lack of current open collaboration between the private and public sector in the quantum sector.

3 Has the scheme promoter provided details of the other options considered?

Yes • The scheme promoter has provided details of both the long-listed options and short-listed options considered to address the problems communicated in the Economic Case.

• The long list of options explores a variety of capital and revenue solutions, with various levels of focus on new equipment, research space, business support and infrastructure.

• The long listed options are ranked based on six critical success factors (Core service proposition, service alignment, securing the funding, benefits optimisation, potential achievability and potential affordability).


4 Have the benefits of the scheme on the local economy been quantified?

Yes • The following economic outputs have been identified:

─ 56 direct new jobs created.

─ 300sqm commercial floorspace

─ 56 new learners assisted and 10 new apprenticeships

─ Growth in GVA of £10m.

─ 8 new collaborative research projects initiated to benefit companies in the LEP area.

• Details are provided in the Economic Case.

No further action required

5 Does the scheme support local development policy?

Yes • The FBC identifies a variety of national, regional and local policy which is supported by the QTIH. Section 1.1.3 and 1.2.3 of the FBC outlines the contributions of the scheme to the GBS LEP




AECOM



Strategic Economic Plan, the West Midlands Strategy, Midlands Engine Science and Innovation Audit and the Blackett Review.

6 Is the scope of the scheme clearly summarised?

Yes • The FBC clearly communicates the scope of the preferred option. Its scope is to establish a Quantum Technology Innovation Hub, focused on supporting manufacturers of innovative scientific instruments and products built around quantum technologies and advanced metrology by providing them with easy access to state-of-the-art test and validation and hot-desking facilities.

• This Quantum Technology Innovation Hub will provide a physical space with access to an integrated demonstration/research/business innovation environment that will raise market awareness of quantum technologies and create a globally attractive facility for the commercialisation of innovative Quantum Technology products & services.


7 Are the pre-requisites and interdependencies related to the scheme delivery clearly communicated?

Yes • There are limited dependencies affecting the scheme (Section 1.4.1) as the capital investment in the facility is near completion. All that remains for it to become operational is acquiring and installing the equipment.

• The main dependency is securing GBS LEP’s funding. There are no consents or other approvals needed.




AECOM

Economic Case Review

03



AECOM

3 Economic Case Review



1 Is there a reasonable range of options in the long & short lists?

Yes • The scheme promoter has provided details of both the long-listed options and short-listed options considered to address the problems identified in the Strategic Case.

• Seven alternative options were explored in the long list:

─ Do nothing scenario

─ The preferred case

─ Alternative Option 1-Investment into further equipment for research purposes

─ Alternative Option 2- Hot desking facility

─ Alternative Option 3- Establishment of a business support scheme to support businesses to commercialise quantum R&D

─ Alternative Option 4- Establishment of a grant scheme to incentivise collaborative R&D

─ Alternative Option 5- Developing test/validation facilities, without hot desking

─ Alternative Option 6- Establishment of a new build facility to incubate early stage quantum businesses.

─ Alternative Option 7- Establishment of a new build Research Centre


2 Is ruling out of potential options clearly justified?

Yes • A series of Critical Success Factors were identified and used to filter down the long-list options (Core service proposition, service alignment, securing the funding, benefits optimisation, potential achievability and potential affordability). The



AECOM



options were allocated a score against each of these CSPs.

• Based on their combined score, four options were shortlisted. These scenarios combine the scheme’s elements in different ways but are based on the same assumptions about delivery, implementation and funding. Section 2.3.1 considers the pros and cons for each scenario and provides a Cost & Benefits Analysis including a BCR.

• The Preferred Option which includes the demonstrator, hot desk and test/validation facilities (QTIH) scored the highest BCR of 5.07. This was considered the option which provides the best value for money and ranked the highest against the scheme’s critical success factors.

3 Are all economic costs and benefits calculated for each year covered by the proposal with NPV calculated correctly?

Yes • The benefits and costs have been modelled over a period of 10 years using the Green Book recommended 3.5% discount rate. The additionality assumptions are explained and deemed sensible.

• The Economic Case refers to a number of research findings on the GVA-level impacts but does not explain how they arrive at the selected figure of £100,000.

