Variations for the Southeast London PFI Project

Report: 18
Date: 11 July 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

The MPS Resource Allocation Committee on 21st May gave approval for variations on the South East London project.

Specifically excluded from this approval were variations to introduce the new ‘corporate’ front office designs.

The recommendations in respect of the variations were placed before the MPA Co-ordination and Urgency Committee on 11 June 2002 and received qualified approval with expressed reservations over the exclusion of the new corporate front offices.

The Committee asked the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider this issue and present a paper to Members. The Resource Allocation Committee/Commissioners Senior Management Team have sought clarity on the changes that would result (Appendix 1) and recommend the new ‘corporate’ front office designs be included within the new police stations currently under construction at Bromley, Lewisham, Sutton and Deptford.

A. Recommendations

1. Members’ approval is sought to initiate the change control mechanism within the SEL contract and to instruct variations in respect of Changes to revised designs to incorporate the ‘corporate’ front office layouts;
2. If approved, to determine whether to fund the variations from a one off revenue contribution with contingent annual maintenance liabilities of:
   1. Option 1 front offices: a lump sum of £375,000 in 2003/4 with contingent maintenance liabilities of £35,000 (approx.) in 2003/4 and £69,000 (approx.) per annum in subsequent years;
   2. OR to fund through an increase in the annual charge approximating to: Option 2 front offices: £115,000 (approx.) in 2003/4 and £115,000 per annum in subsequent years; (Members should note that all costs are estimates requiring confirmation from the contractor; increases to the annual charge are subject to inflation (RPI) adjustment to half of increase in charge and a fixed escalator of 2½% on the balance)
3. To seek approval from Finance Committee for the Estates Sub Committee to agree detailed variations up to these amounts.

B. Supporting information

Variations

1. Authority is sought to obtain firm prices from, and subject to the final cost, issue variations to the Contractor in respect of revised designs that accord with the new ‘corporate’ design for the front office layouts at Bromley, Lewisham, Sutton and Deptford due to progressing common standards of accommodation.

2. The PFI contractor was provided with details of the former standard design for front offices and required to produce designs with similar characteristics with specific attention to robustness, security and durability. The contractor was also required to comply with current legislation included the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995.

3. The MPS Policy Review & Standards Directorate holds responsibility for policy/operational issues and with Property Services Department undertook a review of the former standard design for front offices for the following reasons:

• the impact of DDA.
• security issues arising from the civilianisation of front offices.
• management of the residual CAD room functions remaining after the implementation of C3I, i.e. left behind after the move to regional control centres.

4. This resulted in the new ‘corporate’ standard design. An example has been constructed at Lambeth and has been viewed by elected members and senior officers. Appendix 1 details the differences when compared with the contractor's current designs.

C. Financial implications

1. Preliminary estimates of those variation items known and identified above amount to a total cost of £375,000. The contractor will confirm the final cost after pricing detailed drawings.

2. The variations can be funded in two ways. Firstly, by the payment of a large one-off sum followed by small increases to the annual maintenance charge (Option 1). Or secondly, initially funded by the contractor who would then increase the annual unitary charge for the life of the contract (Option 2).

3. Indicatively, the financial implications associated with these alternatives are:

The annual charge element of either option is at 2002/3 prices and subject to a contractual year on year increase based on a formula using PFI and a fixed escalator. On current projections of inflation, this would indicate a year on year increase of between 2½% and 3½%.

4. The current budgetary provision for the unitary charge does not reflect the above increases. Accordingly the agreement of these proposals will increase revenue budget pressure in 2003/04 and subsequent years.

5. Members will be aware that in finalising the 2001/02 outturn position, a PFI contingency reserve has been created to support the funding of lump sums associated with contractual variations arising from PFI agreements. The reserve is £1m. Two variations to PFI agreements have already been authorized, totaling approximately £420,000. If this reserve was also used to fund the lump sum option associated with this proposal, a further £375,000 would be committed leaving a balance of £205,000 in the reserve.

D. Background papers

• Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee - 21 February 2002; 6 December 2001
• Co-ordination and Urgency Committee – 9 October 2002 and 11 June 2002

E. Contact details

Report author: Alan Croney, Director of Property Services, MPS.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

When this new ‘corporate’ standard is compared with the contractors current proposals the following differences have been identified:

1. Improved visibility throughout public areas;

• Glass screens to all waiting/counter areas, to enable all areas to be seen when entering front office, easily understood by public reducing stress and anxiety.

2. Improved Security and control for Station Reception Officers (SRO’s);

• Glass screens that ensure all public areas are monitored and secure.
• Automatic doors that are under direct control of SRO's therefore they control access to all areas.
• Screens over counters to protect staff from any attack.

3. Enhancements which although not necessarily a requirement of DDA have been introduced as a ‘corporate’ response to improve arrangements for disadvantaged customers:

• Full automation of all public access doors.
• Disabled facilities providing counters with lowered worktops
• Incorporation of tactile surfaces and notices for the blind.

4. Improved waiting process for the public;

• Screened waiting areas separate from counters promoting easily understood waiting sequence for public
• Incorporation of "ticket" system easily at busiest stations to avoid queue jumping and overcrowding at counters eliminated

5. Incorporation of new technology;

• Designed to incorporate flat screen monitors and provision for Plasma information screens likely to be a future development.
• Information screens as integral part of layouts.

6. New public image of MPS;

• New clean, bright design gives more friendly public image of MPS

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback