Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund Application Form · PDF fileLocal Highways...

Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund Application Form The level of information provided should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme proposed. As a guide, for a small scheme we would suggest around 10 to 15 pages including annexes would be appropriate and for a larger scheme, 15 to 30 pages. A separate application form should be completed for each scheme up to a maximum or one large bid and one small bid for each local highway authority. Applicant Information Local authority name(s)*: Portsmouth City Council *If the bid is a joint proposal, please enter the names of all participating local authorities and specify the lead authority Bid Manager Name and position: Martin Lavers, Assistant Head of Service for Infrastructure Name and position of officer with day to day responsibility for delivering the proposed scheme. Contact telephone number: 023 9284 1534 Email address: [email protected] Postal address: Civic Offices, Guildhall Square, Portsmouth, PO1 2BE When authorities submit a bid for funding to the Department, as part of the Government’s commitment to greater openness in the public sector under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they must also publish a version excluding any commercially sensitive information on their own website within two working days of submitting the final bid to the Department. The Department reserves the right to deem the business case as non-compliant if this is not adhered to. Please specify the weblink where this bid will be published: www.portsmouth.gov.uk

SECTION A - Scheme description and funding profile A1. Scheme name: Portsmouth Strategic Network Maintenance and Resilience Scheme A2. Headline description: Please enter a brief description of the proposed scheme (in no more than 50 words) A package of measures to improve the resilience of strategic routes within the City (A3, A2047 and A2030), involving: • Maintenance of one of the three bridges onto the island and 17kms of highway drainage, to

adoptable standard for inclusion in the PFI – to ensure long-term viability of infrastructure and reduce flood risk.

• Pedestrian and cycle network enhancements at three locations on key strategic routes within the City Centre (see Annex A), improving access to major housing, employment, and education sites – resulting in safety and accessibility benefits, and promotion of active modes.

A3. Geographical area: Please provide a short description of area covered by the bid (in no more than 50 words) The bid covers the administrative area of Portsmouth, primarily focusing on the strategic routes into/within the City Centre (including A3, A2047, and A2030). OS Grid Reference: SU630980, SU680980, SU630065, SU680065 Postcode: PO Please append a map showing the location (and route) of the proposed scheme, existing transport infrastructure and other points of particular interest to the bid e.g. development sites, areas of existing employment, constraints etc. See Annex A. A4. Type of bid (please tick relevant box): Small project bids (requiring DfT funding of between £5m and £20m) Major maintenance, strengthening or renewal of bridges, tunnels, retaining walls, etc Major maintenance or renewal of carriageways (roads) × Major maintenance or renewal of footways or cycleways Major maintenance or renewal of drainage assets Upgrade of Street Lighting × A scheme which primarily covers one of the above categories but also includes some enhancement to the network to provide better access to housing and/or employment. A5. Equality Analysis Has any Equality Analysis been undertaken in line with the Equality Duty? Yes Equalities Impact Assessments (EIA) are not required for bridge and drainage maintenance schemes. A Preliminary EIA has been undertaken for each of the Network Enhancement Schemes. Findings: • Anglesea Road Footbridge – Not feasible to make footbridge DDA compliant due to space

constraints. EIA identifies need for appropriate signing and improvements to the at-grade crossing to address the needs of disabled users (included within design).

• A2047 Cycle Improvements – Benefits those without access to a car. No detrimental impacts. • Winston Churchill Avenue Pedestrian Route – Scheme will improve accessibility for older people and

people with disabilities by providing a wide, well lit relatively flat route that is direct and avoids pinch points and areas that increase the fear of becoming a victim of crime. No detrimental impacts.

2

SECTION B – The Business Case B1. The Scheme – Summary/History (Maximum 200 words) Please select what the scheme is trying to achieve (this will need to be supported by short evidence in the Business Case). PCC was the first local authority to use private finance to maintain the highway network, commencing in 2005 (following approval by the DfT). The PFI agreement requires that highway infrastructure within the City is maintained to an agreed standard, as part of an on-going programme of targeted renewal. It is intended to cover all highway assets within the City. However, some structures on the strategic network sit outside the PFI, because they are not at adoptable standard. They have not been maintained for 10 years, and any risks associated with their condition sit with PCC. Funding is required in order to bring the following assets up to adoptable standard for inclusion in the PFI. This will ensure their on-going maintenance (in a cost efficient manner) until 2029: • Eastern Road Water Bridge (A2030) – In 2008, a Major Structure Repair Notice was served due to

the poor condition of the paintwork and corrosion of the steel structure. Funding is required to: address the corrosion (preferred options include repainting of entire bridge or cladding the underside; and to improve the discharge of water into the sea (currently drains directly into the harbour, a Ramsar and SSSI site).