• The impact of start-ups is a GVA impact so it is important to be clear that there is no double-counting with the GVA benefits calculated elsewhere.

• For consistency and clarity, it would be better to show net benefits and costs in the summary Options table in 2.3.1 rather than gross.

• Figure in BCR table for Direct jobs (£14,803,726) is in fact for all jobs (direct, indirect, induced).

E1 – Clarify treatment of GVA from start-ups



AECOM



4 Is distributional analysis needed, who benefits, who pays?

No • A Distributional Impact Appraisal has not been undertaken within the OBC. However, the FBC mentions positive equity impacts from the project through the provision of new skills and apprenticeships.

E2 – Further detail on the groups / areas likely to most benefit from the project could be valuable but is not necessary.

5 Are all costs and benefits quantified?

Yes • A breakdown of costs has been provided in the Financial Case and BCR Calculations.

• Spreadsheets have been provided showing how the costs and benefits have been calculated for the BCR and how they have been discounted.

• Costs have been estimated using a combination of methodologies, including external advice and past experience of delivering similar projects. Sources for the cost estimates have been provided.

• A range of relevant benefits have been identified, explained and where possible quantified.


6 Are there appropriate sensitivity analyses, including worst case scenario?

Yes • Section 2.4.3 provides a summary of the six different scenarios that have been tested:

─ reducing the analysis period to 5 years resulting in a BCR of 3.39

─ reducing the analysis period to 3 years resulting in a BCR of 0.97

─ removing all direct jobs from the benefits resulting in a BCR of 3.08

─ removing all benefits except jobs resulting in a BCR of 1.98.

─ removing all benefits except jobs and GVA resulting in a BCR of 3.21.

• Given that the sensitivity tests are based on the initial BCR calculation spreadsheet, the results would need to be updated in view of any changes to those original calculations in response to previous comments.




AECOM



7 Are results presented for each option presented clearly including do nothing/minimum?

Yes • Section 2.3.1 shows how the do nothing, do minimum and preferred scenarios compare in terms of costs and benefits.

• Spreadsheets have been provided to show how the benefits and costs have been calculated for the short-listed options of the scheme, including do minimum, the preferred case and do maximum.


8 Are risks, constraints and dependencies identified and managed?

Yes • A Risk Register has been provided in Appendix 6.

• It identifies a range of risks including failing to secure GBSLEP funding for the scheme, and a rise in equipment prices.

• Suitable control measures which have been presented against all identified risks in the register.

• CQ 10 asked who would be the risk owner of the scheme. The applicant has stated that the risk sits with Professor Martin Freer- Project Director.


9 Is optimism bias properly included and aligned with risk?

Yes • The following OB have been included: 20% for works duration,10% for overall expenditure on equipment items not yet expensed and 0% on those items already expensed. These figures are broadly in line with Treasury recommendations. The risk budget is now set at 0% to broadly reflect the level of design development risk (much of the higher risk development work is now complete and the equipment costs have been based on quotations received from suppliers).


10 Are wider impacts assessed e.g. sustainability, competition, regulatory impact?

Yes • The advancement of Quantum Technologies can provide several wider benefits to society which are mentioned qualitatively in the FBC. They include: advancement in neuro-science, the discovery of new and more effective drugs, smarter use of energy, water and other utilities to achieve higher environmental standards, discoveries which




AECOM



improve patient outcomes and impact positively on healthcare costs, and inward investment.

11 Is best VfM = max NPV and if not do unquantified benefits justify the cost?

Yes • The Preferred Option achieves the highest BCR and NPV




AECOM

Financial Case Review

04



AECOM

4 Financial Case Review



1 How much does the project cost each year? Who is paying for it? Is the full budget secured and budgeted by all parties?

Yes • The total capital expenditure for TSESRIC is estimated to be £6.81 million.

• The proposed funding is as follows:

─ GBSLEP: £3,021,000

─ UoB and other public sector: £3,790,000

• A letter was provided at OBC stage to confirm that the match-funding is in place. However, the match-funding level has increased since so an updated letter should be provided.

