Issue - decisions

Background / Decision Summary:

Over Arup (Arup) have been involved in the YSG programme since its inception when they were part of the Multidisciplinary team appointed in October 2016 under the Homes & Communities Framework (Ref: AAAL: RQFF1W) which responded to the OJEU notice ref: 2014/5 020-0031462. This was for a multidisciplinary team of Design and Technical Consultants they were named as sub-contractor to Ove ARUP. This was at the time part of the York Central masterplan which included working with LNER and Network Rail to develop the area within the City Centre adjacent to the Railway Station.

Through a variety of procurement changes and processes Arup’s services have been retained on the programme to the present day. Along with Turner & Townsend (T&T) and Avison & Young they make up the professional team that has supported the Council on this ever-evolving, complex, multi-phase and critical project.

The programme has potentially several years to go when all packages are considered, with the current package of work (package 2) which is contracted to SISK having approximately 6 months to go.

Within this element of the programme, as well as providing Development Management support, Arup provide Design and Construction Professional Services as well as Planning and Environmental support.

In the nearly ten years that the professional team have been working on this project they have built up a huge knowledge base which is supporting the Council & SISK with the technical aspects of the contract.

There is a team of Arup employees who cover this work, and they have acquired an in-depth knowledge and understanding shared, over many years. This work, even to the experts is complex and exacting. This has led to a serious question about how a new consultant could pick this up and be as efficient and effective as the current consultants. Given the length of time Arup have been involved and the specialist knowledge, intellectual property they have amassed it is difficult to see how this can be absorbed or transferred to an alternative consultant at speed which is crucial to the success of this fast-moving programme.

If CYC were to tender this work and an alternative provider was successful the Contractor, could have cause to claim for additional costs from CYC associated with length of time any alternative consultant would take to review the financial contract position and understand the complexities the parties have dealt with to date.

Transitioning from one consultant to another would be extremely disruptive and this negative impact would inevitably lead to delays and possible financial claims on the contract.

As there is no opportunity for a clean break within the contract to allow for a new consultant to have the time to review, research and understand it. This could be extremely prejudicial to any new consultant and could even be seen as a complete waste of their time in terms of the effort involved in tendering when the existing consultant has the information and a ten-year history on the project as they would need to add within their tender return a good deal of time for getting ‘up to speed’. This additional amount of time would also outweigh any perceived saving from a competitive tender process.

Comments/Observations:
Due process and regulations have been observed.


Decision:
To advance with the award to Ove Arup