TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PARAGRAPHS 1.9 – 1.10 NOT INCLUDED ......................... 4
2.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 7
3.
SCHEME DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 8
4.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND BUSINESS NEED ........................................................... 11
5.
NET LINE ONE PERFORMANCE .................................................................................... 25
6.
ECONOMIC APPRAISAL AND COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS...................................... 30
7.
OPTIONS APPRAISAL AGAINST LOWER COST ALTERNATIVES ........................ 36
8.
PROCUREMENT STRATEGY........................................................................................... 39
9.
FORM OF CONTRACT AND KEY RISKS....................................................................... 46
10.
FINANCING PLAN AND AFFORDABILITY – NOT INCLUDED ................................ 52
11.
VALUE FOR MONEY– NOT INCLUDED ........................................................................ 55
12.
ACCOUNTING TREATMENT – NOT INCLUDED ......................................................... 56
13.
OUTPUT AND PERFORMANCE....................................................................................... 57
14.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ............................................................ 63
15.
RISK AND OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 65
16.
PROJECT PROGRAMME .................................................................................................. 66
17.
COMMITMENT OF SPONSORS AND STAKEHOLDERS............................................ 67
18.
STATUTORY PROCESSES ................................................................................................ 68
19
EVALUATION AND POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW………………………… 73
20.
OBC CRITERIA CHECKLIST…………………………………………………………… 76
Page 2 of 73
APPENDICES
1.
PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
2.
RESULTS OF 2003 MARKET TESTING EXERCISE – NOT INCLUDED
3.
SUMMARY OF 2006 FUNDERS' SOFT MARKET TESTING EXERCISE – NOT INCLUDED
4.
RESULTS OF 2008 MARKET TESTING EXERCISE – NOT INCLUDED
5.
PROCUREMENT APPROACH – COUNSEL’S OPINION– NOT INCLUDED
6.
DRAFT
CONCESSION
AGREEMENT
DEROGATIONS
REPORT
–
NOT
INCLUDED 7.
DRAFT CONTRACTUAL RISK MATRIX
8.
PROCUREMENT OF EXTENSIONS TO NET – COUNSEL’S OPINION – NOT INCLUDED
9.
CALCULATION OF TERMINATION PAYMENT– NOT INCLUDED
10.
KEY FUNDING ASSUMPTIONS – NOT INCLUDED
11.
KEY TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND BANKABILITY– NOT INCLUDED
12.
CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT FUNDING FOR NET PHASE TWO – NOT INCLUDED
13.
FINANCIAL MODEL BASE CASE– NOT INCLUDED
14.
QUANTITATIVE VALUE FOR MONEY ASSESSMENT– NOT INCLUDED
15.
VALUE FOR MONEY ASSESSMENT NARRATIVE– NOT INCLUDED
16.
NET PHASE TWO DRAFT CONCESSION SPECIFICATION– NOT INCLUDED
17.
NET PHASE TWO DRAFT PERFORMANCE MECHANISM– NOT INCLUDED
18.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
19.
RISK REGISTER
20.
PROJECT PROGRAMME
21.
PROGRAMME ENTRY APPROVAL ACCEPTANCE LETTERS
22.
STATEMENT ON CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION
23.
STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN
24.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING PLAN
25.
DRAFT BENEFITS REALISATION STRATEGY
26.
DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHECKLIST FOR CRITERIA TO BE COVERED IN AN OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE
Page 3 of 73
Page 4 of 73
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1
This Outline Business Case (OBC) sets out the case for the award of Conditional Approval to Nottingham Express Transit (NET) Phase Two, which would extend the existing and highly successful NET Line One light rail system into the south and west of the Greater Nottingham conurbation.
1.2
This OBC updates the March 2006 Skeleton OBC which was considered by the Department for Transport (DfT) prior to including NET Phase Two in the Local Authority Major Scheme Programme in October 2006. All necessary statutory processes have been completed and the Secretary of State announced his intention to make the NET Phase Two Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) on 30th March 2009.
1.3
NET Line One was successfully procured by Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, The Promoters’, in partnership under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and, as part of a fully integrated transport strategy, has delivered substantial strategic transport and economic benefits, and is now used by more than 10 million passengers per annum, taking some 3 million car journeys each year off congested city roads and significantly improving accessibility for many travellers. This success has been recognised at a national level. NET Phase Two would build on this achievement and expand this high quality, reliable, fully accessible and sustainable transport option such that it will serve some 30% of Greater Nottingham’s population. Accessibility will be greatly improved for local people, with NET Phase Two providing access to nearly 2000 workplaces including 20 of the 30 major employers within Greater Nottingham, helping to tackle congestion and supporting economic growth and regeneration. Notwithstanding current difficult economic conditions, both Promoters recognise the strategic importance of the scheme and remain committed to its early development.
1.4
Forecast increases in travel demand over the next 15 years will create service pressure on the local transport network, with only limited opportunities to increase the capacity of existing highway and public transport networks. Without the implementation of NET Phase Two, and as saturation of the road network nears, delays will increase until demand is suppressed by further congestion.
1.5
The NET Phase Two proposals have been developed following comprehensive options analysis and stakeholder engagement. NET Phase Two is identified by numerous crossagency local policies, strategies and plans as vital to the region's economic development and it is likely to be a key regional catalyst to recovery from the current recession. The
Page 5 of 73
proposals are technically and economically robust and project costs, revenues and economic benefits have been carefully updated since Programme Entry approval. When assessed in accordance with DfT appraisal guidance the project has a positive benefit to cost ratio of [2.47:1] which places it in the high value for money category. 1.6
NET Phase Two is strongly supported by large sections of the local business community because it will allow staff to travel efficiently to employment sites and support business competitiveness and help create a climate for investment. The fixed nature of tram infrastructure and its positive image helps to boost investor confidence and adds to Nottingham’s appeal as a destination for business to locate. Both NET Line One and NET Phase Two have been used extensively by private developers in publicity material aimed at residential and commercial development and NET Phase Two is close to the three main regeneration zones surrounding the City Centre.
1.7
NET Phase Two will contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions and improved air quality through encouraging increased use of public transport and a corresponding reduction in private car use.
1.8
There has been significant market testing at key stages of project development and there is considerable market interest in bidding. The proposed PFI procurement strategy has been carefully assessed and tailored with the aim of delivering best value for money and ensuring deliverability in the market.
1.9
Not Included.
1.10
Not Included.
1.11
The proposed Concession Agreement is based on Standardisation of PFI Contract Terms version 4 (SOPC4) amended where appropriate to reflect lessons learnt from the NET Line One contractual arrangements and sector specific procurement experience. The proposed Concession Specification has been developed in line with the same output based format as NET Line One and it is also proposed to utilise a performance regime and payment mechanism very similar to that which has proven effective in operation for NET Line One. A reference design, or ‘illustrative solution’, has been developed which will provide scope clarity and reduced risk for bidders.
1.12
The Promoters have invested, and continue to invest, financial and staff resources towards successful scheme development and delivery. A significant proportion of the Promoters' local funding requirement is planned to be realised from a Workplace Parking Levy
Page 6 of 73
which reflects the integrated and coherent approach adopted towards transport delivery. Elected Members are regularly updated on project progress and are supportive of the scheme. Key stakeholder support has been secured and public and stakeholder involvement has been maintained throughout scheme development. An experienced project team has been retained, supported by specialist consultants. A robust project management plan and project timetable is in place and project risks are actively managed. In March 2009, the project was subject to a 4ps Gateway 2 Review which concluded “that, except for external dependencies outside its control (e.g. Government approvals), the project is in an overall strong position to enter the next (procurement) stage�. . 1.13
The OBC has been developed in accordance with the latest guidance from the Office of Government Commerce, 4ps, Department for Transport and The Department of Communities and Local Government.
Page 7 of 73
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
On 31st March 2000, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council (the “Promoters”), awarded a concession contract under the Private Finance Initiative to Arrow Light Rail for the design, construction, financing, maintenance and operation of NET Line One, which consists of a light rail line linking Nottingham City Centre with Hucknall (with a spur to Phoenix Park). NET Line One has been in successful operation since March 2004 and currently carries more than 10 million passengers per annum, taking some 3 million car journeys each year off congested city roads and significantly improving accessibility for many travellers.
2.2
The intention of the Promoters has always been for NET Line One to be the first line of an integrated network. Following extensive feasibility work, proposals for developing additional lines, to Chilwell via the Queens Medical Centre (QMC) and Beeston and to Clifton via Wilford, have been taken forward. NET Phase Two will enhance connectivity between the key district centres of Beeston and Clifton and the City Centre, also serving large residential areas and other important destinations such as the QMC and the University of Nottingham. In addition, two new strategically located park and ride sites will be provided for easy and direct access from junctions 24 and 25 of the M1.
2.3
NET Phase Two was included in the Department for Transport (DfT) Local Authority Major Scheme Programme in October 2006. An application for a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) was made in April 2007 and a seven week public inquiry was held in November and December 2007 (with a short re-opening in October 2008). The Secretary of State announced his decision to make the Order on 30th March 2009. This Outline Business Case forms the basis of the Promoters’ application for Conditional Approval for NET Phase Two.
Page 8 of 73
3.
SCHEME DESCRIPTION
3.1
NET Phase Two will play a major role in the development of the Nottingham conurbation and will build on the success of NET Line One with two additional light rail lines into the south and west of the Greater Nottingham conurbation. NET Line One and the proposed NET Phase Two extensions are illustrated in figure 1 below. Figure 1 – NET Line One and NET Phase Two
Page 9 of 73
3.2
NET Phase Two is proposed as a double track tramway utilising low floor vehicles of similar specification to the existing NET Line One which runs from just north of Nottingham Station through Nottingham City Centre to Phoenix Park and Hucknall. Phase Two comprises two extensions serving the south western area of Greater Nottingham – one route to Chilwell via Queens Medical Centre (QMC) and Beeston, and one route to Clifton via Wilford. In summary, these comprise: •
0.5km (approx) shared section from Nottingham Station to Meadows Way/Queens Walk junction. This includes major new structures connecting to NET Line One and crossing over Nottingham Station, with provision of a new interchange stop with heavy rail services, forming a key part of the proposed Nottingham Station Hub development.
•
9.6km (approx) route to Chilwell. This route has 15 tram stops and serves the Meadows, ng2 business park, Lenton, QMC, University of Nottingham, Beeston, Chilwell and a major new 1400 space park and ride site off Toton Lane, close to M1 Junction 25.
•
7.3km (approx) route to Clifton. This route has 12 tram stops and serves the Meadows, Wilford, Compton Acres and Clifton, terminating at a major new 1000 space park and ride site accessed via the A453 and Nottingham Road serving local catchments and traffic from M1 Junction 24.
3.3
Both extensions provide significant lengths of tram route segregated from other traffic – generally either running alongside existing highways or on segregated corridors remote from existing highways. Where the tramway is proposed to run on street with other traffic, flows along these streets are generally relatively low. Operating conditions will therefore enable NET Phase Two to deliver a rapid and reliable transport service.
3.4
Once NET Phase Two is constructed, NET services will be operated across the whole of the extended network. In order to meet projected passenger demand, services will be provided 364 days a year from 6am to midnight with a minimum 10 minute peak period service from each terminus. To achieve this wider service provision additional NET vehicles will be provided and an enhanced operating regime established, including an expanded depot facility. Infrastructure will be provided to facilitate interchange with local bus and rail services with through ticketing also provided to maximise system and service integration.
Page 10 of 73
3.5
The Chilwell via Beeston route will bring major strategic benefits, as follows: •
A major enhancement in the quality and capacity of public transport provision in the western part of the conurbation.
•
Substantial park and ride facility serving junction 25 of the M1 and settlements to the west, including Stapleford, Sandiacre and Derby.
•
Serving the QMC, which is the main regional hospital, and the University of Nottingham. These are two of the largest generators of trips in the conurbation outside the City Centre.
•
Serving a large number of existing and proposed employment sites, including Southside, ng2, Lenton, Highfields Science Park and Beeston town centre.
•
Serving substantial residential areas, in particular the Meadows, Lenton, Beeston and Chilwell.
•
Serving major education sites such as University of Nottingham and Castle College.
3.6
The Clifton route will also bring major strategic benefits, including: •
A major enhancement in the quality and capacity of public transport provision in the south western part of the conurbation.
•
Substantial park and ride facility serving junction 24 of the M1, which is the main strategic link between Nottingham and the south, and a number of settlements in south Nottinghamshire and north west Leicestershire.
•
Serving and reinforcing Clifton centre, which is the only identified District Centre in the south west of the conurbation.
•
Serving employment sites, including Southside and the Nottingham and South Wilford Industrial Estate.
•
Serving substantial existing and proposed residential areas, including the Meadows, Wilford/Compton Acres and the very large Clifton Estate.
•
Serving major school sites including Farnborough School and two new secondary schools sites at Wilford.
Page 11 of 73
4.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND BUSINESS NEED
4.1
Nottingham is one of eight core cities, recognised by the Government as the most important drivers of the national economy outside London. It is an important centre for banking, professional services, education and retailing, and is one of six places to have received ‘Science City’ status. Jobs have been created through new businesses locating to the city providing opportunities for those living locally. Economic output is currently £18,300 per capita, higher than the national average and Greater Nottingham’s economy now exceeds £11.2bn a year.
4.2
In recognition of the national, regional and local policy context and the economic and transport challenges facing Nottingham, six key aims have been established for NET Phase Two as follows: •
To provide a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys in order to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network, including the A453 and A52.
•
To increase public transport capacity to accommodate growth in Greater Nottingham.
•
To improve accessibility and reduce social exclusion and realise further the investment in NET Line One.
•
To contribute to integrated public transport in Greater Nottingham and improved interchange.
•
To support land use policy, regeneration and neighbourhood transformation strategies in the City Centre, the District Centres of Beeston and Clifton, and other important employment and residential areas.
• 4.3
To extend the use of an environmentally friendly mode of transport.
Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council, the Joint Promoters of NET Phase Two, are the local transport authorities covering the proposed routes. There is no Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) within the East Midlands area.
4.4
The following sections outline how NET Phase Two contributes to achieving national indicators and the objectives of the Promoters as highlighted in the Local Transport Plan, Development Plans and strategic documents; and of the Greater Nottingham Partnership
Page 12 of 73
(GNP) which is one of seven sub-regional strategic partnerships formed by the Local Development Agency (EMDA). 4.5
Local Transport Plan
4.5.1
The Local Transport Plan (LTP) for Greater Nottingham is produced jointly by Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council.
4.5.2
The strategy contained within the Plan is well established, with the main thrust being to continue to improve access to the City Centre, surrounding District Centres and to key services and facilities by increasing public transport usage and containing traffic growth. The Plan identifies tackling congestion as a key priority, recognising that business competitiveness could be threatened, economic efficiency compromised, and future investment may be deterred if congestion continues to grow.
4.5.3
The delivery report published in July 2006 for the first LTP demonstrated excellent performance in terms of containing traffic growth below 1% and increasing the use of public transport within Greater Nottingham by 8%. The usage of NET Line One contributed significantly to an overall increase in public transport trips from 71.7 million in 2000/01 to 77.6 million in 2005/06. This is in stark contrast to a national decline in public transport patronage of 5% over a similar period.
4.5.4
The second LTP (2006 – 2011) includes a number of mandatory and local indicators which are the measures against which the success of the LTP will be judged. NET Line One has again contributed strongly to the main public transport usage indicator, as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Public Transport Usage indicator Core Indicator: Increase the use of public transport Measure: Use of public transport (bus and light rail) Baseline: 72.1m Year Target Actual Actual NET Line One Patronage Public Contribution (m) (m) Transport Usage 06/07
72.5
74.4
10.1
07/08
72.9
75.1
10.2
08/09
73.3
_
_
09/10
73.6
_
_
10/11
73.9
_
_
Page 13 of 73
4.5.5
Usage levels are already exceeding the target levels for the full plan period, and NET Line One has contributed over 13% of total journeys. Although NET Phase Two will not be in place during the period specified for this target, it will contribute an estimated 27% of total trips in 2016, and it is clear that an extended NET network will be necessary to achieve future targets, as outlined below.
4.5.6
As shown in Table 1, the second LTP forecasts growth in public transport usage in moving forward to 2011. Expectations are that growth in travel demand will continue beyond 2011 in response to long-term demographic change and economic growth. However, it appears that there have been some short-term responses to the current global economic circumstances, with evidence of small declines in local demand, both on the private and public transport networks. Such declines are not expected to be sustained over the medium to longer-term with the trajectory for demand growth expected to remain broadly unaltered for the next 15-20 years. The long-term need for transport network capacity is clear to ensure that a full recovery in the economy is not compromised or throttled back by transport constraints.
NET Phase Two will provide an important
element of the network provision that supports economic vitality in Greater Nottingham and the wider region. 4.5.7
Figure 2 illustrates the total transport supply (excluding NET Phase Two) against the forecast demand up to 2026. With the road network largely saturated and the existing public transport network severely constrained, a divergence between demand and supply, known as the transport gap, emerges around 2011 and widens further over time due to both demographic changes, including increases in the number of households in the city, and the need to maintain and enhance economic growth.
Page 14 of 73
Figure 2: Nottingham Transport Gap Analysis
4.5.8
Opportunities exist for marginal increases in the efficiency of existing highway and public transport networks in the short to medium term. Such further small improvements through the LTP will ‘buy’ some time in attempting to maintain network ‘supply’ against a background of further increases in ‘demand.’ However, without any other significant interventions, as saturation of the road network nears, delays will increase until demand is suppressed by further congestion. It is this suppression that threatens the economic vitality of the conurbation, as individuals or businesses conclude that it is too much effort to travel into Nottingham.
4.5.9
NET Phase Two will be the single most important measure in bridging the transport gap, because of the considerable increase in public transport quality and capacity it is expected to achieve. Around 30% of demand on NET Phase Two is expected to come from car or from park and ride with over 3 million car journeys per annum expected to be transferred from the urban road network in Nottingham. NET Phase Two will provide at least 50% of the additional transport network capacity required over the longer term to around 2030. The speed and reliability advantage held by trams will increase over time as traffic continues to grow and networks become more congested. The continued modernisation of the Nottingham economy will require robust and resilient transport infrastructure which will help attract high levels of inward investment.
Page 15 of 73
4.5.10 The reductions in car use as a result of introducing NET Phase Two will have most impact in the busy south west quadrant of the city. The three corridors served by NET Phase Two (the A453, A52 and A6005) are three of the busiest traffic routes in Nottingham and are key to maintaining the connectivity of Nottingham to the national road network, in particular the M1, A52 and A42/M42. 4.5.11 NET Phase Two is recognised in the LTP in terms of its importance for supporting policies for economic development. NET is seen as “one of the key factors for creating a climate of investment and the high quality tram service will maintain or enhance sustainable economic activity”. The LTP also recognises the important link between transport and land use planning, and NET Phase Two will be fully integrated with key developments such as Southside and Beeston Town Centre. 4.5.12 NET Phase Two is strongly aligned with four of the seven key objectives of the LTP which are tackling congestion, improving accessibility, better air quality and supporting regeneration.
NET Phase Two also supports the achievement of a further two key
objectives (improved road safety and enhancing quality of life). 4.5.13 Resources for the development of NET Phase Two are included in the LTP’s five-year delivery programme.
A comprehensive package of integrated transport measures,
including improvements to bus, cycling and walking infrastructure, and the Nottingham Station Hub development, is also included and will complement the introduction of NET Phase Two. 4.5.14 The proposals for the introduction of a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) within the City administrative area also feature within the Plan. This will encourage public transport usage and also help to meet the requirement that a significant proportion of the funding of major transport projects such as NET should be found locally. 4.6
Regional Plan
4.6.1
The current East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) states that the planning process should support the continued regeneration of Nottingham, and maintain and strengthen its economic, commercial and cultural roles.
4.6.2
The Core Objectives of the draft RSS are set out at policy 1. Objective (e) aims to improve economic prosperity, employment opportunities and regional competitiveness through the improvement of access to labour and markets, whilst objective (f) aims to
Page 16 of 73
improve accessibility to jobs, homes and services. Objective (f) specifically highlights promoting the use of high quality public transport in its implementation. 4.6.3
The RSS incorporates the Regional Transport Strategy (draft RTS), which sets out Regional and Sub-Area Transport Investment priorities. The main thrust of the draft RTS is the encouragement of an integrated approach to transport planning, promoting public transport and non-car modes of travel whilst reducing the need to travel by car. This is supported by the Regional Economic Strategy which recognises the importance of high quality transport infrastructure in meeting economic growth and regeneration objectives.
4.6.4
The RTS states (paragraph 3.4.29) that ‘Light rail [e.g. NET] and guided bus systems, coupled with other measures aimed at reducing traffic levels in urban areas such as road charging and parking levies, offers the opportunity to move large numbers of people into and within major urban areas in a sustainable and cost effective manner. Line One of the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) opened in March 2004 and Phase Two is under consideration.’
4.6.5
Light rail is specifically addressed in Policy 51 which states that ‘local authorities, public bodies and service providers should work in partnership to increase the level of bus and light rail patronage at the regional level towards the national target of 12% by 2010’ through a number of new measures, including developing opportunities for new light rail and guided bus services. The RSS Annual Monitoring Report for 2007/08 (published February 2009) identifies the contribution of NET Line One to public transport patronage in the region.
4.6.6
‘The regional partners within the Three Cities Sub-region (Derby, Leicester and Nottingham), recognise that the proposed expansion of the Nottingham Express Transit system will bring significant Sub-Regional benefits. The Regional Transport Investment Priorities identified in Appendix 6 (not included) of the RSS include the Nottingham light rail extensions to be implemented through the Local Transport Plan and PFI.
4.6.7
In the Regional Funding Allocation (RFA) advice submitted to the Government in February 2009,
NET Phase Two was identified as delivering significant equality,
productivity, safety and environmental benefits. An allocation has been made by the RFA to contribute to the NET Phase Two development costs.
Page 17 of 73
4.7
Greater Nottingham Partnership (GNP)
4.7.1
GNP is one of EMDA’s Sub-Regional Strategic Partnerships, representing the local authorities in the conurbation, public service agencies, voluntary organisations and community groups with a common interest in developing the economy of the Greater Nottingham area to the benefit of all.
4.7.2
In order to deliver the stated ambition to grow the local economy, the local authorities are working with GNP to develop and implement the Nottingham Development Strategy (NDS). The NDS sets out the economic vision and necessary actions to ensure the local community benefits from a growing and successful economy. The NDS seeks to build on Nottingham’s inclusion in the Core Cities group and its potential to be the driver to the region’s growth, principally by raising the competitiveness of the conurbation through a number of measures, including improved connectivity.
4.7.3
The Development Strategy sets priorities for investment as part of improving connectivity and the extensions to NET are one of a handful of projects identified that can contribute to achieving this aim. The integration of local transport improvements with the priorities identified by the NDS is recognised as a vital factor in ensuring the delivery of development objectives.
4.7.4
The Greater Nottingham Sub-Regional Investment Plan (2008 – 2011) identifies the investment priorities for each of the themes identified in the NDS. Under strategic priority 4 (Transport and Logistics) the Investment Plan ‘supports the development of NET Phase Two and the further expansion of the Nottingham tram network’ and GNP, in recognition of this support, have contributed £3.7 million to the development phase.
4.7.5
The transport vision for the conurbation has been developed through Greater Nottingham Transport Partnership (GNTP), which is the GNP’s Strategic Action Team for the theme of transport. The GNTP is a unique organisation including the local Councils, large local companies, Chamber of Commerce and representatives of the health sector. The GNTP runs the "Big Wheel", a highly acclaimed marketing and communication initiative that explains the conurbation's vision for a transport system that connects all forms of transport through interchange and inter-ticketing and encourages a shift away from the car to greener ways of travel. The promotion of NET Phase Two forms a critical part of the strategy to deliver this vision.
Page 18 of 73
4.8
Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Joint Structure Plan
4.8.1
The Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan, which was adopted in February 2006, establishes the scale and broad location of residential and employment development and sets out a policy framework, including the promotion of sustainable development and enhancement of transport.
4.8.2
The Structure Plan recognises the strengths of light rail and the environmental and economic benefits it can bring.
A policy is included which protects land for the
development of NET Phase Two. 4.9
Nottingham Local Plan
4.9.1
The Nottingham Local Plan ensures that the LTP policies and programmes are carried through in terms of spatial, land use and development matters and provides the policy framework for implementing the key strategies of the LTP. Extensions to NET and the transport hub at Nottingham Station form major components of the City’s transport strategy as described in the Local Plan. The Plan includes a policy which safeguards the land required for the development of NET Phase Two from other development.
4.10
Nottingham City Council
4.10.1 Council Plan 2008 – 2011: Measuring our success 4.10.2 The Council Plan (2008 – 2011) sets out the strategic priorities for the Authority. The Plan places an emphasis on Nottingham remaining a sustainable and attractive city, particularly through neighbourhood regeneration, and notes that its appeal is supported by a strong and growing economy. The Plan outlines the Council’s vision and commitment to improving services and making Nottingham better. 4.10.3 The Government introduced a new national indicator set from 1 April 2008 as part of the New Local Performance Framework, which replace the Best Value Performance Indicators. The Council Plan includes baselines and targets up to 2011 for the new national indicators. NET Line One will contribute significantly towards a number of the key targets, specifically the achievement of NI167 (Congestion – average journey time per mile during the morning peak) and NI177 (Local bus and light rail passenger journeys originating in the authority area). Similar indicators are currently monitored through the Local Transport Plan, with NET Line One in particular contributing strongly to the public transport indicator (see paragraphs 4.5.4 and 4.5.5 above). NET Phase Two would need to be implemented to achieve similar medium term indicators.
Page 19 of 73
4.10.4 The five themes within the Council Plan are; Choose Nottingham, Respect for Nottingham, Transforming Nottingham’s Neighbourhoods, Supporting Nottingham People and Serving Nottingham Better. 4.10.5 The contribution of NET Phase Two towards successfully implementing the five Council Plan themes is summarised below: 4.10.5.1 Choose Nottingham – Being responsible for the heart of the country’s sixth biggest city conurbation, the City Council understands that large cities provide a level of quality and choice for sustainable growth, employment and life quality that smaller places cannot match. An emphasis is placed on delivering a better Nottingham through planning and delivering improved infrastructure and the Council Plan identifies NET Phase Two as an important milestone in increasing the use of public transport and connecting more people to the network. 4.10.5.2 NET Phase Two is strongly supported by large sections of the local business community because it will allow staff to travel efficiently to employment sites, and it will improve the efficiency of supply chains, improve access to markets and support business competitiveness. 4.10.5.3 The fixed nature of tram infrastructure and its positive image helps to boost investor confidence and adds to Nottingham’s appeal as a destination for business to locate. There are strong indications that NET is supporting investment decisions with significant development taking place alongside NET Line One. Both NET Line One and NET Phase Two have been used extensively by private developers in publicity material aimed at residential and commercial development. 4.10.5.4 NET Phase Two will provide important links to employment for local people, with access provided to approximately 1270 workplaces (located partly or entirely within 800m of a proposed tram stop) within the City to which over 45,000 employees commute. 20 of the 30 major employers within Greater Nottingham are within 800 metres of existing or proposed NET tramstops. 4.10.5.5 Three key regeneration zones which will act as a focus for new investment have been established to the south of the city centre. These zones are underperforming areas located between the prosperous City Centre and more disadvantaged inner city areas. NET Phase Two operates through the heart of
Page 20 of 73
the Southside Zone, and within walking distance of the Waterside and Eastside Zones. 4.10.5.6 Respect for Nottingham - seeks to make Nottingham a safer and cleaner city with a strong sense of citizenship, where people respect each other, their environment and their surroundings. 4.10.5.7 NET Phase Two will assist in tackling transport related crime through the provision of safety measures such as high resolution lighting, Help Points, and CCTV at tramstops and on vehicles. 4.10.5.8 NET Phase Two will contribute to a reduction in CO2 emissions and improved air quality through encouraging increased use of public transport and a corresponding reduction in private car use. Trams are non-polluting at the point of use and this is beneficial in areas such as the City Centre where concentrations of some pollutants may already be high. 4.10.5.9 Transforming Nottingham’s Neighbourhoods – seeks radical change in many parts of the City to ensure lasting improvements in the quality of life for people living in some of our most deprived neighbourhoods and an emphasis is placed on the physical transformation of neighbourhoods. 4.10.5.10 NET Phase Two serves a number of the most deprived areas, including the Meadows, which is within the worst 3% of deprived wards in England, and parts of the Clifton Estate, which are within the worst 8%. NET Phase Two will improve opportunities from these areas to access work, learning, healthcare, retail, leisure and essential services. 4.10.5.11 NET Phase Two will act as a catalyst for improvements in local neighbourhoods. The City Council Strategic Regeneration Frameworks (SRF’s) and Neighbourhood Plans take forward the Councils’ proposals to transform local neighbourhoods. The NET Phase Two alignment will have a major impact on how communities in the Meadows and Southside area change in the future. 4.10.5.12 NET Phase Two will also contribute to public realm and environmental enhancements in local neighbourhoods. An Urban and Landscape Design Statement has been prepared for the scheme and this has highlighted environmental
enhancement
opportunities
with
major
streetscape
improvements in particular in the Meadows and at Clifton.
Page 21 of 73
4.10.5.13 Supporting Nottingham People – this theme focuses on improving services for children and young people, adults in need and older people, and encourages people to be active and healthy. 4.10.5.14 For younger people in particular, the scheme provides good access to a range of educational establishments, including the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University, and several schools and colleges in the City. The introduction of new diplomas covering a range of vocational skills from September 2008 will require increased mobility for 14 – 19 year olds and NET Phase Two will play its role in improving the accessibility of training centres. 4.10.5.15 The scheme will play an important role in assisting vulnerable groups within Nottingham. For example, the NET catchment analysis shows that within 500m of the proposed NET Phase Two routes there are some 5,500 retiree households with 41% not having access to a car and 2,100 lone parent households with 53% without a car available. The improved accessibility provided by NET Phase Two will considerably assist the quality of life for people along the routes. 4.10.5.16 NET Phase Two will encourage exercise through increased use of public transport, by walking to and from tram stops, and it serves a number of significant leisure destinations, including Highfields Park, Nottingham Tennis Centre and the Victoria Embankment, making these areas more accessible for City residents. 4.10.5.17 NET Phase Two will also provide good links to health services, operating through the site of the Queens Medical Centre, and directly linking into a recently opened day treatment centre, and serving the Clifton Cornerstone, which is a brand new flagship Joint Service centre located in the heart of Clifton. 4.10.5.18 Serving Nottingham Better – seeks to improve the way the Council works and the way services are provided to customers. A residents’ survey of Council services undertaken by MORI in 2007 found that 87% were satisfied with the performance of NET Line One, making this amongst the most popular services provided by the City Council.
Page 22 of 73
4.10.5.19 Managing the Line One contract and delivering NET Phase Two are service priority actions for the Council as identified in the Environment and Regeneration Strategic Service Plan. 4.11
City Capital Strategy and Asset Management Plan.
4.11.1 The Capital Strategy outlines the City Council’s approach to investment over three years (2008 – 2011). The Plan reflects the Council’s vision and strategic priorities and identifies the key investment requirements necessary to assist in the delivery of service improvements as set out in the Council Plan. The priorities are continually reviewed to ensure they are aligned with identified need and provide value for money. The Capital Strategy recognises that major investment is needed in high quality public transport, and states that the City Council is working with its partners across Greater Nottingham to drive economic growth and connectivity, and it supports the development of NET Phase Two. 4.11.2 The Asset Management Plan (AMP) sets out the framework within which the City Council will manage its fixed assets over the period to 2009. The AMP was written in 2006 and was refreshed in 2008. The AMP is linked to the City Council corporate objectives by identifying specific and measurable asset management activities. The AMP identifies the need to maintain possession of sites for NET Phase Two and to prepare for Compulsory Purchase activity when the project commences. 4.12
Nottinghamshire County Council
4.12.1 Strategic Plan 2006 - 2010: All together better 4.12.2 The County Council Strategic Plan ‘All together better’ sets out the Strategic Framework for 2006 – 2010. The Strategic Plan is built around a vision for Nottinghamshire to be a great place to live and work, with the County Council playing an effective role in addressing key challenges and leading the community by putting customers at the heart of everything that is done, delivering excellent but affordable public services and helping to develop strong communities across the County. 4.12.3 The Strategic Plan has a number of commitments and targets against which to measure performance, which are a mixture of Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI’s) set by Central Government (and were replaced by National Indicators from 1 April 2008) and new local measures. The relevant performance indicators relating to increasing public transport use and tackling congestion are the same as those identified for the City Council
Page 23 of 73
Plan and which are monitored through the LTP (see paragraphs 4.5.4 and 4.5.5 above). Whilst NET Phase Two will not be implemented in time for existing targets, it will significantly contribute to similar future targets. 4.12.4 The Plan identifies five key objectives for the Council to deliver; safer and stronger, healthier, learning and earning, cleaner and greener and travel and access. The contribution of NET Phase Two towards successfully implementing the Strategic Plan objectives is summarised below: 4.12.4.1 Safer and stronger - Key priorities include improving the safety of communities and reducing the number of deaths and serious accidents on Nottinghamshire’s roads. NET Phase Two will incorporate safety measures into the design, including high resolution lighting, and Help Points and CCTV at tramstops and on vehicles. The reduction in traffic levels as a result of modal shift to NET Phase Two will also make a small contribution to future accident reduction targets. 4.12.4.2 Healthier – Seeks improved health and well being for people. NET Phase Two will play an important role in encouraging people to be active through greater use of public transport by walking to and from tramstops, and will provide enhanced access to a number of major leisure destinations in the conurbation, and will provide a high quality link to major health services. 4.12.4.3 Learning and earning – Key objectives are to help people into work and increase the proportion of people in employment; and to increase the number and range of opportunities for learning. As well as improving access for County residents to the City Centre and other major employment districts within the City, the County Council estimate that NET Phase Two would serve over 600 work places within 800 metres of the tramstops in the Beeston and Chilwell area. The scheme will also operate close to a number of schools and colleges within the County, including the new buildings for the Becket and Nottingham Emmanuel Schools which are being constructed as part of a £69 million redevelopment. A tram stop will be located within the grounds of Castle College in Chilwell. 4.12.4.4 Cleaner and greener – Key priorities include a reduction in CO2 emissions and maintaining vibrant district centres and local centres through improvements to the surrounding physical infrastructure. NET Phase Two will contribute to the reduction in CO2 emissions in the local area, being non-polluting at the point of
Page 24 of 73
use. NET Phase Two will also provide environmental enhancement opportunities in Beeston town centre and along Chilwell High Road in particular. In Beeston, NET Phase Two has been the catalyst for a major redevelopment proposal by Broxtowe Borough Council, including enhanced retail
provision,
residential
accommodation,
and
other
commercial
developments. Beeston is the largest local centre in the conurbation and the proposed redevelopment is immediately alongside the tram route. 4.12.4.5 Travel and access – This theme aims to help people to travel more easily and be able to access all services they need. A particular focus is on work to tackle congestion and its associated pollution and to widen transport choice, including public transport. The emphasis on travel and access in the Strategic Plan reflects the importance the County Council places on achieving an efficient and effective transport network which provides people with the accessibility they need. NET Phase Two will link main areas of population and provide improved access to and between a number of important locations and a wide variety of activities, and nearly 30% of the population within Greater Nottingham will be within 800 metres of a tramstop, with access to much of the wider area provided through park and ride and existing and potential bus feeder services. 4.13
County Council Capital Strategy and Asset Management Strategy
4.13.1 The County Council has agreed a Medium Term Financial Strategy and Capital Strategy for 2006/07 to 2009/10. The fundamental principles of that strategy are still relevant and are endorsed annually. They seek to enhance the permanent facilities for use by the community and to improve and maintain existing assets and replace those that are no longer fit for purpose. All new schemes are assessed in terms of their contributions to the Strategic Plan. The Council is developing a 10 year Capital Strategy. NET Phase Two makes a strong contribution to the Council’s objectives and is included within the approved Capital Programme. 4.13.2 The County Council Asset Management Plan is being rewritten this year and will support the Council’s key objectives including support for the NET Phase Two programme and the acquisition of the sites required to deliver the project.
Page 25 of 73
5.
NET LINE ONE PERFORMANCE
5.1
Background
5.1.1
NET Line One, connecting Hucknall to Nottingham Station with a branch to Phoenix Park, has been in operation since March 2004. The system is fully accessible, delivers high levels of reliability, has integrated ticketing and extensive park and ride provision, all of which supports high levels of usage. It has delivered against all its key objectives. The network carries around 10 million passengers per annum taking some 3 million car journeys each year off congested city roads and significantly improving accessibility for many travellers. Around 30% of passengers are estimated as having transferred from their cars or use the extensive park and ride facilities. NET Line One has, therefore, been acknowledged as a success, that clearly supports development in the corridor it serves, both commercial and residential.
5.1.2
The development and operation of NET Line One has led to the scheme being awarded a number of accolades, including: •
Public Private Finance Awards 2002, Best Transport Project over £20m;
•
Municipal Journal Achievement Awards 2005, Public Private Partnership Achievement of the Year;
•
Public Private Finance Awards 2006, Best Operational Transport Project;
•
4Ps Excellence in Local Government PPP, Regeneration Award for transforming the physical environment for the benefit of local citizens; and
•
UK Bus Awards 2007, Light Rail Operator of the Year.
5.2
National Audit Office Report into Light Rail
5.2.1
NET Line One opened shortly after the National Audit Office report on Light Rail ‘Improving Public Transport in England Through Light Rail’ was published in 2004. This report reviewed the development and implementation of light rail proposals in the UK and highlighted some areas where improvement could be achieved. These have been addressed with the implementation of NET Line One. In particular; •
poor integration with other transport modes – NET Line One, however, operates with a network of dual purpose feeder bus services and with integrated fares available between operating companies. NET Line One interchanges with three rail stations and through fares are available. An all operator ‘travelcard’ type
Page 26 of 73
ticket is available for use in Nottingham covering bus, tram and local rail services; •
poor park and ride provision – in contrast NET Line One has over 3100 park and ride spaces at five sites, significantly more provision than all other systems;
•
segregation from and priority over traffic – with high levels of segregation and close cooperation between the Promoters and the highway authority, NET has delivered very high levels of operating reliability; and
•
poor financial performance of some systems, discouraging interest in further light rail development – farebox revenue for NET Line One has exceeded original base case expectations.
5.2.2
The NET Line One operator acknowledged that it was “encouraged by the National Audit Office report into tram systems, whose main recommendations have already been implemented in developing the first line of the Nottingham Express Transit”.
The
Promoters for NET Phase Two also welcomed the report noting that NET Line One and NET Phase Two proposals were fully consistent with the good practice identified in the report and the recommended actions to make tram schemes viable and a robust commercial structure are already in place. 5.3
Planning and Delivery of NET Line One
5.3.1
Forecasting and appraisal work, focused around the DfT’s New Approach to Appraisal framework, was undertaken during the 1990s with a view to supporting a decision to award funding and ultimately contract closure for NET Line One in early 2000. A monitoring and evaluation programme was used to understand and provide feedback on both development processes and post-implementation outcomes and impacts of NET Line One.
5.3.2
The Promoters’ experiences of the development of NET Line One identified a number of successes and other areas requiring attention. The PFI contract structure, for example, was seen as a success and protected the public sector from cost overrun, whilst design delays and protracted approvals from the various statutory bodies proved challenging for the Contractor and resulted in some late redesign. This experience has enabled a number of key lessons to be learnt that have informed the approaches adopted for the development and delivery of NET Phase Two. An example of action taken as a result of feedback from NET Line One is the letting of a design development contract to provide a
Page 27 of 73
greater level of design understanding than for NET Line One which should reduce the delivery risk and resulting cost premium for NET Phase Two (see section 8.3 below). 5.3.3
NET Line One has been shown to deliver against the key project and wider objectives by: •
carrying over 10 million passengers per annum, including approximately 30% of users, approximately 3 million journeys per annum, that have transferred from car to NET or use NET park and ride;
•
providing a step change in the development of high quality park and ride facilities to maintain and enhance sustainable access for commuters to Nottingham. NET Line One offers over 3100 spaces with overall occupancy rates of around 80%. NET Phase Two will develop the park and ride network to provide a further 2400 spaces and cover more of the key approach routes to Nottingham, with NET Park and Ride sites serving all three accesses from the M1 to the city; Junctions 24 to 26 using the A453, A52 and A610 respectively.
•
providing a very reliable system, with performance against the Concessionaires’ Performance Management System targets of around 99%, high levels of customer satisfaction and an industry reputation of the highest standing;
•
improving accessibility for travellers, including those that face barriers using existing bus and rail services. Around 10% of existing NET users have some mobility difficulties ranging from those with a permanent disability to parents or carers with young children in pushchairs.
Significant benefits have been
observed for such groups with surveys identifying considerable increases in social interaction and resulting in positive social and quality of life impacts. •
enhancing local interchange facilities by providing a number of new or restructured bus routes, including feeder bus services from isolated outer areas to the tram network.
In addition to physical provision, interchange has been
enhanced by providing multi-modal ticketing on the system, including the Nottingham-wide all mode/operator ‘Kangaroo’ ticket, joint ticketing between NET Line One and principal bus operators and through ticketing from the national rail network under the ‘PlusBus’ initiative; •
expanding public transport network capacity, efficiency and market share, enabling increased sustainable access to Nottingham city centre to support and enhance economic activity. The transport capacity provided by NET Line One
Page 28 of 73
has significantly expanded public transport provision, with an increase in the number of peak time journeys approaching the city centre and the share being made by public transport increasing from less than 35% to well over 40%; •
supporting housing and commercial development in the NET Line One corridor. There is evidence to suggest that the system has contributed to higher levels of development activity observed in some areas of Nottingham. Outside the city centre, around 50% of completed residential dwellings granted planning permission since 2000 were in the tram corridor though less than 30% of dwellings are located in this area. Developers have used NET Line One as a key selling point in marketing their developments and have suggested that they are attracting higher value tenancies. NET Phase Two is already being used in a similar way to market the prestigious ng2 business park, being featured in key sales literature and publicity;
•
contributing to increasing property values by increasing the attractiveness of residential properties in the corridor.
An analysis of over 85,000 housing
transactions since 2000 suggest that NET Line One has made a positive contribution to above-average house price growth in the corridor compared to the rest of Nottingham. Between 2000 and 2007 house prices in the NET corridor increased by nearly 130% whereas prices rose by 115% in the rest of the city. Such movement in prices in the NET corridor supports the anecdotal reports from estate agents in the area. House prices for the year to August 2008 fell relative to 2007, with declines in both the NET corridor and in the rest of the City but with a large differential remaining. •
acting as a catalyst for development in Nottingham City Centre, with major developments coming on line following the introduction of NET; e.g. closure of a car park and redevelopment as a hotel adjacent to the Trent University tram stop, major redevelopment of the new Lace Market Square at the Lace Market tram stop, including a further hotel development, and the forthcoming major expansion of the Broadmarsh Shopping Centre to include a new integrated tram stop. The Prime Retail Report for 2004 suggested that ‘since the launch of Nottingham’s light rail tram scheme, retailing performance has already improved’;
•
supporting the wider image of Nottingham as a dynamic ‘continental city’. The widespread use of NET as an image of the City-Region is beneficial in attracting external investors.
Page 29 of 73
5.3.4
Development of NET Phase Two has been informed by both the clear successes of Line One and lessons from the few areas where NET Line One has not met expectations; including very localised noise issues. Fundamental ‘success’ features include the need for high capacity well located park and ride facilities, high levels of service reliability and system accessibility in its widest sense to ensure benefit delivery.