F1 – Provide updated letter confirming appropriate levels of match-funding

2 What are the impacts on income/expenditure account and on balance sheet?

No • No surplus will be generated by the project


3 Are potential cost over-runs provided for and are there any contingent liabilities?

Yes • The FBC states that cost overruns will be dealt with by the University of Birmingham.


4 Any guarantees? N/A • N/A No further action required

5 Are the various types of cost (admin, resource and capital) clearly identified? Do they have budget cover in each of the years

Yes • The scheme promoter has provided costs in the BCR calculations spreadsheets.

• The costs of the scheme are made up of 24 equipment items, as well as the QTIH fit out and the installation. The GBSLEP grant however will only be used to buy for the 22 equipment items listed in section 4.2.1.




AECOM



in which they fall (i.e. are they affordable)?

• The cost estimates are based on detailed quotes collected by the applicant.

• There are no administrative or management costs included in the estimates.

6 How reliable and committed are third party funders to the project?

Yes • Match-funding is provided by the University of Birmingham.


7 If funding for the project involves borrowing (e.g. from the government or wider market), how robust is the arrangement. Are there risks associated with servicing the repayment and interest?

N/A N/A N/A

8 What are the key financial risks? Have these been quantified? Is there a robust risk management strategy?

Yes • The main financial risk at this stage is acquiring the GBSLEP grant in order to purchase the equipment and complete the hub.

• The applicants have also re-contacted the majority of suppliers who have provided re-assurance that they can supply the equipment before the 31st of October.


9 Has any sensitivity analysis been undertaken?

Yes • CQ 5 asked for the spreadsheet of the sensitivity analysis on the preferred case. These have been provided and verified to show they have been calculated properly.

• One of the sensitivity tests finds that costs would have to increase by £25m to reduce BCR to 1.




AECOM



10 Does the project depend on third party income streams – e.g. from fees or tolls? If so, how robust are the estimates/forecasts? Are any risk sharing arrangements contemplated?

N/A N/A N/A

11 Are there any state aid issues to address e.g. which may constrain or limit public sector support?

Yes • A State Aid form compliant with BIS guidance has been filled in by the applicant and concludes there are no State Aid issues to address. However, no independent review has been undertaken.

F2 – Independent State Aid would provide further confirmation of the scheme’s compliance

12

Is the funding compliant with ‘Managing Public Money’ and other central government guidance? Is Treasury approval needed?

N/A • The FBC states that the scheme’s funding is compliant with Managing Public Money and other central government guidance.

F3 – Scheme promoter to provide evidence whether it is compliant with Managing Public Money.



AECOM

Commercial Case Review

05



AECOM

5 Commercial Case Review



1 What procurement is

required; goods,

services, land,

buildings?

Yes • The fit out of the QTIH and the build of the CFHBH has already been procured.

• The remaining procurement required is to secure and install the equipment identified in the FBC.


2 What are the key

contractual issues? Yes • There are no major contractual issues. All that

remains to implement is the procurement of the equipment for the QITH.


3 Are there clear

contractual

milestones and

delivery dates?

Yes • Section 3.2.2 of the FBC highlights the key contract milestones which outline that procurement will be completed in May 2020 and the installation complete by August 2020.

• The facility is then expected to be opened by September 2020, a month later after the installation.

C1 – Scheme promoter to update GBSLEP on progress with milestones.

4 Is there a robust

contracting and

procurement

strategy?

Yes • All procurement undertaken by the University will be run in compliance with the University’s Procurement and Purchasing Procedures.

• Where possible goods and services will be procured from Framework Agreements with “Approved Suppliers”. Otherwise a mini-competition process will be undertaken.

• With regards to contracts, the UoB will manage them through alignment to their existing contract management framework and procedures. The staff within UoB possesses a strong record of successful contract management, gained from




AECOM



their experience in delivering a range of publicly funded contracts.

5 Is the risk transfer

supported by

incentives (positive

or negative) that

prompt the intended

outcomes, e.g. will

the contractor lose

money if there are

any cost overruns?

Yes • Section 3.2.1 details that the University will manage contracts for delivery of the Scheme through alignment to their existing contract management framework and procedures. This will ensure the University is seeking best value by delivering value for this project whilst minimising wider impacts on staff, residents and businesses.