• Up to 17kms of Unadopted Highway Drainage affecting strategic routes – Funding is required to complete detailed investigation of drainage condition; jet cleansing and CCTV surveys; and replacement of drainage to adoptable standard, where required (estimated at 15% of length). This work will form part of the remedial work associated with flood improvements identified within our Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

Pedestrian and cycle network enhancements on key strategic routes within the City Centre (A3 Anglesea Road Footbridge, A2030 Winston Churchill Footway Upgrade, A2047 Cycle Improvements), will address high levels of ped/cycle accidents, and improve access to key retail, employment, and education sites within the City Centre. See Annex A for locations, and Value for Money (VfM) Annex for descriptions. B2. The Strategic Case (Maximum 650 words) This section should set out the rationale for making the investment and evidence of the existing transport problems, set out the history of the asset and why it is needed to be repaired or renewed. It should also include how it fits into the overall asset management strategy for the authority. In particular please provide evidence on the relevant questions/issues at paragraph 15 onwards of the accompanying Challenge Fund guidance. Supporting evidence may be provided in annexes – if clearly referenced in the strategic case. This may be used to assist in judging the strength of your strategic case arguments but is unlikely to be reviewed in detail or assessed in its own right. So you should not rely on material included only in annexes being assessed. What are the current problems to be addressed by your scheme? (Describe any economic, environmental, social problems or opportunities which will be addressed by the scheme). Resilience of strategic network A2030 Eastern Road Bridge – Surveys undertaken by our PFI Provider (Colas, 2013) and independent consultants (Fenwick, 2013) show staining on 20% of the entire bridge structure, of which 10% is corroded – affecting rivet heads on all main beams. If allowed to continue unchecked, further corrosion between the rivet heads and the steel girder plates may lead to failure of the rivets, due to the expansive forces that will result from corrosion. Similarly, corrosion between the girder plates may cause buckling and/or loss of section to the plates at the outer edges which may lead to weight restrictions and/or lane closures. The strategic importance of the bridge (as one of only 3 routes onto the island) means that the any capacity restriction has a very large adverse impact on those using the bridge, as well as limiting access to Anchorage Park Industrial Estate (see B6, Annex A, and VfM Annex). The bridge is used by ~45,000 vehicles/day; the 21 bus route (Havant-Portsmouth, 10 min freq.); and a large number of cyclists (NCN22). Private and public transport across the network will also experience delays due to

3

the congestion caused by re-routing of traffic; resulting in lost revenue / productivity for city centre businesses. Uncertainty about medium term strength of Eastern Road Bridge represents a concern (and potential barrier) in terms of the ambitious development plans for the city. Highway Drainage - The poor condition of unadopted highway drainage (Annex A) has resulted in a history of flooding, with increasing frequency and intensity in recent years, and closure of roads causing significant travel disruption on strategically important routes within the City (particularly A2030). • CCTV surveys of the drainage on Eastern Road and the Seafront shows extensive blockages, with

only ~25% of the drainage asset fully functional with no defects (full set of results available on request). The strategic importance of this route is described above.

• The poor condition of the soakways on the Seafront results in water sitting on the road, presenting a safety risk to drivers. The Seafront is a major tourist destination, and major cycle route, and provides access to the Hoverport Terminal for hovercraft services to/from the Isle of Wight.

• Flooding occurs on Portsdown Hill increasing traffic on the A3 and A27, affecting access to Queen Alexandra Hospital, the P&R site near Fort Southwick used by hospital employees, and major employment sites such as Qinetic and DSTL.

Safety and accessibility problems for pedestrians and cyclists All three Network Enhancement sites are subject to high traffic flows and inadequate infrastructure, resulting in safety and accessibility barriers for pedestrians and cyclists: • A3 Anglesea Road Footbridge – Top casualty site in City. Current crossing facilities are inadequate

to cope with very high pedestrian flow (including high volume of students). • A2030 Winston Churchill Footway Upgrade – Existing pathway is screened by vegetation, and

subject to high crime rate. Many pedestrians choose to walk in dual-carriageway instead. • A2047 Cycle Improvements – AQMA and highest cycle casualty rate in City (49 cycle casualties in

the last 5 years, equating to £2.57m). Why the asset is in need of urgent funding? • Eastern Road Water Bridge – Structure not currently being maintained. Risk that weight limit will

need to be imposed if do nothing, resulting severe network congestion (see B6 and VfM Annex). • Drainage – Flooding causes severe network congestion (see B6 and VfM Annex). • Network Enhancements – The number of pedestrian and cycle accidents at these sites is very high

(equating to £3.02 million over the last 5 years). Safety fears are having a negative impact on policies to promote active travel and tackle breaches of national air quality targets in Air Quality Management Area (6 and 7).

What options have been considered and why have alternatives have been rejected? • Eastern Road Bridge – Options include: - Do nothing, resulting in slow deterioration, reduction in load capacity, eventual partial / full closure. Not a viable option given strategic importance of route. - On-going programme of re-painting affected sections - Whilst the feasibility of carrying out localised repairs to the existing protective coating have been considered, in practice this is considered unlikely to be a cost-effective solution in the longer term, particularly as the areas of exposed, corroding steelwork are now evidently widespread throughout the structure. Although the affected areas may make up a small percentage of the total surface area, it is not practicable to consider treating them individually due to their number and locations. • Drainage – Only other option is to continue to rely on reactive measures (e.g. pumping / gully

cleansing). However, this does not address the cause of the flooding. Not cost effective or viable to leave structure out of the PFI in the long term.

• Network Enhancements – No viable lower cost options available.

What are the expected benefits / outcomes? (see B6 and VfM Annex) • Inclusion of asset on strategically important routes within the PFI. This will ensure their on-going

maintenance (in a cost efficient manner) until 2029. • Fewer days of network disruption (journey time, reliability benefits). • Reduction in re-routing of traffic (journey time and carbon benefits). • Network Enhancements will directly benefit AQMA 6 and 7.

4

• More reliable access to key employment sites and other strategic destinations - Reduction in lost revenue / productivity for city centre businesses.