5.3.5
In giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons in response to the National Audit Office Report, David Rowlands, then Permanent Secretary at DfT acknowledged Nottingham “got everything just about right... with proper park and ride provision, vehicles that work, well integrated with the local bus system, and so on.” He went on to suggest that he “cannot see any reason in principle why the Nottingham system should not be expanded.”
5.3.6
Overwhelmingly, NET Line One has been a success. As a transport system NET Line One has demonstrated high levels of performance and provided a renewed market and policy confidence that well configured light rail systems can meet the challenging expectations set for them both locally and nationally. More importantly from a wider policy perspective, NET Line One has made a significant visible contribution to meeting the transport and economic objectives of Nottingham, providing a step change in transport provision and the support that transport offers to the economy and wider well being of Nottingham.
5.3.7
The Promoters, in response to this success, have a clear appetite to develop the network further and widen the delivery of benefits for both local populations and for the Greater Nottingham conurbation in its important role as regional centre of the East Midlands.
Page 30 of 73
6.
ECONOMIC APPRAISAL AND COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
6.1
The performance of NET Phase Two has been considered within the DfT's New Approach To Appraisal (NATA) framework, but with subsequent reference to the emerging thinking on refreshing the appraisal framework to address the five goals set out by DaSTS, Developing a Sustainable Transport System: Support Economic Growth; Tackle Climate Change; Contribute to Better Safety, Security and Health; Promote Equality of Opportunity; and Improve Quality of Life and a Healthy Natural Environment. The methodology used is in line with the Treasury guidance Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (The Green Book).
6.2
The assessment reported below is based on the current NATA approach. The remapping of the appraisal to DaSTS is most unlikely to significantly change the assessment of the performance of NET Phase Two and could strengthen the case in supporting refreshed objectives and those set out in the Sir Rod Eddington and Sir Nicholas Stern reviews.
6.3
In addition to contributions to meeting the national objectives, NET Phase Two supports local and regional objectives, especially with respect to enhancing network capacity and efficiency, congestion relief and by providing sustainable alternatives to the private car. These transport benefits are essential in maintaining and providing for economic expansion of the area, especially in relation to growth agendas, such as the need to accommodate housing growth. Further considerations include an increasing emphasis on environmental priorities.
Driven by current allocations, increases in the number of
households in Greater Nottingham to 2021 are expected to be over 12% with over 20% more journeys being made on the transport system as a whole. NET Phase Two will increase the ability of the transport networks to support this strong growth and meet future challenges, by offering a high quality, high capacity, reliable and environmentally friendly public transport service. 6.4
NET Phase Two will also reinforce and expand the benefits delivered by NET Line One, particularly by enhancing local accessibility, offering strong support to meeting social inclusion objectives and acting as a catalyst to community regeneration.
6.5
The principal impacts of NET Phase Two have been outlined in earlier sections of this OBC, set out against the policies of the Promoter Councils. Many of these policies closely equate with the current NATA objectives, providing significant consistency when the impacts of NET Phase Two are set out against the NATA objectives, as follows;
Page 31 of 73
•
Environment – the NET Phase Two extensions will generate environmental impacts from general reductions in traffic flows arising from modal transfer direct to NET or via extensive park and ride provision. This will result in a small but significant reduction in carbon dioxide and other emissions, taking into account those emissions generated by the operation of the system. The scheme will have a number of localised adverse impacts, primarily on residents adjacent to the NET alignments with respect to noise and visual amenity, but also in relation to biodiversity and townscape character.
Opportunities exist for mitigation, with
significant works planned and committed in key or sensitive locations. However, some localised residual adverse impacts will remain. •
Safety and Security – the NET Phase Two extensions will be expected to generate safety benefits arising from reduced traffic flows generating small changes in accident exposure and numbers of accidents. Personal security benefits will be realised due to active and passive security provision and best practice design on the NET vehicles and in accessing the system at NET stops and in the vicinity of the stops;
•
Economy – the NET Phase Two extensions are expected to generate significant monetised economic benefits, through a combination of public transport, park and ride and road user benefits. NET Phase Two will also improve journey reliability for both public transport users and road users, and by providing a step change in public transport provision and network capacity it will assist in maintaining and enhancing sustainable economic activity in Nottingham and contribute to regeneration in deprived areas and local district centres.
•
Encouraging more companies to invest in an area through improved accessibility may result in wider economic benefits, such as agglomeration benefits and competition effects. Although these benefits are not included in the monetised appraisal, they will generate significant benefits for Nottingham. Agglomeration benefits capture productivity benefits from companies being located in a similar area thereby reducing production costs. Competition effects result from an increase in economic benefits to companies due to transport improvements because of increasing returns to scale. NET Phase Two will serve catchment areas including nearly 2,000 workplaces within Greater Nottingham.
•
Accessibility – improvements will be facilitated by NET Phase Two through the creation of new links between communities and key destinations, including main
Page 32 of 73
education sites, the region’s main hospital, the QMC, and Nottingham City Centre. The expanded network will also offer cross-city movements onto NET Line One, improving the range of travel destinations available to some of the deprived areas on NET Line One and serving a number of the key district centres in Greater Nottingham.
Expanded transport links will provide residents with greater
accessibility to employment and businesses with increased accessibility to potential workforces, thus reducing the unemployment rate in Nottingham. The improved physical accessibility to NET Phase Two trams and stops will also deliver quality of life benefits for some user groups, such as the mobility impaired, similar to those observed on NET Line One. The expanded NET system will provide high quality alternatives for road users, either for all of their journey or by providing access via park and ride facilities. •
Integration – NET Phase Two will foster further public transport integration within Nottingham, providing through services onto NET Line One and linking key interchanges for rail, local bus and, through the provision of extensive park and ride facilities, to the road network. By increasing the efficiency of the public transport network, NET Phase Two provides an opportunity to release City Centre bus stop capacity to facilitate improvements in bus frequencies in other corridors or for reuse in support of other policy objectives, such as environmental or economic regeneration. The proposals are strongly integrated with current land use planning and other policies and build on the successful investment in NET Line One.
6.6
The key patronage and economic appraisal impacts of NET Phase Two are set out in Table 2 below. NET Phase Two is programmed to open in August 2014. The forecast demand figures are shown for the first full year of operation and for a mature demand level expected around 3-4 years after opening around 2017/18 as travellers change their behaviour in response to the new service. Also shown is the forecast demand in 2021/2 and out-turn figures for the first year of NET Line One.
Page 33 of 73
Table 2: NET Phase Two Patronage Summary Table NET Line One
2004/5 opening year
Phase Two 2014/5 1st full operating year
2017/8 ‘mature’ demand
2021/2
Annual Patronage (millions of passengers) -
peak periods
2.9
4.0
5.6
5.9
-
off-peak periods
5.6
5.5
7.6
8.0
-
total
8.5
9.5
13.2
13.9
Of which: -
ex public transport
65%
63%
61%
59%
-
mode/distribution shift
~10%
16%
19%
20%
-
park and ride
~20%
15%
15%
16%
-
trip generation
5%
5%
5%
5%
6.7
The economic performance of NET Phase Two is shown in Table 3 using a compression of the standard Transport Economic Efficiency, Public Accounts and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits tables. The Table identifies the non-exchequer impacts, primarily transport user and business impacts, and exchequer or public accounts costs; consisting of costs to both central and local government.
The overall impacts are
presented as a net present value based on the cost and benefit streams, for simplicity using a 0% optimism bias premium. 6.8
The benefit to cost ratios are presented using a range of optimism bias premiums applied to scheme costs. This range effectively sets out the most and least optimistic costs for the project (6% and 40% respectively). Also shown is a mid-point value (23%) and the Promoters’ assessment of the optimism bias premium based on an ongoing series of mitigation reviews (18%). In considering its appropriate position within the likely range it is important to recognise that NET Phase Two is relatively well developed having progressed through Programme Entry approval in October 2006 and the Transport and Works Act Order process and public inquiry in 2007.
The Secretary of State for
Transport approved the NET Transport and Works Act Order on the 30th March 2009. 6.9
The assessment of enhanced mitigation also follows significant further work that has been undertaken since Programme Entry approval; including reworking and refining the
Page 34 of 73
project cost estimates and project revenues. This has been supported by a Design Service Contract which has developed the scheme design in high risk areas, including producing part warranted designs. Additionally ongoing risk management activity has included updating the Quantified Risk Assessment and confirmation of Capital Cost Inflation assumptions underpinning the scheme cost estimates.
Further detailed work on
procurement options has taken place and additional market testing has reconfirmed the industry appetite for the scheme. 6.10
The economic appraisal summary is based on a 60 year appraisal framework expressed in 2002 market prices and using the latest set of out-turn cost estimates.
Table 3: Summary of Economic Performance (compressed TEE/AMCB table) ÂŁm PV 2002 prices
Total
Public
Park & Ride
Highway
Transport User Benefits -
Consumers
725
357
160
208
-
Businesses
405
94
37
275
1130
451
197
482
Sub-total Monetised Environmental Benefits Total (=PV Benefits)
10 1140
Public Accounts -
Local Government
-101
-101
0
-
Central Government
-303
-276
-27
-404
-377
-27
Total (=PV Costs)
Net Present Value (NPV) - with 0% optimism bias
736
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) - with 0% optimism bias
2.82
- with 6% optimism bias
2.69
- with 18% optimism bias
2.47
- with 23% optimism bias
2.38
- with 40% optimism bias
2.14
Note: figures may not add due to rounding
6.11
Based on Appraisal Value for Money guidance issued by DfT it is possible to provide an assessment of the overall Appraisal Value for Money for NET Phase Two.
With
Page 35 of 73
monetised benefit to cost ratios in excess of 2.0 with appropriate optimism bias premiums, NET Phase Two can be placed in the High Value for Money category. Although some residual localised environmental impacts remain, the additional nonmonetised benefits of the proposals, in terms of wider economic benefits and improved accessibility and integration confirm the placement of NET Phase Two in the High Value for Money category.
Page 36 of 73
7.
OPTIONS APPRAISAL AGAINST LOWER COST ALTERNATIVES
7.1
The development of the NET Phase Two proposals has been undertaken within a framework that has sought to consider, in some detail, alternative options and technologies. The assessment has included processes similar to those suggested by the Commission for Integrated Transport in their Affordable Mass Transit Guidance in using a staged process to filter down from a wide range of options to a more focused set analysed to a similar level of scrutiny.
7.2
Following early consideration of a wide range of strategy and technology options, the performance of the NET Phase Two proposals was tested against a range of lower cost alternatives. These included:•
improvements to the local rail network;
•
enhanced bus priority measures; and
•
provision of a high quality bus network in the Clifton and Beeston / Chilwell corridors based around provision of a largely dedicated alignment similar to the NET Phase Two proposals.
7.3
The assessment of NET Phase Two and the high quality bus alternatives included appraisals of each option. Assessments were also made of the key practicality and acceptability issues constraining the delivery of alternative options. This analysis was extensively scrutinised during detailed dialogue with the DfT in advance of the awarding of Programme Entry Approval, and subsequently at the Transport and Works Act Order public inquiry.
7.4
The alternative approaches have been identified as providing a level of economic benefits broadly commensurate with their scheme cost, but at a much lower level than the NET Phase Two proposals. The formal economic appraisal of the high quality bus alternative identified lower costs, but a present value of economic benefits of half the NET Phase Two proposals. This resulted in a much lower benefit to cost ratio which would place the alternative in the medium value for money category; NET Phase Two is in a high value for money category.
7.5
The alternatives are also unable to meet national, regional, or local objectives as effectively as NET Phase Two. There are also wider practicality and development issues that question the deliverability of the core high quality bus network alternative, thereby
Page 37 of 73
confirming the strengths of the NET Phase Two proposals compared to these alternatives. In particular: •
Rail. Only very limited opportunities exist for the rail network to contribute to improved public transport in Greater Nottingham.
Although East Midlands
Parkway station opened in January 2009 this does not directly address the travel needs of the communities of south west Nottingham, nor will it offer a level of service appropriate to replace the extensive NET Phase Two park and ride facilities for journeys into Nottingham itself.
Other proposed or long-term
network enhancement will not be able to significantly change the minor role of rail in meeting travel demand in Greater Nottingham. •
Enhanced bus priority. The Greater Nottingham bus strategy identifies where additional bus priorities could be valuable in areas of congestion along the main radial corridors into Nottingham, however those identified in the NET Phase Two corridors remain some of the most challenging to implement. Although it would be possible to implement some of these measures, the relatively low costs and modest benefits will be orders of magnitude less than those of NET Phase Two, and any improvements are considered to be complementary to the NET Phase Two proposals.
•
High quality bus network.
The high quality bus alternatives appraisal included
examining some of the newer bus-based technologies beginning to be established in the UK, such as the ‘ftr’ (Volvo/Wright Streetcar) first introduced in York in 2006, and sought to utilise the proposed NET Phase Two alignments. In practice however it would not be possible to run the alternative along the same alignment as NET in the city centre, nor would it be possible to operate the same level of signal priority along the two routes as a much higher number of buses would need to operate to match the capacity of NET Phase Two. Although it would be possible to avoid some of the costs and other impacts of the NET Phase Two proposals by routing the bus system onto the local road network in some difficult locations, generally such areas are the most essential parts of the proposals where significant journey time and reliability benefits can be realised, and such a move would significantly compromise the benefits of an alternative bus based scheme. •
There is also a shortage of road space and bus stop capacity in the central area for additional bus services.
City Centre capacity is one of the key problems
identified within Nottingham and is addressed by NET Phase Two, which requires no increase in facilities in the City Centre as the NET Line One
Page 38 of 73
infrastructure and stops are already in place through the central area to Nottingham Station. In contrast, a new high quality bus system will require additional terminal space in central Nottingham, compromising operations of an already very congested network further. This will reduce reliability of the bus alternative, impinging on the public realm and the ability to maintain or expand current levels of service in corridors not served by NET due to lack of road space and bus stop capacity in the City Centre 7.6
NET Phase Two will enhance network productivity and efficiency, building on the success of NET Line One with through running services. By providing a fully integrated system and creating a wide range of new journey opportunities,
social inclusion
objectives will be supported by improved accessibility, particularly to employment, educational and health facilities. A new major bus-based transport system operating in the corridors will be unable to deliver these physical and wider accessibility benefits, with reduced connectivity, poorer reliability and reduced ability to guarantee level or step free access to services for all users. 7.7
In granting NET Phase Two Programme Entry approval, and after detailed scrutiny of the economic and wider appraisals, DfT identified NET Phase Two as the best value for money when compared with other alternatives. There have been no changes in the local transport network, funding or other circumstances to suggest that this conclusion should be changed.
Page 39 of 73
8.
PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
8.1
Initial Options Appraisal
8.1.1
The Promoters have undertaken detailed procurement strategy options analysis over the past seven years. A summary options appraisal analysing potential contract structures, updated from the version submitted to DfT with the skeleton OBC in 2006, is set out at Appendix 1.In summary, the contractual structures considered by the Promoters in respect of the procurement and implementation of NET Phase Two are: •
Option 1 - Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Maintain (DBFO) - Under this option (which was successfully employed by the Promoters for Line One), one contractor would be appointed as the single point of accountability for all aspects of the project.
•
Option 2 - Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) - This structure, which was used by Centro for the original Midland Metro concession, is the same as Option 1 (DBFO), but without any external private sector project finance.
•
Option 3 - Design, Build, Finance and Maintain plus Operate (DBFM+O) - Under this structure, which has been used by TfL for extensions to the Docklands Light Railway, the DBFM contractor is responsible for providing and maintaining the infrastructure on the basis of PFI availability payments and a separate operating concession agreement is awarded.
•
Option 4 - Design and Build plus Operate and Maintain (DB+OM) - Under this option, which is being used by GMPTE for Manchester Metrolink Phase 3A, an operating and maintenance concession and separate turnkey design and build contract would be awarded.
8.1.2
Option 2 (DBOM) does not appear to offer any advantages when compared with Option 1 (DBFO). However, this structure does have significant disadvantages (e.g. in terms of not incentivising whole life costing and the achievement of passenger focused outputs through a PFI performance regime and payment mechanism) and has therefore been dismissed.
8.1.3
Option 3 (DBFM+O) has been dismissed because it is impractical in the context of NET Phase Two, given the interface problems that would arise from the division of operations on the one hand and design, construction and maintenance on the other, as specified in section 4 of Appendix 1.
Page 40 of 73
8.1.4
Option 4 (DB+OM) has been dismissed because this structure does not deliver optimal whole life costing or transfer significant long term risk to the private sector. It also does not achieve a clear and full transfer of integration risk between the build contract and the operation and maintenance concession. Furthermore, because the operator would not receive ongoing unitary charge payments in respect of which performance deductions may be made, the operator will be less incentivised to achieve passenger focused outputs.
8.1.5
Accordingly, the Promoters' preferred procurement route is Option 1 (DBFO), for the following key reasons: •
Full transfer of system integration risk - the concessionaire will be required to deal with any system integration problems (e.g. inability of the operating subcontractor to meet timetable requirements due to design failure), for which the Promoters will be entitled to reduce the unitary charge.
The experience of
construction and commissioning of NET Line One was that there were significant system integration matters e.g. the rail/wheel interface, which had to be resolved before NET Line One could be brought into operation. As a result of the PFI DBFO structure employed for NET Line One, the Promoters were held harmless from the effects of this risk. The Promoters do not have and do not seek the capacity to absorb the interface risks inherent in other procurement methods. •
Whole life costing optimisation - the concessionaire will be incentivised to ensure that the system is designed to optimise whole life cost over the life of the project and to satisfy handback requirements.
•
Incentivises achievement of passenger focused outputs - the performance regime and payment mechanism will provide greater incentive than under any other procurement option to achieve passenger focused outputs (e.g. service frequency and ride quality) because failure to achieve performance standards will result in the concessionaire suffering deductions from the unitary charge.
•
Network flexibility - future extensions will be included within the scope of the procurement, using a BSF style approach which was developed with leading counsel, Kenneth Parker QC.
This will enable future extensions to be
implemented without terminating the concession for NET Phase Two. •
Market appetite - positive market feedback on the use of a DBFO structure, with a similar payment structure to NET Line One.
Page 41 of 73
•
Street running - grouping of operations and maintenance in a street running environment reflects the preferred approach of the market.
•
Revenue risk - the concessionaire will have overall control in respect of design, construction, maintenance, life cycle replacement and operation allowing the concessionaire to have greater influence on patronage revenue and take farebox revenue risk. The NET Line One Concession Agreement transferred full revenue risk to the concessionaire. The Promoters, unlike TfL and some of the other Passenger Transport Authorities, do not have the budgetary flexibility to prudently retain substantial revenue risk and it is therefore proposed that there will be no revenue risk share. The successful operation on NET Line One, where actual patronage and revenues have been broadly in line with forecast projections, is likely to influence bidders to be more willing to accept long term cost and revenue risks than would be the case for entirely new schemes.
This is
considered in further detail in Section 9.8 below. •
Value for money - the Promoters have undertaken both qualitative and quantitative Value For Money assessments in accordance with HM Treasury guidance. In summary, the outcome of this assessment is that the chosen PFI option continues to offer best value, showing a Value For Money margin of over 13%. Further detail is given in Chapter 11 (Value for Money).
8.2
Market Testing
8.2.1
Development of the Promoters' preferred approach has been informed by a series of market testing exercises, the first of which was undertaken in 2003 following publication of a Prior Information Notice in OJEU.
Thirteen organisations participated and a
summary of the responses is set out at Appendix 2 (not included). The exercise demonstrated considerable interest in the project and widespread market support for the use of procurement Option 1 (DBFO). 8.2.2
In 2006, prior to submitting the skeleton Outline Business Case to DfT, the Promoters conducted a soft market testing exercise amongst a range of funders active in the UK PFI and light rail markets. This exercise sought their initial views on matters such as revenue risk sharing. A positive response was received and the results of this exercise are summarised in Appendix 3 (not included).
8.2.3
In order to ensure that the Promoters' preferred approach continues to reflect current market sentiment, the Promoters conducted a further market testing exercise, following
Page 42 of 73
publication of a Prior Information Notice in OJEU, in the first quarter of 2008. Nineteen organisations responded to the Promoters' questionnaire and detailed discussions with the respondents are ongoing. The responses continue to indicate a good level of market interest in the project and general support for Option 1 (DBFO).
A summary of the
responses is set out at Appendix 4 (not included). 8.2.4
As a result of comments made in the 2003 market test regarding the availability of vehicles compatible with Line One, the 2008 market test explored the possibility of separating the vehicle procurement from the DBFO concession in order to ensure that the number of viable bidders for the concession would not be unduly restricted. However, significant interest in the scheme was shown by vehicle suppliers with a suitable product range and the majority of respondents expressed a preference for a single procurement process. In particular, respondents identified a number of substantial system integration and programme issues arising from a separate vehicle procurement. They expressed the view that allowing consortium members to work together in the bid phase enables key elements and risks to be discussed and agreed between consortium members pre-bid submission to maximise value for money to the Promoters. This would not be as easily achieved if the vehicles were procured separately.
Accordingly, the possibility of
conducting a separate vehicle procurement has been dismissed. 8.3
Design Development
8.3.1
A measure which the Promoters have undertaken in order to mitigate the risk of delays in the programme and cost overruns as a result of uncertainties in the project is to appoint a Design Services Consultant to further develop the design produced for the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) submission. The design development is being undertaken in parallel with the TWAO process and will provide clarity on both the scope of work to be priced by concessionaire bidders and the extent of risk to be taken by them.
8.3.2
The design is also being developed to enable key third party consents to be advanced and in some circumstances obtained, including planning approvals, thereby allowing concessionaire bidders to price with greater cost and programme certainty and less risk consideration than would alternatively be the case.
8.3.3
By undertaking the design development in parallel with the TWAO process, the Promoters anticipate reducing the overall programme for the procurement and implementation of the scheme by several months. It is acknowledged, however, that any time saving will be dependent on the extent to which the concessionaire chooses to make
Page 43 of 73
use of the further design (parts of which are to be warranted by the designer) and the level of due diligence it is subjected to. 8.3.4
Prior to appointing the Design Services Consultant, the Promoters undertook a market testing exercise in order to help inform the scope of services and the structure of the Design Services Contract. Following the market testing exercise, the Promoters launched a competitive procurement under the restricted procedure in December 2006 which concluded with the award of the Design Services Contract to Mott Macdonald.
8.3.5
As part of the 2008 market testing exercise, the Promoters have taken market soundings on the detailed scope of works for Mott Macdonald, in order to ensure that the output of the Design Services Consultant's work is of maximum value to potential bidders for the DBFO concession agreement.
8.4
Procurement Process
8.4.1
As a DBFO concession under which significant revenue risk will be borne by the concessionaire, the proposed contract is most properly classified under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 ("Procurement Regulations") as a public works concession. As such, the procurement is exempt from the provisions of new regulation 1370/2007 in respect of public passenger transport by rail and road and, subject to the requirement to advertise in OJEU, the Promoters are free to choose any form of procedure for the procurement process provided it is fair and transparent. In view of the high cost associated with bidding for light rail PFI concessions and feedback from the market following the Leeds Supertram and South Hampshire Rapid Transit procurements which indicated that a full competitive dialogue procurement for a PFI light rail concession would receive less interest from the market than a negotiated procurement, the Promoters intend to follow a procedure based on the negotiated procedure. This will involve the following stages:
8.4.2
•
OJEU and pre-qualification;
•
Invitation to Negotiate;
•
Best and Final Offer;
•
Selection of Preferred Bidder and financial close.
The 2008 market testing exercise demonstrated strong support from the market for the use of the negotiated procedure because of the advantages in terms of timescales, costs and
Page 44 of 73
flexibility. An opinion from leading Counsel, Michael Bowsher QC, confirming the above analysis is set out at Appendix 5 (not included). 8.5
Termination of NET Line One Concession Agreement
8.5.1
The existing concession agreement entitles either party to terminate the agreement in the event that the Promoters tender any network extension and provides for the Promoters to pay compensation to the existing concessionaire (Arrow Light Rail Limited). The agreement does contain obligations on Arrow regarding the provision of information, although more detailed transitional provisions would be desirable.
8.5.2
Accordingly, the Promoters are currently in negotiations with Arrow and its subcontractors with a view to agreeing: •
a more detailed mechanism for agreeing the compensation due to Arrow in line with the parameters set by the NET Line One concession agreement;
•
the obligations of Arrow and its subcontractors during the procurement process for the new concession agreement including information sharing and access for inspections etc;
•
the arrangements for ongoing provision of spare parts and potentially maintenance services for the existing fleet of vehicles following termination; (a)
assignment of warranties;
(b)
continued use of intellectual property;
(c)
extended TUPE obligations; and
(d)
the process for handover of the system and assets and details of their condition.
8.5.3
Arrow and its sub-contractors are co-operating fully in this process and have expressed their commitment to continue working co-operatively with the Promoters throughout the procurement and termination process. A new access and information protocol has now been agreed and it is anticipated that the remainder of the above items will be agreed soon prior to the issue of the OJEU notice.
8.5.4
In the unlikely event that Arrow withdraws its co-operation in this process, the Promoters have developed a contingency plan which will enable it to require the minimum co-
Page 45 of 73
operation necessary to ensure a smooth procurement process and transition. This involves using its existing contractual rights under the NET Line One Concession Agreement and associated documents which will enable it to determine the level of compensation payable through a fast-track adjudication process (if required) and to ensure the continued high performance of Arrow on NET Line One (through the existing payment mechanism) and provision of information through the existing information and intellectual property clauses. The only disadvantage of the contingency plan is that some additional risk may need to be borne by the Promoters under the NET Phase Two concession agreement in respect of TUPE transfers and ongoing supply of spare parts for vehicles. 8.6
Employee Issues
8.6.1
It is likely that some of the NET Line One concessionaire’s subcontractors’ staff will transfer to the NET Phase Two Concessionaire or its subcontractors under TUPE. No staff will transfer from the Promoters.
8.6.2
The Promoters are currently gathering staff information from the NET Line One concessionaire’s subcontractors, which will be placed in the NET Phase Two data room for bidders to access, and are negotiating side letters which will regulate the transfer process and ensure as far as possible that appropriate consultation arrangements are in place in line with good practice guidance.
8.6.3
The NET Phase Two concession agreement includes standard PFI TUPE drafting so that transferring employees’ terms and conditions will continue to be honoured.
8.6.4
The NET Phase Two Concessionaire will be required to ensure that at all times there are sufficient staff to perform its obligations to the standard required by the concession agreement and that all such staff are trained and supervised to ensure proper performance of the concession agreement and compliance with health and safety procedures. The NET Phase Two Concessionaire will also be obliged to ensure that appropriate personnel policies and procedures are put in place and maintained and that this obligation is passed to the subcontractors.
8.6.5
The Concessionaire will also be obliged not to unlawfully discriminate against any person, whether directly or indirectly on such grounds as race, ethnic or national origin, disability, or sexual orientation, religion or belief, age, fixed term or part time status, trade union or non trade union status etc and must ensure that this obligation is passed down to all subcontractors.
Page 46 of 73
9.
FORM OF CONTRACT AND KEY RISKS
9.1
Unlike other PFI sectors, such as housing and health, there is no standard form contract for light rail PFI projects. However, a representative of Partnerships UK (PUK) does participate in the regular legal and commercial meetings held by the Promoters in order to ensure that the approach developed by the Promoters is consistent with the latest guidance and best practice.
9.2
Following discussions with PUK, DfT and potential bidders, the Promoters intend to produce a draft concession agreement which will be based on Standardisation of PFI Contract Terms version 4 (SoPC4), amended where appropriate to deal with lessons learnt from the NET Line One concession and other light rail procurements.
The few
derogations from SOPC 4 required drafting that are set out in the draft concession agreement are limited to project or sector specific matters only. A full list of these derogations, together with PUK's legal team's comments on them, is set out at Appendix 6 (not included). 9.3
To facilitate development of best practice, the contract documentation and procurement experiences will be shared at no cost with other local authorities, 4Ps and central government.
9.4
Allocation of project risks between the Promoters and the selected concessionaire will be on the basis of the draft contractual risk matrix provided at Appendix 7. The proposed contractual arrangements received a positive response in the 2008 market testing, the results of which are summarised in Appendix 4 (not included).
9.5
In line with most PFI contract structures, no indemnity or guarantees will be given by the Promoters to the senior funders or any other person in respect of any liabilities of the concessionaire. Instead, the Promoters will enter into a standard PFI Funders’ Direct Agreement under which the senior funders will be given step-in rights in the event of concessionaire default.
9.6
A brief summary of the approach taken by the Promoters to key contract risks is set out below:
9.7
Handover of Existing System
9.7.1
The new concessionaire will take over responsibility for the NET Line One assets without any warranties as to condition from the Promoters. The concessionaire will, however, have the benefit of the following:
Page 47 of 73
•
where possible, existing warranties capable of being assigned by Arrow in respect of the supply of system components will be assigned to the concessionaire;
•
under the terms of the existing Promoters' Assignability Agreement, the Promoters will assign to the concessionaire the benefit of a collateral warranty in respect of the Line One turnkey design and build sub-contract;
•
during the bid process, bidders will have access to extensive information in the data room and the opportunity to inspect and survey the system; and
•
where possible, the Promoters will procure direct deeds of warranty in favour of the concessionaire from relevant consultants responsible for delivering certain key technical surveys and reports.
9.7.2
There will be a fixed period following financial close in order to ensure an orderly transition of staff and NET Line One operations to the new concessionaire. During this period, the existing concessionaire will continue to operate NET Line One and will cooperate with the new concessionaire under the terms of the termination contract referred to at Section 8.5 above.
9.8
Revenue Risk and Highway Interface
9.8.1
It is proposed that farebox revenue risk will be transferred to the concessionaire in the same way as under the NET Line One concession agreement.
Having successfully
achieved this for NET Line One, the Promoters have a strong preference to do so again as they do not easily have the budgetary flexibility to allow them to retain substantial revenue risk. A number of factors indicate that the transfer of revenue risk is likely to be acceptable to the market without adversely impacting on value for money, in particular: •
In year one, the ratio of availability payment to farebox revenue for NET Phase Two is approximately 2:1. Of the 33% of the concessionaire's income anticipated to comprise farebox revenue, a substantial proportion relates to NET Line One, which is already operational and in respect of which revenues will be considerably more predictable.
•
The availability payment is estimated to be approximately 20% higher than the senior debt service requirement.
Page 48 of 73
•
The responses to the market testing exercise indicated that the market would be open to taking full revenue risk, depending on the ratio of availability payment to farebox revenue.
•
The Promoters will not impose any controls on fares except to require participation in local joint ticketing and concessionary fares schemes.
•
The Promoters' patronage projections for NET Phase Two are considered to be conservative. One party, in particular, expressed confidence in the projections during the market test process.
9.8.2
Accordingly, there will be no revenue risk share (other than a public sector share of revenue in excess of forecast) but, as is the case under the NET Line One concession agreement, the concessionaire will be entitled to claim a "Capped Patronage Adjustment" where certain highway changes (outside the concessionaire's control) occur.
9.9
Design and Consents
9.9.1
As noted at Section 8.3 above, design development is currently being undertaken in parallel with the TWAO process and will provide clarity on both the scope of work to be priced by concessionaire bidders and the extent of risk to be taken by them. The Design Services Consultant will provide a collateral warranty to the concessionaire.
9.9.2
The design is also being developed to enable key third party consents to be advanced and in some circumstances obtained, including planning approvals, thereby allowing concessionaire bidders to price with greater cost and programme certainty and less risk consideration than is typical.
9.10
Third Party Interfaces
9.10.1 A detailed review of all the NET Line One agreements and undertakings together with all agreements entered into and undertakings given during the NET Phase Two TWAO process is ongoing with a view to identifying all obligations of the Promoters under them. The Promoters' team will then decide on whether it is appropriate and cost-effective to transfer responsibility for performance of these obligations to the concessionaire or whether they should be retained by the Promoters. 9.10.2 Where these obligations are to be retained by the Promoters, necessary actions and mitigation measures will be specified and a risk owner given responsibility for ensuring the proper performance of the obligation and mitigation of associated risks.
Page 49 of 73
9.11
Utilities diversion
9.11.1 The Promoters have given extensive consideration to the advantages and disadvantages of undertaking advance diversionary works, including the risk of such advance works proving to be more extensive than is actually necessary and the potential for dilution of risk transfer to the concessionaire if diversionary works undertaken prove to have been inadequate. 9.11.2 Bearing in mind these two factors, together with the scope for risk pricing that uncertainty as to the location, nature and condition of existing utilities can cause, the Promoters have concluded that the best approach is to work towards C4 or just before C5 stage with statutory undertakers as far as possible prior to financial close. This will give as much certainty to the concessionaire as possible in respect of location, nature and condition of utilities and hence reduce risk pricing whilst leaving discretion as to the precise scope of diversionary/protective works required to the concessionaire so as not to dilute risk transfer. 9.12
Third Party Claims for Noise Nuisance, Injurious Affection etc.
9.12.1 It is intended to follow the successful NET Line One approach in respect of third party claims, which in summary is as follows: •
The Promoters bear the risk in respect of quantum of land acquisition costs.
•
The Concessionaire is responsible for noise insulation works and grants under the Noise Insulation (Railways and other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996.
•
The Concessionaire is responsible for other compensation claims but only to the extent that they are caused by a failure to comply with the Concession Specification.
9.13
Network Extensions
9.13.1 Future extensions will be included within the scope of the procurement, using an approach which draws on some of the principles of BSF and was developed with leading Counsel, Michael Bowsher QC. A copy of Counsel’s opinion, confirming that this approach complies with procurement and state aid law is attached at Appendix 8 (not included). This should enable future extensions to be implemented without terminating the concession for NET Phase Two. The mechanism will work as follows:
Page 50 of 73
•
the original OJEU notice and tender documentation will encompass potential network extensions, specifying their location in so far as known at the relevant time;
•
the concession agreement will include a procedure whereby based on the updated financial model developed by the concessionaire for its lenders, the terms for the construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the extended system will be settled using the following principles: (a)
where possible, sub-contract packages will be openly tendered;
(b)
other costs and revenue changes will be subject to benchmarking;
(c)
existing lenders will be offered the opportunity to fund the extension;
(d)
if the existing lenders do not offer competitive terms, the concessionaire will seek terms for a refinancing;
(e)
equity percentage will be dictated by bank terms;
(f)
additional equity will be subscribed by the shareholders at the original Internal Rate of Return (IRR) unless key assumptions change, in which case there will be an adjustment to cater for this without changing the economic balance of the contract.
•
In the event that the Promoters are not satisfied with the terms settled for the extension under the above mechanism, the Promoters will retain the right to implement a similar termination mechanism for network extensions to that employed for NET Line One. This will enable the Promoters to terminate the concession agreement if they wish to do so, paying the same level of compensation as is payable under SOPC 4 for a voluntary termination, with two differences: (a)
instead of allowing the concessionaire bidders to choose which of the three methods of calculating equity compensation they prefer from those specified in paragraph 21.3.6 of SOPC 4, all bidders will be required to bid on the same basis of equity compensation. This will be market value of share capital and junior debt.
Page 51 of 73
(b)
as under the NET Line One concession agreement, the concessionaire will be prohibited from undertaking a refinancing without the Promoters' consent in any period during which a network extension is under development. Again, this will give more certainty to the Promoters as to the level of compensation payable.
Page 52 of 73
10.
FINANCING PLAN AND AFFORDABILITY – NOT INCLUDED
11.
VALUE FOR MONEY – NOT INCLUDED
12.
ACCOUNTING TREATMENT – NOT INCLUDED
Page 53 of 73
13.
OUTPUT AND PERFORMANCE
13.1
Concession Specification
13.1.1 The NET Phase Two Concession Specification has been developed in consideration of the experience gained in delivering NET Line One, using an output-led approach providing a clear definition of the objectives and the outputs needed. As part of this process, a set of high-level outputs have been identified covering the main attributes that NET Phase Two needs to satisfy in order to deliver the scheme objectives.
The draft concession
specification can be found in Appendix 16 (not included). 13.1.2 NET Line One was the first light rail PFI scheme in the UK, whereby the public sector’s funding contribution is made based on the operational performance of the system, and not as a contribution to the capital cost. The performance and payment regime, which forms part of the Concession Specification, will be similar to that used for NET Line One which has been proven to operate successfully. The current draft of the performance and payment regime can be found in Appendix 17 (not included). Hence the proposal for the extended network, incorporating NET Phase Two is for a monthly unitary payment to be made to the Concessionaire, which is adjusted for performance, based on 24 measures relating to operating the timetabled service, infrastructure cleaning and maintenance, availability of passenger facilities and customer service and noise. 85% of the unitary payment would be based on measures relating to service reliability and punctuality. For each of the performance measures, the Concessionaire would be required to meet a target performance; if this target is not met, the Promoters would be permitted to reduce the amount of the unitary payment for that measure. 13.1.3 Under the performance and payment regime the Concessionaire would produce a monthly report (provided by the operating subcontractor) justifying the performance claim. In order to verify the claim, the Promoters would receive supporting records and where necessary also have access to more detailed operation and maintenance records and data. Experience from NET Line One has been that available records are clear and comprehensive and the Concessionaire’s operator has been consistent in providing further substantiation when requested. 13.1.4 The Promoters are committed to driving forward an agenda for improvement in construction through the procurement and specification of the system in line with the Egan Report, “Rethinking Construction”. The Promoters’ proposed PFI procurement approach and the Concession Specification help support the key drivers for change identified as part of this agenda.
Page 54 of 73
13.1.5 The Concession Specification also promotes sustainable development in line with the recommendations of the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) guidance note “Green Public Private Partnerships” throughout the design, construction, operation and maintenance phases of the Project, in particular by: •
focusing on the outputs required rather than the means of delivery so as to promote technical innovation, cost and resource savings, and improve service quality - including environmental performance;
•
being sufficiently broad to allow value to be added by the Concessionaire, but not so broad as to allow bidders to feel exposed to risks, including environmental risk;
•
building in flexibility to reflect change and change of use over the 22 years of the contract – avoiding wastage of time, money and resource in the long term;
•
taking account of the aims, objectives and relevant targets for improving environmental performance - the scheme objectives and specification requirements in themselves aim to contribute to a wider sustainable local transport network; take account of legal requirements to safeguard the environment and the feedback from the market testing.
13.1.6 The NET Phase Two Concession Specification requires the regulations arising from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be fully satisfied, and this is in line with the scheme’s objective to improve accessibility and reduce social exclusion. At an initial meeting with the DfT’s mobility inclusion unit in June 2008, positive and constructive feedback was given regarding NET Line One, and the proposed approach to accessibility on NET Phase Two. 13.1.7 The NET Phase Two Concession Specification includes a Design Guide, much of which has been prepared by a landscape and urban design specialist. The Design Guide will be endorsed by the Promoters and the local planning authorities, and sets the scope and minimum threshold of design required, focusing on the system infrastructure and adjacent public realm. The framework for this was set during the TWAO process and has been developed further during the design development prior to procurement. 13.1.8 The Design Guide promotes consistency with the existing NET Line One system, particularly in respect of the template used for tramstop design and for integration into the built environment. The Design Guide has been developed from a similar NET Line One
Page 55 of 73
design guide, which was endorsed by the Royal Fine Arts commission (now CABE). Input from CABE has been obtained in respect of key NET Phase Two elements, such as the elevated structure over Nottingham Railway Station. 13.2
Design Development
13.2.1 A reference design, or ‘illustrative solution’, which is compliant with the Concession Specification has been developed to enable financial analysis and costings to be established and to provide guidance for bidders to minimise the scope and programme risk. Areas of scope uncertainty have been targeted and the design advanced to a level where cost, programme and quality are well defined. An operational plan has been developed and verified as robust against the Performance and Payment Regime. In some areas, such as the elevated structure over Nottingham Railway Station where long lead times for Network Rail work possessions are necessary or in areas where complex third party approvals are required, the reference design has been developed further, in some cases to a detailed design level. This further design will be made available to the Concessionaire together with a collateral warranty from the Promoters’ design consultant (but not directly from the Promoters). The Concessionaire will be free to utilise this design information or develop alternative designs that meet the Concession Specification. This approach maintains the opportunity for the Concessionaire to bring innovation and efficiency to the project, whilst minimising uncertainty during tendering, hence encouraging a value for money approach to be achieved. 13.3
Design Quality
13.3.1 The Promoters are committed to embedding design quality into delivery of NET Phase Two. Design quality is considered by OGC to be a combination of: •
functionality (how useful the system is in achieving its purpose);
•
impact (how well the facility creates a sense of place); and
•
build quality and performance of the completed facility in use.
13.3.2 The Promoters output-led approach supports this view and these factors are all reflected in the scheme objectives, the Concession Specification and the illustrative solution outlined above that have been developed to combine these three cornerstones of design quality.
Page 56 of 73
13.3.3 The Concession Specification defines the required minimum functionality of the system in terms of the base service and minimum facilities required to make the scheme attractive to potential end-users and contribute to the scheme objectives. Key functional considerations include ease of use, convenience, interchange and accessibility, and provision of service information and customer care. 13.3.4 In line with the OGC’s guidance, the scheme has been developed and specified to create as far as practical a sense of place and identity, and have a positive effect on local community and the environment.
The promotion of urban and social integration is
reflected in the scheme’s objectives, and the effect on the environment and local community was assessed through the environmental statement and TWAO processes. NET Line One created a coherent style and brand for the network providing a sense of its own identity that is widely accepted and recognised by the public, users, and operating staff; and this has been retained within the concession specification and in particular in the Design Guide.
The form and material requirements and the internal passenger
environments have also been considered and captured in the Design Guide. 13.3.5 The Promoters also recognise that design quality is reflected in the build quality and performance of the completed facility in use. The ability of the system to perform is a function of the choice and integration of technology, and build quality, and how it is operated and maintained. A key driver for this is the NET Phase Two performance and payment regime, which provides a full-life incentive to focus on design and build quality, and ease of maintenance. 13.3.6 A number of tools have been pioneered within the construction industry to evaluate design quality such as Design Quality Indicators, but these are primarily focused on the design quality of buildings and are difficult to translate to the provision of a streetrunning transport system. Nonetheless, the Promoters have sought other ways to engage with the scheme’s extensive and diverse range of stakeholders, and to benchmark design quality expectations. 13.3.7 NET Line One is considered an overall success in terms of all three cornerstones of design quality, including its functionality, performance and the positive impact it has made to Greater Nottingham. NET Line One already gathers feedback from existing and potential users through customer comments and complaints and an annual customer satisfaction and awareness survey. This feedback has already influenced improvements on NET Line One, and has been fed back into the NET Phase Two Concession
Page 57 of 73
Specification along with other lessons learnt.
NET Phase Two has built on this
benchmark with expectations further refined through: •
the environmental impact assessment and TWAO process and subsequent scrutiny by the public inquiry;
•
development of the Design Guide
•
preparation of an illustrative solution and further localised design development.
•
continued engagement with stakeholders including the local planning and highway authorities.
13.3.8 CABE recognise that PFI procurement can bring with it both benefits and challenges in respect of achieving quality in design. The long-term nature of the PFI Concession incentivises a design that is easy to maintain and manage, is built using materials and techniques that will stand the test of time, and offers good value throughout life. PFI also brings together all disciplines into a single delivery organisation, which (compared to more traditional forms of procurement) brings better organisational and technological integration.