• Cost overruns will be dealt with by the University and GBSLEP capital funding contingency funds. The risks are held by the University as states in the clarification process.

• CQ 21 also stated that there will be some transfer of risk to the equipment suppliers by retaining a percentage of the sum due until the installation has been completed successfully.


6 Who is taking

marginal risk,

including on

planning consent,

demand, revenue

availability and

integration risk?

Yes • CQ 10 states that the risk owner for the acquisition of the equipment and installation will sit with Professor Martin Freer- Project Director.

• Since the scheme has already been constructed, there are no marginal risks related to planning permission or construction.

• The tendering process will ensure risk is being transferred to the equipment supplier to ensure the installation of the equipment is done successfully.


7 How was the

proposed

procurement

approach

developed?

Yes • The procurement will be undertaken by the University and will be run in compliance with the University’s Procurement and Purchasing Procedures (2018).




AECOM



8 Is there a developed

market for the

proposed

procurement

approach and

financing

arrangements?

Yes • The University Estates Office confirms there is a developed market for the proposed procurement approach and financing arrangements.

• CQ 8 details how there is a developed market for the proposed procurement approach by first stating that the University has a mature system of contractor procurement and a designated centrally based team that provides support for the project management delivery team. The potential suppliers are also highly mature and well established as well.


9 How confident are

we that appropriate

contractual /

commercial

arrangement can be

defined to make the

structure and risk

transfer work in

practice?

Yes • The University of Birmingham has a lot of experience and a well-established system and procurement strategy in place for procuring goods and services.

• There is no evidence to show that the risk transfer would not work in practice, considering the various policy and processes that the University have in place to ensure value for money.


10 Is the proposed risk

allocation consistent

with the cost

estimate?

Yes • OB has been applied in line with the design stage of the project and estimated quotes for all cost components


11 Is there a risk

allocation table? Yes • Appendix 6 provides a Risk Register which does

state the current risks of the scheme at this stage and the Risk Owner has been identified as part of the clarification process.


12

What, if any, are the

personnel

implications and is

TUPE applicable?

N/A • No relevant personnel/people management/trade union implications, including TUPE regulations have been identified for this project.




AECOM

Management Case Review

06



AECOM

6 Management Case Review



1 Has a suitable programme and milestones been provided?

Yes • Tables have been provided in sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 identifying key milestones.

• Procurement will be complete by May 2020 when suppliers for the equipment will be selected.

• The equipment will be installed in the facility by August 2020 and the facility would open by September 2020.

M1 – Scheme promoter to make GBSLEP aware of any variations to the project delivery programme.

2 Have risks due to the delivery process or programme been identified with suitable time allowances?

Yes • The applicants have identified risks in the Risk register in Appendix 6. The Risk Register outlines the potential risks to the supplying and installation of the equipment.

• Considering that the only remaining tasks in this project are largely the procurement and installation of the equipment, the scheme has been provided suitable time allowances which should ensure that the scheme is delivered before March 2021.

See M1

3 Have all consents been secured or is there a timeline?

Yes • The QTIH hub has already been fitted out and all that is remaining is the procurement process and installation of equipment. Therefore there are no consents needed for the delivery of the scheme.


4 Has the applicant provided a track record on delivering similar schemes and

Yes • The FBC details how the University of Birmingham teams in the UK National Quantum Technology Hub in Sensors and Metrology have previously secured seven projects. All of which




AECOM



are the outturn results known?

were projects that helped create new links into the quantum industry and deepened existing ties with key partners.

• REVEAL, Qvision and CASPA are three different project successes brought forward by the University within the field of Quantum Sensors.

• Section 5.2.2 also provides further detail on the track record of consultants working on this project including the associated architects who designed the QTIH and Galliford Try, the contractors used to Fit Out the building for QTIH.

• CQ 20 also states that the UK National Quantum Technology Hub has delivered over 50 industry-led collaborative projects, of which 23 have been delivered by the University of Birmingham. All of these projects have been successful in passing the InnovateUK acceptance criteria and the hub has been highlighted as a best practise example for industry academia collaboration by the national quantum technology champions.