• Improved water quality (in line with Water Framework Directive) and marine habitat in Langstone Harbour (a SSSI and Ramsar site) – The outflow on Eastern Bridge currently drains directly into the sea.

• Safety and accessibility benefits, and promotion of active modes within the City Centre. Please provide information on the geographical areas that will benefit from your scheme. You should indicate those areas that will directly benefit, areas that will indirectly benefit and those areas that will be impacted adversely. • Direct benefits – Strategically important routes in Portsmouth, including A3, A2047, and A2030 (see

Annex A). • Adverse impacts – Minimal. Works will generally be carried out at night, given their strategic nature,

and the number of residents living in close proximity to planned works is very low. Footway/cycleway on Eastern Road Bridge would need to be closed during works, but only one footway at a time.

What will happen if funding for this scheme is not secured - would an alternative (lower cost) solution be implemented (if yes, please describe this alternative and how it differs from the proposed scheme)? • Eastern Road Bridge – Bridge will not be maintained, resulting in slow deterioration, reduction in load

capacity, eventual partial / full closure. This will put a significant strain on the other two routes into the City, and elsewhere on the network, and increase journey times. Due to the strategic importance of the bridge, every effort would be made to find emergency funding to repaint affected areas, but this is not a cost effective solution.

• Drainage – Drainage will not be maintained, and flooding will continue to occur, continuing to cause disruption to journeys and access to employment and business.

• Network Enhancements – Schemes will be delayed until other funding sources become available, or these schemes will be prioritised and other schemes will be delayed. Progress towards LTP targets will be delayed.

What is the impact of the scheme? A more resilient network to support future development, and well as existing business, residents and tourists. See Annex F for Letter of Support provide by the LEP. B3. The Financial Case – Project Costs Before preparing a scheme proposal for submission, bid promoters should ensure they understand the financial implications of developing the scheme (including any implications for future resource spend and ongoing costs relating to maintaining and operating the asset), and the need to secure and underwrite any necessary funding outside the Department’s maximum contribution. Please complete the following tables. Figures should be entered in £000s (i.e. £10,000 = 10). Table A: Funding profile (Nominal terms, including risk and inflation) £000s 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total DfT Funding Sought: - Eastern Road Bridge - Drainage - Network Enhancements

£309 £374 £0

£1,751 £688 £263

£0 £840 £258

£2,060 £1,902 £520

LA Contribution: - Network Enhancements

£401

£99

£0

£500

Other Third Party Funding: - Network Enhancements

-

£20

-

£20

TOTAL £1,084 £2,821 £1,098 £5,002 The package is scalable and does not need to be implemented in its entirety. Priority elements are those relating to the A2030 strategic route. Notes:

5

1) Department for Transport funding must not go beyond 2017-18 financial year. 2) A minimum local contribution of 10% (local authority and/or third party) of the project costs is required. B4. The Financial Case - Local Contribution / Third Party Funding Please provide information on the following points (where applicable): a) The non-DfT contribution may include funding from organisations other than the scheme promoter.

Please provide details of all non-DfT funding contributions to the scheme costs. This should include evidence to show how any third party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available.

£0.5 million local contribution has been identified from PCC’s capital reserves. In addition the University of Portsmouth is contributing £20,000 towards Anglesea Rd Footbridge. b) Where the contribution is from external sources, please provide a letter confirming the body’s

commitment to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The Department is unlikely to fund any scheme where significant financial contributions from other sources have not been secured or appear to be at risk. Have you appended a letter(s) to support this case? Yes (see Annex G)

c) Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the

outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection. No other funding applications have been made for any of the scheme elements.

B5. The Financial Case – Affordability and Financial Risk (maximum 300 words) This section should provide a narrative setting out how you will mitigate any financial risks associated with the scheme (you should refer to the Risk Register – see Section B10). Please ensure that in the risk register that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value. Please provide evidence on the following points (where applicable): a) What risk allowance has been applied to the project cost? An initial (high level) Quantified Risk Assessment has been undertaken as part of this process, which estimates the p(50) value for the level of risk as £840,230 and the p(80) value as £1,491,731 (see Annex D). This gives an indication of the cost increase which is expected to occur as a result of risks relating to scheme design and delivery, as set out in the Risk Register (Annex D), being realised.

b) How will cost overruns be dealt with? The programme will adopt a risk management process to ensure that currently unforeseen risks are identified early, quantified and, where possible, mitigated with remedial action. Regular Project Board meetings will be held to monitor expenditure, progress and risk on an on-going basis. Any cost overruns will be dealt with via the construction contract, matched by savings in other scheme elements, or through allocating other Local Authority funds. c) What are the main risks to project delivery timescales and what impact this will have on cost? Min Cost Expected Cost Max Cost Unknowns regarding condition of existing bridge structure - Scale of works more extensive than budget assumes.

50% £150,000 £500,000 £2,000,000

Increases in statutory undertakers’ apparatus diversion costs to that assumed at bid stage

5% £50,000 £150,000 £1,000,000

Higher than expected traffic delays during works, leading to changes in working patterns and/or temporary works to mitigate traffic impact

20% £10,000 £100,000 £700,000

Delays obtaining support / consents from Environmental Statutory Bodies, resulting in construction delay, by up to 6 months to avoid breeding season and tidal effects.