These principles are reinforced within the Concession Specification, in
particular through the performance and payment regime. 13.3.9 CABE, however, also identify a disadvantage of the PFI procurement method associated with the increased complexity during the tendering, with often complex design quality issues needing to be resolved in a short space of time. On NET Phase Two, this is mitigated by the existence of a proven benchmark in the form of NET Line One and the further advanced design solutions in complex areas. These allow the bidders to concentrate their efforts on seeking ways to add value through, for example, innovation and selection of methods, technologies and suppliers, and elimination of waste. 13.3.10 Assessment of bidders' compliance with the Concession Specification and their commitment to design quality will be highlighted throughout the procurement process and will be prominent in the evaluation criteria which are used to assess bids. The Promoters will ensure that design quality is not diluted prior to financial close, and is reflected in both the bidders design proposals, and their proposed organisational and procedural arrangements. 13.3.11 The successful delivery of an appropriate scheme based on designs which meet the requirements of the concession specification, including the performance and payment
Page 58 of 73
regime, the Design Guide and other associated quality thresholds will be closely monitored by the Promoters during the implementation stage.
Page 59 of 73
14.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
14.1
A core Promoters’ project management team was established at an early stage of project development, which includes officers having previous pivotal involvement in the successful procurement and delivery of NET Line One. This has remained fully intact during the development of NET Phase Two and with the acquired knowledge base is well placed to take the project forward. The project team is supplemented by a specialist project management consultancy resource who also supported the project team through the procurement and delivery of NET Line One.
14.2
A full team of advisors with comprehensive experience of PFI and light rail was recruited in 2001. Partnerships UK are also contracted to provide specialist support and a healthy relationship is held with the 4Ps. The project structure, particularly the integrated project team, enables considerable opportunity for creative joint thinking and knowledge transfer to the public sector.
14.3
The lead advisors are: Partnerships UK – commercial and government liaison PricewaterhouseCoopers – financial DLA Piper – legal Bircham Dyson Bell – parliamentary agents MVA – transport economics Mott MacDonald – technical and cost advice ERM - environmental Turner and Townsend – project management
Insurance advisors are to be procured in advance of tendering NET Phase Two.
14.4
The Project Management Plan (PMP) (see Appendix 18) sets out the key project management structures and procedures and provides the framework for efficient working arrangements within the project, including with elected Members of the two Promoters, who are fully engaged throughout the development of the project. Details on the governance arrangements for the project, including reporting arrangements to the NET Project Board and strategic decision making executives within the Promoters, and delegation of authority to allow effective management of the Project, are set out in chapter 3 of the PMP. The remit of the lead Officers on the Project, the Director, NET
Page 60 of 73
and the NET Phase Two Project Director, are provided in Chapter 3 and Appendix A of the PMP. 14.5
It is intended that the core project team and certain specialist advisors will be retained to manage the implementation of NET Phase Two, generally in accordance with the arrangements established for NET Line One. However, it is recognised that the extension of an existing system introduces a number of complexities both contractually and practically, particularly in relation to the transition period following financial close, staged commissioning of the expanded system and controlled hand-back of highway related infrastructure. Detailed arrangements are to be developed and incorporated into the PMP.
14.6
Monitoring of the performance of the new Concessionaire, post contract award, will generally be in line with the existing NET Line One arrangements (which have been externally audited) although the current dedicated team will need to be strengthened to reflect the nature of the expanded system and any developments to the performance monitoring regime. Resources for this monitoring have been included in the financial model. It is anticipated that this team will also play a key role in the project evaluation programme which is to be developed in accordance with the Benefits Management Strategy set out in the PMP.
14.7
The project was subject to a Gateway 0 Review in September 2005; a Gateway 1 Review in June 2008 and a Gateway 2 Review in March 2009. On each occasion the feedback from the review team has been positive, with the project considered to be in good health. At the recent Gateway 2 review the project received a Delivery Confidence Assessment of Amber/Green. Action plans have been drawn up to address recommendations made as part of the reviews.
Page 61 of 73
15.
RISK AND OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT
15.1
A comprehensive risk and opportunity management procedure is in place to prevent or mitigate risks to the project and to maximise opportunities for project improvement. The process has recently been expanded to enable the evaluation and monitoring of issues, (i.e. risks that have materialised). The management process ensures project risks and issues are effectively identified and prioritised, thus allowing informed decisions about key project threats and opportunities, and ensuring continuous efficiencies in programme and project delivery. The overall approach, which recognises and highlights best practice guidance in undertaking risk management, is set out in the Risk and Opportunities Management Strategy included in the PMP.
15.2
Through a number of facilitated risk workshops a comprehensive risk and issue register has been developed (see Appendix 19) which is updated on a continual basis. All risks and issues identified on the register are identified as strategic-level, project-level or workstream-level according to the current level of management ownership required to mitigate and take action.
Each risk and issue is assessed in terms of impact and
likelihood and a response plan is detailed which takes account of the proximity of the risk event occurring and recognises that the responsibility for the mitigation may change over the course of the project. This allows clear demonstration on the register of those risks and issues which, as a result of the contracting arrangements to be entered into, the Promoters intend to transfer to the concessionaire and those which are likely to be retained. 15.3
The Promoters have delegated the responsibility for identifying and managing engineering, operational and maintenance risks affecting the scope of the scheme, scheme cost or time to implement the scheme to the design service consultant (DSC). The DSC’s arrangements for managing these scheme risks are consistent with the strategy set out in the PMP. These risks are used to inform the ongoing technical development of the scheme.
15.4
A full Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) has been undertaken based on the Project Risk Register and the register developed by the DSC with the outputs being fed into the scheme cost model.
15.5
Risks are reviewed during fortnightly NET Project Management Team meetings, with key risks also reviewed at monthly Project Delivery Group meetings. The two-monthly reports to the NET Project Board include a summary of the key risks and reports on the progress
of
mitigating
actions
being
taken
in
respect
of
them.
Page 62 of 73
16.
PROJECT PROGRAMME
16.1
The current project programme is set out in Appendix 20. Following comments from the DfT Project Management Team the programme has been updated to identity named resources against each activity.
16.2
16.3
Key milestones are as follows: TWAO Order confirmed
March 2009
DfT Conditional Approval
June 2009
Issue OJEU Notice
July 2009
Issue ITN
November 2009
Tender Returns
April 2010
BAFO
November 2010
Financial Close
August 2011
A post Financial Close scheme implementation programme has been developed as part of the work undertaken by the DSC. This will be further developed as design development progresses and will be used to manage key project risks and opportunities such as procurement of utility diversions and works on or adjacent to the railway.
The
implementation programme will also be used to coordinate the construction of NET Phase Two with interfacing projects such as the Nottingham Station Hub project. 16.4
The 4ps Procurement packs provide guidance for complex projects within the Local Government sector such as street lighting, social care and housing and includes model procurement timetables. Although NET Phase Two does not fit easily into any of the Procurement Packs, the programme has been developed using the expertise and experience of the Project’s advisors, and has been endorsed by Partnerships UK. The programme is consistent with the principles of the model procurement timetables outlined in the 4ps Procurement Pack.
Page 63 of 73
17.
COMMITMENT OF SPONSORS AND STAKEHOLDERS
17.1
Sponsors
17.1.1 The NET Phase Two proposals have had full and strong endorsement by elected Members of both Promoters, who have been actively involved in the decision making process throughout the scheme development. Emerging project issues and strategic direction are considered at a two-monthly NET Project Board which involves the Chief Executives of both Promoters, lead Members (including appropriate Portfolio Holders), Corporate Directors and the Chair of the NET Partnership. Key project decisions, including approval of project management arrangements, choice of route corridors, detailed route alignments, scope of the Transport and Works Act Order application, local funding arrangements and the procurement strategy, have been taken as appropriate by the City Council Executive Board, County Council Cabinet and the full Councils of both Promoters. Strategic input and advice is also provided by the NET Partnership, which generally meets quarterly and membership consists of elected Members and officers from the Promoters, the four District Councils within the Greater Nottingham area (Ashfield, Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe) and private sector representatives from Nottingham Development Enterprise. Interest in the project is also such that there is regular informal contact with other Promoter elected Members on a wide variety of project issues. 17.1.2 The Project is being championed by the Corporate Director for Environment and Regeneration at Nottingham City Council, and the Strategic Director for Communities at the County Council, who have both been given the authority by their respective Councils to develop and promote the Project. Both Directors are members of the Project Board and reporting lines ensure regular contact with the Project Team. 17.1.3 The Promoters have demonstrated their commitment to NET Phase Two by allocating substantial resources to the development phase. Total expenditure on scheme development to date has been approximately £26 million (March 2009) with the Promoters’ contributing approximately £15 million to date. This includes advanced purchase of land.
A £720,000 Section 106 contribution towards public transport
improvements from a major development has been received and The City Council has allocated this funding to the project ahead of other competing public transport initiatives. Further Section 106 contributions have also been received from Broxtowe Borough Council.
The local development agency (EMDA) and the Greater Nottingham
Partnership, one of EMDA’s sub regional partnerships, have both recognised the contribution NET Phase Two will make to achieving their objectives and targets and have
Page 64 of 73
contributed £4.5million in total between them to the development phase.
The East
Midlands Regional Assembly has also made an RFA allocation to fund up to £8.8 million of NET Phase Two development costs. 17.1.4 25% of the overall project cost is expected to be met from a local contribution. Part of this contribution is already being provided by the Promoters, as indicated above, to meet development costs. The remaining local funding contribution will be split approximately 80/20 between the City and County Councils respectively. 17.1.5 The terms included within the Programme Entry Approval letter dated 25th October 2006 included the local funding requirements, and these were accepted by both Promoters following Member consultation. The acceptance letters are included in Appendix 21. 17.2
Stakeholders
17.2.1 Extensive consultation has taken place on the NET Phase Two proposals.
This is
documented in the Statement on Consultation and Communication (see Appendix 22). The statement highlights the level and type of consultation and communication undertaken to date and sets out the strategy for future consultation and communication, including during the construction phase. 17.2.2 The public and business community perception of NET Phase Two has been fully tested. An independent research report (NOP) in 2002 tested public perception through a demographically balanced sample of 1,000 people along the route of each line. Headline results included: •
Three quarters of people asked believed that public transport needs to be improved; and
•
Three people to every one approved of the Clifton route and two to every one approved of the Chilwell via Beeston route.
17.2.3 At a meeting in 2006 involving Members of the Nottingham Business Community organised as part of the Core Cities Agenda, transport was identified as the second highest priority needed to be tackled to improve business in Nottingham. 74% of respondents stated that NET Phase Two was one of three top priorities for action. There is therefore strong support and a positive perception from both the public and the business community.
Page 65 of 73
17.2.4 Consultation with stakeholders and project sponsors alike has formed an integral part of the scheme development process. Early engagement has ensured stakeholder views have been fully considered as NET Phase Two has developed, particularly any issues raised prior to the formal statutory consultation stage associated with the submission of the TWAO application to the Secretary of State.
Regular and well timed contact with
stakeholders, and the general public, has influenced the design proposals for NET Phase Two, as modifications have been made which have included alignment changes, investigation of alternative route options and inclusion of tram stops as well as modifications to tram stop locations. 17.2.5 The TWAO stage, especially the period leading up to submitting the TWAO application and the public inquiry was heavily focused on communication and negotiation with stakeholders at all levels. As a consequence public awareness of the project was high and a large number of stakeholders engaged in the TWAO process with a significant number confirming their formal support for the proposals by writing to the Secretary of State for Transport and also appearing at the public inquiry. Those who wrote in support of NET Phase Two included the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce, the East Midlands Development Agency, the East Midlands Regional Assembly, University of Nottingham, Nottingham Trent University, Castle College and Bio City. 17.2.6 During the TWAO stage a number of agreements were negotiated with stakeholders, which in some cases resulted in the withdrawal of objections. The agreements set out the commitments, undertakings and consultation to be undertaken with the stakeholder in question at the relevant stage in the project development and implementation. 17.2.7 Stakeholder engagement will be an ongoing and important part of the delivery of the project and the Stakeholder Management Plan (SMP) (Appendix 23) sets out the overall approach to be adopted to ensure and manage effective stakeholder input as the project moves forward. 17.2.8 The stakeholder and management approaches, activity and materials adhere to DfT’s Draft Guidance for Local Authorities, the Government’s Code of Practice for consultation and the Audit Commission’s Code for Publicity ensuring that best practice and due legal processes have been followed. The Gateway 2 review team ‘found evidence of continuing strong stakeholder commitment across the board for the project…The Project team are to be congratulated on their excellent stakeholder management which has contributed to maintenance of this support through difficult times and is an example of best practice in this area’.
Page 66 of 73
17.2.9 The Communications and Marketing Plan (CP) (Appendix 24) provides the strategic basis for communications management on NET Phase Two and sets out the approaches and activities which will be appropriately targeted to the audiences identified in the SMP. The CP identifies the key messages that need to be communicated to audiences at a number of different levels, the ownership and responsibilities for delivery within the Promoter’ organisations and the reporting procedures.
Page 67 of 73
18.
STATUTORY PROCESSES
18.1
NET Phase Two will be authorised by an Order under the Transport and Works Act (1992). A public inquiry was held between 6th November and 21st December 2007, with a short reopening on 9th and 10th October 2008 to consider one additional matter. The Secretary of State announced his intention to make the Order on 30th March 2009.
18.2
The Order will be accompanied by a direction under s.90 (2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 deeming planning permission to be granted for the authorised works. This permission will be subject to the discharge of conditions through the local planning authorities (and imposed by the DfT). Three Listed Building Consents and six Conservation Area Consents were granted by the Government Office for the East Midlands on 30th March 2009 and these will also be subject to conditions to be discharged locally. Two Exchange Land Certificates in respect of open space were granted by the Government Office for London, also on 30th March 2009.
18.3
The TWA Order will empower the Promoters to acquire compulsorily all land necessary for NET Phase Two, and will also give them various ancillary powers that substitute for existing statutory regimes (e.g. traffic regulation orders). With the exception of the conditions attached to the planning direction and other consents, and some protective provisions giving particular parties (e.g. Environment Agency and Statutory Undertakers) approval of works affecting their interests, the TWA process effectively serves as a one stop shop. There are no further statutory processes required in respect of allotments and school playing fields for NET Phase Two.
18.4
One of the main objectives of the Design Services Contract is to develop the design sufficiently for the planning direction, highway approvals, and other consents to be advanced and sometimes obtained prior to concession award. This will reduce the level of uncertainty in some difficult design areas at the time of concession award, and enable less risk consideration in the bidders’ responses. The requirements of the Promoters and the main approval authorities have been well defined, and this will remove the risk of conflicting positions. Extensive discussions have been held with the key consent bodies, including Broxtowe and Rushcliffe Borough Councils, the Highway Authorities (including the Highways Agency), Network Rail, British Waterways Board and the Environment Agency. Consent protocols have been developed with each of the key consent bodies. The protocols set out an agreed process, including how information is presented, timescales for each stage of the consent procedure, and identifying designated
Page 68 of 73
staff, which will considerably assist the decision making process and minimise cost and programme risk.
Page 69 of 73
19.
EVALUATION AND POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
19.1
A locally funded monitoring programme has been established for NET Line One. The evaluation of the wider system, including NET Phase Two, will develop this further, including providing performance indicators for both the NET system itself and an input to the wider requirement for monitoring of local service provision.
19.2
In April 2008 the DfT’s New Local Performance Framework (NLPF) came into operation refining the scope and extent of monitoring expected of local authorities in measuring their performance. This framework includes 10 national transport related indicators. Although the implementation of NET Phase Two is not programmed to take place until well after the end of the current Local Transport Plan (LTP) period, it is likely that the overarching NLPF will remain as a focus for the NET scheme monitoring.
19.3
NET Phase Two, operating as an integrated system with NET Line One, will clearly support the general direction of local transport policy and specifically performance against a number of the key national indicators, including targeting congestion and local public transport patronage.
19.4
Current Line One Evaluation
19.4.1 The current monitoring for NET Line One has focused on key supply and demand issues, examining system usage and wider transport network considerations. Regular monitoring has also considered system reliability and customer satisfaction. Bespoke monitoring covering specific issues has included reviews of both development and residential property impacts, showing differential impacts between the NET Line One corridor and the rest of Nottingham, and transport benefits enjoyed by mobility impaired users of NET, indicating real impacts on quality of life for a range of users of the system. 19.4.2 The NET Line One monitoring programme has provided a wealth of information to demonstrate the performance of the NET system, including data used to understand and then drive further improvements in system provision. In addition to feedback provided to the operator, outputs from the NET Line One evaluation have been used to inform the specification for NET Phase Two with dissemination of key development lessons to other scheme promoters and the wider industry via a number of reporting channels. 19.5
NET Phase Two/Integrated System Evaluation
19.5.1 The impact evaluation for NET Phase Two and the integrated network will be based on a range of performance indicators which are focused on outputs, outcomes and impacts
Page 70 of 73
linked to the aims of NET Phase Two, but also including complementary monitoring to support the wider NLPF programme. The proposed performance indicators are included in a draft Benefits Realisation Strategy which is provided in Appendix 25. 19.5.2 The performance indicators developed to address the aims of NET Phase Two (which are listed in paragraph 4.2 above) are wide ranging, but with an emphasis on the core deliverables of the expanded NET system; transport network capacity, efficiency, accessibility and usage, together with key impacts arising from the delivery of NET, including social and distributional impacts and economic development issues. Indicators include both quantitative measures, such as system usage, modal shift and congestion estimates, together with qualitative indicators, including for example, individual attitudes to service provision and commercial views on the influence of the NET system on business location decisions. Consideration of the analyses underpinning the NLPF will provide an understanding of the wider linkages between NET and the LTP transport strategy, of which NET itself is a primary component. 19.5.3 The evaluation will also include process evaluation elements that consider the effectiveness of delivery of the project, including scheme development issues. Experience to date with NET Phase Two suggests an emphasis on key planning and approvals processes, such as the TWAO submission and public inquiry processes. Work on these elements has already commenced. Also to be covered will be monitoring and feedback during the construction phase, including programme, budget, planning and regulatory compliance issues. 19.5.4 The evaluation data requirements will build on the concession performance and payment mechanisms, from monitoring associated with the NLPF and elements of the current NET Line One evaluation programme. 19.5.5 It is likely that additional bespoke monitoring exercises will also be required to consider specific outputs, outcomes and impacts of the integrated NET system. This monitoring may require primary quantitative and qualitative research and could address issues such as the extent of cross-city travel, potential benefits associated with urban realm changes in the district centres and the contribution of NET to reducing transport and wider social barriers to residents of the outer estates of Chilwell and Clifton. 19.6
Evaluation Specification
19.6.1 An Evaluation Specification will be developed as the project progresses to set out the potential scope and management of the integrated NET system evaluation. This will
Page 71 of 73
outline reporting and communications issues, performance indicators, key success criteria and information requirements for both process and impact evaluations. The evaluation will draw on the DfT’s guidance on evaluating major local authority transport schemes and will be linked to a Benefits Realisation Strategy prepared to identify the ‘ownership’ of benefits and responsibilities for benefit delivery and monitoring. 19.6.2 The specification will also consider the interrelationships between the NET evaluation and similar exercises being programmed for other key policy, infrastructure and operational investments expected to be delivered in Nottingham over the coming years. These include the proposed Workplace Parking Levy and the Nottingham Hub proposals. 19.6.3 Reporting of the evaluation will encompass local and national government, industry bodies and other scheme promoters, local populations and representative groups. Appropriate dissemination routes will be used to maximise the value of the evaluation by ensuring best practice is made available to others and any pitfalls in development or implementation can be understood and mitigated in the future.
Page 72 of 73
20.
OBC CRITERIA CHECKLIST
20.1
The OBC has been developed in accordance with the latest guidance from the Office of Government Commerce, 4ps, Department for Transport and The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG).
The DCLG Local Government PFI
Project Support Guide outlines the criteria that should be covered in an OBC and a checklist indicating where information on each of the criteria is provided within the document is included in Appendix 26.
Page 73 of 73
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 1 - PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
1.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 1.1
This paper has been produced by Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council (together "Promoters") and sets out their procurement strategy in respect of Nottingham Express Transit ("NET") Phase Two. This paper supplements and consolidates previous papers submitted by the Promoters to the Department for Transport ("DfT").
1.2
NET Phase Two consists of two extensions to the current NET light rail system to Clifton via Wilford and to Chilwell via Beeston. The two extensions would more than double the length of the existing NET system ("Line One") to 31 km, providing a new high quality public transport service for the west and south west of the Greater Nottingham conurbation.
1.3
The Line One concession agreement requires the parties to terminate the existing arrangements in the event that the Promoters wish to procure extensions to the system. The Promoters' legal advisers have previously provided a paper to DfT on the contractual position in respect of termination for network extensions and their financial advisers have prepared a separate analysis of the compensation that will be payable to the outgoing concessionaire.
1.4
In order to ensure that commercially innovative proposals inform the design process and to assist with obtaining key third party approvals as early as possible, the Promoters have appointed a design team in advance of launching the procurement in respect of the concessionaire. The design team will provide a warranty to the preferred bidder.
1.5
This paper has been produced with DfT's requirements of affordability and transport integration in mind, to meet the following key objectives:
8931795-1
1.5.1
secure value for money over the whole life of the project;
1.5.2
optimise risk transfer to the private sector;
1.5.3
mitigate any risk retained by the Promoters;
1.5.4
ensure there is a contractual mechanism allowing the Promoters to share any windfall gain received by the operator of the system;
1.5.5
ensure that the contractual arrangements provide flexibility in respect of any future extensions to the system;
1.5.6
incentivise achievement of those outputs which are most important to users of the system (e.g. service frequency, timetable, ride quality, noise emissions etc);
1.5.7
ensure integration between the existing NET system and Phase Two; and
1.5.8
require the operator to participate in concessionary fare and local ticketing schemes, but otherwise not to retain control over fares. This will be achieved through obligations contained in the concession agreement.
1.6
An executive summary of the procurement options considered by the Promoters is provided at Section 2, and a more detailed analysis is set out in Section 3. Section 4 considers the applicability of the Docklands Light Railway contractual structure to NET. A qualitative assessment prepared in accordance with HM Treasury guidance is at Section 5.
2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1
Contractual structures for procurement of NET Phase Two 2.1.1
The contractual structures considered by the Promoters in respect of the implementation of NET Phase Two are: 2.1.1.1 Option 1 - Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Maintain (DBFO) - Under this option, one contractor would be appointed as single point of accountability for all aspects of the project. 2.1.1.2 Option 2 - Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) This is the same as Option 1 (DBFO), but without any external private sector project finance.
8931795-1
2.1.1.3 Option 3 - Design, Build, Finance and Maintain plus Operate (DBFM+O) - Under this structure, the DBFM contractor is responsible for providing and maintaining the infrastructure on the basis of PFI availability payments and a separate operating concession agreement is awarded. 2.1.1.4 Option 4 - Design and Build plus Operate and Maintain (DB+OM) - Under this option, an operating and maintenance concession and separate turnkey design and build contract would be awarded. 2.1.2
Option 2 (DBOM) does not appear to offer any advantages when compared with Option 1 (DBFO). However, this structure does have significant disadvantages (e.g. in terms of not incentivising whole life costing and the achievement of passenger focused outputs through a PFI performance regime and payment mechanism) and has therefore been dismissed.
2.1.3
Option 3 (DBFM+O) has been dismissed because it is impractical in the context of NET Phase Two, given concerns as to the division of operations on the one hand and design, construction and maintenance on the other. This is considered in more detail in section 4.
2.1.4
Option 4 (DB+OM) has been dismissed because this structure does not deliver optimal whole life costing or transfer significant long term risk to the private sector. Furthermore, because the operator would not receive ongoing unitary charge payments in respect of which performance deductions may be made, the operator will be less incentivised to achieve passenger focused outputs.
2.1.5
Accordingly, the Promoters' preferred procurement option is 1 (DBFO), for the following key reasons: 2.1.5.1 Full transfer of integration risk - the concessionaire will be required to deal with any integration problems (e.g. inability of the operator to meet run time requirements due to design), failing
8931795-1
which the Promoters will be entitled to reduce the unitary charge. The experience of construction and commissioning of Line One was that there were significant system integration matters e.g. the rail/wheel interface which had to be resolved before Line One could be brought into operation. As a result of the PFI DBFO structure employed for Line One, the Promoters were held harmless from the effects of this risk. The Promoters do not have and do not seek the capacity to absorb the interface risks inherent in other procurement methods. 2.1.5.2 Whole life costing benefits - the concessionaire will be incentivised to ensure that the system is designed to optimise whole life cost over the life of the project and to satisfy handback requirements. 2.1.5.3 Incentivises achievement of passenger focused outputs - the performance regime and payment mechanism will provide greater incentive than under any other procurement option to achieve passenger focused outputs (e.g. service frequency and ride quality).
Otherwise the concessionaire will suffer
deductions from the unitary charge. 2.1.5.4 Flexible structure - future extensions will be included within the scope of the procurement and smaller changes would be dealt with under the contractual variation procedure. 2.1.5.5 Market appetite - positive market feedback on the use of a DBFO structure, with a similar payment structure to Line One. 2.1.5.6 Street running - grouping of operations and maintenance in a street running environment reflects the current preferred approach of the market. 2.1.5.7 Revenue risk - the concessionaire will have overall control in respect of design, construction, maintenance, life cycle replacement and operation allowing the concessionaire to have
8931795-1
greater influence on patronage revenue and take farebox revenue risk.
The Line One Concession Agreement transferred full
revenue risk to the concessionaire. The Promoters, unlike TfL and some of the passenger transport executives, do not have the budgetary flexibility to enable them to retain substantial revenue risk and it is therefore proposed that there will be no revenue risk share. The successful operation of NET Line One, where actual patronage and revenues have been broadly in line with forecast projections, is likely to influence bidders to be more willing to accept long term cost and revenue risks than would be the case for entirely new schemes. 2.1.5.8 Value for money - the Promoters have undertaken both qualitative and quantitative Value For Money assessments in accordance with HM Treasury guidance.
In summary, the
outcome of this assessment is that the chosen PFI option continues to offer best value, showing a Value For Money margin of 13%.
8931795-1
3.
ANALYSIS OF CONTRACTUAL STRUCTURE FOR PROCUREMENT OF PHASE TWO
Contractual Structure Option 1 - Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Maintain (DBFO) Example - NET Line One
8931795-1
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Under this option a single concessionaire would be appointed as the sole point of accountability for all aspects of the project, including design, build, funding, operation, maintenance and integration with Line One. The concessionaire would be paid by reference to service based outputs, such as timetable and ride quality and not by reference to availability of infrastructure. DBFO is the basis of NET Line One, which has been a great success for the Promoters. There is a single point of accountability for all services and all key risks are transferred (although it is recognised that in today's market, better value for money may be achieved if certain risks are shared between the public and private sectors).
•
Integration risk is fully transferred. This is a key objective of the Promoters. NET Phase Two differs from tramway refurbishment or entirely new systems because of the requirement to integrate Phase Two with Line One, both in terms of the minimisation of disruption to Line One services and inter-operability of infrastructure and vehicles.
•
•
This structure incentivises whole life costing more than any other, as the concessionaire is responsible for all aspects of the project from design through to operation, for the duration of the contract period.
•
A recent market consultation exercise conducted by the Promoters has shown that the operator and construction market would be receptive to this structure. In addition, all of the funders consulted by the Promoters in a recent soft market test were positive towards the use of a DBFO structure for Phase Two.
•
The payment mechanism provides
The experience from Leeds Supertram and the South Hampshire Rapid Transit has shown that long-term revenue risk transfer may be unattractive to funders. However, this can be mitigated through the use of a revenue share mechanism (if required) or appropriate ratios between debt service, unitary charge and farebox revenue. Furthermore, there is a degree of certainty in respect of patronage figures as a result of performance data from Line One. Whilst those funders consulted in the Promoters' soft market test were cautious about revenue risk, they all believed that with the right ratio of revenue risk to unitary charge payments, a significant degree of revenue risk could be transferred without adversely affecting value for money.
Contractual Structure
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
greater incentive than under any other procurement option to achieve passenger focused outputs (e.g. service frequency and ride quality). •
This structure does not require upfront public sector capital funding and therefore should be more affordable.
•
Leading counsel (Kenneth Parker QC and Michael Bowsher QC) have advised that this structure can easily accommodate future system extensions. This is not affected by the implementation of the new procurement regulations.
• Option 2 - Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) Example - Midland Metro
8931795-1
This is the same structure as for DBFO, but without any external private sector project finance.
Potential to achieve off balance sheet treatment. As for Option 1 (DBFO).
As for Option 1 (DBFO), plus: •
Requires upfront public sector capital funding.
•
This structure does not deliver optimal whole life cost or transfer significant long term risk to the private sector. For example, despite contractual transfer of risks, much of latent
Contractual Structure
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages defect risk and life cycle risk effectively sits with the public sector because there is no bank funding at stake.
8931795-1
•
No requirement for substantial bank due diligence which would otherwise help identify and manage risk and ensure the delivery of the final project.
•
Unlike Option 1 (DBFO), because the concessionaire does not receive ongoing unitary charge payments in respect of which performance deductions may be made, this structure does not incentivise the achievement of passenger focused outputs.
Contractual Structure Option 3 - Design, Build, Finance and Maintain plus Operation
Description
Advantages
DBFM + O is the contractual • structure used on DLR. A DBFM contractor is responsible for providing the infrastructure and vehicles under a long term contract and (DBFM+O) is paid on the basis of availability of infrastructure Example Docklands Light Rail rather than on the basis of service based outputs. A ("DLR") separate operating company is awarded a short term operating concession. • •
8931795-1
Disadvantages
This structure facilitates the • procurement of future unforeseen extensions because there can be more than one infrastructure provider, meaning that the existing DBFM arrangements do not need to be terminated. The relatively short duration of the operating contract allows for regular re-letting of the • operating contract in respect of the entire system. However, as noted above, leading counsel have advised that this can also be achieved under the DBFO structure. This structure does not require upfront public sector capital funding.
While this model is proving successful in an "off-street environment", in the case of NET there are clear interfaces with third parties and disputes at these interfaces are likely to result in additional cost for the public sector (this is considered further in section 4). The level of complexity associated with this structure in order to deal with the interfaces between the operator and the DBFM contractor is not proportionate for Phase Two and the Promoters do not have the resources that TfL have available to manage this interface risk.
• Whole life costing benefits in that the same entity is responsible for design, construction and maintenance (though • not operation).
May not achieve off balance sheet treatment.
•
Less effective transfer of risk to operator because no financing is at stake under the operating concession.
•
A payment mechanism based on availability of infrastructure rather than
Retention of long term revenue risk due to short operating contract.
Contractual Structure
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages matters such as reliability, punctuality and ride quality does not incentivise customer focused outputs.
Option 4 - Design A turnkey design and build • and Build contract and a separate plus Operate and operating and maintenance contract would be awarded to Maintain two different entities. This is the model used on Sheffield Supertram. (DB+OM)
This structure allows new • infrastructure for system extensions to be procured directly by the public sector and the operating/maintenance contract to be extended to cover the entire system. However, as detailed above, the same effect could be achieved through a DBFO structure.
This structure does not deliver optimal whole life cost or transfer significant long term risk to the private sector. For example, despite contractual transfer of risks, much of latent defect risk and life cycle risk effectively sits with the public sector because there is no bank funding at stake.
•
As with DBFO, responsibility for • operation and maintenance rests with the same entity, avoiding some of the problems associated with the DBFM+O structure.
Unlike Option 1 (DBFO), because the concessionaire does not receive ongoing unitary charge payments in respect of which performance deductions may be made, this structure does not incentivise the achievement of passenger focused outputs.
•
Will not achieve off balance sheet treatment.
•
Integration risk between D&B and O&M elements is not transferred and remains with the Promoters.
•
No requirement for substantial bank due diligence which would otherwise help identify and manage risk and
Example Sheffield Supertram
8931795-1
Contractual Structure
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages ensure the delivery of the final project.
8931795-1
4.
COMPARISON WITH DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY ("DLR") 4.1
DLR Contractual Structure 4.1.1
The Promoters have given detailed consideration to the potential use of a DBFM+O structure, as used on DLR. Under this structure, the Promoters would enter into a contract for the design, construction, financing and maintenance of the new infrastructure and payments to the DBFM contractor would be made on an availability basis. The Promoters would also enter into a separate concession agreement with an operator.
4.1.2
Under the DLR structure, maintenance responsibilities primarily rest with the various DBFM contractors. The operator provides a "first operational response" service, aimed at dealing with unexpected maintenance issues which affect train operations. This service involves initial reporting of the incident, attendance at site and rectification (where within the immediate capabilities of the operator). It does not include permanent or substantial repairs.
4.1.3
The result is that a complex contractual regime is required whereby liquidated damages and the other costs of each of the operator and the DBFM contractor are paid by one party to the other where the former has failed to comply with its contractual obligations. In practice, the result is that the public sector promoter would inevitably become involved with any dispute regarding the interface between operations and maintenance responsibilities. Under a DBFO structure, any such disputes would be dealt with by the project company and its subcontractors.
4.2
Applicability of separation of maintenance and operation for NET 4.2.1
DLR operates as a fully segregated railway, utilising fully automated trains which are driverless in standard mode, powered by a third rail and controlled by an automatic train control system. Therefore, the system is effectively isolated from extraneous influence, including driver behaviour, making it possible to identify a clear split between infrastructure availability and day to day system operation, and enabling a transparent interface between the two to be maintained.
8931795-1
4.2.2
By contrast, NET vehicles are street running and there are significant interfaces with users of the public highway, such as pedestrians crossing tracks, illegal parking causing delay to services, traffic on the tracks etc. In addition, unlike DLR, the NET vehicles are operated by drivers and therefore driver behaviour has a significant potential impact on infrastructure, vehicle condition and subsequently overall performance of the system.
4.2.3
In such an environment, the system infrastructure and the mode of operation is considerably more at risk of disruption for reasons other than simply equipment failure. With so many external factors potentially impacting on operation and the DBFM contractor's response to these factors therefore being critical to the operator's ability to perform, the operator (whose payments will be dependent on outcomes to the public) will be especially concerned about the increased risks that would be imposed on it by the separation of operations from maintenance. The operator would effectively be taking the risk that the Promoters had adequately specified the deliverables under the DBFM contract in order to enable the operator to meet the requirements of its own output-based specification and that there is an adequate liquidated damages regime in the DBFM contract to compensate the operator for any losses incurred.
4.2.4
Given the environment in which the NET system operates, where external factors are likely to require responsive action from the DBFM contractor on a more regular basis than is required for DLR, as has been shown by NET Line One operations, the operator is likely to push as much of this risk back to the Promoters as possible, leaving the Promoters with significant integration risk and potential maintenance responsibilities. The Promoters are unwilling to accept such risk and consider that management of maintenance risk by the operator would help ensure that remedial action is efficiently co-ordinated and cost effectively managed. It would also encourage an overall operating and maintenance regime focused on running a light rail service (rather than minimising penalty payments to separate operating and maintenance organisations), thereby reducing the potential for a "blame culture" to dominate.
4.2.5
One of the principal reasons for adopting a DBFM structure is that it permits the procurement of extensions to an existing system without the requirement
8931795-1
to terminate existing design and build arrangements. However, leading counsel have advised that it would be possible to achieve the same effect under a DBFO structure. As a result, the use of a DBFM structure would involve a level of contractual complexity disproportionate to the size, capital value and requirements of NET Phase Two. 4.2.6
Furthermore, the recent market test conducted by the Promoters has shown that, as a general rule, organisations bidding for the operating element of a light rail project would only be interested in doing so provided maintenance responsibilities were grouped with operations.
8931795-1
5.
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
Issue
Question
Programme level Is the Procuring Authority satisfied that operable contracts objectives and outputs could be constructed for projects falling in this area? Can these contractual outputs/requirements be robustly assessed? Could the contracts describe service requirements in clear, objective, output-based terms? Could they support assessments of whether the service has been delivered to an agreed standard?
Is the fit between needs and outcome sufficient to proceed?
Response Nottingham Express Transit Line One, which was procured under this structure, is in highly successful operation. During the construction phase this structure ensured that all of the integration and construction delay risks were passed to Carillion and did not remain with the Promoters. Market testing carried out by the Promoters has shown that this structure remains attractive to both contractors and operators, as well as to funders. The NET Line One contract demonstrates that light rail technical requirements may be successfully expressed in output terms and are capable of being robustly monitored and assessed. The Annex E submission and updated OBC submitted by the Promoters demonstrate that the strategic need may only be met by proceeding with the procurement of Phase Two.
In the event of staff transfer, can the contracts be drafted to If staff are to transfer, which is likely, appropriate provisions to avoid perverse incentives and deliver quality services? protect their employment rights (including in relation to pensions) will be included within the contracts. The Promoters will ensure compliance with best practice and the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts. The specification, payment mechanism and performance regime will ensure that the concessionaire is incentivised to deliver high quality works and services and to achieve passenger focused objectives. Operational flexibility
8931795-1
Is the Procuring Authority satisfied that operational To ensure operational flexibility, future extensions to the NET flexibility is likely to be maintained over the lifetime of the system will be included within the scope of the original contract, at an acceptable cost? procurement, such that the Promoters will have the option to require the concessionaire to provide and operate any or all of such extensions. Leading counsel have advised that under this structure (which is treated as a "public works concession" for
Issue
Question
Response procurement law purposes) this may be achieved within the constraints of public procurement and state aid legislation. This will not be affected by the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. The concession agreement will contain a variation procedure allowing the Promoters to vary the works and services on a no net loss/no net gain basis. This will enable the services to be amended to reflect changes in demand or other factors at reasonable cost to the Promoters.
Have the long term tradeoffs between operational flexibility The mechanisms described above will enable flexibility to be and cost been identified? incorporated into the contracts without the need to incur significant cost until variations or extensions are implemented. The concession agreement will require the cost of major variations to be either benchmarked or market tested by tendering relevant subcontractor packages in order to ensure value for money. Equity, efficiency and Are there public equity, efficiency or accountability reasons There are no such reasons. Public transport services are more for providing the service directly, rather than through a PFI typically provided by the private sector in the UK than by the accountability contract? public sector. Are there regulatory or legal restrictions that require services The Promoters have taken legal advice which has confirmed that to be provided directly? there are no such restrictions. Have the expected staff terms and conditions at stage 2 been The Promoters' legal advisers' initial view is that it is likely that, considered and what are the impacts on the contract, equity, assuming that there are no organisational changes in the efficiency and accountability? meantime, those staff engaged by the outgoing concessionaire in the provision of the Line One services will transfer to the new concessionaire's subcontractors under the new structure. Appropriate provisions to protect their employment rights (including in relation to pensions) will be included within the contracts. The Promoters will ensure compliance with best practice and the Code of Practice on Workforce matters in Local Authority Service Contracts.
8931795-1
Issue
Question
Response
OVERALL VIABILITY
Overall, in deciding to proceed with PFI, is the accounting officer satisfied that an operable contract with built-in flexibility can be constructed, and that strategic and regulatory issues can be overcome?
The Promoters' monitoring officers and chief financial officers are satisfied that an operable contract with built-in flexibility can be constructed, and that strategic and regulatory issues can be overcome using the DBFO structure. They receive regular reports from the Promoters' dedicated project team, which are informed by advice from the Promoters' legal, financial and technical advisers.
Risk management
Does the project involve the purchase of a significant capital asset, where the risks of cost and time over-runs are likely to be significant? Does the project involve operational aspects where the risk of cost and time overrun are likely to be significant?
The project does involve the procurement of significant capital assets, namely track, overhead line equipment and vehicles. The risk of cost and time overrun during the construction phase could have a significant impact on the capital costs of the project (e.g. dealing with unforeseen ground conditions and cost increases of materials) and could cause a loss to the operator in terms of operating revenue (e.g. delayed patronage and advertising revenue). As is the case on Line One, this risk would be transferred to the concessionaire under the concession agreement, and consequently to its subcontractors. Such degree of transfer of integration risk is not achievable under any structure other than DBFO.
Innovation
Does a preliminary assessment indicate that there is likely to be scope for innovation? To what extent are the project's scope, specification and operation pre-set or open to negotiation with the private sector?
Whilst the Line One infrastructure specification will form a basis for Phase Two (as the Promoters will require full integration of the entire system), there is still scope for innovation in the construction elements of Phase Two (for example, design and construction requirements around Nottingham Station and the regional hospital, the Queen's Medical Centre). Furthermore, there is scope for innovation in a number of operational aspects of the scheme, such as service patterns and
8931795-1
Issue
Question
Response fare collection. In order to ensure that commercially innovative proposals inform the design process and to assist with obtaining key third party approvals as early as possible, the Promoters have appointed a design team in advance of launching the procurement in respect of the concessionaire. The design team will provide a warranty to the preferred bidder.
Service provision
Are there good strategic reasons to retain soft service Given that responsibility for operation of Line One is already provision in house? vested in the private sector, it is difficult to identify in the context of NET what soft services to be retained in house may • What are the implications in the longer term for the comprise. organisation in losing these skills - are all the expertise transferring or is there some retention? Eg skills to These questions appear to be aimed at accommodation projects and are not relevant. manage contracts or let future similar contracts. Is soft service transfer essential for achieving the overall benefits of improved standards of service delivery?
8931795-1
•
What are the relative advantages and disadvantages?
•
Is there a commitment that the assumed benefits are deliverable without eroding the overall terms and
Issue
Question conditions for staff? •
Response
Is transfer necessary to achieve the optimal risk allocation?
Where soft services are not transferred, is this consistent with the Prime Minister's commitment to flexibility of public service provision? •
Are there changes in working practices that are only deliverable through transfer or are there other ways these could be achieved and do they deliver VfM?
Incentive monitoring
and Can the outcome or outputs of the investment programme be Under the DBFO structure, the outcome of the investment described in contractual terms, which would be unambiguous programme can be described in contract terms which are and measurable? unambiguous and measurable, and an independent certifier will certify practical completion against a set of specified Can the service be assessed against an agreed standard? requirements. The concessionaire will accept output based service requirements against which performance will be assessed, and it will subcontract these to the relevant subcontractor. Would incentives on service levels be enhanced through a Under the DBFO structure, the concessionaire will be heavily PFI payment mechanism? incentivised to meet service levels as payments will be made by the Promoters on a performance basis, with deductions for under-performance.
Lifecycle costs residual value
8931795-1
and Is it possible to integrate the design, build and operation of Responsibility for design, construction, operation and the project? maintenance will all rest with a single entity, ensuring full integration risk transfer. This will also ensure a greater risk transfer in respect of lifecycle when compared to any other
Issue
Question
Response contractual structure.
Is a lengthy contract envisaged? Will a long-term contractual A lengthy contract term is envisaged (currently expected to be relationship be suitable (or advantageous) for the service? around 22 years) for the concession agreement to enable a sufficient period for repayment of borrowing and an adequate senior debt tail. As the Phase Two concession agreement will be a "public works concession", the EU regulation on public service obligations in the transport sector will not apply to it to limit the term. Are there significant ongoing operating costs and There are significant operating and maintenance costs which are maintenance requirements? Are these likely to be sensitive likely to be sensitive to the type of construction. Whole life to the type of construction? costing is therefore extremely important. The new infrastructure will be designed to current standards to ensure optimum reliability and reasonable maintenance costs. OVERALL DESIRABILITY
Overall, is the accounting officer satisfied that PFI would The Promoters' monitoring officers and chief financial officers bring sufficient benefits that would outweigh the expected are satisfied that the DBFO approach would bring sufficient benefits which would outweigh the expected higher cost of higher cost of capital? capital.