5 Has the project governance for the delivery of the scheme been identified?

Yes • The applicant has provided a Project Management Structure diagram in section 5.3.2 which demonstrates the project governance between all delivery partners.

• The applicant will follow PRINCE2 principles in delivering the project.

• At FBC stage, all key team members should be named and a more detailed profile and track record of the Project Director (Pr. Martin Freer) and Project Manager should be provided.

M2 – Pr. Martin Freer’s CV has not been provided.



AECOM



6 Has the Accountable Officer (e.g. FD, CEO, S151 Officer) signed the application? Has any Board or committee approval been secured?

Yes • Kai Bongs- Direct of the UK National Quantum Technology Hub at the University has been identified as Senior Responsible Officer.

• The FBC has been signed off by the Senior Responsible Officer.




AECOM

Appendices

07



AECOM

7 Appendix 1 – AECOM Clarification Questions: Applicant Responses

23rd of August- Quantum Technology Innovation Hub

No. Section AECOM Comments Scheme Promoter Response

Strategic Case:

1. What is the likely take-up and occupancy rate for the planned facilities? Have businesses already confirmed their interest in moving to the new facility?

The planned facility is not meant as a business park, but mainly for short-term

collaborative co-location with a few offices for longer-term collaboration. Based

on previous experience, we are likely to reach full long-term office occupation

within a few months, as we have done in the adjacent Quantum Hub office

space, where we co-locate MSquared Lasers, NPL and Teledyne-e2v. We

have a track record of using the short-term business co-location space within

23 InnovateUK co-funded projects within the last 5 years, in each of which we

hosted collaborative work with industry partners. The QTIH facilities will allow

us to grow this activity and take advantage of the current ISCF wave 3QT calls

and anticipated Dstl funding call activities.

We are further discussing with a major US company, who have expressed an

interest in establishing a UK QT research subsidiary. QTIH would provide an

incentive for this to happen in Birmingham as opposed to competing options

elsewhere in the UK.

2. How will revenue be generated from the scheme, will spaces be rented out to businesses? Have revenue streams been forecasted? Please provide the assumption used to forecast this.

The majority of the revenue will be from collaborative R&D programmes funded either by the companies directly or via overheads from research projects won through sources such as Innovate-UK, Research England or EPSRC.

The overheads from these projects will pay for the running costs of the facility and any additional equipment needed to undertake the research. Ultimately, this funding will flow through the University of Birmingham (i.e. there will be no profit) which will own the responsibility for the operations and maintenance of



AECOM

the facility as part of the UoB wider estate and will use its estates and maintenance team to support everything from the IT infrastructure to routine maintenance.

Our assumption used to calculate this is based on £500,000 of grant funding flowing into collaborative R&D linked to the facility each year, after three years of operation, to support the research programme. This figure has been arrived at based on historical benchmarks.

3. How were the 56 direct jobs calculated? Has the calculation considered HCA employment densities for this category of space? It seems high for just 300m2 of employment floorspace.

The methodology we used for calculating the 56 net additional direct jobs

comprised a mix of methodologies, with data being triangulated to arrive at the

final figure. This included;

• An assessment of the additionality of the development (attribution to

public sector intervention): The proportion of the jobs created by the

development that would not have happened without public sector

intervention. This formed the starting point for the reference case and was

based on DBER Guidance on the Impact of RDA spending – National

report – Volume 1 – Main Report (March 2009) using a mix of cost per job

figures for R&D infrastructure and cross cutting regeneration initiatives;

• Floorspace calculations using HCA guidance: In our case, the quantity

of floorspace created (or projected) through developments was known but

the number of employees accommodated by developments was not.

Because of this, we were able to deploy an employment density

benchmark using the 3rd edition of the HCA Employment Density

Guidance (November 2015), using a mix of cost per job figures for R&D

space and managed workspace (based on the split of flexible and office

space);

Following this, this job numbers were also triangulated against HCA job

benchmarks using “Calculating Cost Per Job, Best Practice Note, 2015 (3rd

Edition)” to confirm that the scheme offered good value for money. Following

this work, a net additionality ratio was applied for deadweight, leakage,

displacement and multipliers.