5% £40,000 £120,000 £260,000

See Annex D for mitigation measures. 6

B6. The Economic Case – Value for Money a) If available for smaller scheme bids, promoters should provide an estimate of the Benefit Cost

Ratio (BCR) of the scheme. Where a BCR is provided please provide separate reporting in the form of an Annex to the bid to enable scrutiny of the data and assumptions used in deriving that BCR. This should include: - A description of the key risks and uncertainties in the data and assumptions and the impact these

have on the BCR; - Key assumptions including (but not limited to): detail of the data used to support the analysis,

appraisal period, forecast years, level of optimism bias applied; and - A description of the modelling approach used to forecast the impact of the scheme and evidence to

demonstrate that it is fit-for-purpose. A separate VfM Annex has been provided quantifying the benefits of the proposed schemes, and indicating the scale of the BCR for the various elements of the package, based on scenario testing. Bridge Highway Assets - The Department for Transport describes schemes with a BCR of greater than 4, as demonstrating ‘Very High’ value for money. Both the bridge and drainage schemes fall into the ‘Very High’ category (based on the tested scenarios), with the actual BCR being very large. Network Enhancements – The indicative BCR across all 3 schemes is 3.8:1, based on safety benefits only (and assuming 50% accident savings on A2047 and 75% at Anglesea Rd), representing ‘High Value for Money’. This excludes benefits relating to health, air quality, ambiance, accessibility and fear of accidents and crime, which would increase the BCR further if quantified. b) Please provide the following data which may form a key part of our assessment: Note this material should be provided even if a BCR estimate has been supplied (unless already covered in a VfM Annex). A description of the do-minimum situation (i.e. what would happen without Challenge Fund investment).

Bridge / Drainage Assets - Slow deterioration of bridge condition, reduction in load capacity, and eventual partial / full closure. - Continued increase in frequency and length of road closures due to flooding, resulting for unmaintained drainage. - Disrupted access to key employment sites and other strategic destinations - reduction in lost revenue / productivity for city centre businesses. Network Enhancements – Continued high numbers of pedestrian and cycle casualties (costing at least £600,000 p.a. based on the last 5 years; £3.02m/5yrs). Constrained progress towards LTP targets for active travel, air quality and health.

Details of significant monetised and non-monetised costs and benefits of the scheme (quantified where possible)

Eastern Rd Bridge - For the purposes of testing, a scenario has been assumed whereby the number of lanes operating in both directions reduces from two to one on both directions, from 2020 onwards. The strategic importance of the bridge (as one of only 3 routes onto the island) means that the predicted journey time, voc, and indirect taxation impacts are very large (£321m over a 30 year appraisal) period. Structural investigation is required to determine the timescales and approach for the introduction of any restrictions. However, even if even if the impacts were much less, the BCR for the proposed scheme would still be very large. Highway Drainage - Over a 30 year appraisal period, the user benefits of preventing 1 day a year of road closure on Eastern Road, due to flooding, is £4 million. The frequency of flood events in future years, due to the poor quality of the highway drainage along this route, is unknown. However, climate change is expected to result in wetter winters, placing the drainage system under increasing pressure. The A2030 is one of three strategic routes into the City, and any incident on these routes, results in significant disruption. Network Enhancements – Significant benefits are safety related (see below), which are in turn, expected to increase levels of walking and cycling in the area, leading to health and air quality benefits (including local AQMAs).

Length of scheme (km)

Eastern Road Bridge = 500 metres. Length of unadopted highway drainage = 17.3km. Network Enhancement Schemes = 4.4 kms.

Number of vehicles AADT flows on key sections (number of two-way vehicles):

7

on affected section

- A2030 Eastern Road Bridge = 49,109 veh (in 2027); 47,879 veh (in 2018). - A2030 Eastern Road (flood-prone section) = 32,678 (in 2027); 32,554 (in 2018). See Annex B and Value for Money Proforma for more detail.

c) Other VfM information where relevant - depending on type of scheme bid: Details of required restrictions/closures if funding not provided (e.g. type of restrictions; timing/duration of restrictions; etc.)

Eastern Rd Bridge - Risk that weight limit will need to be imposed if bridge continues not to be maintained. Further structural investigation is required to determine the timescales and approach for the introduction of any weight restriction. Options include use of traffic lights, restricting HGVs, introducing a three lane contra-flow system, or reducing capacity from four to two lanes (Do Min scenario). Highway Drainage - Reactive temporary diversion routes due to flooding on Eastern Road and Portsdown Hill Road. Potentially up to 12 hour duration.

Length of any diversion route, if closure is required (over and above existing route) (km)

Eastern Road Bridge = Full closure / diversion not expected to be required. Eastern Road flood diversion = 3.3kms. Portsdown Hill Road flood diversion = 1 km.

Regularity/duration of closures due to flooding: (e.g. number of closures per year; average length of closure (hrs); etc.)

Both Eastern Road and the Seafront experienced flooding in January / February 2014 (see Annex C). Eastern Road was closed for 12 hours, and access along the Seafront was restricted.