Transaction costs and Is there sufficient client-side capability to manage the The Promoters have a dedicated NET project team with procurement process and appraise ongoing performance considerable expertise, both in relation to NET Line One and client capacity against agreed outputs? large scale public sector procurements generally. The team has been in place since the successful delivery of Line One and remains largely unchanged. The Gateway 0 review conducted by 4ps in October 2005 concluded that the NET project team is experienced, committed and is supported by suitably qualified legal, technical and financial advisers. This was considered by the review team to be a "key element" which "points to the likelihood of a successful delivery of Phase Two".The Gateway One review in June 2008 endorsed this view, stating that ‘there is a committed, enthusiastic and experienced project team in place which has been working together for a significant period of time. The team
8931795-1
Issue
Question
Response know each other and readily support each other.’ The Gateway Two review in March 2009 concluded that ‘the project is being well run, with good governance and project management’ and ‘the project is being run professionally with strong definition of project controls and resources in place.’
Can appropriately skilled procurement teams be assembled in A team is already in place, as noted above. good time? Competition
Is there evidence that the private sector is capable of The DBFO structure is tried and tested and has proven delivering the required outcome (see Section 7)? successful in the context of Line One. The market testing exercise and funder soft market testing conducted by the Is there likely to be sufficient market appetite for the project? Promoters has shown that there is market appetite for Phase How is it expected that the market will receive the proposed Two and the DBFO structure, from both operators/contractors risk profile? and funders. • Eg what has been the market reaction to similar deals Whilst those funders consulted in the Promoters' soft market test with and without staff inclusion? Or what has been were cautious about revenue risk, they all believed that with the right ratio of revenue risk to unitary charge payments, a the reaction to the allocation of demand risk? significant degree of revenue risk could be transferred without adversely affecting value for money. It is therefore expected that the market will react favourably to the proposed risk profile.
OVERALL ACHIEVABILITY
8931795-1
Overall, is the accounting officer satisfied that a PFI procurement programme is achievable, given client side capability and the attractiveness of the proposals to the market?
The Promoters' monitoring officers and chief financial officers are satisfied that a PFI procurement programme on the basis of the DBFO structure is achievable, given client side capability, would achieve the Promoters' key objectives and would be attractive to the market.
8931795-1
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 7 – DRAFT CONTRACTUAL RISK MATRIX
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
CONTRACTUAL RISK MATRIX This risk matrix sets out, in summary form only, how the draft Concession Agreement for NET Phase Two apportions key project risks. The draft Concession Agreement follows the principles set out in, and the requirements of, HM Treasury's "Standardisation of PFI Contracts - v 4" ("SOPC4") and takes account of the Promoters' experience of successfully delivering NET Line One as a PFI project. The risk matrix divides the risks examined into the following categories: A.
Design and planning risk
B.
Construction & commissioning risks
C.
Operation & performance risks
D.
Termination risk
E.
Integration risks
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
A.
DESIGN AND PLANNING RISK
1.
Project layout design
2.
3.
Design failure
Information
Layout design is found to be inadequate, unworkable. Project not buildable.
9
Concessionaire's Design is inadequate to meet the Concession Specification.
9
Background Information supplied by the Promoters proves incorrect and design solution suffers as a result
9
9
4.
Programme risk
Failure to develop the Design within the required timescale as set out in the Development Programme
5.
Promoters variation
Change in the Promoters' requirements, leading to additional costs
6.
Concessionaire
Change in requirements of the Concessionaire
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
SHARED
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES PROMOTERS
Clause 14 (Works) There will be an agreed schedule of dates by which the Promoters are obliged to licence parcels of land. The land required by the Concessionaire will be specified in the Concessionaire's bid. If the Concessionaire requires additional land within the limits of deviation under the TWAO, the Promoters will (subject to third party commitments) make it available to the Concessionaire at the Concessionaire's cost Clause 14 (Works) The Concession Agreement obliges the Concessionaire to meet both the output based Concession Specification and its own detailed technical specification (the Concessionaire's Proposals). In the event of conflict between the Concession Specification and the Concessionaire's Proposals, the Concession Specification will prevail. Clause 4 (Warranties) The Concessionaire will carry out its own due diligence. The Promoters will endeavour to procure direct deeds of warranty in favour of the Concessionaire from relevant consultants responsible for delivering certain key structural surveys and reports. In particular, elements of the work undertaken by Mott Macdonald will be warranted by Mott Macdonald. Clause 13 (Development Programme)
9
Clause 58 (Change) and Part 1 of Schedule 4 (Change) Dealt with through change protocols (based on PUK standard drafting for operational projects).
9
Clause 58 (Change) and Part 1 of Schedule 4 (Change)
3
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
variations 7.
PROMOTERS
Dealt with through change protocols (based on PUK standard drafting for operational projects).
Overhead Equipment ("OHLE")
Line
9
Agreement of building owner, lessees etc. not obtained to OHLE building fixings or poles
Clause 20 (Overhead Line Equipment) and Article 19, Schedule 8 and Schedule 16 of the Order Article 19 of the Order gives the Promoters the right to affix building fixings to support OHLE to land specified in schedule 8 of the Order (such right to be transferred to the Concessionaire). The Concessionaire will also be granted the right to affix building fixings for Line One under the existing Line One building fixing agreements. In relation to other building fixings/poles, the risk of relocating/finding alternative means of supporting the OHLE is shared depending on location and whether building fixings or poles (this is the case for both existing Line One fixings/poles and for Phase Two).
8.
Technological obsolescence
Concessionaire technology becomes obsolete during contract term and requires upgrading or replacement
9
Clause 25 (Operations and Maintenance Procedures)
9.
Consents including:
Costs of obtaining the consents /unobtainability /expiry of consents
9
Clause 12 (Consents)
•
10.
Traffic Regulation Orders including under TWAO;
•
statutory and other consents and licences;
•
planning permissions
Compliance third undertakings
with party
To the extent not already discharged by the Promoters as at the date of the Concession Agreement, obtaining and discharging Consents is a Concessionaire risk. In advance of concession award the Promoters are developing the design to enable key third party consents to be advanced and in some circumstances obtained, including planning approvals, thereby allowing bidders to price with greater cost and programme certainty and less risk consideration.
Numerous 3rd party undertakings impose design & planning constraints on the Project.
9
Clause 38 (Third Party Undertakings and Consents) and Schedule 33 (Third Party Undertakings and Transferable Agreements) To the extent responsibility for complying with the terms of a third party undertaking has been transferred to the Concessionaire under clause 38 and schedule 33 (defined
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
4
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
PROMOTERS
as "Delegated Obligations"), responsibility for complying with the constraints imposed by such undertakings will rest with the Concessionaire. 11.
Change in Law
9
Change in Law during design phase necessitates amendments to Design
Clause 59 (Change of Law) and Part 2 of Schedule 4 (Change of Law) Allocation in accordance with SOPC4.
B.
CONSTRUCTION & COMMISSIONING
1.
CPO Land property
and
9
Availability and cost of land for which the Promoters have compulsory purchase powers
Clause 8 (Property and Compensation Matters) and Schedule 2 (Land Matters) Land acquisition is to be undertaken by the Promoters. There will be an agreed schedule of dates by which the Promoters are obliged to licence parcels of land. The land required by the Concessionaire will be specified in the Concessionaire's bid. If the Concessionaire requires additional land within the limits of deviation under the TWAO, the Promoters will (subject to third party commitments) make it available to the Concessionaire at the Concessionaire's cost.
2.
Additional land and property
Concessionaire requires land additional to that provided by the Promoters
9
Clause 8 (Property and Compensation Matters) and Schedule 2 (Land Matters) See comments in row B1 above.
3.
Site Condition
Unforeseen ground/site conditions increase costs and/or cause delays
9
Clause 9 (The Site)
4.
Statutory undertakers
Liaison/interface with statutory undertakers and ensuring utility diversion works adequate
9
Clause 8.6.3 (Property and Compensation Matters)
5.
Latent defects
Latent defects are discovered
9
Clause 9 (The Site)
6.
Programme estimation
Programme estimation proves to be inaccurate
9
Clause 41 (Payment) Unitary Charge will uplift when certain targets achieved. Clause 70 (Termination on Concessionaire Default) Failure to achieve Practical Completion by a specified long
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
5
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
PROMOTERS
stop date is to be a Concessionaire Default, entitling the Promoters' to terminate the Concession Agreement. 7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Construction development estimation
and costs
Traffic management / highway interface
Site access
Fire, explosion etc.
National strikes of construction industry
Costs are underestimated
9
No specific reference The Unitary Charge will be fixed, subject to indexation. 9
The carrying out of works to the Highway by or on behalf of the Promoters in their capacities as highway authorities which disrupt the Works
Delay gaining access to the Site causes Concessionaire to incur costs
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) Relief Event save where:
9
(a)
such works are carried out by the Concessionaire or a Concessionaire Party; or
(b)
where such event arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its SubContractors.
No specific reference Concessionaire risk (the Unitary Charge will be fixed, subject to indexation), subject to Promoters' responsibilities as detailed at row B1 above.
Fire, explosion, lightning, storm, tempest, flood, bursting or overflowing of water tanks, apparatus or pipes, ionising radiation (to the extent it does not constitute a Force Majeure Event), earthquakes, riot or civil commotion which causes delay to the Works
9
Delay/costs incurred as a result of national strike of construction industry
9
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) Relief Event, save where the event arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its Sub-Contractors Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) To the extent the strike constitutes an official or unofficial strike, lockout, go slow or other dispute, generally affecting the light rail industry or a significant sector of it, then such strike will be a Relief Event, save where the strike arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its Sub-Contractors.
12.
Other strikes
Delay/costs incurred as a result of other strikes
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
9
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48
6
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
PROMOTERS
(Relief Events) See row above. 13.
Utilities failure
9
Power or other utilities failure causes delay
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) Where failure arises as a result of a: (a)
failure by any statutory undertaker, utility company, local authority or other like body to carry out works or provide services; or
(b)
any failure or shortage of power, fuel or transport,
then such failure will be a Relief Event, save where such failure arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its SubContractors or where such failure arises as a result of:
14.
Accidental loss or damage
9
Accidental loss or damage to the Works
(a)
the actions of the Concessionaire Concessionaire Party; or
or
a
(b).
a failure by the Concessionaire to undertake works in accordance with any agreed diversionary works plan.
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) To the extent event results in accidental loss or damage to a material part of the System, such event will be a Relief Event, save where the event arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its Sub-Contractors.
15.
16.
Responsibility for site supervision and safety
Accidents occur on site and injuries sustained by personnel or third parties
9
Responsibility
Cost of plant and equipment stolen or damaged
9
for
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
Clause 19 (Health and Safety) As between the Concessionaire and the Promoters, the Concessionaire is entirely responsible for the safety of any design or works which form part of the Works or Services and for the adequacy, stability and safety of all construction operations and methods of construction. Clause 9 (The Site)
7
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION
site security
by third parties
An event of Force Majeure
Force Majeure Events lead to delay/cost.
CONC'NAIRE
17.
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
PROMOTERS
9
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Force Majeure Event") and Clause 72 (Termination on Force Majeure) Drafting follows SOPC4 required risk allocation
18.
Legislative change
9
Change in Law during Construction Period necessitates change in Works
Clause 59 (Change of Law) and Part 2 of Schedule 4 (Change of Law) Allocation in accordance with SOPC4. By way of a derogation from SOPC4, any change to the Street Works (Sharing of Cost of Works) (England) Regulations 2000 or any other Law relating to the sharing of the costs of removing, installing, moving, diverting, relocating, altering or otherwise carrying out of works in connection with Conducting Media, have been excluded from the "Qualifying Change of Law" provisions, as it is intended that the Concessionaire shall bear all the risk associated with the diversion of utilities equipment including the risk of changes to cost sharing legislation relating to such diversions.
19.
Changes in taxation
Changes in taxation lead to increased tax liability for Concessionaire
9
9
No specific reference
9
No specific reference
20.
Exchange rates
Fluctuation in exchange Concessionaire's costs
rates
increases
21.
Inflation
Concessionaire's costs increase due to inflation
22.
Protestor action
Costs/delay incurred due to protestor action
Clause 45 (Taxation) and Clause 44 (VAT) Except changes in the recoverability of input VAT due to Project Operations becoming exempt from VAT.
9
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) To the extent the presence of protestors on the Site could not have been prevented by the Concessionaire or any SubContractor undertaking reasonable security measures in relation to the Site, then such protestor action will be a Relief Event (save to the extent such event arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its Sub-Contractors).
23.
Promoters variation
The Promoters require changes to the Concession
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
9
Clause 58 (Change) and Part 1 of Schedule 4 (Change)
8
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
Specification 24.
25.
Concessionaire variations
Change in requirements of the Concessionaire
Fossils, Antiquities and Human Remains
The discovery of fossils, antiquities or human remains delays the Works or further works are required
PROMOTERS
Dealt with through change protocols (based on PUK standard drafting for operational projects). 9
Clause 58 (Change) and Part 1 of Schedule 4 (Change) Dealt with through change protocols (based on PUK standard drafting for operational projects). 9
Clause 1.1 (Definition of "Relief Events"), Clause 48 (Relief Events), Clause 15 (Fossils and Antiquities) and Clause 16 (Exhumation) Relief Event, save to the extent discovery arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its Sub-Contractors. Concessionaire to bear the cost of exhumations etc. Furthermore, the Concessionaire will be required to comply with those functions of the Order, which are transferred to it, which address the issue of human remains, etc.
26.
Commissioning
Commissioning/testing of Trams/System
9
Clause 23 (Completion of the Works) and Clause 41 (Payment) Unitary Charge will uplift when certain targets achieved. Clause 22 (Independent Certifier) The Parties jointly appoint an Independent Certifier who will be responsible for inspecting the Works and for certifying the achievement of Practical Completion.
27.
ROGS
Compliance with ROGS
9
Clause 19 (Health and Safety) The Concessionaire will be responsible for Safety Critical Works (as defined in ROGS) and for providing and complying with a Safety Management System (as defined in ROGS). The Promoters will appoint a "competent person" (as required by ROGS) to develop and sign off against a Safety Verification System (as defined in ROGS). The competent person will also owe a duty to the Concessionaire.
28.
Risk of third party
Third parties bring claims against the Project -
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
9
Clause 8 (Property and Compensation Matters), Clause 37
9
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
claims
costs potentially incurred
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
SHARED
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES PROMOTERS
(Exercise of Functions) and Clause 38 (Third Party Undertakings and Agreements). Clause 8 requires the Concessionaire to indemnify the Promoters against Losses arising as a result of various third party claims. In addition, the Concessionaire indemnifies the Promoters against Losses arising as a result of the Concessionaire's failure to comply with the Transferred Functions and/or the Delegated Obligations.
C.
OPERATION & PERFORMANCE
1.
Infrastructure condition technological obsolescence
2.
3.
Defects in the Concessionaire's infrastructure are discovered or Concessionaire technology becomes obsolete during Term and requires upgrading or replacement
9
Noise and vibration issues
Liabilities caused by noise and vibration caused by operation of the System
9
Injurious affection
Other injurious affection claims
9
and
Clause 25 (Operations and Maintenance Procedures) Concessionaire must ensure that the Services are continuously performed in accordance with the Concession Agreement and maintain the design intention of the System. Clause 8 (Property and Compensation Matters) Clause 8 requires the Concessionaire to indemnify the Promoters against Losses arising as a result of various third party claims, including for noise/vibration. In addition, the Concession Specification will specify agreed limits for noise and vibration levels, which through the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the System by the Concessionaire, the System will not exceed. Clause 8 (Property and Compensation Matters) Clause 8 requires the Concessionaire to indemnify the Promoters against Losses arising as a result of third party claims for injurious affection.
4.
Consents including: •
Traffic Regulation Orders (including under TWAO);
•
statutory
Costs of obtaining consents/unobtainability/expiry of consents
the
9
Clause 12 (Consents) To the extent not already discharged by the Promoters as at the date of the Concession Agreement, obtaining and discharging Consents is a Concessionaire risk.
and
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
10
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
SHARED
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES PROMOTERS
other consents and licences; • 5.
planning permissions
Concession Specification
Failure to meet performance Concession Specification
standards/
9
Clause 24 (The Services), Schedule 23 (Performance Monitoring System) and Schedule 26 (Payment Mechanism) If non-performance reaches specified levels, such performance will constitute a "Concessionaire Default" and may result in termination in accordance with clause 70 (Termination on Concessionaire Default).
6.
Operating costs
Operating costs are underestimated
9
No specific reference Unitary Charge will be fixed, subject to indexation
7.
Risk of third party claims
Third parties bring claims against the Scheme as a result of Project Operations - costs potentially incurred
9
Clause 5 (Indemnity), Clause 8 (Property and Compensation Matters) and Clause 38 (Third Party Undertakings and Agreements)
8.
System/Site condition (including contamination)
Unforeseen conditions increase costs and/or cause performance failures
9
Clause 9 (The Site)
9.
Latent defects
Latent defects are discovered
9
Clause 9 (The Site)
10.
Revenue risk
Variations in demand for Services cause loss to Concessionaire
9
Clause 46 (Fares, Concessionary Fares and Participation in Ticketing Schemes) and Clause 47 (Compensation Events) The Concessionaire will bear the risk of Patronage Revenue falling below Base Case Patronage Revenue. Where the Concessionaire suffers a loss of Patronage Revenue as a result of: (a)
an Unplanned Public Event; or
(b)
any Relevant Highways Change (to the extent not arising (directly or indirectly) as a result of a any act or omission of the Concessionaire or a Concessionaire Party),
the Concessionaire is entitled to seek compensation under
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
11
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
PROMOTERS
clause 47 (Compensation Events) (this is a derogation from SOPC4 guidance). Lost Patronage Revenue will be calculated in accordance with clause 52 (Capped Patronage Adjustment) and will be capped at Base Case. 11.
Fare setting
Fare levels cause loss to concessionaire
9
Clause 46 (Fares, Concessionary Fares and Participation in Ticketing Schemes) The Concessionaire is entitled to determine at its own discretion fare levels on the System. The Concessionaire is required to participate in such Concessionary Travel Schemes and multi-modal Ticketing Schemes, as specified by the Promoters from time to time.
12.
13.
Traffic management / highway interface
UTC System priority change
The carrying out of works to the Highway by or on behalf of the Promoters in their capacities as highway authorities which disrupt performance
Temporary or permanent reconfiguration of traffic signals by the highway authority, resulting in a change to priorities at traffic signals to Concessionaire's detriment
9
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) Relief Event save where:
9
(a)
such works are carried out by the Concessionaire or a Concessionaire Party; or
(b)
where such event arise (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its SubContractors.
1.1 (Definition of "Compensation Event") and Clause 47 (Compensation Events) Such a change may constitute a "Relevant Highways Change" and as such a Compensation Event, entitling the Concessionaire to seek compensation under clause 47 (Compensation Events) (this is a derogation from SOPC4 guidance). Lost Patronage Revenue will be calculated in accordance with clause 52 (Capped Patronage Adjustment) and will be capped at Base Case. Clause 50 (Highways Changes) To the extent that a UTC System priority change is either a "Long Term Highways Change" or a "Hindering Highways Change", then the provisions of clause 50 (Highways Changes) will apply and will result in the recalibration of the Performance Monitoring System and/or the Concession
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
12
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
PROMOTERS
Specification. 14.
On-route highway layout changes
Changes to highway layout - e.g. junction layout, parking restrictions, bus stop positions, taxi ranks, pedestrian crossings cause performance failure/costs
9
As for UTC System priority change
15.
On route traffic management changes
Traffic management changes - e.g. speed restrictions, direction changes cause performance failure/costs
9
As for UTC System priority change
16.
Competition
Competing services cause loss of revenue to Concessionaire
9
Clause 46 (Fares, Concessionary Fares and Participation in Ticketing Schemes) The Concessionaire will bear the risk of Patronage Revenue falling below Base Case Patronage Revenue.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Site access
Delay gaining access to Concessionaire to incur costs
site(s)
causes
9
No specific reference Concessionaire risk (the Unitary Charge will be fixed, subject to indexation).
9
Lifecycle maintenance
Component requires replacement earlier than anticipated
Fire, flood etc
Fire, explosion, lightning, storm, tempest, flood, bursting or overflowing of water tanks, apparatus or pipes, ionising radiation (to the extent it does not constitute a Force Majeure Event), earthquakes, riot or civil commotion which effect the performance of the Services.
9
Performance failures/costs incurred as a result of national strike of public transport industry
9
National strikes of public transport industry
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
Clause 25 (Operations and Maintenance Procedures) Concessionaire must ensure that the Services are continuously performed in accordance with the Concession Agreement and maintain the design intention of the System. Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) Relief Event, save where the event arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its Sub-Contractors Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) To the extent the strike constitutes an official or unofficial strike, lockout, go slow or other dispute, generally affecting the light rail industry or a significant sector of it, then such strike will be a Relief Event, save where the strike arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its Sub-Contractors
13
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
21.
Other strikes
Performance failures/costs incurred as a result of other strikes
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
9
PROMOTERS
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) See row above.
22.
Utilities failure
Power or other performance failure
utilities
failure
9
causes
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) Where failure arises as a result of a: (a)
failure by any statutory undertaker, utility company, local authority or other like body to carry out works or provide services; or
(b)
any failure or shortage of power, fuel or transport,
then such failure will be a Relief Event, save where such failure arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its SubContractors or where such failure arises as a result of:
23.
Accidental loss or damage
9
Accidental loss or damage to the System
(a)
the actions of the Concessionaire Concessionaire Party; or
or
a
(b).
a failure by the Concessionaire to undertake works in accordance with any agreed diversionary works plan.
Clause 1.1 (definition of "Relief Event") and clause 48 (Relief Events) To the extent event results in accidental loss or damage to a material part of the System, such event will be a Relief Event, save where the event arises (directly or indirectly) as a result of any wilful act of the Concessionaire or any of its Sub-Contractors.
24.
Responsibility security
for
Cost of plant and equipment stolen or damaged by third parties
25.
Replacement of defaulting Operating Sub-Contractor
Operating Sub-Contractor is changed due to under-performance and new sub-contractor continues to incur deductions during transition
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
9
Clause 9 (The Site) 9
Clauses 80.10 and 80.11 (Assignment, Sub-Contracting and Changes in Ownership) No more than twice during the Term, on the replacement of a defaulting Operating Sub-Contractor, the Promoters will:
14
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
26.
An event of Force Majeure
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES
SHARED
9
Force Majeure Events lead to performance failure/cost
PROMOTERS
•
give relief from termination of the Agreement on replacement of that Sub-Contractor for a period of 2 months, during which time failures attributable to poor performance of the relevant Services provided by the replacement sub-contractor will not result in termination. Financial deductions will continue to be made for such failures to incentivise proper performance; and
•
cancel any performance points or warning notices, in so far as they count towards any termination threshold only, accrued by the Concessionaire in relation to the Services provided by the replaced Sub-Contractor on the appointment of the replacement sub-contractor.
Clause 1.1 (definition of Force Majeure Event) and clause 72 (Termination on Force Majeure) Drafting follows SOPC4 required risk allocation
27.
Change in Law
9
Change in Law necessitates change in Services.
Clause 59 (Change of Law) and Part 2 of Schedule 4 (Change of Law) Allocation in accordance with SOPC4. By way of a derogation from SOPC4, the making, amendment or revocation of any Traffic Regulation Order has been excluded from the "Qualifying Change of Law" provisions, as it is not intended that the making, amendment or revocation of such orders should fall with the Qualifying Change of Law provisions. Clause 50 (Highways Changes) deals specifically with the impact and consequences of the making, amendment or revocation of Traffic Regulation Orders.
28.
Changes in taxation
Changes in taxation lead to increased tax liability for Concessionaire
9
Clause 45 (Taxation) and Clause 44 (VAT) Except changes in the recoverability of input VAT due to Project Operations becoming exempt from VAT.
29.
Exchange rates
Fluctuation in exchange Concessionaire's costs
increases
9
No specific reference
30.
Inflation above index
Concessionaire's costs increase due to inflation
9
No specific reference
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
rates
15
REF
RISK
DESCRIPTION OF RISK
ALLOCATION CONC'NAIRE
SHARED
CLAUSE REFERENCE AND NOTES PROMOTERS
above the agreed indexation factor 31.
32.
Promoters variation
Concessionaire variations
D.
TERMINATION
1.
Residual Assets
2.
System condition
E.
INTEGRATION RISKS
1.
value
9
The Promoters require change in Concession Specification
Change in requirements of the Concessionaire
Clause 58 (Change) and Part 1 of Schedule 4 (Change) Dealt with through change protocols (based on PUK standard drafting for operational projects).
9
Clause 58 (Change) and Part 1 of Schedule 4 (Change) Dealt with through change protocols (based on PUK standard drafting for operational projects).
of
9
Use and residual value of Assets after termination or expiry
Part H: Termination and Expiry and Schedule 31 (Compensation on Termination)
Condition of System on termination or expiry
9
Clause 79 (Surveys on Termination)
Liaison between current incumbent concessionaire (Arrow) and new Concessionaire
Need for the Concessionaire to liaise and cooperate with the current incumbent concessionaire regarding the transfer of responsibilities and operations
9
Incumbent concessionaire is obliged to co-operate with any new concessionaire by virtue of provisions in the current NET Line One concession agreement.
2.
Integration of new elements of the System with existing NET Line One System
Risk that the design and/or construction of NET Line One is incompatible with new elements of System
9
Clause 14 (Works) Specification)
and
Schedule
3
(Concession
3.
Integration of NET Line One Trams with NET Phase Two Trams
Risk that any new Trams are incompatible with Line One, and any existing Trams are incompatible with new elements of System
9
Clause 14 (Works) Specification)
and
Schedule
3
(Concession
APPENDIX 7 - Draft contractual risk matrix.DOC
There will be a handover period following execution of the Concession Agreement.
16
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 18 –PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT PHASE 2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Issue V3.1, February 2009
NET Project Management Team NET Project Office 4th Floor Lawrence House Talbot Street Nottingham NG1 5NT tel: fax: email: web:
+44 (0)115 915 6100 +44 (0)115 915 6092 tram@nottinghamcity.gov.uk www.netphasetwo.com
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottinghamshire
County Council
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Contents & Introduction – Page i
Contents CONTENTS
I
REVISION HISTORY
II
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN 1
2
What? – Project Definition
2
1.1
Background to Nottingham Express Transit
2
1.1.1
What is NET?
2
1.1.2
What is NET Line One?
2
1.1.3
Building on the success of NET Line One
3
1.2
The NET Phase Two Scheme
4
1.3
The NET Phase Two Project
7
1.3.1
Project Challenges
7
1.3.2
Project Assumptions
7
Why? –Project Objectives
10
2.1
Local Policy and Plans
10
2.2
NET Phase Two Objectives
11
2.2.1
14
2.3 3
Relationship with the Local Transport Plan
NET Phase Two Project Outcomes
15
Who? – Project Governance & Organisation
18
3.1
Governance & Management Overview
18
3.2
Project Governance
19
3.2.1
Corporate Governance
19
3.2.2
Promoting Councils’ Executive & Authorised Officers
20
3.2.3
NET Project Board
21
3.2.4
NET Partnership
22
3.2.5
Workplace Parking Levy Project Board
22
3.3
3.4
4
III
Project Management
22
3.3.1
NET Project Management Team
22
3.3.2
Project Roles & Responsibilities
23
3.3.3
Project Workstreams
24
3.3.4
Project Resources
25
3.3.5
Project Team Communication & Co-ordination
26
Stakeholders
27
3.4.1
Stakeholder Overview
27
3.4.2
Stakeholder Identification
28
3.4.3
Stakeholder Engagement
29
When? - Project Programme
32
4.1
Project Lifecycle
32
4.2
Project Programme
32
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
5
4.3
Governance Points
34
4.4
Milestones
34
How much? – Project Business Case & Costs
38
5.1
Business Case
38
5.1.1
Procurement
38
5.1.2
Funding
39
5.1.3
Project Costs
40
5.2 6
Contents & Introduction – Page ii
Business Case Management
40
How? – Project Management
44
6.1
Workstream Management
44
6.2
Management Approach
44
6.2.1
Management Strategies
46
6.2.2
Management Sub-Plans (MSP)
47
6.2.3
Project Procedures
49
A
APPENDIX A: PROJECT ROLES & KEY RESPONSIBILITIES
1
B
APPENDIX B: PROJECT RESOURCES
1
C
APPENDIX C: PROJECT PROGRAMME
1
D
APPENDIX D: MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
1
Revision History Revision Record Rev
Originator
Approved
Date
Comment
v1.0
Richard Hand
Chris Deas
05 January 2006
First Issue (Issued to DfT)
v2.0
Richard Hand
Chris Deas
28 May 2008
Second Issue (for Gateway Review 1)
v2.1
Richard Hand
Chris Deas
23 June 2008
Minor Amendments
v3.0
Richard Hand
Chris Deas
10 December 2008
Third Issue (change to governance arrangements)
V3.1
Stephen Dickens
Chris Deas
20 February 2009
Minor Amendments
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Contents & Introduction – Page iii
Introduction to the Project Management Plan This Project Management Plan (PMP) sets out the management and governance arrangements for delivery of the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) Phase Two Project. This PMP describes what the project is and what we are setting out to achieve. It defines who will be involved and what key people are responsible for doing, and the way they will work together and communicate. It states when things will be done and how much they will cost. It provides the coordinated management framework for doing this successfully. The intention is that the PMP will assist persons within the City and County Councils, the NET Project Board, NET Partnership, and the NET Project Management Team, and other key stakeholders to understand the management & governance arrangements for the NET Phase Two project. This PMP is part of a suite of documents explained in Table 1 below. The PMP and the suite of supporting documents are ‘live’ documents and will be updated on a regular basis to reflect the development of the project so that they continue to be suitable and effective. Any comments or enquiries regarding the PMP suite of documents should be directed to the NET PM Team at the address referenced on the front cover. Table 1 - Project Management Documents Document 1
Project Management Plan (PMP)
2
3
Management Strategies
Management Sub-Plans (MSP)
Content
Audience
This document describes how the NET Phase Two project will be managed.
The Promoters (NCiC & NCoC)
It defines the NET Phase Two Project at high level in terms of What? Why? Who? When? How Much? and How?
NET PM Team
In particular, emphasis is given to the way the project will be governed, and authority for decision making is given and received.
NET Development Board
The PMP is the key working document informing the NET PM Team how the job will be run.
Key Stakeholders
The PMP includes summary management strategies, describing the NET PM Teams approach to key management topics.
NET PM Team
Section 6.2.1 provides more information on the management strategies.
Project Consultants, Advisors & Contractors
Specific topics or activities that require detailed individual plans will be developed into Sub-Plans. These will be referenced in the PMP and made available to the project team.
NET PM Team
NET Project Board
Project Consultants, Advisors & Contractors
NET Project Board
Project Consultants, Advisors & Contractors
The topics that are considered to warrant Sub-Plans are identified in Section 6.2.2 of the PMP. 4
Project Procedures
Procedures will be developed for specific activities where the Project requires a controlled consistent approach from all those involved with the management of the project.
NET PM Team Project Advisors, Consultants & Contractors
Section 6.2.3 provides more information on the Project Procedures.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
1 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 1
What? What is NET & the NET Phase Two project?
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
2 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
1
Page 2
What? – Project Definition This section of the PMP defines what the NET Phase Two project is. describing NET and the existing NET Line One.
Section 1.1 starts by
Section 1.2 introduces the proposed NET
extensions that form NET Phase Two scheme and creates the proposed network. Section 1.3 goes on to define the scope of the NET Phase Two project required to deliver this scheme and the challenges that the project faces.
1.1
Background to Nottingham Express Transit
1.1.1
What is NET? The Nottingham Express Transit (NET) is a tramway network that is part of a wider strategy for Greater Nottingham for the 21st century, which seeks a balance between the economy, the environment, road safety and the needs of road users. The strategy is intended to provide an alternative to the car and to deliver the required increase in public transport capacity.
1.1.2
What is NET Line One? On 31st March 2000, Nottingham City Council (NCiC)
and
Nottingham
County
Council
(NCoC), jointly the “Promoters”, awarded a concession contract under the Government’s Private Finance Initiative to Arrow Light Rail Ltd (Arrow) for the design, construction, financing, maintenance and operation of NET Line One.
NET Line One comprises a 14.5
km tramway linking Nottingham city centre with Hyson Green, Basford, Bulwell, and Hucknall, terminating at a Park & Ride site at Hucknall.
A spur to Phoenix Park provides
Figure 1.1: Successful NET Line One.
another Park & Ride site close to Junction 26 of the M1. Three other Park & Rides sites are located on the network, and through-ticketing and good interchange is provided with bus and rail services at various locations. NET Line One has been successfully operating since March 2004 and passenger usage is strong. It has demonstrated the substantial accessibility, congestion, economic development and regeneration benefits achievable with light rail when it is established as part of an integrated public transport framework. NET Line One has been widely recognised as an example of best practice in public transport delivery and the use of private finance and has been the recipient of a number local government and industry awards.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
3 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
1.1.3
Page 3
Building on the success of NET Line One The intention of the Promoters has always been that NET Line One would be the first part of a conurbation wide tramway network. The Promoters have been working since the award of the NET Line One concession to define and develop plans for Phase 2 of NET.
Extending the
tramway network within the Greater Nottingham conurbation has been identified as crucial to the delivery of key local economic and transport objectives. It will enable Nottingham to fulfil its ‘Core Cities’ role and act as an engine for the regional economy. A wide ranging feasibility study of potential new routes was carried out during the period 2000 – 2002 and this concluded that two extension routes, to Chilwell via QMC & Beeston, and Clifton via Wilford, should be taken forward for detailed scheme development.
This was
approved by the Nottingham City Council Executive Board and Nottinghamshire County Council Cabinet in April/May 2002. Together these extensions are known as NET Phase Two, and are illustrated in Figure 1.3. Following on from the Council’s approval, the Promoters continued to develop NET Phase Two, with the route design, outline business case, procurement strategy and environmental impact assessments all further progressed. Extensive public consultation on the proposals has been a key part of this development. The scheme’s development to date has been sufficient to enable the Promoters to:
define and appraise the NET Phase Two scheme, and determine the outline business case for the project to deliver this scheme;
provide necessary safeguards for the NET Phase Two routes through adoption of the scheme proposals in the relevant local plans;
successfully undergo a formal Strategic Assessment Review (Gateway Review 0 – completed September 2005);
apply to the Department of Transport (DfT)
4ps, Gateway Review 0
for entry into the DfT Local Authority Major
“The review team finds that the NET Project Team has the skills, experience and capacity to deliver a successful extension to the NET system. Also it enjoys the support (including adequate financial budgets) of Council and the County to facilitate the delivery of a successful outcome.”
Schemes Programme (Programme Entry – awarded Oct 2006);
further develop and define the scheme sufficiently to form the basis of a Transport & Works Order application;
progress the scheme through the public inquiry (PI held Nov-Dec 2007);
successfully undergo a formal Business Justification Review (Gateway Review 1 – completed June 2008); and
develop key areas of the TWAO design to address higher risk areas and develop approvable solutions (ongoing).
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
4 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 4
The Gateway Reviews 0 & 1 were an important assessment of the foundation and development of
4ps, Gateway Review 1
the scheme and the project’s readiness to move on
“The Review Team finds that the Project is in good health. There are some areas where detailed improvements could be made. The Project has the benefit of an experienced, committed and enthusiastic team who enjoy the support of a wide array of well informed stakeholders. The Project Team are to be commended for their excellent work and achievements to date.”
to the next stage. The Reviews were undertaken by external assessors and public procurement advisers, the 4ps, to review the strategic outcomes and objectives of the project (and the way they fit together) and confirm that they make a contribution to the Promoters’ overall strategies and to confirm that the business case is robust; meets business need, is affordable, achievable with appropriate options explored and likely to achieve value for money.
Achieving Programme Entry was an important milestone as it is proposed that the DfT Local Authority Major Schemes Programme is to fund a significant proportion of the project. The project has had full and strong endorsement by elected Members of both of the Promoters, who have been actively involved in the decision making process throughout the scheme development.
1.2
The NET Phase Two Scheme The
proposed
alignment
for
the
two
additional NET Phase Two extensions is shown in Figure 1.3 and total 17.5 km, bringing the NET network to 32km. The two routes will link directly into Line One at Nottingham Railway Station (see Figure 1.2) which,
together
with
the
Southside
Regeneration Zone and Station Masterplan proposals, will bring a substantial number of people and investment activity into the area. Through running passenger services over the combined NET Line One and NET Phase Two
Figure 1.2: An Artists Impression of the NET Phase Two interchange at Nottingham Station
network is a key requirement of the NET Phase Two scheme proposals. The 10km Chilwell route will serve the Meadows, the ng2 (former Royal Ordnance Factory) development site, the area’s main hospital at QMC, the University of Nottingham, Beeston Town Centre and Chilwell before terminating at a sixth NET park & ride site, offering around 1400 spaces adjacent to the A52 at Bardill’s roundabout, close to Junction 25 of the M1. The line will serve 16 tram stops and have a journey time of approximately 27 minutes. The 7.5 km Clifton route will serve densely populated residential areas including The Meadows, the Wilford and Ruddington Lane area, which is relatively inaccessible by public transport, and
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
5 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 5
the Clifton Estate before terminating at a seventh park and ride site providing 1000 spaces adjacent to the Nottingham Road/A453 on this congested approach to Nottingham from Junction 24 of the M1; bringing the total number of park and ride spaces on the NET network to over 5000.
There are 14 tramstops proposed with a journey time of approximately 21
minutes. Frequent turn-up & go services are proposed on each route providing through services to Nottingham city centre and destinations on the NET Line One network. The NET Phase Two infrastructure will be similar to that for NET Line One with the necessary integration to achieve inter-operation between the two.
Both extensions will consist of a
combination of street running tramway with varying degrees of segregation from other traffic, and segregated off-street running sections.
Traffic management measures along the routes
will afford significant priority to the trams. The existing NET Line One maintenance depot and control centre at Wilkinson Street will be extended utilising part of the existing Wilkinson Street Park & Ride site to accommodate the additional trams and operational facilities. The enlarged fleet required to operate the larger network will consist of approximately 37 articulated fullyaccessible low-floor trams offering an equivalent passenger environment and facilities as the existing trams.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
6 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 6
Figure 1.3 Proposed NET Phase Two Network
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
7 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
1.3
Page 7
The NET Phase Two Project The NET Phase Two project is not only about delivering the new infrastructure associated with the scheme, but also delivering an integrated transport service across the extended NET network.
This includes providing for the operation of through-running services across the
network and the maintenance of that network.
1.3.1
Project Challenges The NET Phase Two project faces a number of challenges to its successful delivery that must now be overcome. These arise from key constraints within which the project must work, and key outcomes that must be achieved. Error! Reference source not found. outlines the key project challenges.
1.3.2
Project Assumptions The following are some of the key assumptions that have been made in taking forward the NET Phase Two project. These will need to be confirmed as the project develops:
continued public and political support for the project; the TWA order submission and concurrent Planning Direction will be approved by the Secretary of State;
the capped funds set aside in the DfT’s Programme Entry remain available for delivery;
the local funding contribution will be available for delivery; through-running passenger services with NET Line One will operate and integrate with bus, rail, Park & Ride and other transport modes;
the existing Line One Concession will be terminated to permit the extension and integration of the NET Line One infrastructure, and the transfer of operations and maintenance to the new Concessionaire;
the project will be procured through a Private Finance Initiative arrangement;
implementation will commence in 2011; and
Public passenger services will commence in 2014.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
8 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 8
Figure 1.4: NET Project Challenges NET Phase Two Project Challenge
Interpretation
Challenge 1: Continue to engage with individuals, businesses, communities and other organisations about the NET Phase Two scheme
The challenge is that we must maintain support and keep all stakeholders informed about the scheme proposals and the benefits, and work with them to mitigate any potential impacts and realise the benefits.
Challenge 2: Obtain an Order under the Transport & Works Act, 1992 to provide the necessary powers to build and operate NET Phase Two
The challenge was that the scheme proposals, benefits and impacts had to be sufficiently defined and evidenced such that they stand scrutiny at Public Inquiry. Awaiting Secretary of State decision
Challenge 3: Concurrently, obtain a Planning Directive under the Town & Country Planning Act from the Secretary of State
The challenge was to create a balance between the wider strategic development, transport and environmental benefits that NET Phase Two can realise, and the protection of the local environment and amenity without compromising the viability of the scheme. Awaiting Secretary of State decision.
Challenge 4: Continue to develop the scheme design where necessary to reduce uncertainty in the scope, cost and programme to levels acceptable to the Promoters and/or potential private sector service providers
The challenge is to reduce risk and improve value without unnecessarily constraining technological solutions and innovation, and the effective and economic procurement of NET Phase Two.
Challenge 5: Obtain DfT Conditional Approval of the scheme, it’s business case and our proposals under the terms of the programme entry
Without conditional approval, we cannot commence procurement. DfT cannot grant Conditional Approval until we have a TWA order. The challenge is demonstrating that we have the right integrated transport proposals for Greater Nottingham, and NET Phase Two represents value for money.
Challenge 6: Identify a suitable private sector provider(s) to economically and effectively deliver the NET Phase Two infrastructure, and to operate and maintain the Complete NET network
We must finalise how NET Phase Two infrastructure, operation and maintenance will be procured and funded. The challenge in doing this is that we must abide by European procurement law, and present to the market place a commercially viable and attractive scheme.
Challenge 7: Terminate the existing Concession Agreement with the existing service provider
The challenge will be negotiating the best termination deal for the existing Concession to permit the extension and integration of the infrastructure, and extended operation.
Challenge 8: Establish transitional arrangements to maintain continued operation of NET Line One during delivery
We must clearly establish how to implement and integrate NET Phase Two infrastructure alongside NET Line One with the minimum of impact on passenger service, and determine when operations, maintenance and infrastructure are best transferred to the successful service provider.
Challenge 9: Obtain DfT Full Approval, and appoint our preferred public sector service provider(s) for delivery of NET Phase Two to commence
The challenge will be obtaining executive authority from both NCiC and NCoC, and DfT ‘Full Approval’ of the scheme, its business case, and the procurement and funding arrangements before we appoint the provider.
Challenge 10: Monitor and support the infrastructure implementation and commissioning to ensure delivery of the required network capability and the potential to realise the benefits we set out to achieve
The challenge is to strike a balance between ensuring delivery of the capability required and compliance with requirements, and not constraining the Concessionaire to develop and deliver the system that makes best use of their investment.
Challenge 11: Evaluate the project after an appropriate period of full operation
The challenge is to demonstrate that we have delivered what we set out to achieve, determine the actual benefits that have been realised, and provide a reference for future extensions or other tramway systems. We need to determine what is to be measured and how and when.
Challenge 12: We must facilitate the potential for future development of the NET network as part of the wider transport strategy
The challenge is that this potential is largely unknown, and may include future capacity increases and possible extensions to Gedling, Colwick, Watnall/M1, West Bridgford, and Linby.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
9 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 9
Why? Why deliver NET Phase Two & What are the benefits we can expect?
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
10 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
2
Page 10
Why? –Project Objectives This section of the PMP explains why we are delivering the NET Phase Two scheme and in so doing what we are setting out to achieve. Sections 2.1 to 2.2.1 provide the local policy context of NET and the contribution of the extensions to these policies. Sections 2.1 & 2.3 identify the specific objectives of the NET Phase Two scheme, and the expected outcome from the project.
2.1
Local Policy and Plans The Promoters are the local transport authorities covering the proposed routes. There is no Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) within the East Midlands area. Nottingham is a regional capital and an important commercial centre whose influence is felt far beyond its administrative boundaries, drawing commuters, shoppers and visitors from a large area.
The Greater Nottingham economy is worth around £10.7 billion and supports
approximately 300,000 locally based jobs. NET Phase Two integrates well with the policies and objectives of the promoting Councils, which seek to ensure the sustained economic vitality of the Greater Nottingham conurbation. NET Phase Two also contributes to the objectives of the Greater Nottingham Partnership (GNP) which is one of seven sub-regional partnerships formed by the Local Development Agency (EMDA), and representing local authorities in the conurbation, public service agencies, voluntary organisations and community groups with common interest in developing the economy of Greater Nottingham for the benefit of all. The proposals are fully consistent with strategies for land use, planning and economic development and with policies at national, regional, sub-regional and local level. In particular they are fully consistent with the Greater Nottingham Transport Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy and City of Nottingham, Broxtowe and Rushcliffe local plans. The proposed routes were also recommended in the Government sponsored multi-modal studies for the M1 (section through the East Midlands) and A453 (M1 to Nottingham). The relevant regional, sub-regional and local plans are:
NCiC Corporate Plan (2006-2011)
NCoC Strategic Plan, “All together Better” (2006-2011)
Development Strategy for Greater Nottingham, produced by the Greater Nottingham Partnership (2005)
Draft East Midlands Regional Plan (RS58), November 2007 Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (Provisional 2006/07-2010/11), jointly produced by NCiC & NCoC.
Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Structure Plan (Adopted Feb 2006), jointly produced by NCiC & NCoC.
Nottingham Local Plan (Adopted Nov 2005)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
11 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
2.2
Page 11
Rushcliffe Borough Non-statutory Replacement Local Plan (Adopted Dec 2006)
Broxtowe Local Plan (Adopted Sept 2004)
NET Phase Two Objectives NET Phase Two has been conceived with the aim of supporting and addressing the needs of local and wider objectives, mitigating local problems and providing opportunities for improvements to the transport network within Greater Nottingham and the wider region. The proposals are fully consistent with regional and local transport, planning and economic development policy described above. The NET Phase Two scheme objectives are:
Objective 1: To provide a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys in order to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network including A453 & A52.
Objective 2: To increase public transport capacity to accommodate growth in Greater Nottingham.
Objective 3: To improve accessibility and reduce social exclusion, and realise further the investment in NET Line One.
Objective 4: To contribute to integrated public transport in Greater Nottingham and improved interchange.
Objective 5: To support land use policy, regeneration and neighbourhood transformation strategies in the City Centre, the district centres of Beeston and Clifton, and other important employment and residential areas.
Objective 6: To extend the use of an environmentally friendly mode of transportation.
Figure 2.2 provides an explanation of how the preferred NET Phase Two scheme will contribute to these objectives. The objectives will be kept under review during the life of the project to ensure that they continue to represent the desired project outcome and remain aligned with local policy and plans. Project Objective: The objective of the NET Phase Two project is to deliver the preferred scheme that meets the scheme objectives
in
an
economically
efficient,
affordable and deliverable package.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Figure 2.1: Improved accessibility on NET Line One.
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
12 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 12
Figure 2.2 NET Project Objectives & Interpretation
NET Phase Two Project Objectives
Interpretation
Objective 1: To provide a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys in order to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network including A453 & A52.
In common with most other successful cities, Nottingham suffers from severe traffic congestion, particularly at peak periods on main routes into the city and along the ring road. In light of ever increasing travel demand, with forecasts predicting future significant growth, tackling congestion and providing alternatives to the car are crucial for continued economic prosperity. As demonstrated through the success of NET Line One and through further expansion of park and ride provision on strategic traffic routes directly connecting the national motorway network, NET Phase Two has the ability to attract substantially more people out of their cars. NET Phase Two will expand the capacity of the public transport network within the southern and western sectors of the conurbation. The system is of a modern design, high quality, reliable, easy to use, fully accessible, safe and secure; it is attractive for people to use and represents a substantial enhancement to the quality of public transport provision.
Objective 2: To increase public transport capacity to accommodate growth in Greater Nottingham.
Maintaining a flourishing economy requires continuous action to attract high levels of inward investment and achieve a step change in economic performance. Connectivity is one of the key factors differentiating locations for investment and substantial increase in public transport capacity is essential if ambitious plans for employment, commercial and housing provision within the sub-region are to be accommodated in a sustainable manner. The fixed nature of tram infrastructure helps to boost investor confidence and adds to Nottingham’s appeal as a destination for business, employment, house buyers and visitors. NET Phase Two is strongly supported by large sections of the local business community because it will allow staff to travel efficiently to employment sites, and it will improve the efficiency of supply chains, improve access to markets and thus support business competitiveness. The city centre bus route (the ‘loop’) has over 250 buses per hour and bus stop provision in the city centre is already at capacity. Nottingham does not have a substantial inner ring road system for an urban area of its size and the city centre is compact with a lack of alternative routings for bus services and stop locations. The city centre is struggling to cope and NET Phase Two will use existing infrastructure, allowing valuable city centre road space and bus stop capacity to be released that can be reallocated to enhance bus frequencies and reliability to other parts of the city.
Objective 3: To improve accessibility and reduce social exclusion, and realise further the investment in NET Line One.
As well as directly serving the city centre and the adjacent centres of Beeston and Clifton, NET Phase Two also connects regionally significant destinations including the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University campuses, and the Queen’s Medical Centre hospital site. It also serves numerous local employment, commercial and education sites. There is a strong link between improving transport provision, accessibility and reducing social exclusion, as reflected within local Community Strategies and Accessibility Strategies. NET Phase Two serves a number of deprived areas, including the Meadows area, which is within the worst three percent of deprived wards in England, and parts of the Clifton estate, which are within the worst eight percent. These areas have high rates of economic inactivity and low levels of car ownership. Parts of west Chilwell are also relatively isolated. The network will improve opportunities to access work, learning, healthcare, retail, leisure and essential services. Expansion of NET maximises the benefits arising from the investment in NET Line One through economies of scale and network effects and by opening up a range of new direct travel opportunities for some of the country’s most deprived wards. Level platforms, wide doors and entirely low floor trams make access
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
13 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
NET Phase Two Project Objectives
Page 13
Interpretation easy. Expansion of the network will therefore significantly improve travel opportunities for disabled people and the mobility impaired including the elderly and parents with young children. A significant proportion of the population is over 65 in Clifton, Beeston and Chilwell. For rural residents, where public transport is generally poor, accessibility to facilities and employment in the conurbation will be improved by the flexibility attained through park and ride, with two new sites at the southern termini of NET Phase Two.
Objective 4: To contribute to integrated public transport in Greater Nottingham and improved interchange.
NET Phase Two provides improved linkages to Nottingham Railway Station and thus connectivity to the national rail network. Through the creation of a major transport hub at the station, easy interchange between tram, rail, bus and taxis will be achieved within easy walking distance of the city centre. The development of further public transport hubs in the city centre, district centres and in the vicinity of the Queen’s Medical Centre will allow easy interchange with bus services. There is also the opportunity to support the development of bus feeder networks to widen the areas served by NET. The further developments of integrated and smart card ticketing systems will facilitate easy transfer between public transport services. The introduction of NET Phase Two, together with improvements to the heavy rail network and enhanced park and ride, will enable a high quality integrated transport network to be created to meet the existing and future needs of the conurbation.
Objective 5: To support land use policy, regeneration and neighbourhood transformation strategies in the City Centre, the district centres of Beeston and Clifton, and other important employment and residential areas.
The investment in fixed transport links provides a focus for development and the regeneration and renewal of surrounding areas. The strong link between land use planning and transport in Greater Nottingham means that the identification of employment and housing development sites is being driven by locations well connected to the public transport network, ensuring sustainability and accessibility. NET Phase Two supports major development in City Centre Southside area, one of three identified regeneration zones in Nottingham. It also provides impetus to a number of significant developments, including Nottingham Station (“the Hub”), Broad Marsh Shopping Centre, ng2 site (Queen’s Drive), Highfields Science Park, Beeston Town Centre and a number of significant residential developments. The investment in tram infrastructure also acts as a catalyst for improvements in the public realm and other environmental improvements. There will be opportunities, therefore, to transform a number of neighbourhoods along the route, such as within the Meadows area, Chilwell Road/ High Road and Clifton district centre.
Objective 6: To extend the use of an environmentally friendly mode of transportation.
Through encouraging increased use of public transport and corresponding reduction in private car use, NET Phase Two will contribute to the achievement of national Climate Change objectives thorough a small reduction in overall carbon dioxide emissions. Running on steel rails and carrying large numbers of passengers per vehicle, trams are particularly energy efficient mode of transport and non-polluting at the point of use. This is beneficial in areas such as city centres where there may already be high concentrations of some pollutants. Operation of the tram may also give rise to reduced traffic flows and hence reduced emissions from road vehicles. Reduced pollution levels will contribute to improving public health. Due to its excellent safety record and through encouraging further modal change from car, expansion of the NET network also contributes to reducing road casualty levels.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
14 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
2.2.1
Page 14
Relationship with the Local Transport Plan The joint NCiC & NCoC Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP) recognises the contribution that NET Line One has made to the local transport network.
With the
establishment of NET and service & ticket coordination between bus, rail and tram, public transport use in the corridor has increased by around 20% in the peak and the overall public transport share by over 5%. Significant use by mobility impaired passengers is evident. The NET Phase Two scheme is a central feature of the LTP. The plan identifies the prospect of long term growth in traffic and identifies that it is essential for measures to be taken to address travel behaviour and to facilitate a cultural change towards more sustainable alternatives. The tram network is considered to be the most important measure because of the considerable increase in public transport use it is expected to achieve, particularly in corridors where traffic is particularly heavy and where significant lengths of segregated running, avoiding traffic delay are possible. The three corridors served by NET Phase Two (the A453, A52 and A6005) are three of the busiest traffic routes in Nottingham. NET Phase Two is also recognised in terms of its importance in the wider context. This is in terms of supporting policies for economic development, protection of the environment and promoting urban renewal.
NET is seen as one of the key factors for creating a climate of
investment and the high quality tram service will maintain or enhance sustainable economic activity. The relationship of NET Phase Two Scheme to the wider LTP Plan Objectives is illustrated in Figure 2.3 below.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
15 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 15
More efficient and effective maintenance
Enhance people’s quality of life
Support regeneration and neighbourhood renewal
Better Air Quality
Improve Road Safety
Improve accessibility and social inclusion
Better manage and where possible reduce problems of congestion
Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham 2006/7 – 2010/11
Objective 1: To provide a sustainable alternative to the car for many journey to tackle congestion on the strategic road network, including the A453 and A52.
NET2 Project Objectives
Objective 2: To increase public transport capacity to accommodate growth in Greater Nottingham.
Objective 3: To improve accessibility and reduce social exclusion and realise further the investment in NET Line One.
Objective 4: To contribute to the integrated public transport in Greater Nottingham and improved interchange. Objective 5: To support land use policy, regeneration and neighbourhood transformation strategies in the City Centre, the district centres of Beeston and Clifton and other important employment and residential areas.
Objective 6: To extend the use of an environmentally friendly mode of transport.
Figure 2.3 Relationships between NET Phase Two Project Objectives & LTP Plan Objectives
2.3
NET Phase Two Project Outcomes The fundamental reason for delivering the NET Phase Two Scheme is to realise benefits for Greater Nottingham through change. In this case the aim is to introduce a step change in the quality, reliability and capacity of public transport within the conurbation. The combined effect of the extended NET network will result in substantial benefits. Many of scheme benefits have already been identified, and realising these benefits represents the required outcomes for the NET Phase Two project for the project to be considered a success. For example, monetarised benefits have been determined as part of the transport economic evaluation included in the outline business case (see Section 5), and an environmental impact assessment was undertaken in preparation for the TWO application. Other outcomes can also
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
16 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 16
be expected, such as non-monetarised transport, planning, regeneration, and social benefits. The LTP alone identifies 17 potential transport outcomes of the extended network. To maximise the benefits from these potential outcomes and minimise the dis-benefits, active management will be required throughout the various phases of delivering NET Phase Two project (see Section 6).
The full range of
potential outcomes will need to be identified by
the
project
and,
where
practicable,
benchmarked and then measured at the appropriate time in the project life-cycle, so that the benefits realised by the NET Phase Two
scheme
evaluated.
can
be
determined
and
At the appropriate stage in the
project, the NET PM Team will be agreeing which potential outcomes will be monitored as part of the project evaluation process with key stakeholders, including the DfT under their
Local
Government
Major
Figure 2.4: NET Phase Two Improving access to regional health-care at Queens Medical Centre.
Project
Programme.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
17 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 17
Who? Who does what and how will we work together?
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
18 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
3
Page 18
Who? – Project Governance & Organisation This section of the plan is all about who is working for or associated with the NET Phase Two project. It is broken down into four sections:
Section 3.1 – Governance & Management Overview outlines the relationship between corporate project governance, project management, and arrangements for engaging with stakeholders.
Section 3.2 – Project Governance describes who governs the NET Phase Two project and the governance arrangements.
Section 3.3 – Project Management explains who is responsible for managing and delivering the NET Phase Two project within the Promoters organisation. This structure includes consultancy appointments which have been made, or will be required, to support the Promoters in specialist areas. Key posts are described in more depth and reporting lines through the organisation are explained.
Section 3.4 – Project Stakeholders briefly describes who else has an interest in or is affected by the NET Phase Two project, and how the NET Phase Two project will manage and engage with people, communities, businesses and organisations.
3.1
Governance & Management Overview The governance & management structure determines how the Promoters decide upon their requirements, make decisions, approve funding, and exercise control over progress.
It
provides the framework within which the project is controlled, managed and communicated. A robust governance structure is in place to ensure that delegated authority and accountability are unambiguous. This structure also ensures that there is timely support to enable informed decision making by those with appropriate authority.
Figure 3.1 below shows how the NET Project Board plays a pivotal governance role, being central to the interfaces between the corporate governance, providing strategic direction to the project’s management, and the alignment with stakeholders interests and expectations at both the project-level (direct project interfaces) and strategic-level (political and region-wide bodies/interfaces).
The NET Partnership, with its wider membership, also provides strategic
guidance to the project about the scheme or the project delivery. Each element of this governance & management structure is described in greater detail in the following sections.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
19 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
NCoC & NCiC Corporate Governance
Page 19
Stakeholders Strategic Level
NET Project Board
Project Level
NET Project Management Team
Internal
External
Figure 3.1: Overview of Governance Structure
3.2
Project Governance
3.2.1
Corporate Governance Figure 3.2 illustrates the basic corporate governance framework for the NET Phase Two project. Building on the success of the arrangements adopted during the delivery of the NET Line One project, the promoting Councils have entered into a similar Councils’ Joint Agreement (CJA). The CJA formalises the arrangements between the two promoting Councils, including governance and financial provisions. The CJA establishes a joint NET Project Board consisting of representatives from both promoting Councils. The NET Project Board steers and directs reporting to the executive bodies of both promoting Councils, which retain authority for the key governance decisions such as approval of the route selection, funding requirements, and authorisation to tender and invest (see 4.3 for more information on these Governance Points).
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
20 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 20
Nottinghamshire County Council
Elected Representatives: Policy & Budget framework of each Council.
Members
Members
Executive: Strategic Decision making within the approved budget & policy framework of each Council.
Executive Board
Cabinet
Authorised Officers: Authorised, in consultation with relevant Members, to take the necessary steps to obtain approvals and all operational project related decisions to progress the extensions.
Corporate Director
Oversight: Strategic Overview. Political and Executive steer to the project. Strategic linkages with the Promoters’ wider related initiatives and policies.
Direction: Effective and regular consultation with the Project Board. Coordinate the inter-authority working. Supervise the work of the NET Project Management Team.
of Environment & Regeneration
WPL Project Board
Councils Joint Agreement
Strategic Director of Communities
NET PROJECT BOARD
NET Partnership
Director, NET
Project Direction: Lead the NET Project Management Team. Direct project activity.
NET Phase Two Project Director
Project Management: Undertake project activity in accordance with the Project Management Plan.
NET Project Management Team
Figure 3.2: The Corporate Governance Structure
3.2.2
Promoting Councils’ Executive & Authorised Officers Nottingham City Council’s Executive Board and Nottinghamshire County Council’s Cabinet (the promoting Councils’ Executives) are responsible for strategic decision making within the approved budget and policy frameworks of each promoting Council. At meetings of the full County Council on the 22nd February 2007 and the full City Council on 5th March 2007 resolutions were passed to promote the NET Phase Two TWAO.
These
resolutions gave authority to NCoC’s Strategic Director of Communities and NCiC’s Corporate Director of Environment & Regeneration to act in an executive capacity, in consultation where
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
21 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 21
appropriate with relevant elected members, to take such steps as may be necessary to obtain approval for the Order and to take all operational project related decisions to progress the project through the development stages subject to reports to the Promoting Councils' Executives at key milestones. The relevant elected members to be consulted as appropriate by the Authorised Officers are:
3.2.3
NCiC Portfolio Holder for Transport & Area Working
Leader of the NCoC
NCoC Cabinet Member for Transport and Highways
NCoC Cabinet Member for Finance
NET Project Board The NET Project Board:
oversees all strategic issues in relation to the NET Phase Two Project, including strategy matters associated with the powers, advanced design, procurement and future operations of the NET network;
facilitates decision making on a project basis and makes recommendations to the promoting Councils’ Authorised Officers and executive bodies;
provides a lead in promotion of, and support for, the project both within the Councils and externally, including representation to Central Government and key Stakeholders; and
ensures compatibility and integration with the promoting Councils’ key policies and objectives and provides a linkage to corporate governance arrangements within the promoting Councils, including the NET Partnership, and the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) Board.
The NET Project Board membership consists of:
Two elected members of NCiC
Two elected members of NCoC
Three senior officers from NCiC (Chief Executive, Corporate Director of Resources, and Corporate Director of Environment and Regeneration)
Three senior Officers from NCoC (Strategic Director of Communities, Director of Programmes, Services Director of Planning and Sustainability)
Chair of NET Partnership (non-voting) (see Section 3.2.4)
The NET Project Board normally meets quarterly, with special arrangements to consult membership in between meetings as required.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
22 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
3.2.4
Page 22
NET Partnership A non-executive NET Partnership has been established to provide strategic guidance and advice to the Promoters. Its membership comprises representatives from:
the promoting Councils,
Greater Nottingham area District councils of Ashfield, Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe; and
the private sector through Nottingham Development Enterprise.
A key function of the NET Partnership is the mutual discussion of issues regarding NET and providing strategic project-related guidance to assist in the development of the NET Network. The NET Partnership will also have a key supporting role in stakeholder management (see also Section 3.4).
3.2.5
Workplace Parking Levy Project Board The Workplace Parking Levy Board oversees NCiC’s WPL project, operating with a similar remit as that of NET Project Board. The WPL Project Board has a membership similar to the NCiC membership on the NET Project Board. Whilst the WPL Project is an independent NCiC-owned project, it is intended that the WPL will contribute to the 25% local contribution to the NET Phase Two Project Funding (see section 5.1.2 of this PMP), and the governance arrangements ensure NCiC can maintain strategic alignment between these two projects.
3.3
Project Management
3.3.1
NET Project Management Team The NET Phase Two project will be managed on behalf of the joint NET Project Board by the NET Project Management Team (NET PM Team) reporting to
the
Director,
NET.
This
experienced
and
dedicated full-time team is already established, having managed the delivery of the NET Line One project and the development of the NET Phase Two
4ps, Gateway Review 0 “The NET Project Team has been in place since the successful delivery of NET Line One and this is considered to be the key element which points to the likelihood of a successful delivery of the Phase 2 Extension”
scheme to date. The delivery of the required network capability through the provision and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure and passenger service operation will ultimately be by a private sector service provider, or Concessionaire (see Section 5 for more details on the possible arrangements). The Concessionaire will be appointed jointly by the promoting Councils, with NET Project Board exercising executive responsibility, and the contract management and monitoring provided by the NET PM Team. Figure 3.3 provides an overview of the basic organisation and lines of responsibility within the NET PM Team.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
23 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 23
NET Project Board
Director, NET Pat Armstrong
Nottingham Hub Project
NCiC Work Place Parking Levy Project
NET Phase Two Project Director
NET Line One Concession
NET Project Management Team
Chris Deas
Lead Project Manager Alan Renfree
NET Line One Performance
Benefits & Performance
Andy Holdstock
Steve Tough
Powers, Approvals & Stakeholders Steve Tough
Legal & Commercial
Scheme Assurance
Technical Development
Kevin McDonald
Richard Hand
Richard Hand
Project Support Team
Key Promoter Support Resources NCiC Communications Legal Finance Land & Property Transport Strategy Traffic Highway Procurement Planning Environmental Health Insurance
NCoC Transport Strategy Strategic Planning Legal Finance Land & Property Traffic Highway Development Environmental Communications Business Liaison
Key Advisers/ Consultants Turner & Townsend Mott Macdonald with TTK, BWB, Gillespies, Cre’Active, Systra, Franklin & Andrews Land Referencing: Mouchel Parkman Parliamentary Agent: Bircham Dyson Bell Environmental Services: ERM Legal Advice: DLA Piper Transport & Economic Consultant: MVA Financial Advice: pricewaterhousecoopers Property Advice Ardent PFI Advice: Turner & Townsend Contract Services: Turner & Townsend Procurement Advice: Partnerships UK TWA Advice: Design Services:
Figure 3.3: The NET PM Team Organisation
3.3.2
Project Roles & Responsibilities The leadership responsibilities within the NET PM Team are outlined below. A full description of the roles and responsibilities is provided in Appendix A: Project Roles & Key Responsibilities:
The NET Project Board, as the project’s executive, is the strategic lead for the business case, is responsible for defining the benefits sought, is responsible for providing the project delivery & network capability required to deliver those benefits, and is accountable for the overall success of the project;
Director, NET is responsible for delivery of a portfolio of major transport projects which form part of the current LTP. These projects include NET Phase Two, Workplace Parking Levy (on behalf of NCiC) and NCiC’s contribution to the Nottingham Hub Project (redevelopment of Nottingham Station). The Director, NET is also the
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
24 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 24
designated “Promoters Representative” for the existing NET Line One Concession. As Project Owner, the Director, NET is responsible for ensuring the NET Phase Two project meets its objectives and delivers its benefits. This role ensures the business focus and authority is maintained and the work, including risk, is actively managed for the customer, and is the owner of the business case;
The NET Phase Two Project Director reports to the Director NET, and is responsible for delivering the scheme through the NET Phase Two project in line with the NET Project Board’s requirements, by directing and taking action to ensure the required capability is delivered and for evaluating the benefits achieved. The Project Director is responsible for briefing the NET Project Board to facilitate effective executive decision making. The Project Director is also the lead interface for external liaison with project stakeholders and with associated projects (e.g. the Nottingham Hub Project & Work Place Parking Levy); and
The Lead Project Manager is responsible for ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of the NET PM Team services as directed by the NET Phase Two Project Director through the day-to-day management and co-ordination of the NET PM Team.
3.3.3
Project Workstreams The project has been broken-down into key workstreams, each overseen and co-ordinated by a NET PM Team project manager.
This maintains focus on delivery within each of the
workstreams; however, many of the project team staff, support staff, other promoting Council’s support resources and the various consultants and advisers, will work within a number of the workstreams.
This flexible arrangements permits effective and efficient
management of the project’s available resources to meet the changing needs of the project. A full description of the roles and responsibilities of the workstream managers is provided in Appendix A: Project Roles & Key Responsibilities. The composition of each of the workstream team will vary during the life-cycle of the project. The main responsibilities of each workstream are summarised as follows:
Powers, Approvals & Stakeholders – Preparing and obtaining the TWAO and all associated concurrent consents for the Scheme. Supporting the procurement process and tender evaluation in respect to powers, approvals and consents. Stakeholder Management, including interfaces with Communications team. Land & Property Management. Facilitating where necessary the obtaining of approvals and consents during both the advanced design and Implementation phase. Co-ordinating executive project approvals and the Gateway Review process;
Benefits & Performance – Benefits Management including benefit identification, benchmarking, monitoring and evaluation. Project evaluation. Performance Monitoring of the operational network.
Legal & Commercial – Business Case Management, Funding and Procurement Strategy. Management of the procurement process. Contract administration.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
25 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 25
Scheme Assurance – Providing the framework in which technical development of the scheme by the Design Service Consultant and subsequently the Concessionaire can be assured and compliance demonstrated over the life-cycle of the project, including management of the scheme configuration and change in respect to the scheme requirements, scheme cost, scheme risks & opportunities, consents, environmental planning and system safety, and system acceptance activities.
Technical Development – Development of a compliant advanced design and design specification where necessary to reduce uncertainty in scope cost, and implementation of the scheme to levels acceptable to the Promoters and potential concessionaires.
NET Line One Performance – Continued monitoring of the NET Line One operation and management and oversight of the existing concession during the Powers and Procurement Phase (see Figure 4.1). When the operation and maintenance responsibility for the existing NET Line One network is transferred to the new concessionaire, the NET Line One Performance Team will be absorbed into the Benefits & Performance workstream team; which will be responsible for monitoring the continued operation and maintenance of the existing network under the new concession arrangements.
3.3.4
Project Resources Specialist Project Management support continues to be provided by Turner & Townsend as part of the full-time integrated NET PM Team.
This includes access to Turner & Townsend’s
specialist advisers and additional project management support on a call-off basis. The NET PM team will continue to evolve to respond accordingly to the current needs and challenges of the project whilst retaining the continuity in management expertise that was pivotal to the successful delivery of NET Line One and the NET Phase Two project to date. The promoting Councils continue to support and complement the NET PM Team, providing departmental specialist support in specific areas, including legal, financial, property, traffic, highway, and planning support. In addition, the full team of external advisors and consultants recruited for the NET Phase Two project since 2001 have been retained for the next phases of the project.
Together these
provide a trusted and experienced support team with both retained knowledge of NET Phase Two development and the ability for knowledge transfer from other PFI, major transport and light rail projects.
Key advisors and consultants include:
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
26 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Turner & Townsend
Page 26
TWA advice, PPP/PFI advice, Contract Services
Mott MacDonald
TWAO Engineering Services, Scheme Assurance Support Services, Technical Development and Design Services, including Operation planning, Urban Design and Cost Management
Mouchel Parkman (Land Aspects)
Land Referencing
Bircham Dyson Bell (BDB)
Parliamentary Agent
Environmental Resource (ERM)
Environmental Assessments Management
DLA
Legal Advice
MVA
Transport & Economics Advice
pricewaterhousecoopers (pwc)
Financial Advice
Ardent
Property Advice
Partnerships UK (PUK)
Financial & Procurement Advice
Appendix B: Project Resources provides further information on the project resources.
3.3.5
Project Team Communication & Co-ordination The NET PM Team members are co-located within the NET Project Office located at Nottingham City Council’s Lawrence House Office, ensuring effective informal communication between team members. The activities of the core NET PM Team and its advisors are formally co-ordinated through the following briefings and management meetings:
The NET Project Board receives regular briefings and meets quarterly. NET PM Team Meetings, chaired by the NET Phase Two Project Director, are held fortnightly and provide project management co-ordination and oversight across the various workstreams.
The NET Project Delivery Group, chaired by the NET Phase Two Project Director, meets monthly and monitors progress of the various workstreams against the project programme.
With all workstream managers and key advisors represented, the forum
provides an opportunity for key issues and/or dependencies effecting delivery of the project programme to be understood by all and for appropriate action to be taken to address any issues arising.
Workstream progress meetings and working groups are held as required, chaired by the relevant workstream manager, to co-ordinate activities with key participants and co-ordinate the progress of the various consultants and advisors.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
27 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 27
The regular Workstream progress meetings include the following:
Legal & Commercial working groups, which brings together the internal NCiC and NCoC legal and finance resources and the relevant members of the NET PM Team and advisors. This is supported by a Budget & Finance sub-group.
Land & Property working group, which brings together the internal NCiC and NCoC property teams, the relevant members of the NET PM Team and Land & Property advisor.
DSC Progress Meeting overseeing the Scheme Assurance and Technical Development workstreams, which brings together the Design Service Consultant and relevant members of the NET PM Team. This is supported by regular team briefings of the NET PM Team‘s Work Package Leaders.
3.4
Stakeholders
3.4.1
Stakeholder Overview Everyone who lives, works or visits Greater Nottingham
should
stakeholders of NET.
consider
themselves
The NET Phase Two
scheme represents a clear opportunity to bring about a step change in public transport to many of those stakeholders, improving and enhancing the journeys of thousands of people every day. Public perception and support has also been gauged
through
comments
from
stakeholders, including letters and formal representations both for and against the
Figure 3.3: NET Phase Two serves Nottingham’s universities and colleges improving access to Further & Higher Education.
scheme, and an independent market research which reported in 2002, based on a demographically balanced sample of 1000 people along the route of each line. Of those asked:
Three-quarters believe public transport needs to be improved;
Three people to every one approved of the Clifton route; and
Two people to every one approved of the Chilwell via Beeston route.
Members of the Nottingham Business Community have identified transport as the second highest priority needing to be tackled to improve business. 74% of respondents stated NET Phase Two was one of three top priorities for action.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
28 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 28
The NET Scheme received approximately 150 letters of support for the project during the TWAO process, a large proportion of which were from the business community, including developers, education and training sector, health sector, and local businesses. Some of these parties also appeared in support of the project during the public enquiry. There is therefore a positive perception and support
4ps, Gateway Review 1 “The review team found that there was a clear understanding and support for the Project across a wide range of stakeholders, and a very strong willingness and commitment to the project which would enable Nottingham to build on the widely recognised success of NET Line 1”
for the NET Phase Two scheme from both the public and business community.
3.4.2
Stakeholder Identification The NET Phase Two Stakeholders include:
Internal Stakeholders - those groups or individuals with or working for the Promoters. This includes the Councils’ Executives, other departments, employees and consultants who have been engaged on the NET Phase Two Project. The Promoting Councils also have a range of other statutory or regulatory duties that must be taken into account, such as Local Highway Authority, Local Traffic Authority, Local Planning Authority, and Environmental Health.
Core Stakeholders - those key stakeholders who are central to the stakeholder liaison throughout development and delivery of the scheme, and indeed may play a key role in the project. This includes the local, regional and national government bodies and agencies (including Department for Transport, GOEM, local MPs and East Midlands Development Agency, Greater Nottingham Partnership), local government (including the district councils and, in particular, in their role as Local Planning Authorities), existing NET Line One Concessionaire and Operator, Network Rail, utility companies, key commercial developers along the route, and materially affected landowners / occupiers. The NET Partnership represents some of these core stakeholders, providing essential support in the development of the scheme and communication with other core stakeholders.
Influential Groups - those bodies who are impacted by the scheme but do not constitute one of the Core Stakeholders. Influential Groups may be large mature national organisations such as English Heritage or recently formed local interest groups who are focused on specific issues. Some Influential Groups may be statutory consultees when it comes to obtaining powers or approvals.
The Public as a stakeholder represents everyone who might be directly impacted by, benefit from, or simply have an interest in NET Phase Two Scheme. Whether we work for a particular company or are a member of a certain group which falls into the categories above, our individual views are still important and if the NET Phase Two Project is to achieve its objectives these must be recognised. The NET PM Team work
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
29 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 29
together with the NCiC and NCoC Communications teams in engaging the public to ensure that the right information is delivered when required.
3.4.3
Stakeholder Engagement Consultation with stakeholders has formed an integral part of the consultation process to date. Extensive dialogue aimed at early stakeholder engagement and securing support for the scheme has taken place using a variety of methods over and above standard consultation with the public. All stakeholders have been identified and their views on the scheme are known, including any concerns they have.
Ongoing and regular contact with stakeholders has
influenced design proposals and, where appropriate, scheme modifications have been made, including alignment changes and adjustment of tramstop locations. The project will continue to identify stakeholders and sustain a dialogue with the people, organisations and businesses that could be affected by the scheme. Stakeholder interests are varied and wide-ranging. This range stretches from ‘Strategic Level’, i.e. those with a political or region-wide interest in seeing the success or otherwise of wider transport programme and the NET network as a whole; to ‘Project Level’ i.e. those with a direct local interest in the specific aspects of the NET Phase Two project or scheme. This is reflected in Figure 3.1 (Overview of Governance Structure). The overall responsibility for stakeholder engagement is the responsibility of the NET Phase Two Project Director. The Project Director will allocate management responsibility on the basis that those best placed to manage a particular stakeholder engagement will be a reflection of the nature of the stakeholder’s interest. Those with a strategic interest tend to be best served corporately by the promoting Councils, NET Project Board and the NET Partnership, whilst those with a specific project interest by the NET PM Team. Further information on the overall methodology adopted to ensure the effective management of stakeholders is provided in Section 6.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
31 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 31
When? When will NET Phase Two be delivered?
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
32 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
4
Page 32
When? - Project Programme This section outlines when the key project activities will take place and their sequencing in order to achieve the successful delivery of the scheme. The broad phases of the project and its key governance points and milestones are also identified.
4.1
Project Lifecycle The project life-cycle is shown in Figure 4.1.
It is divided into a series of project phases and
these form the back-bone of the project planning and governance activities.
The current
position of the project is identified in Figure 4.1.
4.2
Project Programme The NET PM Team will maintain a master Project Programme. This programme represents the key stages of activity required to meet the challenges to the project and deliver on its objectives, and incorporates key governance points and milestones. The Project Programme provides the framework for the planning of the project. The Project Programme is included at Appendix C. The Project Programme will be regularly monitored and reviewed by the NET PM Team, workstream managers and the Project Delivery Group and it will be subject to endorsement by the NET Project Board. The NET Project Delivery Group will oversee the delivery against the Project Programme. The day-to-day management of the programme is the responsibility of the Lead Project Manager, who will be responsible for organising, managing and prioritising the project and workstream activities to best achieve the Project Programme requirements. Where necessary, more detailed sub-programmes will be produced by the NET PM Team or by the team’s advisers or consultants in order to effectively manage and monitor delivery of particular elements of the project or workstreams. An implementation programme has been developed as part of the services provided by the Design Services Consultant.
This programme has formed the basis of the implementation
planning and has been used to identify critical interfaces, long lead items and to facilitate discussions with third parties. The programme is updated regularly to align with the master Project Programme. The delivery of the required network capability through the provision and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure and passenger service operation will be by a private sector service provider, or concessionaire, however. This concessionaire will be free to establish the implementation phase programme, and the commencement date for public services to best suit their commercial requirements and interests, provided that this is broadly in line with the Promoters’ Project Programme.
Delivery against the Concessionaire’s
programme will, nonetheless, be monitored by the NET PM Team.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
33 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 33
Figure 4.1 NET Phase Two Project Phases & Timeline
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
34 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
4.3
Page 34
Governance Points A
number
of
key
Governance
Points
(or
decision points) exist within the programme, which must be successfully passed in order for the project to progress from one phase to the next.
This is how the NET Project Board
governs the Programme.
In general the
Governance Points occur towards the end of each project phase and consist of gateway reviews and formal approvals to proceed. The following categories of Governance Points have been identified:
Figure 4.2: NET 2 bridging the Trent at Wilford Toll Bridge
Full Council Approvals.
Council Executive Board/ Cabinet Approvals
NET Project Board Approvals to proceed.
OGC Phase Gateway Reviews (based on the OGC/4ps Gateway Process).
DfT Local Authority Major Projects Programme Approvals.
A summary of the key Governance Points is given in Figure 4.3.
4.4
Milestones In addition to the Governance Points outlined above, there are a number of identifiable milestones within the programme, against which progress can be measured and reported, but unlike Governance points, these do not regulate progression of the project through the programme. The Project Milestones are shown on the Project Programme, and the key forthcoming milestones are also summarised in Figure 4.3:
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
35 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Phase
Governance Points
Project Identification
Executive Board Approval of identified project for further study: Spring 2001:Network Extension Study identified routes to Clifton, Beeston & West Bridgford to be studied
Project Definition
Approval to consult on Network Extension Options
Page 35
Forthcoming Milestones
Executive Board Approval to proceed with identified scheme: Autumn 2001: routes to Chilwell (extended from Beeston), Clifton & West Bridgford to be taken forward Investigation of Options
Approval to consult on Route Options
Scheme Refinement
Approval to consult on Preferred Scheme
Executive Approval to proceed with scheme refinement: Spring 2002: Chilwell via QMC & Beeston, and Clifton via Wilford Route options to be developed. A decision on West Bridgford routes deferred
Executive Approval to proceed: Spring 2004: Clifton via Chilwell route approved. Summer 2004: Beeston & Chilwell via QMC route approved Gateway Review 0: Strategic Assessment: September 2005. DfT Programme Entry Approval: October 2006 Powers (Preparation Period)
NCiC Approvals to submit TWAO application: Executive Board: February 2007 Full Council: February 2007 Ratification: May 2007 NCoC Approvals to submit TWAO application: Executive Board: March 2007 Ratification: June 2007
Powers (Order Period)
Gateway Review 1: Business Justification: June 2008
Complete Advanced Design: Spring 2009
Gateway Review 2: Procurement Review: Expected February 2009 DfT TWAO approval: Expected March 2009 DfT Conditional Approval: Targeted Spring 2009 Executive Approvals to proceed with Procurement: Targeted Spring 2009 Full Council Approvals to proceed with Procurement: Targeted Spring 2009 TWA Order Award: Targeted Spring 2009
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
36 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Phase Procurement
Governance Points
Page 36
Forthcoming Milestones
Gateway Review 3: Investment Decision: Expected Early 2011
Issue OJEU notices for Concession: Summer 2009
DfT Full Approval: Targeted mid 2011
Appoint Concessionaire: Summer 2011
Executive Approvals to proceed with Implementation/ Award: Targeted early 2011 Full Council Approvals to proceed: Targeted Late 2010/early 2011 Implementation
Gateway Review 4: Readiness for Service: Late 2013
Commence implementation: early 2011 Capability/ Commencement Test: Early 2014
Operations (Transition Period)
Gateway Review 5: Benefits Evaluation: Estimated 2016
Commence Passenger Operations: Summer 2014
Operations
Figure 4.3: Key Governance Points & Reviews
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
37 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 37
How Much? How much will NET Phase Two cost to deliver and what is the value of the benefits?
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
38 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
5
Page 38
How much? – Project Business Case & Costs This section gives an overview of how much the NET Phase Two Scheme is going to cost, how much it will cost to deliver, how do these costs relate to the expected benefits of the scheme, and how are these costs going to be met and managed.
5.1
Business Case A NET Phase Two Skeleton Outline Business Case (OBC) has been developed by the Promoters in line with current Department of Transport (DfT) guidance. On the basis of the OBC, DfT has approved the entry of NET Phase Two into the DfT’s Local Authority Major Schemes Programme (Programme Entry).
In October 2006, the
DfT offered funding of 75% of the current estimated Scheme Costs of £400 million (2005 present value price). Additionally they
Figure 5.1: NET Phase Two Revitalising Clifton District Centre.
are willing to fund 50% of additional costs up to a ceiling of £482 million (2005 present value). This equates to a PFI credit of £437 million. The transport economic benefits of the scheme within the business case equate to £1,070 million (2005 present value). The OBC is being refreshed prior to seeking DfT conditional approval planned for spring 2009
5.1.1
Procurement The OBC evaluated a number of procurement options for the delivery of the NET Phase Two project. These were:
Design, Build, Finance, Operate & Maintain (DBFO) where a single concessionaire is responsible for the full project delivery but is then rewarded for there investment by being paid for the provision of the passenger service. This is the agreed procurement arrangement for NET Line One.
Design, Build, Operate & Maintain (DBOM) which is similar to DBFO, but without any external private sector project finance, with the concessionaire being paid to deliver the infrastructure in addition to the passenger service.
Design, Build, Finance & Maintain plus Operate (DBFM+O) where the DBFM contractor is responsible for providing and maintaining the infrastructure capability and a separate operating concession is awarded to provide the required service. This is similar to the strategy used on Docklands Light Railway.
Design & Build plus Operate & Maintain (DB+OM) where a design and build contract to provide the infrastructure capability, and a separate operation and
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
39 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 39
maintenance concession to provide and maintain the required transport service would be awarded. The Promoters’ preferred procurement option for NET Phase Two project is DBFO because it establishes:
Full integration risk transfer to the concessionaire both during infrastructure delivery and in service provision.
Whole life costing benefits as the concessionaire will have an incentive to optimise whole life cost over the period of the concession and to satisfy hand-back requirements.
Greater incentive through the performance regime and payment mechanism to achieve passenger focused outputs in order to avoid penalties.
A flexible structure to allow for inclusion of future extensions and smaller changes within the scope of procurement.
Grouping of operations and maintenance responsibility in a street running environment reflects the current preferred approach of the market as it removes the contractual interfaces and risk associated with taking into account the extraneous influences (such as driver behaviour, pedestrian interfaces, parking and loading interfaces, traffic congestion, road traffic accidents, traffic priority control, etc) other than simply for equipment availability and failure.
A concessionaire with overall control in respect to design, maintenance and life-cycle replacement, allowing the concessionaire to influence patronage revenue and determine investment decisions.
Under the DBFO option, the existing NET Line One concession will need to be terminated in accordance with the terms of the existing Concession Agreement, with operation and maintenance passed to the new concessionaire.
It is expected that this transfer will occur
shortly after appointment of the new concessionaire, such that the risk of interference with the existing NET Line One infrastructure and its ongoing operation sits with a single private sector organisation. It will also provide the new concessionaire with an established income stream. At this stage, performance monitoring and availability payments for NET Line One will be made in accordance with the arrangements under a new Concession Agreement. The Promoters procurement approach has been market tested at key stages in its refinement. The most recent market testing was undertaken in February 2008. Ongoing contact is being maintained with key interested parties. The findings have been used to refine the procurement approach and timetable.
5.1.2
Funding
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
40 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 40
Delivering the DBFO project will entail the use of a PFI funding arrangement.
Programme
Entry approval for 75% of the required funding requirement has been secured from the DfT. The remaining 25% ‘local’ contribution must be secured by the Promoters from a range of potential funding sources, including developer contributions, capturing the business value of the extended NET network, and local charging. The local contribution to NET Phase Two will be split between NCiC and NCoC in the ratio of 65%/35% respectively for the Development Phase and 80%/20% respectively for the Implementation and Operations Phases of the new Concession Agreement. The City Council’s preferred source of funding is from a local charging scheme during the operations phase based on a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL). The anticipated start date for the WPL is 1st April 2010. The County Council are investigating the funding options to the best value mix of funding for their contribution.
5.1.3
Project Costs The OBC includes the cost of developing the project up to award of the new DBFO concession. The NET Project Board is responsible for establishing the budget for the Project Costs during development.
The NET Project Team maintains an itemised budget, which is reviewed on a
fortnightly basis and endorsed by the NET Project Board.
It is estimated that the ongoing
project development costs from DfT Programme Entry Approval up to the award of the new concession will be in the order of £30 million.
5.2
Business Case Management The scope of the scheme, expected scheme benefits, scheme costs, availability of funding and
reduction
monitored
and
of
risk
will
assessed
be
as
regularly
the
project
moves through the Powers Phase and the Procurement
Phase.
Where
necessary,
mitigating actions will be taken to maintain or
improve
benefits,
reduce
risks,
and
contain costs within the funding constraints. A robust change management strategy is an essential
component
business case. this
is
of
managing
the
Further information on how
achieved
can
be
found
in
Figure 5.2: NET helping the Environment
the
Management Strategies contained in Section 6. In order to manage affordability and to assist with obtaining key third party approvals, the Promoters are undertaking further design refinement ahead of the procurement process.
A
Design Services Contract has been let which involves undertaking a more detailed level of design, or ‘advanced design’, prior to selection of the preferred bidder for the concession. This will enable the bidders for the new concession to offer fixed prices with more certainty at bid stage, and should therefore represent overall better value for money. NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
41 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 41
The NET Project Board will be kept informed of any changes to the scope of the scheme, the expected scheme benefits and the scheme costs.
In accordance with the terms of the
Programme Entry Approval, the DfT will also be notified in the event of significant changes in scope or benefits, or if the estimated total cost of the scheme rises above the current estimate.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
43 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 43
How? How will we together deliver NET Phase Two?
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
44 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
6
Page 44
How? – Project Management This section explains how the NET PM Team intends to manage the project. It brings together the management responsibilities outlined in Section 3 with the programme and phase requirements described in Section 4 and defines the key activities that must take place. The section is divided into two parts.
Section 6.1 concentrates on the main delivery
workstream activities, and Section 6.2 focuses on overarching management strategies, plans and procedures that will influence the workstream management planning.
6.1
Workstream Management Figure 6.1 brings together the relationship between the main delivery workstreams outlined in Section 3.3.2 with the Project Phases and Governance Points outlined in Section 4.3. Figure 6.1 shows the key activities associated with each workstream in each Project Phase.
The
Project Support workstream, which is not shown, will operate throughout the project life-cycle. The day-to-day co-ordination of all workstreams is the responsibility of the Lead Project Manager, and this will be achieved by a variety of formal and informal means. The Gateway Review process plays an important strategic role in this process confirming the readiness of both the workstreams and the overall project to proceed into the next phase.
6.2
Management Approach The NET PM Team’s management approach to NET Phase Two Project is captured in a hierarchy of documents as follows:
Project Management Plan (this document)
Management Strategies (appended to this document)
Project Management Sub-Plans
Management Procedures
These are described in greater detail below.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
4ps, Gateway Review 1 “The Project has the benefit of an experienced, committed and enthusiastic team who enjoy the support of a wide array of well informed stakeholders. The Project Team are to be commended for their excellent work and achievements to date.”
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
45 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 45
Gateway Reviews
Concessionaire
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Benefits & Performance Workstream
Technical Development Workstream
Scheme Assurance Workstream
Powers, Approvals & Stakeholder Workstream
Figure 6.1: Project Phase & Workstream Plan
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
46 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
6.2.1
Page 46
Management Strategies There are a number of specific aspects of the management of the NET Phase Two project which cut across all workstreams and/or phases, although it may be the responsibility of one workstream to lead these aspects.
To provide strategic guidance on these specific
management topics, a series of management strategies have been developed to summarise the principles involved, and provide a basis for workstream and phase planning. These form part of this Project Management Plan and are included in this Appendix C. These Strategies are (in alphabetical order):
Benefits Management
Budget & Project Cost Management
Business Case Management
Change Management
Communication Management
Consents Management
Environmental Management
Health & Safety Management
Information Management &
Figure 6.1: In control of NET
Reporting
Issue Resolution
Land & Property Management
Legal & Commercial Management
Performance Monitoring
Programme & Resource Management
Quality Management
Risk & Opportunity Management
Scheme Configuration Management
Scheme Cost Management
Scheme Requirements Management
Stakeholder Management
Technical Development Management
TWAO Management
Value Management
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
47 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
6.2.2
Page 47
Management Sub-Plans (MSP) A number of the work activities within the project life-cycle will draw on a number of the Management Strategies, and place different emphasis on each one. Where this occurs, more detailed treatment is required. Accordingly, the following Management Sub-plans (MSP) have or will be developed to give an indication of the way certain activities are approached, how the relevant management strategies will be implemented, who is involved in each activity, and how the interfaces and constraints will be managed. These MSP's are a key management tool. MSP’s currently identified by the NET PM Team are described below. Other plans may be prepared to suit the needs of the NET PM Team as the project evolves:
Stakeholder MSP – this sets out our approach to the management of stakeholders and their expectations throughout the life-cycle of the project. This MSP will implement the Stakeholder Management Strategy, and will explain the interfaces with other strategies, such as the Communications Management Strategy.
Scheme Assurance MSP – will focus our approach to assuring project quality over the full life-cycle of the project, drawing on the corner-stones of the Scheme Requirements Management, Quality Management, and Scheme Configuration Management Strategies to explain how will get the right outputs, at the right time. This MSP is currently available in draft form, subject to approval.
Technical Development MSP – will explain how we intend to advance the design and specification in preparation for concessionaire procurement; how we intend to reduce uncertainty and risk, and increase value within the scheme prior to procurement; how we will evaluate tender submissions against the Scheme Requirements and design; how we will monitor the detailed design and delivery of the NET Phase Two infrastructure and the operational arrangements for capability and compliance against the Scheme Requirements; and how we will monitor the bringing into use and acceptance of the extended transport capability. This MSP is currently available in draft form, subject to approval.
Transport & Works Act Order MSP – focuses on what needs to be done to deliver a successful TWAO, in accordance with the general approach set out in the TWAO Case Management Strategy and the Consents Management Strategy within the framework established by the other management strategies.
Procurement MSP – Explains how we will prepare for the procurement phase and finalise our business case, procurement and funding strategies; and how we manage the procurement process in line with those strategies and legislative requirements to get the best value for money deal without compromising the scope or capability of the NET Phase Two project or undermining the expectations of approvers or other stakeholders.
Implementation MSP - will explain how we will handover the delivery of the scheme to the Concessionaire; how and when to transfer the existing infrastructure and operations to the new Concessionaire; how we will manage the land acquisition
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
48 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 48
process and any other Promoters retained risks or obligations; how we will facilitate stakeholder and approval interfaces where this is appropriate; how we will control the hand-back of highway related infrastructure and temporary land to the Promoters after implementation; how we will manage changes to the Concession during this phase; how we will handle land compensation events; and how we will work to close out any outstanding implementation issues. This MSP will be prepared during the procurement phase to inform and in response to the procurement process.
Project Evaluation MSP – will explain how we will capture and agree the potential project outcomes that are expected from implementing the NET Phase Two project; how and when we will benchmark these as potential benefits; how and when these benefits are to be measured by the Promoters or the Concessionaire; how and when we will capture lessons learnt from delivering and operating the scheme; how and when will evaluate the overall success of the project. This MSP will be drafted and the principles agreed with the Promoters and DfT prior to Concession award in accordance with the Programme Entry Approval.
The phased Gateway Reviews play an important role in monitoring the readiness of these documents.
The Gateway Reviews should include the review of the management and
governance arrangements for the next phase as documented in this PMP and any relevant MSP’s. In additional to the NET PM Team Management Sub-plans, the Design Service Consultant has prepared a number of management plans to supplement the NET PM Team MSP’s.
These
include:
Design Service Management Plan [draft] – overseeing the control of the DSC commission activities, including the control of the DSC scope of works, quality and change management.
Requirements Management Plan, providing more detail on how our requirements are managed in support the Scheme Assurance activities.
Environmental Management Plan [draft], providing more detail on how the environmental requirements are to be, or have been, satisfied. This is supported by an EMC Management Plan and Stray Current Management Plan
System Engineer Management Plan, providing the framework for ensuring the technical development is undertaken co-ordinated and integrated. This is supported by a Human Factors Interface Plan, the System Safety Plan & Hazard Management Procedure, and a Dependability Plan.
Risk & Issue Management Plan, providing more detail on how the engineering and operational risk is managed within the Scheme Assurance and Technical Development workstreams.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
49 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
Page 49
Value Management Plan, providing more detail on how opportunities to improve the engineering, operations and maintenance of the scheme are identified and incorporated.
Consents Management Plan, providing detail on how the necessary consents are identified, planned and status tracked; how the approval bodies are engaged early in the design process; how submissions are prepared and submitted.
Project Extranet Protocols and user guide
The above management plans prepared by the Design Service Consultant are supported by the following developing documents to help inform the scheme assurance and technical development activities:
Initial Implementation plan, providing initial detail on the likely arrangements required to implement the scheme, demonstrating that the Scheme can be built and commissioned within the constraints.
Initial Operations and Maintenance Plan, providing initial detail on the likely arrangements required to operate and maintain the scheme.
6.2.3
Project Procedures Where it is necessary for a number of project participants to comply with specific procedures or process, Project Procedures will be developed to ensure consistency in approach.
Where
appropriate, existing Council, NET PM Team or Turner & Townsend procedures will be used, although these may require review and amendment to suit the specific requirements of the NET Phase Two project. The Project Procedures prepared or being prepared
are
identified
below.
Other
procedures may be prepared to suit the needs of the NET PM Team as the project progresses:
Scheme Change Control
Scheme Risk & Issue Management Procedure
Consents Management Procedure*
Quality Audit Procedure [draft]
Document & Correspondence Control
4Projects Protocol & User Guide*
Arrow Information Protocol
DSC Cost Control
Line One Bidder Information
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Figure 6.2: All routes converge at Nottingham Railway Station.
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
50 NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.0
DSC Service Deliverable Review
Hazard Management Procedure*
Design Co-ordination Standards*
Page 50
*prepared by Mott Macdonald or NET PM Team/ Mott Macdonald
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix A - Page 1
A
APPENDIX A: PROJECT ROLES & KEY RESPONSIBILITIES
A.1
Director, NET The Director, NET as Project Owner is responsible for delivery of a portfolio of major transport projects which form part of the current LTP.
These projects and services include:
Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) – Project owner with overall responsibility for ensuring the project is delivered so as to meet its objectives and deliver benefits on behalf of NCiC;
Nottingham Hub Project (redevelopment of Nottingham Railway Station) – responsible for ensuring NCiC’s contribution to the Nottingham Hub Project;
NET Line One – The designated “Promoters Representative” on behalf of the joint Promoters responsible for ensuring the Promoters’ obligations under the NET Line One Concession Agreement are fulfilled and oversight of the service delivery by the Concessionaire, including the payment mechanism and performance monitoring system; and
NET Phase Two - Project Owner on behalf of the joint Promoters with overall responsibility for ensuring the project meets its objectives and delivers its benefits.
The Director, NET reports to the Project Board and the Authorised Officers.
Key
responsibilities for NET Phase Two include:
Obtaining all necessary authorisations from the Promoters’ Executives, Authorised Officers and the Project Board to support the progression of the project or for changes to the project.
Ensuring business focus and authority is maintained and the work, including risk, is actively managed.
Ensuring appropriate benefits of the scheme are identified and agreed with the NET Project Board, funding partners and key stakeholders, and ensuring that the realisation of these is monitored.
Promoting the potential scheme benefits within the promoting Councils, and maximising strategic opportunities to realise greater benefits.
Ensuring the Project is subject to review at appropriate stages, including at the Governance Points (see Section 4.3 for Governance Points).
Ensuring that any recommendations or concerns arising from such reviews are met or addressed before the project progresses to the next stage.
Reporting to, and keeping informed, the Project Board (and, where appropriate, the Authorised Officers and Relevant Members) to facilitate effective executive decision making.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix A - Page 2
Ensuring that strategic issues are elevated to the Project Board and, where appropriate, the Authorised Officers and the Promoters’ Executives, in a timely manner for resolution.
Ensure project delivery in accordance with the Promoters’ Joint Agreement.
Monitoring and controlling the PFI procurement at the strategic level.
Formally closing the project through formal sign off that the aims and objectives have been met and ensuring that any lessons learnt have been documented.
More detail on the specific management roles and functions of the Director, NET can be found in Appendix D: Management Strategies.
A.2
NET Phase Two Project Director The NET Phase Two Project Director reports to the Director NET, and is responsible for delivering the scheme through the NET Phase Two project in line with the NET Project Board’s and Director, NET’s requirements; by directing and taking action to ensure the required capability is delivered. Key responsibilities on NET Phase Two include:
Acting as the main point of contact for the Director, NET.
Chairing the NET PM Team Meetings and Project Delivery Group.
Lead interface for external liaison and communication with project stakeholders, and ensuring appropriate stakeholder and communication arrangements are in place.
Development of the business case, procurement strategy, and Project Programme. Ensuring the appropriate project management framework, coherent organisation structure and resources (including advisers) are place at each stage to successfully delivery the scheme in line with the Project Programme and Project Budget.
Ensuring formal information and reporting arrangements for project progress and budget (including change) are established.
Directing the project activities and scheme development so as to best deliver the required scheme benefits and best satisfy the identified requirements of the Promoters and stakeholders.
Ensuring appropriate arrangements are in place to identify and manage change, including authorisation of changes within limits of delegated authority and controlling change following necessary approvals.
Ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place to discharge the Promoters duties for health and safety and the protection of the environment.
Directing the benefits evaluation and project review activities.
The NET Phase Two Project also directs NCiC’s contribution to the Nottingham Hub Project. More detail on the specific management roles and functions of the NET Phase Two Project Director can be found in Appendix D: Management Strategies. NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
A.3
Appendix A - Page 3
Lead Project Manager The Lead Project Manager is responsible for ensuring the efficient and effective delivery of the NET PM Team services and deliverables as directed by NET Phase Two Project Director through the day-to-day management and co-ordination of the NET PM Team. The Lead Project Manager reports to the NET Phase Two Project Director.
In addition to this role, the Lead
Project Manager also supports the project in the following capacities:
Commission Manager for the Turner & Townsend’s NET PM Team & WPL Team resources and advisory services resources; and
Support to the Project Manager (Scheme Development) as Work Package Leader for certain technical and locational work packages co-ordinating the work package within the agreed work package scope, budget and programme constraints.
As Lead Project Manager, key responsibilities include:
Preparing and maintaining a Project Programme and resource plans as required
Management of the project activities and timely production of the project deliverables within the specified constraints of Project programme and Project Budget.
Ensuring the project deliverables are of the required standard of quality, initiating corrective action where required.
Establishing appropriate arrangements for the identification and management of risk; overall co-ordination and management of identified risks and opportunity; ensuring appropriate mitigation actions are in place; escalating risks and opportunities to the NET Phase Two Project Director as required.
Co-ordination and control of project issues that may arise, ensuring appropriate mitigation actions are in place and escalating issues to the NET Phase Two Project Director as required.
Overall progress, utilisation and co-ordination of resources in line with the Project Programme and Project Budget.
Establishment and maintenance of appropriate information management and reporting procedures to support the project requirements and delivery.
Ensuring progress reporting is undertaken through the agreed arrangements.
Overall co-ordination, management and evaluation of change to the scheme and project delivery.
Ensuring quality assurance activities are being undertaken within the project.
Identifying and obtaining any support or specialist advice required to support the project management, planning and control of the project.
Establishing appropriate arrangements aimed at maximising value within the project and scheme; ensuring any identified value management interventions are undertaken.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix A - Page 4
More detail on the specific management roles and functions of the Lead Project Manager can be found in Appendix D: Management Strategies.
A.4
Workstream Managers To support the Lead Project Manager in co-ordinating specific aspects of the project, the project has been broken-down into key workstreams, each overseen and co-ordinated by a Workstream Manager. Where a Project Manager is identified as a Workstream Manager, the general responsibility of the Workstream Manager is to support the Lead Project Manager as follows (in addition to any specific workstream duties identified):
Management and co-ordination of the workstream activities and timely production of workstream deliverables within the specified programme and budget constraints for that workstream.
Providing necessary workstream inputs and support to other Workstream Managers as required.
Chairing workstream progress meetings as required.
Reporting on progress of the workstream activity and deliverables against the Project Programme and/or sub-programme as appropriate, and allocated workstream budget.
Risk and opportunity identification; Risk Champion(s) for workstream-level risks as designated on the risk register; risk action holder as required.
Issue identification and escalation as appropriate; issue resolution action holder as required.
Identifying and reporting change; supporting the evaluation of change, implementing agreed changes;
Quality assurance planning and assurance activities within their workstream; initiating corrective action as required;
Identification of new stakeholders, co-ordination and facilitation of stakeholder engagement with designated stakeholders as required.
Identification of opportunities to improve value or potential value management interventions; leading designated intervention activities as required.
A.5
Project Manager (Land, Property & Stakeholders) The Project Manager (Land, Property & Stakeholders) reports to the NET Phase Two Project Director and performs the following key roles:
Team Leader for the NCiC resources on the NET PM Team.
Powers, Approvals & Stakeholders Workstream Manager.
Benefits & Performance Workstream Manager.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix A - Page 5
Support to the Project Manager (Scheme Development) as Work Package Leader for certain locational work packages, co-ordinating the work package within the agreed work package scope, budget and programme constraints.
Co-ordinating the inputs to the business case development across all of the relevant workstreams on behalf of the Legal & Commercial workstream.
Co-ordinator for Gateway Reviews on behalf of the Director, NET.
Preparation of the Project Budget and associated reporting on behalf of the NET Phase Two Project Director.
As Powers, Approvals & Stakeholders Workstream Manager, the key responsibilities of the Project Manager (Land, Property & Stakeholders) are:
Managing the TWAO process; obtaining all TWAO and associated concurrent consents for the Scheme, and safeguarding NET Phase Two.
Facilitating, where necessary, the obtaining of approvals and consents in support of the Technical Development Workstream and during the Implementation phase.
Supporting the procurement process and tender evaluation in respect to powers, approvals and consents.
Overall co-ordination and oversight of the environmental aspects associated with the project including the Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Statement and the Construction Code of Practice.
Overall co-ordination of stakeholder management actions, including interfaces with the Communications team and approval bodies.
Land & Property Management in accordance with the relevant strategy.
General responsibilities of a Works Stream Manager as identified in Section A.4 above.
More detail on the specific management roles and functions of the Powers, Approvals & Stakeholders Workstream can be found in Appendix D: Management Strategies. As Benefits & Performance Workstream Manager, the key responsibilities of the Lead Project Manager are:
Identification, analysis, monitoring and evaluation of measurable scheme benefits throughout the project life-cycle, and advising on opportunities to realise greater benefits.
Co-ordination with promoting Council’s on strategic-level benefits.
Identifying changes that may increase scheme benefits; and supporting the evaluation of any change in respect to impact on benefits
Ensuring the scheme benefits are correctly represented within the Business Case
Establishing suitable project success criteria and affordable project evaluation programme.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix A - Page 6
Planning the post-project benefits evaluation and final project review against the expected benefits and project success criteria.
Overall direction and leadership in the development of the performance regime to support the procurement process and service delivery by the Concessionaire.
General responsibilities of a Workstream Manager as identified in Section A.4 above.
More detail on the specific management roles and functions of the Benefits & Performance Workstream can be found in Appendix D: Management Strategies.
A.6
Project Manager (Stakeholders) The Project Manager (Stakeholders) has the following roles and responsibilities:
Stakeholder Manager reporting to the Project Manager (Land, Property & Stakeholders), co-ordinating the stakeholder management plan, associated actions and interfaces with the communications team.
Support to the Project Manager (Land, Property & Stakeholders) in respect to land & property management.
Support to the Project Manager (Scheme Development) as Work Package Leader for certain locational work packages, co-ordinating the work package within the agreed work package scope, budget and programme constraints.
A.7
Project Manager (Scheme Development) The Project Manager (Scheme Development) reports to the Lead Project Manager and performs the following key roles:
Scheme Assurance Workstream Manager;
Technical Development Workstream Manager
Work Package Leader for certain technical and scheme assurance work packages, coordinating the work package within the agreed work package scope, budget and programme constraints.
Co-ordinator for the Project Execution Plan on behalf of the Lead Project Manager.
As Scheme Assurance Workstream Manager, the key responsibilities of the Project Manager (Scheme Development) are:
Providing the framework in which technical development of the scheme by the Design Service Consultant and the Concessionaire can be assured and compliance demonstrated.
Identification and management of the Scheme Requirements.
Monitoring and co-ordination of the Scheme Cost, satisfaction of consents, system safety and environmental management planning by the Design Service Consultant and the Concessionaire.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix A - Page 7
Control of the Scheme Configuration, including the associated engineering, operational and implementation risks & opportunities, and control change throughout the life-cycle of the project.
Support to the procurement process and tender evaluation with respect to compliance and evaluation of alternative scheme proposals.
Support the Technical Development by the Design Service Consultant and the Concessionaire with respect to compliance and evaluation of alternative scheme proposals.
Monitoring the satisfaction of the Scheme Requirements by the Design Service Consultant and the Concessionaire for compliance and the acceptability of any changes to the scheme configuration.
Co-ordinating any system acceptance activities on behalf of the Promoters.
General Responsibilities of a Workstream Manager as identified in Section A.4 above.
More detail on the specific management roles and functions of the Scheme Assurance Workstream can be found in Appendix D: Management Strategies. As Technical Development Workstream Manager, the key responsibilities of the Project Manager (Scheme Development) are:
Prior to concession award, progressing the development of a compliant advanced design and design specification, and the obtaining of key consents so to reduce uncertainty in scope cost, and implementation to levels acceptable to the Promoters and potential concessionaires.
Supporting the procurement process and tender evaluation with respect to technical scope and capability of the network on behalf of the Scheme Assurance Workstream.
Monitoring the design and delivery of scheme by the new concessionaire for progress, technical compliance and ability to deliver the required capability on behalf of Scheme Assurance Workstream;
Providing technical support to any system acceptance activities to the Scheme Assurance Workstream.
General responsibilities of a Works Stream Manager as identified in Section A.4 above.
More detail on the specific management roles and functions of the Technical Development Workstream can be found in Appendix D: Management Strategies.
A.8
Scheme Development Co-ordinators The Scheme Development Co-ordinators report to the PM (Scheme Development) and performs the following key roles and responsibilities:
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix A - Page 8
Project management assistance and co-ordination for Scheme Assurance Workstream and Technical Development Workstream.
Work Package Leader for certain technical and scheme assurance work packages, coordinating the work package within the agreed work package scope, budget and programme constraints.
The Scheme Development Co-ordinator (Civil & Utilities) also performs the following roles:
A.9
Project Risk Manager reporting to the Lead Project Manager.
Project Manager (Procurement & Project Controls) The Project Manager (Procurement & Project Controls) reports to the Lead Project Manager and performs the following key roles:
Legal & Commercial Workstream Manager;
Day-to-day management and co-ordination of the master Project Programme and resource plans and project-level progress reporting on behalf of the Lead Project Manager.
As Legal & Commercial Workstream Manager, the key responsibilities of the Project Manager (Procurement & Project Controls) are:
Co-ordinating the Legal and commercial and inputs across all of the relevant workstreams and project participants
Business Case management, including the development and implementation of the funding, procurement and payment strategies and risk allocation between the Promoters and the Concessionaire.
Co-ordination and preparation of the contract documentation and tender information.
Management of the procurement process, including tender, selection, due diligence and contract award activities.
Contract administration.
General responsibilities of a Works Stream Manager as identified in Section A.4 above.
More detail on the specific management roles and functions of the Legal & Commercial Workstream Manager can be found in Appendix D: Management Strategies.
A.10
Project Manager (Procurement Support) The Project Manager (Procurement Support) reports to the Project Manager (Procurement & Project Controls) and performs the following key roles and responsibilities:
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
A.11
Appendix A - Page 9
Support to the Project Manager (Procurement & Project Controls)
Management and co-ordination of the Procurement Data Room.
Line One Due diligence co-ordinator.
Co-ordinating Project Controls support, including progress reporting.
NET Line One Performance Officer The NET Line One Performance Officer performs the following key roles:
Reporting to the Director, NET continued performance monitoring of NET Line One operation and management, and oversight of the existing Concession Agreement.
Supporting the PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders) in respect to NET Line One Land and Property and associated third party agreements.
Supporting the PM (Procurement & Project Controls) in respect to NET Line One records and due-diligence.
A.12
NET Line One Monitoring Officer The NET Line One Monitoring Officer performs the following key roles and responsibilities:
Monitoring officer reporting to the NET Line One Performance Officer Support to the PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders) in administration of the NET Phase Two Project Budget.
Support to the PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders) in co-ordinating the review of third party planning applications in respect to safeguarding NET Phase Two.
A.13
NET Project Office Manager The NET Project Office Manager reports to the Director, NET and the NET Phase Two Project Director and performs the following key roles and responsibilities:
Office and project administration and welfare.
Purchasing and account administration.
Clerical support including document management and control of information; filing and handling of correspondence.
The NET Project Office Manager is supported by the Administration Officer and the Administration Support staff.
A.14
NET Communications & Marketing Officer The NET Communications & Marketing Officer reports to the Director, NET and the NET Phase Two Project Director in respect to NET Line One & NET phase Two respectively.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
A.15
Appendix A - Page 10
NET Communications Assistant The NET Communications & Marketing Officer is supported by the Communications Assistant
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
B APPENDIX B: PROJECT RESOURCES This Appendix outlines the resources available to the project team
B.1 NET Project Management Team Not Included Name Role/
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
C
Appendix C - Page 1
APPENDIX C: PROJECT PROGRAMME
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Appendix C - Page 2
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 1
D
APPENDIX D: MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
D.1
Introduction This appendix contains the Management Strategies adopted in support of the Project Management Plan. Each strategy describes the NET PM Team’s approach to the management topic.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.2
Appendix D - Page 3
Consents Management Strategy Consents Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To streamline and facilitate the approvals processes such that all ‘Consents’ (including any necessary approvals, permits, licences or other consents) required in the development, implementation or operation of NET Phase Two are identified and have minimal negative effect on the programme to deliver the NET 2 scheme.
B
Management Requirements The legislative, regulatory, policy and governance context in which NET Phase Two is to be delivered is complex and requires a detailed understanding to enable identification of the individual Consents which will be required. These consents are either consents typical of a development of this size and scale, or arise by virtue of the Transport & Works Act Order process. A Transport & Works Act Order (TWAO) has been applied for and is required to obtain the powers necessary to construct and operate a tramway (see TWAO Management Strategy). The TWAO application was accompanied by an application for planning direction, certain planning applications, and applications for traffic regulation orders. The TWAO and these concurrent consents establish a number of the Consents that need to be managed. Agreements and undertakings given to third parties as part of this process give rise to further and consents that need to be managed. The promoting Councils may also exercise statutory approval or regulatory duties in a separate statutory capacity to that of the joint Promoters of NET. These duties vary between the two Promoters, but include, local highway authority, local traffic authority, local planning authority, building control, and environmental health. Whilst these duties are exercised independently, the project will benefit from the Promoters adopting a co-ordinated, consistent and facilitated approach to these Consents. Prior to the award of the new concession, the Consents processes will be the responsibility of the Promoters. Following this, the Concessionaire will be primarily responsible for obtaining the majority of outstanding Consents. The Scheme Costs (see Scheme Cost Management Strategy) will be dependant on the level of uncertainty regarding the scope, time and cost remaining in the scheme at the time of the concession award and the concessionaires risk response. Approval requirements can affect all of these factors. The Promoters therefore intend to reduce the uncertainty associated with these approvals by, where appropriate, progressing approvals prior to award of the new concession as part of the technical development using a value and risk management approach (See Technical Development Management Strategy).
Director, NET – is responsible for ensuring that consents are consistent with the corporate objectives, and published policies and plans of the Councils.
NET Phase Two Project Director – is responsible for directing the approvals processes such that they represent a reduction in overall Scheme Cost and/ or better allocation of risk for the Promoters, and has overall responsibility for applying for and obtaining all conents where these are to be obtained by the Promoters.
Powers, Approvals & Stakeholders Workstream – is responsible for: identifying all necessary powers, approvals and consents, and managing the TWAO process including obtaining all concurrent approvals and consents. Oversee and co-ordinate the Stakeholder Management strategy for each approval body.
Scheme Assurance Workstream – is responsible for incorporating the Consent requirements into the Scheme Requirements (see Scheme Requirements Management Strategy); monitoring progress on satisfying these consent requirements during Powers phase and by the Concessionaire during the Implementation Phase; monitor and co-ordinate the obtaining of approvals from within the promoting Councils organisations.
Technical Development Workstream – Progressing the engineering development, operation & maintenance planning and implementation planning of the scheme so as to reduce the uncertainty associated with approvals by appropriately progressing approvals during Advanced Design based on a value and risk management approach (See Technical Development Management Strategy).
Design Service Consultant – supporting the Scheme Assurance Workstream through the day-to-day development and monitoring of the Consents register, facilitating liaison with approval bodies in respect to their requirements, co-ordination of the preparation of submissions for approval. Developing as part of the Advanced Design technical, implementation, operating and maintenance proposals and submission documentation required to obtain the relevant Consents.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 4
Consents Management Strategy
Legal & Commercial Workstream – developing and advising on the procurement strategy, including the allocation of risk for approvals and consents and the associated Scheme Costs.
Concessionaire – overall responsibility for applying for and obtaining all other approvals or consents, and complying with the conditions of any approval or consent.
C
Management Responsibility
D
Management Approach All necessary consents, approvals and conditions of approval will be identified, along with the party responsible for granting the approval or consent. These consents may arise form the following sources:
Existing Statutory or Regulatory requirements
Requirement of the TWAO
Project Agreements with third parties
Concession Agreement Approvals
Governance Approvals
A value & risk management approach will be used to identify when and by which party these approvals are best sought. Options include:
by the Promoters concurrently with the TWAO
by the Promoters prior to concession award
by the preferred bidder prior to concession award
by the concessionaire following concession award
by the Promoters following concession award
This process will be closely aligned to the procurement strategy (see Procurement Management Strategy), in particular to the apportionment of approval risks, and concession tenderers response to risk. Each approval and condition of approval will be monitored and progress recorded. E
Tools and Techniques Consents Management Procedure Consents Register - identifying the approval or consent required, any conditions associated with the approval, the approving body, project phase or date by which consent is to be obtained, current responsibility for obtaining the approval, and actions. Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Approvals Management approach:
F
Procurement Management
Risk & Opportunity Management
Technical Development Management
Stakeholder Management
Scheme Cost Management
Scheme Requirements Management
TWOA Management
Value Management
Evaluation Success will be measured in terms of the number and the ease with which consents are obtained by the required project phase.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 5
Consents Management Strategy Monitoring and benchmarking the time taken to process consents by the approving bodies, to provide early warning of potential delays. The NET PM Team will review the status of consents during the fortnightly NET PM Team meetings. The NET Phase Two Project Director will review the performance and output on Consents. G
Others Involved All members of the NET PM team, support resources, advisers and consultants, and the Concessionaire will be responsible for ensuring that any necessary approvals, consents or conditions relevant to their workstream are obtained and/ or complied with.
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Scheme Development)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.3
Appendix D - Page 7
Benefits Management Strategy Benefits Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To provide an ongoing management process which sets out the criteria for project success and provides a means of monitoring and evaluating achievement against those criteria on a regular basis, so as to inform the development of the scheme, procurement and implementation, and best meet stakeholder expectations.
B
Management Requirements Project success is the satisfaction of stakeholder needs and is measured by success criteria. At the strategic-level, success on NET Phase Two can be viewed simply as achieving the stated transporteconomic benefits in the business case, and contributing to the overarching integrated transport strategy. At the project-level, success could simply mean meeting the agreed scope, time, cost and quality objectives defined in the Project Management Plan and Contract documents. However all stakeholders will have differing views of the project success based on what is important to them and this must be taken into account. It is possible to deliver a compliant scheme but then fail to realise any benefits, or for a scheme to deliver significant benefits, but not the kind considered important for project to be a success. Benefits management is the identification of these expected benefits at a stakeholder, strategic and project-level, and the monitoring and realisation of those benefits. It involves identifying and agreeing the expected benefits of delivering the scheme, and how they can be measured and managed throughout the project-lifecycle until they are realised. By defining the expected benefits of the NET Phase Two scheme as applicable to the promoting Councils, stakeholders, and project participants, it is possible to determine what constitutes success for the project. In principle, the Promoters are committed to developing a suitable, but affordable, project evaluation programme for NET Phase Two. Monitoring & evaluation of NET Phase Two will be complementary to the wider LTP monitoring programme to demonstrate both individual modal performance and transport network behaviour. This will build on the existing LTP monitoring, the operator-based performance monitoring system (see Performance Monitoring Management Strategy), and the current Line One evaluation programme. When the extended network is handed over for passenger service operation, it will be known whether the scheme is compliant and delivers the required capability, but it may take some time for these outcomes to realise the measurable benefits from which the success of the project can be determined and demonstrated.
C
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – Establishing appropriate scheme objectives and aims that are consistent with the wider corporate and strategic objectives and policies of the promoting Councils.
Director, NET - Responsible for ensuring appropriate benefits of the scheme are identified and agreed with the NET Project Board, funding partners and key stakeholders, and ensuring that the realisation of these is monitored. Promoting the potential scheme benefits within the promoting Councils, and maximising strategic opportunities to realise greater benefits. Establishing a suitable and affordable project evaluation programme. Planning the benefits evaluation and final post-project review against the expected benefits and project success criteria. Formally closing the project through formal sign off that the aims and objectives have been met and ensuring that any lessons learnt have been documented.
NET Phase Two Project Director – responsible for directing the project activities so as to best deliver the required benefits. Directing the project evaluation programme.
Benefits & Performance Workstream – Identification, analysis, monitoring and evaluation of measurable scheme benefits throughout the project life-cycle, and advising on opportunities to realise greater benefits. Co-ordination with Promoting Council’s on strategic-level benefits.
Promoting Council’s – Identification, analysis, monitoring and evaluation of measurable strategic-level benefits (e.g. associated with the LTP performance) and advising the project team on opportunities to realise greater benefits.
Concessionaire – Support the benefits management process, potentially by contributing to benchmarking, monitoring or evaluation of scheme benefits.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D
Appendix D - Page 8
Management Approach At the appropriate stage in the project, the NET PM Team will be agreeing with key stakeholders (including the DfT) which scheme benefits are to be monitored how they can be practically measured as part of the project evaluation process. As part of this a detailed project evaluation programme will be prepared identifying the responsibilities of LTP monitoring programme, the NET PM Team, and the Concessionaire. Benefits will be measured quantitatively (such a financial, by modal share, passenger numbers, or by output) or qualitatively (such as improved security, customer satisfaction, or image). Often benefits cannot be measured in absolute terms, but can be determined relative to the existing situation, in which case the benefits will need to be benchmarked prior to implementing the project in the same way as it is intended to later measure them. In some case it may not be possible to isolate the contribution of NET Phase Two to the realisation of particular benefits from that of the wider integrated transport strategy, nonetheless monitoring and evaluation of these benefits remains important so as to demonstrate an overall positive contribution has been made. By establishing the expected scheme benefits prior to the implementing the project, Benefits Management will provide a tool to determine the potential affect of change (see Change Management Strategy), in making quality or value judgements (see Quality Management Strategy and Value Management Strategy). It can also be used to determine the response to risks and opportunities (see Risk & Opportunity Management Strategy). In this way benefits can be assured or improved, or where necessary changes accepted. Benefits will be monitored by the Benefits and Performance Workstream (or by the promoting Councils as appropriate) throughout the Project Implementation and into the transitional period of the Operational Phase. At the end of the transitional period, benefits will be evaluated and the overall project success determined. Ongoing monitoring of certain scheme benefits may continue but will be undertaken by the promoting Councils as part of the wider LTP programme. The output from the project evaluation programme will be used to understand and then drive further improvements in NET network provision, in a similar way that the NET Line One programme has resulted in improvements in service delivery and refinements to the specification of NET Phase Two.
E
Tools and Techniques In undertaking Benefits Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
Forthcoming DfT/ PTEG guidance on evaluating major local transport schemes.
Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Benefits Management approach:
F
Business Case Management
Change Management
Risk & Opportunity Management
Value Management
Evaluation The mechanism for evaluating benefits and monitoring progress towards their realisation will be determining as part of the Project Evaluation programme.
G
Others Involved None Identified
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.4
Appendix D - Page 9
Budget & Project Cost Management Strategy Budget & Project Cost Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To manage the Promoters budget and project costs incurred by the NET PM Team, internal project support, and consultants & advisors during the development and procurement of the project, and then during the monitoring and administration of the concession, and to provide confidence that this represents value for money. (Note: For Scheme Costs see Scheme Cost Management Strategy)
B
Management Requirements The NET Project Board is responsible for agreeing and funding an appropriate Project Budget, based on the estimated project costs and available income. The Project Costs associated with the Project Budget are those required for the development and administration of the project by the Promoters. Project costs include the actual and anticipated cost of NET PM Team, internal promoter resources (that are not otherwise part of the Promoters’ corporate overheads), consultants and advisors (for Scheme Costs, see the Costs Management Strategy). Project costs will vary during the project life-cycle:
Powers & Procurement Phases – the Project Budget represents the Project Development Cost, which is the cost involved in developing the scheme, obtaining the TWAO and associated approvals, and procuring the DBFO concessionaire;
Implementation Phase – the Project Budget will represent the Project Implementation Cost, which includes the costs of monitoring delivery under the concession agreement, facilitating approvals, land procurement costs, concession change management, compliance checking and acceptance;
Operations Phase – the Budget will represent the Concession Administration Cost, which includes costs of performance monitoring, administration of the availability payment, the evaluation of benefits (during the transition period), any land compensation, and concession change management. There will be some overlap of these costs with the Project Implementation Cost where these relate to the ongoing operation of NET Line One during implementation.
The funding of the Promoters’ project costs is to be pursued from all available sources, including grant aid from DfT, ERDF, EMDA, City and County LTP, Developers and the like. Some funding from external sources may have associated timescales, which may result in some funding being withdrawn if they are exceeded. C
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – Overall responsibility for establishing the Project Budget, funding and actual project cost expenditure.
Director, NET – Oversee the Project Budget and report to the NET Project Board on any changes
NET Phase Two Project Director – Establishing the project costs, and then directing the project development and delivery within the agreed Project Budget.
Lead Project Manager – Management of the project activities and timely production of the project deliverables within the specified constraints of Project Programme and Project Budget.
Workstream Managers – management of the workstream activities and timely production of workstream deliverables within the specified programme and budget constraints for that workstream.
PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders) – Preparation and monitoring of the Project Budget and reporting against the Project on behalf of the NET Phase Two Project Director
NET Line One (Monitoring Officer) – Support to the PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders) in administration of the NET Phase Two Project Budget.
NET Project Office Manager – Purchasing and account administration.
Nottingham City Council Finance Department – Corporate governance & administration of the projects accounts, income and expenditure on behalf of the joint Promoters.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 10
Budget & Project Cost Management Strategy
D
Management Approach Management of the Project Budget involves the following:
The NET Project Board establishes the annual Project Budget based on estimated project expenditure and the income from the Promoters and other funding sources; this is then overseen by the Director, NET.
The NET Phase Two Project Director manages the income and expenditure within the constraints of the agreed Project Budget so as to most effectively deliver the required services.
The NET PM Team maintains an itemised budget, actual costs and incurred expenditure, together with the projected income and expenditure based on the scope of services, Project Programme, associated resource requirements, and income availability.
Regular Project Budget Reports will be produced for the NET Phase Two Project Director & NET Project Board. These will include:
E
committed, accrued, actual and forecast income and costs against the Project Budget,
commentary on changes and analysis of trends (where appropriate), and
any recommendations.
Tools and Techniques In undertaking Budget & Project Cost Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
Value for Money Guidelines,
Appropriate use of competitive tendering for external consultant or advisor services (see Legal & Commercial Management Strategy).
Association for Project Management (2006) “APM Body of Knowledge”, 5th edition.
Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Budget & Project Cost Management approach:
F
G
Change Management
Legal & Commercial Management
Scheme Cost Management
Risk & Opportunity Management
Evaluation
Changes to the project income and expenditure are monitored against the Project Budget at the fortnightly NET PM Team meeting, and any actions endorsed by the NET Phase Two Project Director.
Regular meetings are to be held with Nottingham City Council Finance to check on internal expenditure, accounting procedures, and compliance with external grant aid.
The Project Budget is regularly reviewed by the NET Project Board, and any changes must be endorsed by the group, and sought from the Promoting Councils’ Executives where necessary.
The overall adequacy of the Project Budget will be reviewed during the Phase Gateway Reviews.
Others Involved Promoter Support Resources – NCiC and NCoC Finance and Legal. Advisor/Consultants – pwc.
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Lead Project Manager
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.5
Appendix D - Page 11
Business Case Management Strategy Business Case Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To ensure that the benefits generated by the NET Phase Two project are commensurate with the required investment, and the level of risk acceptable to the promoting Councils To ensure the NET Phase Two project identifies and secures the necessary financing and funding for the ongoing scheme development, implementation and operation.
B
Management Requirements The purpose of the NET Phase Two project Business Case is to obtain the promoting Councils commitment and the necessary approvals for investment in the project. The business case provides the framework for informed decision making in planning and managing the project and the subsequent benefits realisation. The Business Case provides the justification for undertaking the project, in terms of evaluating the benefits, cost and risk of the alternative scheme options and delivery strategies, and captures the rationale for the preferred scheme and delivery solution. Within the business case, the benefits of the NET Phase Two scheme are related to the level of risk and the delivery and operating costs that the Promoters and those funding the project are willing to accept. For any given level of scheme benefits there is a limit on the level of risk that can be sustained or tolerated. The level of investment needed to obtain these benefits within at that level of risk must be in proportion for the investment to be worthwhile. The contents of the Business Case will include the objectives for the project; high-level description of the project scope; evaluation of options; benefits; risks; estimated costs; target programme; investment appraisal and procurement strategy; assumptions & constraints; dependencies on other projects; and project success criteria. The means by which the necessary capital and operating costs are secured and then made available to the project must be determined. The Business Case must balance the available investment with the need for that investment across the life-cycle of the scheme.
C
D
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board –providing strategic guidance on the need and objectives of the project and fit with the promoting Councils’ strategic planning.
NET Director, NET – owner of the Business Case– responsible for providing strategic direction on the business needs desired outcomes and affordability of the project.
NET Phase Two Project Director – leadership and direction on development of the business case and procurement strategy.
.Legal & Commercial Workstream – Co-ordination and development of the Business Case.
PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders) – day-to-day co-ordination of the inputs to the business case development across all of the relevant workstreams on behalf of the Legal & Commercial workstream.
Other workstream and project participants – providing input and implementing agreed actions to support the development of the Business Case.
Management Approach The Business Case will be developed in stages that are consistent with the scheme development, project governance requirements and the requirements of the DfT Local Authority Major Schemes Programme. The Business Case will be kept up-to-date to reflect the current understanding of benefits, costs and risks associated with the project, and will be used as the basis for decisions as to whether to continue with the project at gateway review points. The scope of the scheme, expected benefits, Scheme Costs, availability of funding and reduction of risk will be regularly monitored and assessed as the project moves through the Powers Phase and the Procurement Phase. Where necessary, mitigating actions will be taken to maintain benefits, reduce risks, and contain costs within the funding constraints. A robust change management strategy is an essential component of managing the business case. A Legal & Commercial working Group has been established to provide and co-ordinate the legal, financial, benefits, costs and risks and commercial inputs. The working group consists of selected promoting Council officers, advisers and consultants.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 12
Business Case Management Strategy Initiatives for funding the ongoing development of the NET Phase Two project are to be pursued to obtain grant aid from all possible sources, such as DfT, ERDF, City and County LTP, Developers and the like. E
Tools and Techniques The Business will be based on robust financial modelling, economic appraisal, and cost benefits analysis. The Business Case is aligned with the proposed procurement strategy for NET Phase Two, and the associated payment mechanism and performance monitoring system. Associated Management Strategies and procedures forming part of the Business Case Management approach:
Benefits Management
Budget & Project Cost Management
Legal & Commercial Management
Performance Monitoring Strategy
Risk & opportunity Management
Scheme Cost Management
In undertaking Business Case Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
F
G
DfT “New Approach to Appraisal” (NATA) and Webtag guidance
HM Treasury (2003) “The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government”, TSO, London ISBN 0-11-560107-4
Association of Project Management (2006) “APM Body of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
Evaluation
Progress on developing and maintaining the business case will be monitored at the fortnightly NET PM team meeting, and any proposed actions endorsed by the NET Phase Two Project Director.
Significant changes and revisions to the Business Case are to be reported to and endorsed by NET Project Board.
The Business Case will be reviewed during the Gateway phase reviews.