Our final figure of net additional jobs was arrived at based on an assumption

that not all jobs that the QTIH will have a hand in creating will be based within



AECOM

the facility and triangulating these various calculations to arrive at an estimate

of the likely job creation.

During the course of revisiting our methodology for calculating job numbers, we also reconsidered our direct/indirect and new/safeguarded job numbers accordingly.

Economic Case:

4. 2.3.3 Wider benefits of the scheme are encouraged and should be detailed in the business case even if not quantifiable such as health and sustainability benefits.

Understood. We have updated the Business Case accordingly with the following;

2.3.3 Unquantifiable benefits

Whilst Quantum Technologies have the potential to deliver a considerable number of environmental and social benefits we have not sought to include these in this Outline Business Case, as they are a little challenging to quantify. That said, we envisage the following may be some of the potential wider benefits;

• Advancements in neuro-science – the work with the Centre for Human Brain Health may result in discoveries which result in advancements in neuro-science, which improve patient outcomes, impacting positively on the healthcare costs and keeping people in work, thereby impacting on productivity

• Discovery of new and more effective drugs – these developments may similarly need to the discovery of new and more effective drugs, having a similar impact;

• Smarter use of energy, water and other utilities, to achieve higher environmental standards and efficiency. etc – the applied research being undertaken on underground infrastructure may help to identify faults earlier and/or result in technological improvements which will conserve energy, water or other utilities, resulting in reduced costs for a range of businesses;

• Reduced impact on productivity from underground investigations – similarly, the same technological developments may result in improvements in productivity, through reduced roadworks.



AECOM

• Inward investment – as the facility becomes known as a centre for applied research in the field of Quantum technologies it may act as a magnet for inward investors

For the purposes of this initial assessment, we have also chosen NOT to take account of these potential wider benefits, although this would obviously improve the overall BCR if included in our calculations.

5. 2.4.3 Please provide a spreadsheet showing the calculations for the sensitivity analysis.

Please see attached. Please note, our approach to sensitivity analysis was merely to remove, swop out and change some numbers in the CBA and record their impact. Now the BCRs have changes on your advice, we have repeated this analysis and attach a summary of these calculations, attached. .

6. 2.4.5 In the table it is stated that 56 direct jobs will be created and 29 indirect jobs. In Appendix 4, it is stated that 80 jobs will be created or safeguarded. Please explain the difference in jobs.

On your advice, having reviewed the OBC and in accordance with Green Book guidelines, we removed all jobs forecast to be created during the construction phase from the CBA. We also mistaken removed these from the output spreadsheet, but are happy to put them back to 85 (as per the attached) if acceptable to you.

Commercial Case:

7. 3.1.2 Is there a standalone procurement strategy document being produced?

No, as the university has a robust procurement policy and processes which has stood the scrutiny of internal and various external audits. Please see section 3.1.2 Procurement Strategy.

8. 3.1.3 Is there a developed market for the proposed procurement approach and financing arrangements?

Yes. An extremely well developed market.

All that remains is the acquisition of the machinery/equipment. You will note nearly all the machines/equipment have specific names and titles. This is a well-developed and detailed list of requirements and many of the potential suppliers are highly mature and well established.

9. 3.2 At this stage is it known who will be taking on risks for the delivery of the scheme? Who will be taking on the risk of cost overruns?

University of Birmingham



AECOM

10. 3.2 The current risk register does not allocate risks with a Risk Owner. Could this be provided or provide details of when this will be developed?

All that remains in the project is the acquisition of the machinery. This risk sits with Professor Martin Freer – Project Director.

11. 3.2.3 Have the project risks been quantified and included in the cost estimate? What risk contingencies are in place to avoid cost overruns?

The University has agreed to take on the risk of cost over runs.

12. What are the key contractual issues at this stage? Approval of the Business Case and the Award of the funding from GBSLEP. There are no other major contractual risks.

13. Does Brexit have any impact on the procurement, cost or programme?

Our research suggests the impact of Brexit will largely be minimal (with below 20% of the equipment being supplied by EU firms).

Providing the Full Business Case secures approval on the scheduled date, we are confident that the impact of Brexit will be minimal.

We have recently re-contacted the majority of suppliers and many have assured us they can supply before 31st October.

Financial Case:

14. 4.2.1 GBSLEP will be funding for a list of equipment. Please provide quotes for this equipment to verify value for money.

We are working on these and will be available shortly.

15. 4.2.2 Please provide confirmation letters from sources of funding to evidence match funding is in place.

We believe we have already supplied these. Can you confirm what is missing?

16. What optimism bias and contingencies are in place to avoid cost overruns?

In preparing our quotes for the equipment, we included 10% for Optimism Bias and the same for Contingencies. We feel this is reasonable in such an ‘mature’ project. The University has committed to accept the risks associated with any cost overruns.

17. 4.3.1 Can you provide a spreadsheet showing an expenditure/income cashflow that indicates the cost and

We have not developed this yet, but have explored likely revenue from such a facility, based on past benchmarks and market forecasts. Having done this, we



AECOM

revenue flow over time? Also explain how revenue has been forecasted, what are the assumptions?

have calculated likely contribution to costs, using standard university cost model.

18. 4.4.1 What are the key financial risks and how will they be managed?

As this is a relativly ‘mature’ project with only the equipment/machinery to procure the major financial risks are linked to any further delays we incur in securing approval for this project.

We have sought to minimise this risk by responding to all questions received by GBSLEP in a timely manner, and hope this project secures approval at the September 4th PDB.

19. 4.4.2 Can you confirm that you would obtain independent State Aid advice from an independent expert prior to the awarding of GBSLEP funding?

Please provide supporting evidence for State Aid compliance

We have already supplied the prescribed State Aid form with the Full Business Case (we assumed this was sufficient supporting evidence to confirm State Aid compliance)?

We would be open to obtaining additional independent State Aid advice if deemed necessary by the LEP, but our perception is that this project is compliant and we would not want this to delay a formal offer.

Management Case

20. 5.2.1 Can you provide further narrative on how the projects that have been delivered turned out? Were they successful projects, were they delivered on time and on budget?

What was the market take up for these project (i.e was there industry interest?)? Any insight on market demand from current users of the facility?

Please provide supporting evidence if available?

The UK National Quantum Technology Hub has delivered over 50 industry-led collaborative projects with Innovate UK funding. Of these 23 have been delivered by the University of Birmingham. A list of projects can be found in the InnovateUK publication on funded projects. All of these projects have been successful in passing the InnovateUK acceptance criteria and our hub has been highlighted as a best practise example for industry academia collaboration by the national quantum technology champions.

We are continuing to experience a high user demand in collaborative R&D activity, as we are being approached by a large number of companies with an interest of working with us within collaborative projects in response to the current ISCF call for QT. The deadline of this call is October 30th, and establishing QTIH before this would allow an increased number of collaborative projects to provide benefits to the economic development around Birmingham.



AECOM

We are also receiving positive responses from large multinational companies in relation to the development of a significant joint sensors applications accelerations centre, which would strongly benefit from the QTIH.

21. 5.6 At this stage are the risk transfer mechanisms known? Is the risk transfer supported by incentives (positive or negative) that prompt the intended outcomes, e.g. will the contractor lose money if there are any cost overruns or if the equipment is damaged?

We are struggling to understand the relevance of this question, in relation to a project that is essentially just needs to procure and install the equipment, in order to complete the project.

That said, we will transfer some of the risk to our equipment suppliers, where commissioning involves installation, by retaining a % of the sum due, until the installation has been completed successfully.

22. 5.5 Who will be responsible for monitoring and evaluation of the scheme?

In section 5.3.2 of the Business Case, we set out the overall governance structure of the project. This sets out the strategic responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the scheme.

At an Executive level, the key person responsible for monitoring and evaluation is the Project Manager (Kai Bongs) although he will delegate the day to day operational responsibility for monitoring to Rebecca Jevons.