Number and severity of accidents for both the do minimum and the forecast impact of the scheme (e.g. existing number of accidents and/or accident rate; forecast number of accidents and or accident rate with and without the scheme)

Maintenance schemes – Road safety is not a specific objective of the maintenance elements of this package, however, the increased pressure on the network resulting from future closures, would significantly increase accident rates. Anglesea Road Footbridge - 8 pedestrian casualties have occurred at the crossing in the last 5 years (2 serious, 6 slight). The monetary cost of these accidents is £454,000, or £91,000 per annum (2010 prices). Assuming an appraisal period of 30 years starting in 2017/18, an equivalent level of casualty savings would result in a benefit of £1.1 million (2010 prices, discounted to 2010) if all accidents were prevented. However, not everyone will use the footbridge, even if it is quicker than waiting for signals, and some casualties are still expected to occur, reducing the actual level of casualty benefit derived from the scheme. A2047 Cycle Improvements - There have been 49 cyclists casualties on this road in the last 5 years (11 serious, 38 slight). The monetary cost of these accidents is £2,567,000 or £513,000 per annum (2010 prices). Assuming an appraisal period of 30 years starting in 2016/17, an equivalent level of casualty savings would result in a benefit of £6.2 million (2010 prices, discounted to 2010) if all accidents were prevented (based on WebTAG principles of changes in numbers and values of accidents over time). However, the measures still involve interaction between cyclists and vehicles so some casualties are still expected to occur. The table below gives various levels of benefits based on the percentage of collisions that could be saved:

Percentage saved Number saved Amount saved (2010 prices) 40% 102 £2.5 million 50% 128 £3.1 million 60% 153 £3.7 million 80% 204 £4.9 million 100% 255 £6.2 million

Number of existing cyclists; forecasts of cycling usage with / without the scheme

One day cycle count in Oct 2014 recorded 744 cycle movements (north and south). Scheme estimated to result in a 5-10% increase over the 4km length of the corridor.

8

B7. The Commercial Case (maximum 300 words) This section should set out the procurement strategy that will be used to select a contractor and, importantly for this fund, set out the timescales involved in the procurement process to show that delivery can proceed quickly. What is the preferred procurement route for the scheme? For example, if it is proposed to use existing framework agreements or contracts, the contract must be appropriate in terms of scale and scope. All contracts with a total lifetime value in excess of £100,000 must be let following the Council's Procurement Gateway Process and Category Management principles adopted by the Council. This includes the following approval steps: • Business case & approvals • Market engagement & assessment methodology • Contractor short listing sign off • Tender process & contractual terms review • Award recommendation sign off. Approval is required at relevant stages from the following Council officers: • Project Officer • Head of Service and / or budget holder • Procurement Professional • Category Manager - in this case the 'Environment' Category Manager • Legal Professional In addition, contracts with a total lifetime value > £1M must be presented to the Procurement Gateway Board which is chaired by the Council's Procurement Manager and includes experienced 'peer' officers from across the Council and senior members of the Council's Procurement team. The Council's Procurement Service assigns a dedicated to Procurement Professional to each Category Management category who is responsible for providing support for all procurement undertaken within their category area. For Eastern Road Bridge, Highway Drainage Renewal, and Anglesea Road Footbridge, PCC will use a Target Cost Contract using the NEC3 Option C Contract with Activity Schedule. This choice best represents the interests of PCC in terms of risk management, programme and delivery. A design and build approach will provide the opportunity for the contractor to complete the scheme design, using their experience and expertise to seek improvements to the approach and reduce overall costs. A single contractor will be appointed following a tender process based on a written brief and an outline design/approach. The invitation to tender will be completed in line with European Union (EU) policy on public procurement. The tender process will be carried out through restricted tendering with pre-qualification. Short listed contractors will then be invited to submit tenders. The programme allows a six month period for procurement, but experience indicates that the process could be completed more quickly. Winston Churchill Footway Upgrade and A2047 Cycle Improvements are lower value schemes. These elements will be commissioned using our PFI Call-Off Contract with Colas. This approach provides an efficient means of procurement (typical commissioning timescales are 4-8 weeks) and value for money (based on competitively tendered rates). *It is the promoting authority’s responsibility to decide whether or not their scheme proposal is lawful; and the extent of any new legal powers that need to be sought. Scheme promoters should ensure that any project complies with the Public Contracts Regulations as well as European Union State Aid rules, and should be prepared to provide the Department with confirmation of this, if required. An assurance that a strategy is in place that is legally compliant is likely to achieve the best value for money outcomes is required from your Section 151 Officer below.

9

B8. Management Case - Delivery (maximum 300 words) Deliverability is one of the essential criteria for this Fund and as such any bid should set out any necessary statutory procedures that are needed before it can be constructed. a) An outline project plan (typically in Gantt chart form) with milestones should be included as an annex,

covering the period from submission of the bid to scheme completion. The definition of the key milestones should be clear and explained. The critical path should be identifiable and any contingency periods, key dependencies (internal or external) should be explained.

Has a project plan been appended to your bid? Yes – See Annex E (more detailed project plans

available). Timescales for individual package elements are flexible and could be moved to fit DfT budgets. b) Please summarise any lessons your authority has learned from the experience of delivering other

DfT funded programmes (such as pinch point schemes, local majors, Local Sustainable Transport Fund, and Better Bus Areas) and what would be different on this project as a result.

PCC has successfully delivered three major transport schemes in the last 5 years; all on or ahead of time / budget. • Trafalgar Gate Link Road (Budget cost: £8.1m; Final outturn cost: £7.6m. Delivered 6 months ahead

of programme). • Tipner Interchange and Park and Ride (Budget cost: £28.2m; Final outturn cost: £28.2 million.

