The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
1240/5(5056)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. MARY
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 19th JANUARY 2010
Question
Given that in his answer to a written question on 1st December 2009, the Minister referred to EfW Client team" costs and Technical Adviser costs', could the Minister explain what exactly these headings of expenditure are?
Would the Minister advise members whether any claims of any kind have been made by the contractor or contractors against the Transport and Technical Services Department, as the client, or Fichtner, as the consultant project manager, and if so, can the Minister advise the Assembly what these claims are for and the progress being made in resolving them?
Answer
The "EfW Client Team" costs are administrative overheads and staff costs associated with the project management and administration of the Energy from Waste project. These costs include salaries, accommodation, training, subsistence, furniture & equipment, other fees, travel, computer hardware and computer software.
The "Technical Adviser costs" are costs associated with specialist technical advice related to the project and cover areas such as project development, planning, consenting, enabling works, Health and Safety Construction and Design Management and specification reviews.
So far the Contractor has not formally issued any claims.
There have however been several Contract Variations. Variations are changes to the contract, which are requested by the Purchaser, or suggested by the Contractor, and can increase or decrease the Contract price.
To date Variation Orders have been issued for:- Modifications to the bunker wall design
This variation is in relation to the height of the bunker wall. The intention had been for the front wall of the bunker to be at a height of + 1.5 metres from the tipping hall floor. Following the signing of the Energy from Waste contract, it became apparent that the Contractor considered that the front wall of the bunker was to be built at a level of + 6 metres from the tipping hall floor. This point was considered by the Project Manager, who must act independently on any dispute between the Purchaser and Contractor on matters of the contract. The Project Manager ruled that the Contractor's proposal drawings showing the wall at +6 metres had been deemed to be accepted when the Contract was signed and therefore the Purchaser was responsible for the cost of setting the wall height at + 1.5 metres.
Welded Valve connections
The Contractor offered a cost reduction to accept a change to the Specification to allow the Contractor to install welded valves in specified positions as opposed to flanged valves.
Bulky Waste Facility ancillary services
In order to provide the workforce with a canteen that has natural light and welfare provisions that were close to the working area in the Bulky Waste Facility (BWF) to improve efficiency, the Purchaser requested that the Contractor incorporate these in the design. Following investigation, it proved more cost effective to install these
amendments during construction, rather than retro-fitting them at a later date. Use of Gabions in retaining walls
The Contractor suggested that if a section of concrete wall on the perimeter of the site were replaced with gabions there would be a cost saving. The cost reduction and scope of work have been agreed and the Contractor has been asked to amend the design.
Hydrocarbon Contamination Removal
During the site excavation, the Contractors discovered a quantity of hydrocarbon contaminated soil in the area of the site that will form the access to the tipping apron when the site is complete. After consultation with the Regulator, the area was excavated and the contaminated ground sent for remediation. Although there was no requirement to use the Contractor for removal of the contaminated material, a scope of works and schedule of rates were agreed as offering good value for undertaking the excavation of the contaminated soil and reinstatement of the area excavated.