The DfT will review the Business Case as part of their Local Government Major Schemes Programme at the conditional and full approval stages. In accordance with the terms of the Programme Entry, the DfT will also be notified in the event of significant changes in scope or benefits, or if the estimated total cost of the scheme rises above the current estimate.
Others Involved Liaison & co-ordination with funding partners
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.6
Appendix D - Page 13
Change Management Strategy Change Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To provide a method of assessing and managing change, giving details of the consequence and ensuring that an informed decision is made by those with authority, and that the outcome of the change is appropriately communicated and implemented.
B
Management Requirements Change Control is the process that ensures that all changes made to a scheme’s baselined scope, time, cost and quality objectives or the agreed scheme benefits are identified, evaluated and either approved, rejected or deferred. The change could be to any or several aspect of the project delivery or parts of the scheme configuration. Changes to the Scheme include:
Legislative or regulatory context
Stakeholder expectation or requirements
Governance, organisation or management arrangements, including this PMP
Scheme objectives or agreed scheme benefits
Business Case, including funding and procurement strategy
Scope or required capability or performance of the scheme
Scheme Cost (see Scheme Cost Management Strategy), including risk profile
Changes to the project delivery include:
C
D
Agreed scope of supply or terms of reference for any sub-contract or Concession.
Project Budget, including project costs and associated funding
Project programme
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – overall responsibility for change on NET Phase Two.
Director, NET – Reporting change to NET Project Board, and seeking necessary authorisation of changes from the Project Board or Authorised Officers.
NET Phase Two Project Director – Ensuring appropriate arrangements are in place to identify and manage change; authorisation of changes within limits of delegated authority; controlling change following necessary approvals.
Lead Project Manager –Overall co-ordination and management of change to the scheme and project delivery; co-ordinating the necessary evaluation of identified changes on which recommendations can be based.
Scheme Assurance Workstream – responsible for co-ordination, monitoring and regular reporting on change.
Workstream Managers – Identifying changes; supporting the evaluation of change, implementing agreed changes.
All Participants - identify change and take the agreed actions in response to change.
Management Approach A Change Control Procedure provides the robust process used. This incorporates the following principles:-
Identification – All project participants are encourage to identify potential changes as part of their work activities, irrespective of whether the change has or has not occurred, or whether the affect of the change is known or unknown.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 14
Change Management Strategy
Change Request - A stakeholder who is requesting the change provides relevant information on the nature of the change
Initial Evaluation – A change is evaluated to consider if it is worth evaluating in greater detail. This is to ensure effective use of project time and resources.
Detailed Evaluation – A change is further evaluate as required to consider the impact of on the scheme’s baselined scope and configuration, requirements time, cost and quality objectives or agreed scheme benefits
Recommendation – A recommendation is made on the whether the change should be approved, rejected or deferred.
Decision – The NET Project Board, or where authorised, the NET Phase Two Project Director determines whether the change is approved, rejected or deferred.
Update - If a change is approved, the relevant plans, programmes, scope and configuration, objectives; scheme benefits, requirements or costs are updated to reflect the change, and the change is communicated to all parties required to implement it.
Implementation - The necessary actions to implement the change are undertaken and monitored.
Scheme Configuration Management (see Scheme Configuration Management Strategy) is closely associated with the Change Management Strategy, as it:
provides the baselines against which participants can discern a Scheme change as opposed to planned scheme development,
may in itself highlight a change that has already occurred to the scheme,
may provide a basis for evaluating a scheme change, and
can be used to control the implementation of a change to the Scheme Configuration over the project life-cycle.
All changes are logged from initial identification or request, and their current status recorded. All contracts, including for consultant or advisor services and the Concession Agreement will include a change control process between the parities based on the above principles, and reflecting the form of contract and associated risk transfer. E
Tools and Techniques Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Change Management approach:
Scheme Configuration Management
Scheme Cost Management
Scheme Requirements Management
Budget and Project Cost Management
In undertaking Change Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
F
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
Evaluation Progress on changes will be monitored at the NET PM Team Meetings Any significant changes will be reported to the NET Project Board, as appropriate.
G
Others Involved All Project Participants
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Lead Project Manager
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Appendix D - Page 15
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.7
Appendix D - Page 17
Communication Management Strategy Communication Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To deliver a consistently high quality of communication to ensure that the design and implementation of NET Phase Two is welcomed by residents, visitors & key stakeholders and that the disruption during construction is tolerated while highlighting the benefits that its operation will bring.
B
Management Requirements Communications should be planned, be appropriate and be effective. Collectively, Communication should be managed to:
C
keep all stakeholders, businesses and residents aware of developments.
gain commitment from stakeholders who are involved in or can influence the project, thus ensuring the long-term success of the project.
Ensure that the impacts of the construction on people living or working in the area will be mitigated through close public liaison and intensive communication.
Create an understanding of the construction process to give fair notice of any disruption and to provide a clear channel of communication with those causing the disruption.
keep all involved with, interested in, or affected by the project, informed of progress throughput the project life-cycle, including the outcome of the project.
promote key messages from the project.
demonstrate the commitment of the Promoters and other project sponsors to the project and its aims.
promote two-way dialogue by encouraging stakeholders to provide feedback, responding effectively to further the objectives, and inform the project development.
Management Responsibility NET Project Board – Overall responsibility for strategic approach and approval of the communications activity programme. Director, NET – overall lead for co-ordinating communications linked to the project NET Phase Two Project Director – Lead and direct the NET Communications team. Powers, Approvals and Stakeholders Workstream - Overall Co-ordination of stakeholder management actions, including co-ordination of the interfaces with the Communications team and approval bodies. Communications Team – development of the Communications Plan and implementation of an approved communications activity programme. Concessionaire -
D
Management Approach To realise the objectives, effective communications planning and implementation, together with robust stakeholder management is needed. A Communications Plan will be prepared which suggests how to communicate proposals for NET Phase Two to minimise criticism and maximise positive opinions and active support from stakeholders. The Communications Plan will be closely allied to the Stakeholder Management Plan, which will identify the communication needs of the various stakeholders and stakeholder groups. Communication channels are established to ensure that the stakeholder expectations can be managed and maintained throughout the project’s life. These channels may be by formal or more subtle informal means. It is essential to maintain some two-way interfaces or channels between the project and its stakeholders to allow for feedback. Communications may set out to share, downplay or promote certain information in the interest of the project, but must nonetheless be honest.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 18
Communication Management Strategy The Communications Plan will also identify the policy, communication channels and procedures for receiving and handling enquiries and complaints. E
Tools and Techniques The Communications Plan suggests how to communicate proposals for NET Phase Two to minimise criticism and maximise positive opinions and active support from stakeholders. Possible communication channels:
Face-to-face individual or group meetings, which provide an opportunity for the project stakeholders to receive first hand feed-back on the issues affecting them.
Press/ media, which provide the means for getting messages about the project to a wide external audience.
The “Express” magazine, e-bulletins, briefings, , press-releases, to disseminate key information about the project to a wide audience, or specific information relevant to the needs of a small number of stakeholder groups..
Site Exhibitions, which promote a continuing presence and awareness through the use of static displays.
24-hour hotlines for the public and other stakeholders during the construction period.
Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Communications Management approach:
TWAO Management
Stakeholder Management
In undertaking Communications Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
Corporate Communication’s policies of both promoting Council’s. F
Evaluation All communications and communication channels are monitored for effectiveness and for adverse impact or feedback. Changes may be required to cater for the evolving requirements of the stakeholders as their awareness and knowledge increases and demand for information grows.
G
Others Involved None identified
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Communications Officer
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.8
Appendix D - Page 19
Environmental Management Strategy Environment Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To ensure that environmental considerations are fully taken into account in the development of the scheme, ensure that the Environmental Statement supporting the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) application is robust and fit for purpose and ensure that the NET Phase Two is designed, constructed and set to work without unacceptable impact on the environment.
B
Management Requirements Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the preferred scheme in accordance with the EU EIA Directive and the Transport and Works Act EIA Regulations. The EIA process results in the preparation of an Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted to the Secretary of State, as part of the TWAO application. The ES has been the subject of public scrutiny during the TWAO public inquiry. The Secretary of State is required to consider the ES in making any consent decision. The requirements for environmental management during the construction phase are included within the “Code of Construction Practice” (CoCP) that has been developed for the project. This Code draws on similar codes produced for other light rail and similar schemes, and covers specific legislative requirements as well as general requirements and compliance with current standards. The concessionaire will be required to have an adequate Environmental Management Plan (EMP) such that the detailed design, construction and bringing into use of NET Phase Two takes cognisance of the information included within the approved ES and CoCP and compliance can be demonstrated. Environmental benefits (& dis-benefits) are identified as part of the EIA process. The realisation of these identified benefits will be monitored. Monetarised environmental benefits are also included in the Business Case.
C
D
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – has overall responsibility for Environmental policy and strategy on NET Phase Two Project
NET Phase Two Project Director – Ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place to discharge the Promoters duties for protection of the environment..
Powers, Approvals & Stakeholders Workstream – is responsible for: overall co-ordination and management of the EIA, ES and the Construction Code of Practice; identifying environmental requirements; Oversee and co-ordinate the Stakeholder Management strategy for each planning, heritage, environmental and ecological interests.
Scheme Assurance Workstream – is responsible for incorporating the environmental requirements into the Scheme Requirements (see Scheme Requirements Management Strategy); monitoring progress on satisfying these environmental requirements by the Design consultant during the Advanced design and by the Concessionaire during the Implementation Phase.
Technical Development Workstream – Progressing the engineering development, operation & maintenance planning and implementation planning of the scheme so as to reduce the uncertainty associated with environmental risks prior to concession award, initial development of the Environmental Management Plan.
Environmental Adviser – preparation of the EIA, ES and in accordance; advice on environmental mitigation proposals to support the EMP.
Design Service Consultant – supporting the Scheme Assurance Workstream through the development and management of the Environmental Management Plan, Developing as part of the Advanced Design technical, implementation, operating and maintenance proposals to satisfy the environmental requirements
Legal & Commercial Workstream – developing and advising on the procurement strategy, including the allocation of environmental risks and the associated Scheme Costs.
Concessionaire – overall responsibility for satisfying all environmental requirements during the Implementation and Operation phase.
Management Approach
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 20
Environment Management Strategy
E
Environmental Appraisal of scheme options.
EIA of the preferred scheme.
Consultation on environmental matters.
Development of an environmental mitigation strategy (order provisions, draft planning conditions, and CoCP)
Development of a Urban and Landscaping Design Statement
Preparation of an Environmental Statement.
Incorporation of the environmental requirements into the Scheme Requirements (see Scheme Requirements Management)
Preparation of an initial Environmental management Plan identifying the mitigation proposed to address each environmental requirement.
Development of the scheme by the Technical development workstream in accordance with the environmental requirements and management plan
Finalisation and implementation of the scheme by the Concessionaire
Tools and Techniques In undertaking Environmental Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
Environmental Appraisal -Transport Analysis Guidance.
EIA – DfT and ODPM EIA guidance documents.
Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Environmental Management approach:
F
Consultation Management Strategy
Communications Management Strategy
TWAO Management Strategy
Evaluation Pre-TWAO, success of the EIA process and ES is measured through the consultation responses, the public inquiry and ultimately through the TWAO decision made by the Secretary of State, and concurrent planning consents. The Design Consultant consultant’s and the concessionaire’s EMP and environmental performance will be monitored against the environmental mitigation strategy documents and the ES. The realisation of the potential environmental benefits (& dis-benefits) will be evaluated – See Benefits Management Strategy.
G
Others Involved All workstreams, consultants and advisers
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.9
Appendix D - Page 21
Health & Safety Management Strategy Health & Safety Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To promote effective Health & Safety management and good practice to protect those involved with or affected by the design, construction or bringing into use of NET Phase Two, and thereafter during operation and maintenance of the extended network.
B
Management Requirements There are three principal requirements for management of Health & Safety. These comprise:
Construction Health & Safety – as required the Construction (Design & Management) regulations 2007
Tramway Safety – as required by the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations, 2006 (ROGS); and
Road Safety – as required by the Road Traffic Act, 1998.
Under ROGS, safety verification is proposed to be achieved through a regime of self certification undertaken by the project sponsor/promoter with the Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) no longer having a direct role in the safety authorisation process. The self certification process requires the following main aspects to be demonstrated:
a “written safety verification scheme” (Safety Management Plan) is to be produced detailing the type and form of safety engineering to be undertaken, how this is to be verified and validated and who is responsible for ensuring adherence to the plan;
That a Cases for Safety is produced that contains sufficient proof to:
verify that the Safety Management Plan has been adhered to throughout the scheme development life cycle,
validate that the safety parameters derived by the safety engineering activities have been meet; and
a Competent Person is appointed to assure that the design and implementation of the tramway is acceptably safe and that it is able to be brought into public service
The role of the Office of the Rail Regulator is then limited to one of auditing organisations for their compliance with the Safety Management Plan. C
Management Responsibility NET Phase Two Project Director - Ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place to discharge the Promoters duties for health and safety. Pre-Concession Award
The NET Phase Two Project Director, supported by the CDM Co-ordinator has responsibility for Health & Safety at Work Act items; and
The Design Consultant is responsible for tramway safety verification under ROGS
Post Concession Award – The Concessionaire is responsible for both Health & Safety at Work Act items and tramway safety verification. D
Management Approach Health & Safety: Prior to concession award, the Promoters’ appointed CDM Co-ordinator will work with the NET PM Team, using the efficient application of the CDM Regulations as a basis for health and safety during Technical Development. The emphasis will be on assuring competence, co-operation, communication and coordination. Following concession award, and in line with other PFI projects, the client responsibility for health and safety under CDM will transfer to the concessionaire, including the appointment of the CDM Coordinator
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 22
Health & Safety Management Strategy and Principal Contractor. The designers involved in NET Phase Two must manage health and safety in line with CDM. Design is to be in line with current best practice and guidance for tramway and road safety; however responsibility for obtaining any necessary approvals for bringing into use the tramway under ROTS or ROGTS regulations will ultimately fall to the concessionaire. The promoting Councils, in their statutory capacities as highway and street authorities, will retain some statutory responsibility for highway safety and for works undertaken within the highway. Health & Safety Requirements and System Safety Requirements will be incorporated into the Scheme Requirements (See Scheme Requirements Management Strategy). System Safety: The safety verification process to be adopted for NET Phase Two must be one that:
is simple to understand;
is effective to implement;
is economic in terms of resource intensity set against evidence required to be delivered;
is clear in demonstrating the tramway is acceptably safe;
provides for a progressive accumulation of safety evidence in correlation with the design and implementation of the tramway to support the safety argument and the phased Case for Safety;
follows a gateway and configuration process;
incorporates the justification of safety for NET Line One;
provides for sufficient independence in the assessment of the tramway being acceptably safe so as not to be in conflict with commercial pressure of the scheme or the Concession;
has the support of the ORR; and
is documented within a Safety Management Plan that is submitted to the ORR and ORR audit the scheme against.
Prior to Concession award, the above process will enable the Advanced Design to be verified and warranted to a sufficient level of independence by the Design Consultant whilst not appointing a Competent Person. Post award of Concession, the Concessionaire will need to appoint a Competent Person for the safety verification of the implementation phases. E
Tools and Techniques Best Practice health & safety management techniques are to be employed during the technical development and procurement in accordance with industry standards. During the Technical Development, it will be necessary to identify and manage risks to the health & safety of those involved with or affected by the design, construction or bringing into use of NET Phase Two, and thereafter during operation and maintenance of the extended network. Advanced Design: The Design Consultant will produce a phased Case for Safety, supported by appropriate safety engineering tools/techniques and the hazard log as part of the Advanced Design. The Case for Safety constitutes the safety argument and documented evidence which:
under the former ROTS regulations, would have enabled the ORR to provide a “Letter of No Objection” and hence the scheme could proceed to the next part of the life cycle; and
under ROGS will allow self certifiable safety verification.
The Advanced Design will consist of some elements of the tramway being designed to a detailed level and other elements which will not be developed to such an extent. Hence the safety evidence to support the Case for Safety at the end of the Advanced Design will be similarly varied in its level of detail but nonetheless represents a coherent understanding of the safety issues. For the Advanced Design safety verification should comprise:
The Design Consultant developing an agreed Safety Management Plan for the entire Scheme Development Life Cycle, albeit that at this point, the Powers Phase elements will likely contain more
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 23
Health & Safety Management Strategy detailed processes and procedures than the implementation phases;
The Design Consultant implementing the Safety Management Plan in respect of the Powers Phase of the Scheme Development Life Cycle;
The Design Consultant undertaking safety engineering and verification of his own works on a progressive basis that correlates with the development of the advanced design;
At appropriate points in time, e.g. prior to design submissions and at the end of Requirements Definition and all Advanced Design works, the Design Consultant uses a person independent of the design works and the associated safety engineering process to review and assess such submissions as part of a peer review hence being akin to an Independent Safety Assessor; and
As with NET Line One where a significant ‘safety issue’ may arise, the Design Consultant will produce a discussion paper to be sent to ORR for comment and if needed follow up discussion.
Procurement All tenderers for services or the concession will be required to demonstrate that they and those who will be involved on the project have or will have the competence and resources to discharge their responsibilities for health & safety. Implementation Once the NET Phase Two Concession is awarded, the Concessionaire will undertake the Implementation phases of the Scheme Development Life Cycle. This will involve:
finalising the design of the tramway;
constructing, testing and commissioning of the tramway, including pre-operational running;
bringing the tramway into public service; and
obtaining those Third Party Consents not obtained during the Advanced Design
During this period the Concessionaire will continue to build upon and add to the safety evidence accumulated in the Advanced Design until sufficient evidence is contained within the Case for Safety that the Concessionaire is able to demonstrate that the tramway is acceptably safe to enter public service. The Case for Safety must be capable of being substantiated by the Concessionaire and gain the agreement of the Competent Person as defined by ROGS. For the Implementation Phases of the scheme development life cycle, safety verification shall be undertaken by the Concessionaire and comprise:
developing the exact detail of the processes and procedures of the Safety Management Plan for the implementation phases of the Scheme Development Life Cycle;
implementing the Safety Management Plan in respect of the Implementation Phase of the Scheme Development Life Cycle;
safety engineering and verification of the Concessionaire’s own works on a progressive base that correlates with the further development of the design, the implementation works and the bringing of the tramway into public service; and
At appropriate points in time, e.g. prior to design submissions and during the testing and commissioning works, uses a Competent Person, drawn from an appropriate organisation which may be the Operator organisation that is part of the Concessionaire, to independently assess the works for compliance with safety requirements and that the works and the tramway is acceptably safe to operate. We will make use of guidance such as:
F
CDM Regulations Approved Code of Practice (HSG 224)
Safety in Design (http://www.safetyindesign.org/)
HSE, Railway Safety Principles & Guidance
Evaluation The Design Consultant and the Concessionaire will ensure that they have a record of hazard identification and risk assessment for their designs and implemented solutions, and have identified and incorporated where appropriate necessary mitigation or recommendations into their designs and implemented solutions. These will be regularly reviewed with the Competent Person and/or the CDM Coordinator.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 24
Health & Safety Management Strategy The CDM Coordinator will report on progress of the Pre-tender Health and Safety Plan and Health and the Competent Person will report upon the phased Cases for Safety. G
Others Involved All workstreams, consultants and advisers
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Scheme Co-ordinator (Systems and O&M)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.10
Appendix D - Page 25
Information Management & Reporting Information Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To control the collection, storage, retrieval, dissemination, archiving and appropriate disposal of project information, including documents, data and correspondence. To control the use of project information in an appropriate format for the purposes of reporting, including formal reporting within the project organisation and governance structure and to project stakeholders.
B
Management Requirements The NET Phase Two Project generates, utilises and absorbs significant quantities of information. Appropriate processes are required to manage and communicate the information. Appropriate, timely and accurate information is required to facilitate informed decisions. To manage this information and reporting, robust arrangements are required covering:
Collection & Storage.
Dissemination.
Retrieval.
Reporting.
Archiving.
Disposal.
Other considerations that must be take into account include:
C
D
The need for commercial confidentiality, and how this is controlled in respect to storage and dissemination.
Data protection in respect to the collection, storage and use of personnel data
Freedom of Information in respect to disclosure access to information and environmental information
Management Responsibility
Director, NET - Reporting to, and keeping informed, the Project Board (and, where appropriate, the Authorised Officers and Relevant Members) to facilitate effective executive decision making.
NET Phase Two Project Director – Ensuring formal information and reporting arrangements on project progress, budget (including change) are established. Chairing the NET PM Team Meetings and Project Delivery Group
Lead Project Manager – establishment and maintenance of appropriate information management and reporting procedures to support the project requirements and delivery. Ensuring Progress reporting is undertaken through the agreed arrangements.
Workstream Managers - Chairing workstream progress meetings as required
Project Support Team – administrative and clerical support responsible for the day-to-day control of information; filing and handling of correspondence.
Design Service consultant – overall administration and support of the 4Proejct extranet system; management of the Project data library.
All Project participants - are responsible for the appropriate management of correspondence, information and data, and reporting they receive or prepare in the first instance
Management Approach
Collection & Storage: Information, may be received voluntarily, actively sought or automatically delivered into the project. Not all information needs to be stored. All relevant information is stored, as a minimum, in the correspondence files and the project data library, and where necessary for wider dissemination, the project extranet.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 26
Information Management Strategy
Dissemination: A means of controlling information flow and recording its distribution is established.
Retrieval: Information is stored in the correspondence files, project data library and 4proejcts as required such that it is readily accessible and retrievable by relevant people or systems.
Reporting: Reporting involves the presentation of relevant information in a useful report format for dissemination as a means of keeping internal and external stakeholders informed about the project. Reporting requirements are pre-identified and the source information known, where possible the format of the source information and the report format are tailored to optimise the reuse of source information. To reduce the burden of reporting, exception reporting is used.
Archiving: Information is to be archived throughout the project life-cycle. Archived information is to be removed from a readily accessible location into a less accessible storage facility, and may be done through a series of progressive stages with the information becoming less accessible at each stage. The selection of information for archiving is based on a set of established rules and may be automated. Some information may have legislative or regulatory requirements associated with the retention period.
Disposal: Information that is collected but does not need to be stored or is no longer required is destroyed in accordance with established procedures.
Timescales and report formats are established for all key project reports, including those required for governance, internal use and those received from advisers, consultants and other project participants. E
Tools and Techniques A central repository is maintained at the NET Project Office, consisting of a correspondence files and a project data library for documentation and other records. A 4Projects extranet system is also in operation for storage and dissemination of project data where required providing the means of ready access and dissemination. The extranet also provides work flow and discussion tools to support the collaborative development of documentation In undertaking Information Management & Reporting, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
F
NCiC’s corporate information governance guidance and procedures, including data protection, and freedom of information and Environmental Information Requirements, documentation retention and disposal, financial regulations.
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
Evaluation Targets are monitored for the time to respond to:
G
requests for information under the freedom of information Act and Environmental Information Regulations
requests for personnel data under the Data Protection Act
requests for information by Members of Parliament and Members of the promoting Councils
requests for information by the general public, not under the FIA or EIR.
Others Involved None identified
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Lead Project Manager
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.11
Appendix D - Page 27
Issue Resolution Strategy Issue Resolution Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To prevent an issue from threatening the project’s chances of achieving a successful outcome, or presenting an unacceptable liability to the promoting Councils, by establishing arrangements and responsibilities for handling and dealing efficiently with issues as they arise.
B
Management Requirements Issues are to be considered as things happening now that are affecting (positively or negatively) the project that need to be actively dealt with and resolved by either those managing or governing the project. Unlike risks or opportunities, there is no scope to prevent the issue from occurring as it has already happened. The aim of issue resolution is to prevent the identified issue from threatening a successful project outcome or expose the promoting Council’s to an unacceptable liability. These issues must be actively dealt with and resolved so as to return stability to the project. The actions to resolve issues are specific, and usually immediate. Issues can occur at any time during the project. It is impossible to anticipate everything that could possibly happen during a project, so planning how to deal with the unknown or unplanned event is also important. Initially, a concern at project level or below will typically be handled informally or by reporting and team meetings, only being escalated to the NET Phase Two Project Director as a project-level issue should the Lead Project Manager or Workstreams Managers not be able to resolve them as part of their day-to-day management of the project. Once identified as a project-level issue, the NET Phase Two Project Director should take charge of its resolution, only escalating it to a strategic-level issue if it is not capable of being resolved within the project or within the Project Budget, time or resource constraints. Issues outside the control of the project are by default strategic-level issues. Strategic-level issues will also include those ‘show stopper’ issues that if left unresolved, could effectively undermine the entire scheme. Strategic-level issues need to be quickly identified and rapidly escalated and resolved by the NET Project Board, an authorised or designated officer within the promoting Council’s or the promoting Council’s executives. Exceptionally, resolution of issues may require abnormal or ‘emergency’ procedures to be in place such that immediate but authorised actions can take place. Examples could include issuing a press release in response to adverse media news coverage, handling of an accident or incident, etc. Common failures in the management of issues are:
C
Wrongly identifying as issues, problems or concerns that the NET PM Team were capable of resolving within the project team. This diverts attention away from handling genuine issues;
Failing to properly or promptly escalate a problem or concern, initially as a project-level issue. This prevents efficient and effective action to be taken to resolve the issue, including where necessary escalation to strategic-level
Failure to escalate a project-level issue to a strategic-level issue where issue resolution has not been achieved in a timely manner for whatever reason.
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – Direction and management of strategic-level issues
Director, NET - Ensuring that strategic issues are elevated to the Project Board in a timely manner for resolution.
NET Phase Two Project Director – Leadership and direction on issue resolution; ensuring strategic and project-level issues are brought forward for the Director, NET’s attention; and direction on resolution of project-level issues.
Lead project Manager – Co-ordination and control of project issues that may arise, ensuring appropriate mitigation actions are in place and escalating issues to the NET Phase Two Project Director as required.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 28
Issue Resolution Management Strategy
D
All Participants and workstreams – issue identification and action holders as required.
Management Approach A structured and integrated approach to issue identification and overall management of the resolution process is adopted in order to assist in the successful delivery of the project. This will include, where necessary, consultation and communication with stakeholders on issues caused by, affected by or affecting them. Issues could come from a wide variety of sources both within the project or from stakeholders, and should be captured in an Issue Log. Typically issues that arise are of the one of the following types:
a previously identified risk or opportunity that has now happened, and now requires appropriate action to address the actual impact.
an unplanned change that has occurred to some aspect of the scheme, project, project environment or project context.
a problem, question or challenge to the project that has arisen affecting all or part of the project in some way.
Having identified the issue, the actions required and taken to resolve the issue or component parts of the issue should be recorded on the Issue Log. These actions will be any combination of the following:
making some kind of change to the project delivery or the scheme to accommodate or resolve the issue. The options for changes will need to be considered as part of the change control process (see Change Management Strategy) and agreed change managed and communicated accordingly;
issues may in fact turn out to be wholly or in part concerned about possible future events rather than present concerns. These should be moved to the Risk & Opportunity Register (See Risk & Opportunity Management strategy) and managed accordingly;
if the issue or any part of the issue is not a change, risk or opportunity then direct resolution action will be needed. These specific actions should be recorded on the issue log, prioritised in terms of their potential impact on the project delivery and/or the scheme, and the immediacy of the necessary actions, and monitored accordingly.
If no action is possible by the NET PM Team then the issue must be escalated to the NET Project Board with appropriate urgency. All active project-level and strategic-level issues on the Issue Log will be reviewed regularly, and as a minimum at the NET PM Team Meeting, NET Project Board respectively. E
Tools and Techniques The Issue Resolution Procedure establishes a common approach for the management of Issues. An Issue Log is used to track the progress of issues from identification to resolution, describing each issue, when and by whom it was raised, the possible impact, resolution actions taken or proposed, the issue owner, and the final out-come, and the date the issue is closed. Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Benefits Management approach:
Risk & Opportunity Management
Change Management
In undertaking Issue Resolution Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
F
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
See also references to best practice for risk management identified in the Risk & opportunity Management Strategy.
Evaluation The NET Project Board will review all strategic-level issues on a regular basis.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 29
Issue Resolution Management Strategy The NET Phase Two Project Director will review all project-level issues at the NET PM Team Meetings. Phase Reviews will review the Issue Log and the status of actions taken. Issue resolution progress will be measured by monitoring the ‘age’ of identified issues that are not closed. This will provide early warning as to whether issues are being efficiently managed, escalated, or resolved at both the project-level and strategic-level. G
Others Involved All project participants and workstreams as required
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Lead Project Manager
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.12
Appendix D - Page 31
Land & Property Management Strategy Land & Property Management Strategy
A
Management Objective The develop and implement a strategy that will deliver the required land to the Project in a cost effective and timely manner and which minimises disruption and inconvenience to affected third parties.
B
Management Requirements All major transport schemes involve some acquisition of land. NET Phase Two is no different and affects properties along its routes in a variety of ways. In developing the scheme a primary consideration has been the limitation of impacts on private property, in particular domestic property. In developing the scheme for the TWAO application, the extent of land take has been minimsed (so that no more land is strictly necessary will be taken), whilst ensuring that the landtake is sufficient for the purposes of the construction and operation of the scheme. All of the areas of land and property and the proprietary rights sought in the draft Order are considered necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the scheme. Land and property will be acquired or used for the scheme in a number of different ways, including:
temporary use of land and property;
permanent acquisition of land and property; and
permanent acquisition of rights over land and property.
It will be a requirement of the Promoters to deliver Required Land to the concessionaire in accordance with the project programme. A land acquisition strategy will be developed which recognises the key issues in relation to land acquisition which:
clearly allocates risk and responsibility between NET and its concessionaire
manages the geographical extent of the land (both temporarily and permanently) the concessionaire is entitled to (in line with the assumptions underlying the land acquisition budget);
manages the timing of entry, especially in relation to compensation sensitive land parcels;
clearly allocates liabilities for all land, works and operational compensation;
deals with responsibilities and process for securing OLE sites;
regulates reinstatement responsibilities for all land temporarily used and to be handed back;
regulates concessionaires permanent land interests and process for granting
manages the interface with third parties, and in particular business, to ensure that as much notice as possible of entry is provided to minimise disturbance costs and disruption to the landowner.
The scope of the works to be undertaken includes updating all land ownership and interest records; preparation and serving of notices; property purchase, valuations and negotiations; cost control and reporting service. The land acquisition budget will be closely monitored as part of the overall budget monitoring for NET Phase Two. C
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – Overall responsibility for the strategic approach towards the acquisition of land and property, and will receive regular reports on delivery.
NET Project Delivery Group – Review the detailed delivery of the land management strategy.
Powers and Approvals workstream manager – has responsibility for the day to day delivery of the Land and Property strategy.
Land & Property Working Group – comprises of representatives of the NET Project team, the land and property consultant adviser, and City and County Council legal and property services. The Group oversees the detailed development and implementation of the land management strategy.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D
Appendix D - Page 32
Management Approach Prior to the procurement phase, a specialist land and property consultant will be appointed to advise on and implement the land and property strategy. The consultant will work to the Powers and Approvals workstream manager. The emphasis will be on ensuring that land information is as accurate as possible, that land is acquired cost-effectively and in line with programme, that land is acquired in a timely manner, and that high levels of communication are developed with land owners to ensure minimal disruption for both the NET Project and the affected third party. All implementation will be in accordance with the Compensation Code. Tools and Techniques In undertaking Land and Property Management, the NET will take into account the following:
The Compensation Code
Compulsory Purchase and Compensation guidance issued by the DCLG.
All relevant legislation including the 1973 Land Compensation Act.
Circular ODPM 06/2004: Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules
E
Tools and Techniques
F
Evaluation The NET Project Board will review progress reports and strategic level issues on a regular basis. The Land and Property consultant will keep full records of all discussions and negotiations with third parties. These will be regularly reviewed with the Powers and Approvals workstream manager.
G
Others Involved
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.13
Appendix D - Page 33
Legal & Commercial Management Strategy Legal & Commercial Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To develop and implement a strategy to procure the project resources and service provision required to deliver the project and operate the scheme, such that value for money is demonstrated in achieving the scheme objectives... To ensure that the procurement strategies implemented are compliant with all relevant legislation and associated regulations.
B
Management Requirements Procurement is the process by which the project resources and service provision required for the scheme are acquired. It includes:
C
D
Development of appropriate procurement strategies setting out how to successfully acquire and manage each internal or external resource or service needed such that value for money is demonstrated in achieving the scheme objectives.
Preparation of the Contracts, including contract terms and conditions, specification and scope of works to support the procurement strategy, in particular the appropriate allocation of risk.
Invitation, selection and acquisition of the suppliers such that value for money is achieved
Management of the contract to minimise the potential liabilities arising to the promoting Councils...
Management Responsibility
Authorised Officers - providing (or obtaining where outside their delegated authority) any necessary authorisations for procurement.
Director, NET - Monitoring and controlling the PFI procurement at the strategic level;
NET Project Board – owner of the procurement strategy, providing strategic direction on its development and fit with the promoting Councils financial and commercial arrangements.
NET Phase Two Project Director – leadership and direction on development and implementation of the procurement strategy; reporting to the NET Project Board.
PM (Procurement & Project Controls) – Workstream Manager for the Legal & Commercial Workstream co-ordinating the Legal and commercial and inputs across all of the relevant workstreams and project participants, including co-ordination and implementation of the procurement strategy and procedures; co-ordination and preparation of the contract documentation and tender information; co-ordination of the tender, selection and acquisition process; preparation of the recommendations for appointment.
Other workstream and project participants – providing input into the preparation of the procurement strategy, contract documentation, and selection and acquisition process.
Management Approach The procurement strategy should consider:
the decision for services to be sourced internally or externally
use of a singe integrated supplier or multiple discrete suppliers
the required supplier relationships, including with the supply chain
selection of an appropriate procurement process and assessment criteria
the need stimulate market interest and promote competition for supply
the need and role of any market testing
supplier availability and selection
contract arrangement and structure
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 34
Legal & Commercial Management Strategy
conditions and form of contract, in particular the treatment of risk
method of reimbursement, pricing or payment mechanism.
When formulating and developing the procurement strategy and contract documents, consideration must be given to
securing value for money over the whole life of the project.
legislative requirements, including public sector procurement regulation
promoting Councils own procurement regulations
Feedback from any market testing.
a terms and payment mechanism that is likely to motivate suppliers to achieve the objectives of the project.
ways of creating long-term relationships for the mutual benefits of all parties involved in the arrangement.
the need for procurement practices to be ethical and transparent and ensure good governance corporate accountability and probity are observed.
optimise risk transfer to the private sector
preferred dispute resolution procedures, e.g. litigation, Alterative Dispute resolution (ADR; arbitration, adjudication and mediation) and negotiation,
With regard to developing the Concession Agreement, additional consideration is required of the following:
the terms and payment mechanism should incentivise achievement of passenger-focused outputs (e.g. service frequency, timetable reliability, ride quality, noise, customer service, cleanliness and general presentation).
the potential benefits of undertaking works in advance of the award of the PFI Concession, including advanced design, advanced utility diversions and procurement of long-lead plant and materials
deliver a contractual mechanism that allows the Promoters to share in any windfall gain received by the Concessionaire.
encourage participation in concessionary fare and local ticketing schemes, but not retain control over fares
termination of the existing NET Line One Concession Agreement
The contract for NET Phase Two will be based on the “Standardisation of PFI Contract version 4 (2007)” (SoPC4), and experience on NET Line One. There are, however, a number of issues specific to tramways that are not reflected in SoPC4 or which are dealt with in a way which is not appropriate in the context of tramway projects, including:
highway and track interfaces (e.g. highway/ tramway operational and maintenance responsibilities, highway change, road traffic accidents, traffic priority).
fare-box revenue risk
competing modes of transport
third party claims for, for example, noise, nuisance
network extensions
failure by Network Rail to perform its obligations under any relevant agreements
definition of change of law for, for example, changes to traffic regulation, utility works cost sharing, changes to concessionary travel and integrated ticketing schemes
A Legal and Commercial working group has been established to develop the procurement strategy and the development of the contract documentation in line with this strategy. With regard to selection and acquisition of the supplier,
Authorisation to proceed with the selection and acquisition of the supplier will be sought from the appropriate authority in accordance with the project’s governance arrangements (see Section 3 of the PMP) and, where necessary, from funding partners, such as the DfT.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 35
Legal & Commercial Management Strategy
E
The procedural arrangements and selection criteria will be in accordance with the agreed procurement strategy. In general suppliers will be chosen on a combination of capability, quality and price.
An evaluation team will be identified, and evaluation procedures and records will be maintained. A recommendation report will be prepared.
Where appropriate, such as for the Concession Agreement, a negotiation team will be established with the relevant experience and authority to conduct the negotiation on behalf of the Promoters.
Authorisation to proceed with the appointment of the supplier will be sought from the appropriate authority in accordance with the project’s governance arrangements (see Section 3 of the PMP) and, where necessary, from funding partners, such as the DfT.
Tools and Techniques In undertaking Legal & Commercial Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
European, national and Promoters’ financial regulations and associated guidance
HM treasury “Standardisation of PFI Contract version 4, 2007” (SoPC4)
Associated Management Strategies and procedures forming part of the Business Case Management approach:
F
Budget & Project Cost Management
Business Case Management
Performance Monitoring Strategy
Risk & Opportunity Management
Scheme Cost Management
Evaluation Progress on developing and implementing the procurement strategy, contract documentation and the selection and acquisition process will be monitored and reported:
at the fortnightly NET PM Team meeting, with any proposed actions endorsed by the NET Phase Two Project Director.
4-weekly to the Project Delivery Group
quarterly to the NET Project Board
Significant changes and revisions to the procurement strategy are to be reported to and endorsed by NET Project Board. The Procurement Strategy will be reviewed during the Gateway phase reviews. The DfT will review the Business Case and the associated Procurement Strategy as part of their Local Government Major Schemes Programme at the conditional and full approval stages. Success of the procurement strategy is judged by the acceptance by the market of the procurement approach, and can be judged from the responses to any market testing, expression of interest, tender responses, and ultimately in the successful appointment of the supplier under terms and arrangements acceptable to the Promoters and project funding partners. G
Others Involved Department for Transport (DfT)
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Procurement & Project Controls)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.14
Appendix D - Page 37
Performance Monitoring Strategy Performance Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To ensure that the NET Phase Two Concessionaire is motivated to achieve the schemes objectives and benefits by incentivising good performance by use of a simple, fair and effective performance monitoring of key service targets linked to an availability payment for the service provided.
B
Management Requirements The NET Phase Two performance regime & payment mechanism will be based on NET Line One which has been proven to operate successfully, but is to be developed to take into account experience from NET Line One. The existing mechanism is relatively simple to understand, and is seen to support effective performance management of NET Line One The PMS is to incentivise achievement of passenger-focused outputs (e.g. service frequency, timetable reliability, ride quality, noise, customer service, cleanliness and general presentation) The ongoing development of the NET Phase Two Scheme should be informed by the need to provide a dependable network and the need to demonstrate that an equivalent or better performance than NET Line One can be achieved, and that the performance monitoring system remains fair and effective. Appropriate provision must be made for the continued performance monitoring of NET Line One during the implementation of NET Phase Two, and the transition to a network wide performance monitoring system as NET Phase Two is brought into service.
C
D
Management Responsibility
NET Line One Performance Team - Continued monitoring of the NET Line One operation and management and oversight of the existing concession during the Powers and Procurement Phase (see Figure 4.1). When the operation and maintenance responsibility for the existing NET Line One network is transferred to the new concessionaire, the NET Line One Performance Team will be absorbed into the Benefits & Performance workstream team;
Director, NET – Responsibility ensuring monitoring of progress of the NET Line One Concession under the existing Concession Agreement.
NET Phase Two Project Director – Development of performance based payment mechanism that supports the Business Case and procurement strategy.
Benefits & Performance Workstream – Overall direction and leadership in the development of the performance regime to support the procurement process and service delivery by the Concessionaire; responsible for monitoring the continued operation and maintenance of the existing network and the extended network under the new concession arrangements.
Scheme Assurance – responsible for demonstrating that the Scheme Requirement, the developing Scheme configuration and delivered infrastructure and operational arrangements support the required performance and the efficient and effective implementation of the PMS system.
Technical development Workstream – provide engineering, operational and maintenance advise, including operational planning and modelling, to support the development of the Performance Monitoring System in accordance with the procurement strategy.
Legal & Commercial Workstream – provide direction on the requirements for the PMS based on the developing procurement strategy and the funding and payment mechanisms.
Concessionaire – incorporation of the performance monitoring system requirement in to the delivered scheme and management proposals, operation of the performance monitoring system, preparation of the monthly performance reporting and payment applications,
Management Approach
The Promoters aim to build up on the success of the NET Line One performance monitoring system, basing the new system on the same principles.
Based on Lessons learnt from NET Line One, review and evaluate the options for improving the PMS to better incentivise performance and/or support the achievement of the scheme objectives.
Refine the PMS to reflect the extended network and the recommended changes form the review,
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 38
Performance Management Strategy supported by operational planning and modelling.
E
F
Identify the components of the scheme that contribute to the successful achievement of the PMS performance criteria and the level of performance that is being routinely achieved for these components of the scheme.
Establish a robust working arrangements for the operation of the passenger service and develop the NET Phase Two scheme utilising similar configurations for the underlying components and systems as used on NET Line One such that performance is not affected
Where it is not possible or practical to re-create the configuration or utilise similar technology as NET Line One, evaluate the alternatives in respect to their ability to support the PMS.
Review and agree the operation of the PMS during the procurement process with the Concessionaire
Monitor the implementation of the PMS and the detailed development of the scheme for their ability to support the performance required by the PMS.
Test the PMS on the continued operation of NET Line One during the implementation of NET Phase Two, and refine in agreement with the Concessionaire.
Monitor and accept the PMS system as part of the Completion Test for NET Phase Two.
Fully implement the PMS across the completed Network.
Tools and Techniques
NET Line One performance monitoring system and associated procedures.
Operational & Maintenance Plan and associated run-time and dependability modelling,
Evaluation The success of the performance monitoring system developed for NET Phase two will be evaluated through the following activities:
G
Market testing
Market acceptance – tender/ negotiation
Proving the new PMS on NET Line One during Implementation Phase for NET Phase Two
Completion Test for NET Phase Two over the network
Ongoing Performance Monitoring
Others Involved None
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Scheme Development)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.15
Appendix D - Page 39
Quality Management Strategy Quality Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To ensure that the project is delivered in accordance with established procedures and appropriately documented such that the overall success of the project is assured. To ensure that the NET Phase Two scheme is developed, designed, procured, constructed and set to work in a manner that meets the identified and then specified Scheme Requirements (See Scheme Requirements Management Strategy).
B
Management Requirements Quality embraces many different aspects of the project and the scheme. Four principal elements comprise:
The quality of the projects governance, leadership and management processes. This includes the quality of the information required to make decisions and the reliability of that information.
The quality of the projects management of Scheme Requirements, expectations and commitments that are to be met during project delivery at the various phases. This includes the identification, capture and control of these requirements.
The quality of the projects outputs including the final scheme, meaning their ‘fitness for purpose’ and compliance with the Scheme Requirements. This encompasses many elements, including the quality of information, documents & assets; the quality of the operational & maintenance capability delivered; the quality of the built and passenger environment; and the quality of the passenger service.
The quality of the projects assurance activities, including the checking, review, assessment, measurement and improvement activities.
Quality Management is a continuous process throughout the life of the project. The quality achieved in one phase can directly affect quality in a subsequent phase, and ultimately the overall success of the project. C
D
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board is ultimately responsible for Quality.