Delivered 2 months ahead of programme). • Northern Road Bridge (Budget cost: £12.6m; Final outturn cost £12.0m. Delivered 1 month ahead of

programme). Experience delivering these projects has demonstrated the importance of: • Communication with local residents, stakeholders, commuters, and politicians (who may change

during the project lifecycle). • A strong client Contract Management Team with appropriate skills and resources in the areas of

contract management, project management, and quantity surveying. • Partnership working with the contractor, early agreement on risks, and maintenance of a live risk

register. It has also improved our understanding of the typical lag between works progress and spend profile, due to risks not occurring, invoices arriving later than expected, snagging, etc.; allowing us to forecast more accurately the draw-down of DfT grant. These lessons will strengthen our project management approach for this proposed package of maintenance and network enhancements, helping to maintain our excellent track record in major scheme delivery. B9. Management Case – Governance (maximum 300 words) Please name who is responsible for delivering the scheme, the roles (Project Manager, SRO etc.) and set out the responsibilities of those involved and how key decisions are/will be made. An organogram may be useful here. This may be attached as an Annex. The management of the development and delivery of this package scheme will be undertaken in accordance with PCC’s Project Management Lifecycle, which is based on the Office of Government Commerce’s PRINCE2 project management framework. It is governed by the following corporate structures: • Audit & Performance Improvement Review Panel; • Corporate Project Board; • Strategic Directors’ Board; and • Panel, Board and Cabinet Governance Cycle. A Project Management Team will be appointed with the knowledge, experience and authority to manage the contract, and progress and deliver the scheme within the proposed timescales.

10

Individual Project Managers will be identified for each element of the package. For example: • Eastern Road Bridge – Graham Baggaley. • Highway Drainage – Harvey Cable. • Anglesea Road Footbridge – Eleni Oulasoglou. • A2047 Cycle Improvements – Hayley Chivers. • Winston Churchill Footway Upgrade – Hayley Chivers. Martin Lavers (Asst Head of Service for Infrastructure) will have oversight of the projects throughout the lifecycle, and will ensure delivery of the project plan in accordance with key milestones and budget framework. Martin was involved in the successfully delivery of other major transport schemes in the City (see B8) ensuring the transfer of lessons and good practice. The Senior Responsible Officer will be Simon Moon (Head of Service for Transport and Environment). The Project Board will also be appointed and meet regularly to provide project assurance, and legal and financial oversight. Responsibilities will include: • Approve project proposals/plans, and authorise any significant deviations. • Approve the Project Plan and Quality Plan, and authorise changes. • Ensure required resources are committed. • Monitor project outputs to achieving stated objectives. • Arbitrate on any conflicts. • Authorise expenditure in line with the Project Plan. • Monitor the Quality Plan. • Monitor and manage the Risk Log. • Approve and monitor the Communication Plan. Communicate and disseminate relevant project

information / Brief senior official members/stakeholders. • Sign off completed work stages. B10. Management Case - Risk Management A risk register covering the top 5 (maximum) specific risks to this scheme should be attached as an annex including, if relevant and in the top 5, financial, delivery, commercial and stakeholder issues. Please ensure that in the risk register cost that you have not included any risks associated with ongoing operational costs and have used the P50 value. Has a risk register been appended to your bid? Yes (see Annex D). SECTION C – Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation C1. Benefits Realisation (maximum 250 words) Please provide details on the profile of benefits, and of baseline benefits and benefit ownership. This should be proportionate to the size of the proposed scheme. Benefits to be monitored: • Eastern Road Bridge incorporated into PFI (Target date = 2018). • Identified Highway Drainage sections incorporated into PFI (Target date = 2019). • Reduction of flooding incidents and highway sewers in agreed adoptable serviceable condition for

handover to PFI. • Reduction in pedestrian and cycle casualties in Network Enhancement locations (Target = >50%). • Increase in number of cyclists using A2047 (Target = 10%). • Reduction in reported pedestrian-related crimes on Winston Churchill Avenue (Target = >50%).

11

C2. Monitoring and Evaluation (maximum 250 words) Evaluation is an essential part of scheme development and should be considered and built into the planning of a scheme from the earliest stages. Evaluating the outcomes and impacts of schemes is important to show if a scheme has been successful. Please set out how you plan to measure and report on the benefits identified in Section C1, alongside any other outcomes and impacts of the scheme. Maintenance schemes - The above benefits will be monitored through data from our PFI Contractor. Network Enhancement Schemes – STATS19 data will be used to monitor casualty levels 3 years pre- and post- implementation. An Automatic Cycle Counter will be used to monitor cycle flows on the A2047 (for 2 week periods), one year pre- and post- implementation. Crime stats will be obtained from the Police. SECTION D: Declarations D1. Senior Responsible Owner Declaration As Senior Responsible Owner for Portsmouth City Council I hereby submit this request for approval to DfT on behalf of Portsmouth City Council and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so. I confirm that Portsmouth City Council will have all the necessary powers in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised. Name:

Signed:

Position: D2. Section 151 Officer Declaration As Section 151 Officer for Portsmouth City Council declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that Portsmouth City Council

- has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution

- will allocate sufficient staff and other necessary resources to deliver this scheme on time and on budget

- accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the DfT contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties

- accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme - accepts that no further increase in DfT funding will be considered beyond the maximum

contribution requested - has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place - has identified a procurement strategy that is legally compliant and is likely to achieve the best

value for money outcome - will ensure that a robust and effective stakeholder and communications plan is put in place

Name:

Signed:

Submission of bids: The deadline for bid submission is 5pm, 9 February 2015 An electronic copy only of the bid including any supporting material should be submitted to: [email protected] copying in [email protected]

12

mailto:[email protected]


13

Annex A – Location of proposed scheme

14

Annex B – AADT Flows (2018)

Annex B – AADT Flows (2027)

16

Annex C – Record of recent flooding Recent flooding incident on Eastern Road (Winter 2014)

17

Recent flooding incident on the Seafront (Winter 2014)

18

Annex D – Quantified Risk Register The main risks to project delivery are detailed below (the top 5 are highlighted in grey). If these risks materialise then they will impact on cost at various levels. The impacts of the risks on cost have been evaluated within the QRA and a P50 risk allowance has been calculated.

