Issue - decisions

Background / Decision Summary:
Avison Young (AY) have been involved in the York Station Gateway programme since 2019 having worked closely with Ove Arup and their multi-disciplinary team in connection with the York Central Masterplan since early 2018.

AYs commission to date has been direct with CYC:

• 2018 to 2021: Additional services to support York Station Gateway linked to AYs York Central Project appointment via the Bloom framework.

• 2022 to 2025: Continuation of services dedicated to York Station Gateway via the CCS EMS Framework.

Through a variety of procurement changes and processes AY services have been retained on the programme to the present day with Ove ARUP and Turner & Townsend 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 overall programme, as well as providing Development Management support, AY provide Project Assurance, and Programme & Risk management 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 and its partners with the strategic oversight of the contract.

There is a team of AY 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 AY 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.