AECOM

aecom.com



AECOM

Item 7a Investment Report CCEA 23.09.2019


GREATER BIRMINGHAM & SOLIHULL LEP

REPORT FOR DIRECTOR

23 September 2019

LOCAL GROWTH FUND INVESTMENT REPORT

CANNOCK CHASE ENGINEERING ACADEMY

Recommendation The GBSLEP Director is requested to:

i. Approve the allocation of £500,000.00 [five hundred thousand pounds] Local Growth Fund to South Staffordshire College for the delivery of Cannock Chase Engineering Academy project, in accordance with the GBSLEP Assurance Framework following the submission of the Full Business Case (FBC) and its Independent Technical Evaluation (ITE).

Background 1. An initial Expression of Interest (EoI) for LGF was submitted to GBSLEP in October

2018 by South Staffordshire College (SSC)resulting in a ‘B’ strategic fit assessment

against the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) in December by the LEP Executive and

Sector Skills Champion.

2. South Staffordshire LEP (SSLEP) and Cannock Chase District Council (CCDC) have

already each committed £500,000 to the campus development to deliver level 1, 2

and 3 engineering qualifications

3. SSC is undertaking work to the value of £567,870 to prepare the campus and this

business case is to request LGF funding to purchase advanced engineering

equipment to meet Industry 4.0 standard and enable delivery of skills to level 4 and 5

qualifications.

4. After several drafts a final Outline Business Case was submitted in April 2019 and

independent technical evaluation was completed 21 May 2019.

5. The project was granted programme entry and conditionally allocated the requested

LGF amount on 30th May 2019 with an invitation to sub

6. SSC, through Hatch Regeneris, submitted an FBC to the GBSLEP on 05 August

2019, this was passed on to ITE and further clarifications requested 4th September.

7. The ITE was finalise 19th September 2019 with all areas complete and issues

addressed.

Case for change 8. The percentage of working age population qualified to NVQ Level 4 in the Cannock

Chase area is low when compared to other areas within Staffordshire and the West

Midlands



9. The percentage of jobs in manufacturing within the Cannock Chase area is up to

13% with considerable supply chain linkages within the GBSLEP geography and

across the wider West Midlands area.

10. Local companies highlight that due to a high number of retirees there is a key

requirement to replace the skilled workforce.

11. The CCEA aims to work closely with employers, universities, and research institutes

to strengthen business survival and growth rates by focusing on upskilling local

industry and encourage more engagement in ‘high growth’ activities.

12. The CCEA are working closely with local and regional engineering companies to

develop an offer that provides a workforce with 21st Century Skills. In turn the

ambition is to strengthen the innovative capacity of local industry by providing much

needed higher skills capital.

13. LGF is required to purchase advanced engineering equipment including Computer

Aided Design (CAD), Robotics, Mechatronic and Computer Numerical Control (CNC)

which will respond to Industry 4.0 standards and enable learner progression to level 4

and 5 qualifications.

Outputs

14. The following are the project outputs:

Output Description Output quantity

Area of new or improved learning/training floorspace (sqm) 190

Specialist capital equipment £500,000

Outcomes 15. The following are the project outcomes:

Outcome Description Outcome Quantity

L4 & L5 Engineering qualifications over 5 years 294

Apprenticeships over 5 years 156

Funding Profile 16. The project is funded as on the table below:

2019/20 2020/21 Future Years Total

£ £ £ £

Capital (GBSLEP) 500,000 0 500,000

Capital (Other Public Sector)

357,096 145,000 0 502,096

Revenue (name other) 0 0 0 0

Total 857,096 145,000 1,002,096



Conclusions 17. The project will invest in Industry 4.0 engineering equipment that will enable learners

to progress to level 4 and 5 qualifications with skills and experience to meet employer

requirements also contributing to the skills aims of the SEP and Local Industrial

Strategy.

18. The Programme team recommend full approval of £500,000 LGF capital grant

funding for the Cannock Chase Engineering Academy project.

Appendices

A 190919 CCEA ITE - Final

Prepared by: Laitan Alabi Reviewed by: Wendy Edwards

Contact: [email protected]

Mob no’ 07892785117 Date reviewed: 23 September 2019



Decision The GBSLEP Director/PDB has reviewed the investment report for [project name] and decided to;

Decision Comment/action

Approve

Approve with conditions

Not Approve

Date: Signed: Print Name:

Date post:	27-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times