Quantified financial/programme consequences

Ref Risk Description Current controls in place Function

Like

lihoo

d

Consequences Minimum Event

Min. Cost (£)

Expected Event

Expected Cost (£)

Maximum Event

Max. Cost (£)

1. Strategic/Political/Policy PCC 1.1

Change in PCC Lead Cabinet Member/Leader results in need to redesign scheme.

Regular briefing notes for all PCC members will update them on scheme development.

Bridge 10% Additional design costs. e/o design cost £10,000 e/o design

cost £50,000 e/o design cost £100,000

PCC 1.1



Drainage 10% Reputational damage and potential future loss of funding for other schemes.

e/o design cost £10,000 e/o design


PCC 1.1



Network Enhance-ments

10% Reputational damage and potential future loss of funding for other schemes.

e/o design cost £10,000 e/o design


2. Economic/financial/management

PCC 2.1

The tender prices received from the contractors exceed the available budget to construct the scheme.

The current cost estimate includes appropriate allowances for optimism bias and risk. Competitive tendering to ensure Value for Money.

All 20% PCC will need to prioritise work programme to suit budget.

Tender price within budget/risk allowance

- No change -

PCC will prioritise work programme to suit budget

-

PCC 2.2

Changes to inflation assumptions (potentially as a result of lack of contractor capacity).

Inflation assumptions are contained within the scheme cost estimates. Assumptions will be reviewed against industry predictions at each main stage of cost estimate review.

All 10%

Potential increase in scheme costs beyond current budget. PCC has to find additional funding.

Inflation predictions below original budget

- No change -

PCC will prioritise work programme to suit budget

-

3. Statutory/Legal/Land acquisition/Environmental Processes

PCC 3.1a

Not obtaining support / consents from Environmental Statutory Bodies leading to delay and extended project management - Portsmouth Harbour and Langstone Harbour are internationally recognised conservation areas. There are restrictions on breading seasons in Winter and tidal affects.

Early liaison with Environmental Agency, English Herritage, Natural England, Wildlife Trust, Langstone Harbour Master to gain support/permission. Produce screening reports/Environmental assessments. Sufficient time allowed in programme.

Bridge 5% Pre-construction phase delay

3 month delay to programme (£2000 / week)

£24,000


£48,000


£104,000

PCC 3.1b



Bridge 5% construction phase delay - bridge

1 month delay to programme (£10,000 / week)

£40,000


£120,000


£260,000

PCC 3.1c



Drainage 5% construction phase delay - drainage


£20,000


£40,000


£60,000

4. Design/technical/preparatory works

PCC 4.5a

Increases in statutory undertakers’ apparatus diversion costs to that assumed at bid stage.

Ensure C3 estimates are obtained early in the preliminary design stages to ensure costs estimates are as accurate as possible.

Drainage 5% Cost increase. Allowance for minor diversion

£50,000 - £150,000 Allowance for major diversion

£1,000,000

PCC 4.5b

Increases in statutory undertakers’ apparatus diversion costs to that assumed at bid stage.

Ensure C3 estimates are obtained early in the preliminary design stages to ensure costs estimates are as accurate as possible.


5% Cost increase. Allowance for minor diversion

£50,000 - £150,000 Allowance for major diversion

£1,000,000

PCC4.6a

Impact on design due to locality of utility services

Identify precise location of services and agree constraints with utility companies at the earliest opportunity.

Drainage 5% There could be delays to the designs and the whole delivery programme

1 month @ £2000 / week

£8,000 1 month @ £2000 / week

£16,000 3 month @ £2000 / week

£24,000

PCC4.6b

Impact on design due to locality of utility services

Identify precise location of services and agree constraints with utility companies at the earliest opportunity.


5% There could be delays to the designs and the whole delivery programme

1 month @ £2000 / week

£8,000 1 month @ £2000 / week

£16,000 3 month @ £2000 / week

£24,000

20

PCC4.7a

Long lead times for permanent service diversions

Early liaison with utilities companies to ensure stats get diverted before the construction programme begin.

Drainage 10% Delay in programme 3 months £24,000 6 months £40,000 12 months £70,000

PCC 4.7b

Long lead times for permanent service diversions

Early liaison with utilities companies to ensure stats get diverted before the construction programme begin.


10% Delay in programme 3 months £24,000 6 months £40,000 12 months £70,000

PCC 4.8

Unknowns regarding condition of existing bridge structure

Surveys planned as part of design process Bridge 50%

Scale of works more extensive than budget assumes

- £150,000 - £500,000 - £2,000,00

0

PCC 4.9

Unknowns regarding condition of existing drainage

Further surveys planned as part of design process Drainage 95%

Greater volume of work than envisaged due to incomplete survey information

Jetting costs & associated TM for say 25% of total

£80,000 - £200,000

Allow for 5% of 17km replacement; 15% replacement already within estimate

£400,000

PCC 4.10

Anglesea Road footbridge bridge abutments - Bridge abutments require more input to allow receipt of deck than planned.

Further surveys planned as part of design process


90% Risk is that cost is e/o £200,000 allowances within base estimate

Mass concrete infill to existing

£70,000 - £100,000 Strengthening of existing abutments

£150,000

PCC 4.11

Retaining walls required to Winston Churchill Avenue footway cost more than allowance.

Further surveys planned as part of design process


30% Included within cost estimate but risk against allowances

£2,000 - £8,000 - £12,000

6. Stakeholder Management/Consultation

PCC 6.1

Significant complaints received as a result of highway network disruption during works

PCC have procedures for public communications during the works phases of schemes. Works will be undertaken at night, where the impact on traffic is expected to be severe.

All 20% Additional staff resourcess to respond to complaints

Minimal cost £1,000

Additional staff resourcess to respond to complaints - Moderate cost.

£2,000

Additional staff resourcess to respond to complaints - High cost.

£5,000

8. Construction

PCC 8.2a

Delay in diversion of known utilities, and changes to utilities in advance of works.

Adequate planning, liaison and undertaking of works in advance of main programme. Agreement of any utilities work before start of construction.

Drainage 20% Delays to scheme and additional costs if main works are delayed

2 months £80,000 4 months £160,000 6 months £240,000

PCC 8.2b

Delay in diversion of known utilities, and changes to utilities in advance of works.

Adequate planning, liaison and undertaking of works in advance of main programme. Agreement of any utilities work before start of construction.


20% Delays to scheme and additional costs if main works are delayed

2 months £80,000 4 months £160,000 6 months £240,000

21

PCC 8.7a


Advanced planning with Contractor, to agree TM proposals, in relation to known traffic flows, and any measures that can be implemented in event of breakdown.

Bridge 20%

Additional cost & delay if forced to change working practices post contract. Public reputation damaged.

Temporary diversions £10,000

Some works out of hours

£100,000

Working forced to be out of hours - assumed at 50% of costs

£750,000

PCC 8.7b


Advanced planning with Contractor, to agree TM proposals, in relation to known traffic flows, and any measures that can be implemented in event of breakdown.

Drainage 20%

Additional cost & delay if forced to change working practices post contract. Public reputation damaged.

Temporary diversions £10,000

Some works out of hours

£50,000

Working forced to be out of hours and/or mole digging

£150,000

QRA Ouputs

22

Annex E – Programme

Apr

-15

May

-15

Jun-

15

Jul-1

5

Aug

-15

Sep

-15

Oct

-15

Nov

-15

Dec

-15

Jan-

16

Feb-

16

Mar

-16

Apr

-16

May

-16

Jun-

16

Jul-1

6

Aug

-16

Sep

-16

Oct

-16

Nov

-16

Dec

-16

Jan-

17

Feb-

17

Mar

-17

Apr

-17

May

-17

Jun-

17

Jul-1

7

Aug

-17

Sep

-17

Oct

-17

Nov

-17

Dec

-17

Jan-

18

Feb-

18

Mar

-18

Eastern Road Waterbridge Feasibility Stage Consultation w ith key stakeholdersContract Preparation and Procurement (OJEU D&B)Design Stage Construction Works Works embargo during nesting season

Highway Drainage Maintenance / RenewalDetailed investigation of drainage condition on Portsdow n Hill Road (12 w ks + 50% float as dry w eather required = 18 w ks) Jet cleansing and CCTV follow up (17 w ks + 50% float = 27 w ks)Procurement (OJEU D&B) Replace drainage to adoptable standard (52 w ks, over 2 years)

Anglesea Road FootbridgeCompletion of Preliminary DesignPreliminary ConsultationSubmit to PlanningContract Preparation and ProcurementDetailed DesignConstruction

A2030 Cycle Improvements (London Road, Kingston Road and Fratton Road)Consult on Prelim Design - Ward MembersConsult on Prelim Design - ResidentsDetailed DesignMobilisation of Call Off ContractorConstructionSnagging

Winston Churchill Avenue pedestrian routeCompletion of preliminary designConsultation w ith Portsmouth Disability ForumDetailed Design Liaising w ith utility companies, etc.Mobilisation of Call Off ContractorTraff ic Management in placeSite clearance and preliminariesConstruction phase - streetlighting, retaining w all, guardrails, landscaping, footw ay construction.Snagging

23

Annex F – Letter of support from LEP

25

Annex G – Confidential email from University of Portsmouth

From: Bernie Topham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 September 2014 13:57 To: Lavers, Martin Cc: Fiona Bell Subject: Anglesea Crossing

Dear Martin, I'm pleased to be able to confirm that the University will contribute up to 20k towards the design and planning stage of the Anglesea crossing.

Once you have confirmed the specific costs, timescales etc and discussed the proposal with your Members, please can you contact me again and we can finalise the detail of our contribution.

I appreciate that the funding for the capital construction is not yet in place and that you may be approaching the University for a further contribution to this. We are not against the principle of a capital contribution but would need to have further discussions about this and to agree an appropriate level.

Please let me know if you need any further information.

Regards

Bernie Topham Chief Operating Officer University of Portsmouth Tel: 023 9284 3388 Fax: 023 9284 3400 Email: [email protected]

26



Date post:	26-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doque
View:	217 times
Download:	3 times

Local Highways Maintenance Challenge Fund Application Form · PDF fileLocal Highways...

Documents