Director, NET - Ensuing there is a coherent organisation structure appropriate to each stage of the project delivery. Ensuring the Project is subject to review at appropriate stages, including at the Governance Points. Ensuring that any recommendations or concerns arising from such reviews are met or addressed before the project progresses to the next stage;
NET Phase Two Project Director - Ensuring the appropriate project management framework (incorporating the Gateway Review process) and project management organisation and delivery arrangements are in place at each stage to successfully delivery the scheme.
Lead Project Manager will be responsible for the production and implementation of the necessary plans and procedures to assure that project deliverables are of the required standard of quality; ensuring quality assurance activities are being undertaken within the project; initiating corrective action where required; and arranging audits of the procedures as required.
. production and implementation of the necessary plans and procedures to assure that workstream deliverables are of the required standard of quality; ensuring quality assurance activities are being undertaken within the workstream; initiating corrective action where required
Management Approach
Key elements of the NET Phase Two Quality Management Approach are:
This Project Management Plan, which identifies the governance and management arrangements, including roles and responsibilities of the NET PM Team, stakeholder engagement arrangements, and management practice.
Scheme Requirements Management which identifies and controls the requirements and commitments that need to be met, including approvals and consents, third-party agreements, technical standards,
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 40
Quality Management Strategy etc. (See Scheme Requirements Management Strategy).
Scheme Configuration Management, which periodically checks the alignment of the various component parts of the project against the Scheme Requirements and expectation, including the people, plans & processes, business case, infrastructure, capability, etc (see Scheme Configuration Management Strategy).
Change Control, which ensures that the implications of any proposed or occurring change are thought through before being adopted (See Change Management Strategy).
Review of project outputs, with the aim of ensuring they meet the Scheme Requirements and expectations, are realistic, do not compromise other elements of the Scheme Configuration, adopt best practice and exploit lessons learnt.
Quality Audits to ensure that the defined organisation, plans, process and procedures are being implemented and remain effective. E
Tools and Techniques Best practice techniques will be employed in accordance with industry standards. reactive techniques will be used.
Pre-emptive and
Pre-emptive techniques, such as planning, internal or external audit, and briefings.
Reactive techniques, such as reviewing project deliverables, peer reviews, phase gateway reviews.
Both approaches will contribute towards overall project and scheme assurance. Associated Management Strategies and procedures forming part of the Quality Management approach:
Scheme Configuration Management
Scheme Requirements Management
Change Control Procedure
DSC Review Procedure
Quality Audit Procedure
In undertaking Quality Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
ISO 9001
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
F
Evaluation
G
Others Involved All members of the NET PM Team, Consultants and Advisors will be responsible for ensuring that quality management issues are addressed in the work activities that they undertake.
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Lead Project Manager
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.16
Appendix D - Page 41
Risk & Opportunity Management Strategy Risk & Opportunity Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To keep the project and the promoting Council’s exposure to risk at an acceptable level (including the appropriate allocation of risk between the public and private sectors), and to exploit opportunities to improve the scheme or project outcomes, by implementing appropriate and timely action based on informed analysis of risk and opportunities.
B
Management Requirements Risks are things that may or may not happen at some point in the future and require positive preventative management to reduce the likelihood of them happening, their impact on the project should they occur, or both. Some risks may present positive opportunities to improve some aspect of the project, and recognising any such opportunities should be part of considering what action to take should a particular risk occur. It is possible for what is initially perceived as a risk to develop into an opportunity for the project to exploit if the right steps are taken, but conversely a poorly managed opportunity can become a risk to the project. Risk & Opportunity Management is a structured process that allows individual risk events to be understood and managed proactively, optimising project success by minimising threats and maximising opportunities. The aim is to inform decision-making and enable realistic and practical judgements to be made on what actions to take when, and by whom. It is never possible to eliminate all risks or exploit all opportunities. New risks and opportunities can be first identified in many ways, but are often related to the possibility of change. At a workstream and project-level the risk of change will normally be related to the consequence of a change in the project definition or the project team’s capability to deliver the required scheme or outcome. This will include changes to cost, resources (including people), timing, scope or quality. At a strategic level, the risk will more likely reflect a change in the exposure of stakeholders to the outcome and benefits of the overall project caused by changes of, for example, the project environment or context, political pressure, project objectives, scheme requirements, perception, other projects, actions of other parties, etc. Risk Management is therefore closely aligned to change and, therefore, the Change Management Strategy. If the event associated with the risk or opportunity does happen and it will affect the project, then it becomes an Issue to be actively dealt with and resolved so as to return stability to the project (see Issues Resolution Management Strategy).
C
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – overall responsibility for risk and opportunity management on NET Phase Two; Risk Champion(s) for strategic-level risks.
Director NET – ensuring risk is actively managed. Reporting to the Project Board on key risks.
NET Phase Two Project Director – Ensuring the Corporate Risk Management framework of both promoting Councils is adhered to. Ensuring appropriate risk and opportunity management and reporting arrangements are established. Risk champion for strategic and/or project level risks and opportunities. Establishing an appropriate allocation of risk between the public and private sector in support of the Business Case and best value.
Lead Project Manager – Establishing appropriate arrangements for the identification and management of risk; overall co-ordination and management of identified risks and opportunity; ; ensuring appropriate mitigation actions are in place; escalating risks and opportunities to the NET Phase Two Project Director as required; Risk/ opportunity Champion(s) for project-level risks and opportunities.
Scheme Assurance Workstream – responsible for co-ordination, monitoring and regular reporting and updating of the project risk and opportunity register.
Workstream Managers – Risk Champion(s) for workstream-level risks and opportunities as designated on the risk register.
Technical Development Workstream/ Design Service Consultant – responsible for overall coordination and management of engineering, operational and maintenance risks affecting the scope of the scheme, Scheme Cost or time to implement the Scheme.
All Participants - Risk/ Opportunity identification and implementation of agreed actions.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 42
Risk & Opportunity Management Strategy D
Management Approach The Risk & Opportunity Control Procedure establishes a common process for the management of risk & opportunity. Risk and Opportunity Management is primarily the responsibility of the project owner, the NET Project Board. However, each identified risk will be allocated to a Risk Champion, ie. an individual who is best placed (with relevant seniority, authority and responsibility) to monitor it and manage any appropriate mitigation or contingency. The Promoters have delegated the responsibility for identifying and managing engineering, operational and maintenance risks affecting the scope of the scheme, Scheme Cost or time to implement the scheme to the Design Service Consultant; whose arrangements for managing these scheme risks are consistent with this strategy. These risks are used to inform the ongoing technical development of the scheme. There are four possible responses to an identified risk or opportunity:
Avoid – eliminate the risk by adjusting the project delivery or scheme so that the risk no longer applies (e.g. by not doing those activities that would lead to or trigger a particular risk), or makes the opportunity happen (e.g. by accepting an offer by a third party), and in so doing accepting any issues that may arise from this.
Transfer/ Share – pass the risk or opportunity to a party best placed to manage it (e.g. the Concessionaire, insurer, etc). These risks should continue to be monitored, but in event that the risk or opportunity event occurring, the promoting Council’s may lose their say in the resolution of any resulting issues. Within the Transfer/ Share response there are two further strategies which may be applied to the risk:
Delegate – pass the management of the risk or opportunity onto a nominated party (e.g. the Design Service Consultant) whilst maintaining overall ownership of the risk. Regular reporting to the nominated party would be required on the delegated risk.
Monitor – where the risk or opportunity has been transferred, it may still be deemed beneficial to the Promoters to continue to monitor the risk to ensure that the actions arising from the response plans do not unintentionally affect other areas or aspects of the project delivery or the scheme.
Mitigate/ Reduce - reduce the risk by identifying and implementing actions that addresses the probability, impact or both and so contain it to a more acceptable level, and should the event occur manage an acceptable outcome as an issue
Accept –accept the risk or opportunity exists, but do nothing other than monitor and review, and should the event occur manage an acceptable outcome as an issue.
Having identified risks and opportunities and the required response, the relevant actions will be planned resourced and implemented by those best able to do so. It is essential that the risk is appropriately communicated to those within the project and selected stakeholders directly affected by the risk or the actions being taken. Risk & Opportunity Registers will be maintained for the project risks and co-ordinated by the Project Support Manager. A separate register covering the scheme development workstream (i.e. engineering, operational and maintenance risks) will be coordinated and managed by the Design Services Consultant. Escalation and delegation between the two registers will be managed through scheduled reporting. For each risk, the risk or opportunity event, potential consequence, and likelihood of occurrence will be identified together with its immediacy (i.e. the earliest project phase the risk event or opportunity is likely to occur). For each entry on the register, the current mitigations in place will be recorded, and any further required actions identified by project phase such that they can be managed based on the immediacy of necessary action. If the event occurs, then the risk or opportunity becomes an issue (See Issue Resolution Management Strategy), and the consequences must be actively managed, with the actual consequence or outcome recorded. All risks and opportunities will be identified as either Strategic-level, Project –level or Workstream-level according to the current level of management ownership required to mitigate and take action. Champions of strategic-level risks will generally be designated to the Director, NET or NET Phase Two Project Director as they are outside the control of the project team; Project-level risks to the NET Phase Two Project Director or Lead Project Manager; and Workstream-level risk to an appropriate workstream manager. It is the Risk & Opportunity Champions’ responsibility to proactively manage the risks and opportunities allocated to him, provide regular updates to the Lead Project Manager, report on priorities, and recommend elevation or demotion between risk management-levels.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 43
Risk & Opportunity Management Strategy An action owner is assigned to each mitigating action identified within the response plan. In addition to ensuring their actions are carried out, the action owner is responsible for keeping the risk champion up to date with progress against their actions in order that the Risk Champion can report progress on their respective risks. Risk and opportunities will be regularly reviewed. The consequence, likelihood, immediacy of the event, mitigation, management-level and ownership may change to reflect a change nature of the risk and effectiveness so management and mitigation. E
Tools and Techniques Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Risk and Opportunity Management approach:
Issue Resolution Management Strategy
Associated Management Plans and Procedures forming part of the Risk and Opportunity Management approach:
NET PM Team - Risk & Opportunity Control Procedure
NET PM Team - Risk & Opportunity Register (Project Risks)
Design Service Consultant - Risk and Opportunity Management Plan
Design Service Consultant – Risk Management Register (Scheme Development Workstream)
In undertaking Risk Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
F
Association of Project Management, Project Risk Management Specific Interest Group (2006) “PRAM Guide – Project Risk Analysis and Management Guide: Second Edition” APM Publishing Ltd, UK PRAM;
British Standards Institution BS 6079-3:2000 “Project Management – Part 3: Guide to the management of business related project risk” BSI, London, UK
AIRMIC, ALARM, IRM (2002) “A Risk Management Standard” London, UK
Bent Flyvbjerg in association with COWI (June 2004) “Procedures for Dealing with Optimism Bias in Transport Planning” British Department for Transport, London, UK
Mott Macdonald (2002) “Review of Large Public Procurement in the UK” HM Treasury, London, UK
HM Treasury (2003) “The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government” TSO, UK
Office of Government Commerce (2005) “Management of Risk: Guidance for Practitioners 4th Impression (with amendments)” TSO, UK
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
Evaluation Risks and their mitigations will be identified and reviewed on an ongoing basis through a series of regular workshops initiated by the Lead Project Manager. The frequency of review for individual risks can be varied based on the immediacy of the particular risk event and/or the mitigating actions. This process will review the risks in light of project developments and as a result of risk management actions taken. The reviews will focus on the progress of the action plans and the effectiveness of management actions, in addition to identifying emerging risks and recording the status of the existing risks. As risks occur, are mitigated, closed or new risks identified and assessed, the probabilities and impacts will be adjusted. The NET Project Board will review the priority risks and opportunities on a regular basis. Phased Gateway Reviews will review the overall status of risk and opportunities and their mitigation.
G
Others Involved All project participants
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Scheme Development Co-ordinator (Civil & Utilities)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.17
Appendix D - Page 45
Scheme Configuration Management Strategy Scheme Configuration Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To ensure that the status of all essential components of the NET Phase Two scheme remain internally consistent and represents a coherent picture of the final capability required that meets the identified Scheme Requirements (See Scheme Requirements Management) and is capable of delivering the expected Benefits (See Benefits Management).
B
Management Requirements No transport system can be fully efficient or effective unless all the scheme components work well together, particularly if those components are vital to the scheme’s success. The NET Phase Two Scheme Configuration to be delivered consists of the following Scheme Components:
People & Organisations– including organisations such as the promoters, concessionaire, operator, maintainers, and individuals such as passengers, pedestrians, drivers, controllers.
Plans, Processes & Policies– such as the Business Case, operating plan, safety justification documents, incident planning, management systems, etc.
Places & Locations– including the route itself, highway, built & natural environment, passenger environment, tramstop and park& ride environments, etc.
Product (System/Technology & Service) – which for NET Phase Two is both the technological components (such as trams, track, OHLE, signalling, etc), the system as whole, and ultimately the passenger service capability provided.
The Scheme Configuration is a picture of the required final Scheme Components, and how they physically, functionally and organisationally fit and perform together. How well this is done will ultimately define the characteristics and capability of the final scheme, which in turn will determine whether or not the scheme meets the Scheme Requirements (see Scheme Requirements Management), and ultimately is capable of delivering the expected Benefits (See Benefits Management). This configuration should contain all items that can be identified as being relevant to the end-scheme, and that should only be modified in a managed way as they may affect other components. The Scheme Configuration is progressively defined and refined as the project progresses, and is recorded initially in the technical (i.e. the design and specification) & management documents and plans produced by the project, and ultimately in delivery of the actual scheme components. At any time, the scheme’s current configuration is a snap-shot of the status of these vital components and is known as a Configuration Baseline. It is the aim of Scheme Configuration Management to ensure that these baselines remain internally consistent throughout the project life-cycle, and represents a coherent picture of the final scheme characteristics and capability needed. The process requires that:
all essential component parts of the complete scheme, are identified;
requirements for these appropriately developed and managed (see Scheme Requirements Management);
change is controlled (see Change Management Strategy);
assumptions about components are captured, validated and verified;
compliance (or ‘competence’ in the case of organisations and people) is assured; and
the release for the next stage of scheme development and for use is formally done.
Management of the Scheme Configuration must be closely aligned to the change control process (see Change Management Strategy) as a key aspect is the ability to identify and track change to protect the final Scheme Configuration. A change in one component may require a complementary change in others in order to maintain integrity of the final Scheme Configuration, or else the final Scheme Configuration must be changed requiring acceptance of a change to the Scheme Requirements or expected Benefits. Together these will have a significant impact on the quality of the final Scheme, and ultimately the project’s success. As such Scheme Configuration Management is also and integral part of the Quality Management Strategy. Scheme Configuration Management is a useful tool to:
avoid mistakes and misunderstandings in development of the scheme, particularly in respect to
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 46
Scheme Configuration Management Strategy assumptions;
C
D
avoid the need for over defining components of the final scheme before it is necessary to do so, such as in advance of the appointment of the new concessionaire;
respond and take account of technological and management innovation, or alternative solutions;
implement controlled change over the life-cycle of the project;
inform value engineering (see Value Management Strategy) decisions by providing the basis for determining the changes and their affect that would be necessary to achieve the additional function or features sought.
support Benefits Management (See Benefits Management) by providing the basis for understanding the changes required and their affect to achieve the additional benefits or reduce dis-benefits sought.
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board and initially responsible for the final Scheme Configuration.
NET Phase Two Project Director - Directing the project activities and scheme development, including in relation to the scheme configuration, so as to best deliver the required scheme benefits.
Lead Project Manager – management of the change control process (see Change Control Management Strategy)
Scheme Assurance workstream – initially developing and monitoring the Scheme Configuration for change; monitoring its ongoing development and implementation by the concessionaire.
Design Service Consultant – supporting the Scheme Assurance Workstream by recording and monitoring the current scheme configuration, definition of future configuration, and reporting.
Technical Development Workstream – initially developing the scheme in accordance with the agreed scheme configuration and monitoring the scheme configuration as implemented by the Concessionaire for compliance.
Concessionaire – Ultimately responsible for the final configuration of the Scheme.
All participants – identification of changes to the Scheme Configuration as they occur during the development of the scheme.
Management Approach The NET Phase Two project approach to Scheme Configuration Management focuses on the collective management of the Scheme Components so as to best deliver the scheme capability required to achieve success. This is done by:
Establishing a series of appropriate Configuration Baselines. A baseline is a frame of reference for the scheme as a whole giving a snap-shot of expected status of all of the essential Scheme Components at key stages in the development. Each baseline will provide a progressively greater level of expected detail and refinement of the Scheme and its components.
Work activity on individual Scheme Components are planned so as to optimise the scheme development and control the assumptions made about other components, with activities commencing only once a required minimum baseline has been achieved.
Progress is monitored against these Configuration Baselines, and assumptions validated and closed. If the Scheme Configuration is not acceptable, then either further work is undertake to ensure the configuration is internally self-consistent and stable, or a change to final Scheme Configuration, Scheme Requirements or expected benefits needs to be agreed through the change control process.
The key Configuration Baselines through which the scheme will progress include the following. These may, be sub-divided where this assists scheme development:
TWAO Submission Baseline: representing the Scheme Configuration as submitted for TWAO defining NET Phase Two route, highway layout and integration undertaken, and any technical development to date.
Reference Baseline: This will up-date the Reference Baseline following the objection period, public inquiry and progress on agreements and negotiations; and bring together the known current configuration of NET Line One, and all Scheme Requirements and assumptions captured to date. This
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 47
Scheme Configuration Management Strategy will form the baseline for the advanced design.
TWAO Award Baseline: This represents the Scheme Configuration following award of the TWAO, taking account of the outcome of the TWAO process, including the Inspector’s recommendations, ongoing and final validation of the advance design, and preparations for key approvals.
Tender Baseline: reflecting the completed scheme development following the advanced design. This base-line will include greater definition of network operation, integration, design refinement, work scope, Scheme Requirements and procurement specifications, and the outcome from key approvals.
Concession Baseline: reflecting the outcome from the tender and preferred bidder discussions, and any concurrent scheme refinement. This baseline will form the basis of the Concession Agreement.
Detailed Design Baseline: reflecting the Scheme Configuration as developed by the concessionaire prior to implementation on site.
Operational Commencement Baseline: reflecting the Scheme Configuration as delivered and put into passenger services.
Final Baseline: the final Scheme Configuration reflecting the changes to the scheme made during the early transition period in the operations phase and the benefits achieved. This baseline will form the basis of the final project evaluation.
The Configuration Baselines provide a basis for the identifying and evaluating changes to the Scheme Configuration at all stages in the life-cycle, irrespective of the source of the proposed change, and for coordinating change and scheme development across multiple contributors. Where necessary, Configuration Baselines can be modified to reflect agreed changes to the scheme, innovation, priorities or revised stakeholder expectations. E
Tools and Techniques Standard Breakdown structures for work scope (WBS) and Location (LBS) Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Scheme Configuration Management approach:
Quality Management
Scheme Assurance
Technical Development
Change Control
In undertaking Scheme Configuration Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
British Standards Institution (2003) BS ISO 10007:2003 Quality Management Systems. Guidelines for configuration management, BSI, London.
F
Evaluation
G
Others Involved All members of the NET PM Team, Consultants and Advisors will be responsible for ensuring that Scheme Configuration issues are addressed in the work activities that they undertake, and alignment with the Configuration Baselines is achieved.
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Scheme Development)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.18
Appendix D - Page 49
Scheme Cost Management Scheme Cost Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To establish, review, audit and report on the estimated cost of the scheme, to provide NET Phase Two with the confidence that these Scheme Costs are robust, controlled and represent value for money.
B
Management Requirements The Scheme Costs are associated with the cost and time of implementing the NET Phase Two scheme, including detailed design, construction, commissioning, bring-into use, operation and maintenance. This includes the ongoing cost and timing of the Promoters to monitor these activities and manage the DBFO concession. The Scheme Costs form an integral part of the Business Case (See Business Case Management Strategy), and are influenced by the method of procurement and funding (See Legal & Commercial Management Strategy). The Scheme Costs are to be refined in line with scope of the scheme, timetable, resources, allowance for risk, and contingency provisions. The Scheme Costs will be dependant on the level of uncertainty regarding the scope, time and cost remaining in the project at the time of the concession award and the concessionaires risk response. Approval requirements can affect all of these factors. The Promoters therefore intend to reduce the uncertainty associated with these approvals by, where appropriate, progressing the design of the scheme and key approvals prior to award of the new concession as part of the technical development using a value and risk management approach (See Technical Development Management Strategy). The Scheme Costs will be subject to scrutiny by:
the Promoters as part of their investment planning and governance processes,
the DfT as part of their Local Government Major Project Programme, and
Prospective concessionaires during the procurement process.
The overall economic viability of the scheme can also be expected to be questioned during the TWAO Public Inquiry. As a result, the Promoters require that the estimated Scheme Costs are assured and represent value for money. Once the scheme is procured, the responsibility and risk for controlling the majority of the Scheme Costs will lie with the private sector service provider as part of the DBFO Concession. The Scheme Cost to the Promoter will become more assured and will form the basis of the Project Budget, and be managed in accordance with the Budget & Project Cost Management Strategy. These Scheme Costs to the Promoters may include:
Cost of monitoring and administering the Concession Agreement, including change (see Change Management Strategy).
Payments from the Promoters (if any) for specified items of infrastructure.
Availability Payments (including any performance related payments) to the Concessionaire for the provision and delivery of passenger services and infrastructure availability.
Land Compensation.
Cost Management of prospective or actual change (see Change Management Strategy), and the response to risk (see Risk & Opportunity Management Strategy) occurring at any stage in the project forms part of this strategy. C
Management Responsibility
NET Project Broad – Overall responsibility for Scheme Costs and assuring Value for Money.
NET Phase Two Project Director – Directing the development of the scheme within the constraints of the Project Budget (see Budget & Project Cost Management Strategy) so as to provide assurance of the estimated Scheme Costs, and demonstrate that these represent value for money and support the Business Case, including in respect to procurement strategy and risk allocation.
Legal & Commercial Workstream –.incorporating the Scheme Costs and associated risk allowances within the business case; ensuring value for money with the procurement strategy and the
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 50
Scheme Cost Management Strategy apportionment of risk to the Concessionaire; management of any retained Promoter Scheme Costs during the Implementation & Operation Phase in accordance with the Budget & Project Cost Management Strategy.
D
Scheme Assurance Workstream – overseeing the Scheme Cost estimate; ensuring the Scheme Cost remain consistent with the Scheme Configuration (see Scheme Configuration Management Strategy)
Lead Project Manager – Arranging for the Scheme Cost to be reviewed and audited and the management of the Change Control process (see Change Management Strategy) on behalf of the Scheme Assurance workstream.
Design Service Consultant – developing, estimating and administering the Scheme Costs and associated risk allowances and contingencies during the Powers & Procurement phases.
Concessionaire – ultimately responsible for the final Scheme Cost, other than any retained Scheme Costs.
Management Approach Prior to concession award, management of Scheme Costs includes consideration of:
Scope of the NET Phase Two scheme, and current scheme configuration
Capital costs of the NET Phase Two infrastructure and integration work
Operating and Maintenance costs for the extended NET network
Funding and Financing Costs
Procurement Strategy
Risk Allowances for identified risks
Contingency provisions for uncertainity
Optimisation of whole life scheme costs
Change Management (see change Management Strategy)
Regular Scheme Cost reports will be produced for the NET Project Board, and include the current and projected costs, a commentary on changes, analysis of trends (where appropriate), and any recommendations. The Promoters will investigate appropriate mechanism within the PFI procurement strategy to obtain an oversight of the actual Scheme Costs during the implementation by the Concessionaire as part of the project evaluation process, to assist with the benchmarking of Scheme costs for future extensions. E
Tools and Techniques The NET PM Team will employ best practice tools and techniques in preparing and managing risks, such as:
Analytical estimating – this bottom-up approach allows an estimates of cost and time for discrete activities defined to an appropriate level of detail, then applies contingency and risk allowances to establish the overall Scheme Cost
Comparative estimating– this ‘bench-marking’ approach uses historic data from similar schemes or for discrete activities from other schemes to determine the most appropriate cost and time.
Three-point estimating – which accepts likely variation in project costs and timescales to establish an optimistic, most-likely mid-range and pessimistic values. As the scheme development progresses, these values will converge, but will not necessarily meet until the out-turn costs has been determined.
Quantified Risk Analysis of the capital costs to determine the most likely out-turn cost.
Value for Money Guidelines,
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Cost Management approach:
Business Case Management Strategy
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 51
Scheme Cost Management Strategy
F
Change Management Strategy
Risk Management Strategy
Evaluation Prior to concession award, the Scheme Cost will be subject to regular review and control through:
Regular Cost Reviews by the NET Project Board
Benchmarking and audit
Change Management (see change Management Strategy)
Cost Reviews are undertaken at key points in the project, and at all Phase Gateway Reviews, principally to ensure that:
any changes to the Project Cost or Scheme Cost have fully reasoned justifications
the Scheme Cost incorporates all known whole-life costs, risk allowances & contingency provision.
risk allowances are for identified risks only (i.e. not an assumed contingency provision), and costs are moving from risk allowance to base estimates as the project progresses.
contingency provisions are appropriate to the level of scheme configuration definition currently achieved.
The scheme remains affordable, taking into account the funding and procurement arrangements.
Cost Audits will be undertaken to:
provide assurance – process, accounting, etc
inform Cost Reviews
identify areas of improvement
Benchmarking may be used, where appropriate, to provide a comparative analysis of some or all of the Scheme Cost with other scheme sharing similar characteristics, so as to provide further assurance that:
Relevant cost elements have been identified and included in the Scheme Cost;
Costs are comparable, or where they are not that this can be justified;
Risk allowances and contingency provisions are comparable given the stage of the project;
Regular meetings are to be held with Nottingham City Council Finance to check on internal expenditure and compliance with external grant aid. G
Others Involved Promoter Support Resources – NCiC and NCoC Finance
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Scheme Development)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.19
Appendix D - Page 53
Technical Development Management Strategy Technical Development Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To support the Promoters with the technical development of the NET Phase Two Scheme and the future development of the Network, and the technical advice and support in overseeing the detailed development, implementation and initial operation of the scheme by the Concessionaire.
B
Management Requirements During the Powers Phase:
The aim is to develop the NET Phase Two scheme to a level of detail that provides greater scope, cost and implementation programme certainty in support of the PFI procurement strategy such that the scope of the works to be undertaken by the Concessionaire or others is clearly evident. This will enable the bidders for the PFI concession to offer fixed prices with more certainty at bid stage, and should therefore secure better value for money for the scheme implementation and operation of the network
The challenge is to reduce or eliminate engineering, operational and maintenance risk and improve value without unnecessarily constraining technological solutions and innovation, or the effective and economic procurement of NET Phase Two or operation of the Network.
So as to ensure that commercially innovative proposals inform the design process, and to assist with obtaining key third party approvals as early as possible, the Promoters propose further design refinement in the form of an ‘Advanced Design’ by the private-sector, prior to selection of the preferred bidder for the concession. The Advanced design will be warranted by the Design Consultant to the Concessionaire such that the Concessionaire can rely upon the design developed
During the Procurement Phase:
Provide technical services, support and advice to the Promoters during the procurement process
During the Implementation Phase:
Provide technical services and advice to the Promoters during implementation, including in respect to progress, compliance, issue resolution and variations.
During the Operations Phase:
Provide technical services and advice to the Promoters during the initial transitional period, including in respect to performance and project evaluation.
In respect to potential extensions to the Network:
C
D
Provide technical services and advise and to the Promoters as required in respect to future extensions of the NET Network
Management Responsibility
NET Phase Two Project Director – overall leadership and direction in respect to the technical development of the Scheme. Responsibility for the overall scope and budget of the technical development activities to support the procurement and delivery of NET Phase Two
Technical Development Workstream – Implementing, overall co-ordination and reporting on this Technical Development Management Strategy.
Design Service consultant – Responsible for undertaking he initial requirements definition activities, surveys and data acquisition, Advanced Design, and technical services and advice during procurement, and implementation & initial operations (optional), and technical services and advice in respect to extension to the Network.
Scheme Assurance Workstream – to provide the framework in which the technical development and compliance can be assured
Management Approach During the Powers Phase:
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 54
Technical Development Management Strategy
Support the Scheme Assurance workstream, in particular by identifying and providing greater definition of the Scheme Requirements, the proposed Scheme Configuration, and the Scheme Costs, and the associated engineering, operating and maintenance risks.
Obtain key technical, operating and maintenance data and information through survey and data acquisition about NET Line One and NET Phase Two
Determine the scope of the Advanced Design and priority of the work packages using a value and risk managed approach, taking into account the contribution of the Advanced Design to clarifying the scope of the works, Scheme Cost, the programme to implement, obtaining of consents and the elimination of other risks
Develop an integrated and assured Advanced Design to an appropriate level of detail to clarify the scope, cost, implementation time of the Scheme whilst still enabling scope for efficiencies and innovation by the Concessionaire during the final design and delivery.
Obtain key Consents, and provide greater clarity over any Consent to progressed or obtained during the Implementation Phase.
Demonstrate that the resultant Scheme Configuration and Advanced Design, its implementation and the operation of the Network will satisfactory support the Scheme Objectives and comply with the Scheme Requirements.
Obtain a warranty for the resultant Advanced Design for the benefit of the appointed Concessionaire, such that the Concessionaire can use and rely upon the Advanced Design with confidence, but with the minimum of liability to the Promoters.
During the Procurement Phase: Provide technical services and engineering, operational and maintenance advise as directed by the Legal & Commercial Workstream to support the procurement of the NET Phase Two scheme, including on:
Contractual arrangements, termination and valuation of the existing NET Line One Concession,
Preparation of prequalification, tender and specification documentation
Provide technical briefings and respond to technical queries about the Scheme and the Advanced Design
Review and technical evaluation of prequalification, tenders and proposals, and advise on the selection of the preferred bidder.
During the Implementation Phase:
Determine the scope and priority of the technical services required during the Implementation Phase to provide assurance that the scheme will meet the Scheme requirements, support stakeholder communication, and the active management of retained risks to the Promoters.
Provide technical services and engineering, operational and maintenance advice to the Promoters in support the implementation of the NET Phase Two scheme, including compliance monitoring of the engineering management, design, construction, bringing into use, and operation & maintenance proposals and programme in respect to compliance with the Scheme Requirements (including consents), specifications.
Provide technical services and engineering, operational and maintenance advice to the Promoters, including in respect to implementation progress against programme, system Acceptance and snagging, implementation of the Performance Monitoring System, compliance resolution & claims (including third-party claims), and variations
During Operation Phase (transition period):
E
Provide technical services and engineering, operational and maintenance advise to the Promoters in support the initial monitoring of performance of the NET Phase Two scheme, close-out of issues, and project evaluation,
Tools and Techniques Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Risk and Opportunity Management approach:
Change Management
Consents Management
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 55
Technical Development Management Strategy
Environmental Management
Health & Safety Management
Performance Monitoring
Quality Management
Risk & opportunity Management
Scheme Configuration
Scheme Cost
Scheme Requirements
Value Management
Associated Management Plans and Procedures forming part of the Risk and Opportunity Management approach:
F
G
Technical Development MSP
NET PM Team – DSC Cost Control Procedure
NET PM Team – DSC Service Deliverable Review Procedure
Design Service Management Plan– describes the management arrangement in place by the Design Service consultant to control and manage the technical development services, including the Advanced design, this includes the quality management arrangements and change control arrangements.
Design Service Consultant - Advanced Design Scoping Recommendations Report - captures the developing scope of the Advanced Design being undertaken.
Advanced Design Programme and Fee Schedule – captures the scheduling, resource and costs of the Advanced Design
System Engineer Management Plan - providing the framework for ensuring the technical development undertaken is co-ordinated and integrated. This is supported by a Human Factors Interface Plan, the System Safety Plan & Hazard Management Procedure, and a Dependability Plan.
Evaluation
The scope, costs and progress on Technical Development under the Design Service Contract is reported monthly and reviewed at the DSC Progress Meeting.
Progress, budget and any issues are reviewed at fortnightly NET PM Team meeting, and any actions endorsed by the NET Phase Two Project Director.
Progress is reported 4-weekly to the NET Project Delivery Group
Progress is reported quarterly to the NET Project Board
Others Involved All workstreams and project participants may support the Technical development process as required. Key stakeholders, such as the highway and local planning authorities, are closely engaged with the technical development.
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Scheme Development)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.20
Appendix D - Page 57
Scheme Requirements Management Strategy Scheme Requirements Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To ensure that the requirements for the scheme and all the constituent components are captured, defined and developed and clearly articulated as a basis for co-ordinating and integrating the ongoing scheme development by the various contributors over life-cycle of the project against a common specification, whist maximising appropriate opportunities for innovative or alternative concepts in respect to the final solution.
B
Management Requirements Scheme Requirements Management is concerned with meeting the needs of the stakeholders, user and end-users by identifying and specifying what they need. It is the process of eliciting, capturing, organising, documenting, tracking and testing requirements, and communicating this information across the NET PM Team, other project participants, and stakeholders. It provides the basis for iterative refinement & development, for validation & verification, and for managing change throughout the project life-cycle with the aim of assuring quality and maximising value. Scheme Requirements are a clear statement of the capabilities and objectives that any component, system, sub-system or the network must conform or satisfy and are common to all scheme development and engineering activities. Scheme Requirements should have an emphasis of ‘what’ is required, rather than ‘how’ it will be delivered. There is a close relationship between Scheme Requirements Management and Scheme Configuration Management, with the Scheme Requirements defining the ‘what’ and the Scheme Configuration representing the preferred solution as to ‘how’ they will be achieved. A Requirement may range from:
focusing on outcomes (i.e. function and performance, describing what people should be able to do with and how much they can depend on the end-product, or component), to
specifying in precise terms what is required (e.g. a technical specification)
Those defining the Scheme Requirements must have an adequate understanding of what the stakeholder, user and end-user needs are, understand the range of potential solutions to meet these requirements, and be able to document these in a way that avoids precluding potential solutions, is clearly articulated without ambiguity, and captures the associated acceptance criteria. Determining the acceptance criteria are essential as these capture stakeholder expectation for the requirements and provides a measure against which scheme compliance and project success can be judged. It is against these criteria that solutions are developed and tested, and the preferred configuration of the scheme is determined. Typically Scheme Requirements will start out in high-level and in abstract form and, as these are further explored and feedback from the ongoing development of the scheme and stakeholders is gained, they become more specific, more detailed, and less ambiguous. It is important to maintain a trace of each requirement from its more abstract predecessor(s) back to the source of the requirement, as this facilitates change management and effective Scheme Requirements management. The set of these Scheme Requirements forms the Requirements Specification, which forms the basis of any design, procurement, testing and acceptance process. The specification should be made available to, and agreed by all relevant parties and should lack ambiguity, and be well structured, clear, comprehensive and consistent. As solutions are developed, these are verified and validated against the acceptance criteria. Once delivered, the testing and acceptance of the solution and the final Scheme Configuration is against the same criteria. It may be necessary to record constraints or assumptions about Scheme Requirements, and this can be appropriate provided the constraint or assumption is recorded against the requirements, and then progressively verified and validated at the appropriate stages in the development of the scheme. It is essential that a common ‘language’ is established for expression of Scheme Requirements, and to effectively communicate the problems, constraints and assumptions associated with them. For NET Phase Two, Scheme Requirements Management will provide a basis for co-ordinating and integrating the ongoing technical development by the various contributors over the life-cycle of the project against a common specification, whist maximising appropriate opportunities for innovative or alternative concepts in respect to the final solution. On a complex project, such as NET Phase Two, Scheme Requirements Management also provides a consistent set of requirements for the scheme, systems, individual sub-systems, and components, and so supports the system engineering and integration process. Scheme Management will also provide a baseline for change control, forming part of the evaluation of the acceptability and impact of change (see Change Management).
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 58
Scheme Requirements Management Strategy The range of Scheme Requirements is broad, and includes requirements for:
C
D
Integration
Form (inc appearance)
Function
Operation, including Performance, Reliability Availability & Maintainability
Environmental
Health & Safety (including System Safety)
Approvals, Consents & Acceptance
Implementation (including Build, Test, and Commission)
Business Case
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board - ultimately responsible for the high-level Scheme Requirements that the Project needs to achieve. These will be associated with the requirements established by policy and within the Business Case.
NET Phase Two Project Director - Directing the development of the scheme in respect to identifying Promoter, Stakeholder and other requirements, the relative importance or priority of various requirements, management of change (see Change Control Management Strategy) and the resolution of conflict within the requirements such that the scheme best satisfies these requirements.
Scheme Assurance Workstream - capturing identified Scheme Requirements and communicating these across all workstreams; and for ensuring the Scheme Requirements are effectively and adequately controlled and managed.
Design Service Consultant - responsible for establishing and managing the Scheme Requirements Database, preparing the necessary Requirements Specifications, and verifying and validating that the Technical Development (see Technical Development Management Strategy) of the scheme is compliant with these requirements.
Management Approach
The project approach required consists of the following stages:
Capture & Define: This involves capturing, eliciting, structuring and documenting the Scheme Requirements and related acceptance criteria. These need to be analysed to determine their relative importance, taking into consideration such things as the benefits, business priorities, availability of resource, budget, and fit with project objectives. This will be undertaken based on the scheme as developed and submitted for TWAO.
Develop & Refine: The resultant Requirements Specification will be used to form the basis of the Advance Design. The Advance Design will in effect test the requirements for fitness, and will enable stakeholders’ views and feedback to be capture. This will lead to the progressive refinement of the Scheme Requirements. The Advance Design will be progressing in parallel to the TWAO process, and the Scheme Requirements therefore also evolve, particularly during the objection period and public inquiry, as negotiations proceed and agreements with stakeholders are reached. A structured and controlled approach to Scheme Requirements Management with control of change between the Advance Design and the resolution of TWAO issues.
Verify & Validate: The complete Advance Design will be validated against the refined Requirements Specification to ensure that the Advance Design package is a consistent and compliant solution. Where necessary, any necessary changes to the Advance Design can be agreed.
Specify: The Requirements Specification at this stage will form the Tender Concession Specification for prospective Concession Agreement, with the Advance Design being provided as a compliant and warranted solution against this Requirements Specification.
Review & Evaluate: The Tenderers will prepare their tender proposals against this Requirements Specification utilising the Advance Design solution to whatever extent they believe appropriate. The returned Tender Proposals and any variant proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by the NET PM Team against the tender Requirements Specification.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 59
Scheme Requirements Management Strategy
E
Agree: The Requirements Specification will be refined to reflect the accepted proposals of the preferred bidder, and this will form the basis of the Concession Specification. The Concessionaire will complete the detailed design and delivery of the NET Phase Two scheme against the agreed Concession Specification, again utilising the Advanced Design solution to whatever extent they believe appropriate.
Monitor Delivery: The NET PM Team will monitor the detailed design, build and commissioning of NET Phase Two for compliance against the agree Concession Specification. Acceptance and operational & maintenance performance will be monitored against the agree acceptance criteria.
Tools and Techniques
The Requirements Database, which contains all the identified Scheme Requirements and supporting information regarding their development.
The Requirements Specification, which is the documented snap-shot of the stated Scheme Requirements at any given time, against which the design or delivered solution can be checked.
Value Management (see Value Management Strategy) techniques, including Value Engineering, provide a useful means for identifying and capturing Scheme Requirements, and for evaluating the suitability of alternative solutions that meet those requirements. Where appropriate, the Requirements Database will be capable of being extended to accommodate the requirements for any NET extensions or alterations that Promoters wish to pursue as part of the ongoing development of the NET Network. Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Scheme Requirements Management approach, or which Scheme Requirements Management will assist with management of relevant requirements:
F
Consents Management
Benefits Management
Business Case Management
Change Management
Scheme Configuration Management
Environmental Management
Health & Safety Management
Land & Property Management
Quality Management
Performance Monitoring
Risk & Opportunity Management
Scheme Cost Management
Technical Development Management
Stakeholder Management
TWAO Management Strategy
Value Management
Evaluation Scheme Requirements Management will be an ongoing and progressive process. Progress will be monitored by Scheme Assurance Workstream during the Technical Development, particularly through the use of Configuration Baselines (see Scheme Configuration Management). The NET PM Team will co-ordinate the identification and capture of Scheme Requirements across the workstreams as an integral part of the NET PM Team meetings. Phase Reviews will review the overall status of the Scheme Requirements.
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 60
Scheme Requirements Management Strategy G
Others Involved All Workstream Managers Design Services Consultant
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Scheme Development)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.21
Appendix D - Page 61
Stakeholder Management Strategy Stakeholder Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To proactively manage the relationship of the project with all its stakeholders to enable a successful order application under the Transport & Works Act, promote support for the scheme, and during development, delivery and operation of the NET Phase Two project
B
Management Requirements Stakeholder Management is the systematic identification, analysis and planning of actions to communicate, engage, negotiate with and influence stakeholders. Stakeholders are those who have an interest or role in the project or are impacted by the scheme. The NET Phase Two routes pass through the southern & western parts of the Greater Nottingham conurbation, and the construction and subsequent operation of the tram will affect the lives of many people. It will also be delivered through a complex governance process and therefore the project has a multitude of stakeholders, some of whom need to approve some aspect of the scheme. These stakeholders will have a wide range of expectations. To ensure the success of the project it is essential that stakeholder interfaces are controlled and managed appropriately to maintain a positive level of support.
C
Management Responsibility NET Project Board – overall responsibility for stakeholder management Director, NET - Lead interface for liaison with the promoting Councils’ other departments and projects, (including the Nottingham Hub Project & Workplace Parking Levy). NET Phase Two Project Director - Lead interface for external liaison and communication with project stakeholders, and ensuring appropriate stakeholder and communication arrangements are in place. Powers, Approvals & Stakeholder Workstream – responsible for the day-to-day management and overall co-ordination of stakeholder actions and issues within the NET PM Team; coordination with the Communication Management Strategy. All Workstreams and project participants – Identification of new stakeholders, and co-ordinate and facilitate stakeholder engagement with designated stakeholders as required. in accordance with the Stakeholder Management Plan.
D
Management Approach The NET PM Team has overseen the day-to-day stakeholder engagement through the scheme development and TWAO preparation. To ensure continuity in these fostered relationships and proactive engagement, the team will continue to oversee and co-ordinate Stakeholder Management. The Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan identifies how stakeholder management is undertaken, and describes how the NET PM Team will manage the interfaces with stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle. A Stakeholder Management Schedule will
E
identify stakeholders
provide analysis of individual stakeholders or stakeholder groups to identify their requirements, expectations and likely influence;
identify the actions, by project phase, required to engage with stakeholders, maintain support for the project and to gain approval at various stages.
Tools and Techniques
Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan
Stakeholder Register
Stakeholder Management Programme
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 62
Stakeholder Management Strategy
Communication Management Strategy and Communications Plan
Workshops to analyse and review the interests and requirements of particular stakeholders and identify how the NET Phase Two project can best satisfy their needs.
Briefings to ensure NET PM Team, the Communication Team, Consultants and advisers to communicate the importance of maintaining good stakeholder relations, current actions and priorities, the project message, and stakeholder feedback.
Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Stakeholder Management approach:
Communication Management Strategy
Issue Resolution
Risk & Opportunity Management
In undertaking Stakeholder Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
F
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Evaluation Stakeholder management and issues will be regular reviewed at the NET PM Team meetings, and NET Project Board. Stakeholder Management will be monitored through the review of feedback from stakeholders, such as by review of consultation responses, direct stakeholder comments, enquiries or complaints, market testing, etc. During the powers phase, overall success will also be reflected in the performance in securing agreements to avoid or resolve objections to the TWAO, and obtain approvals.
G
Others Involved NET Development Board, all managers, workstreams, consultants and advisers
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Stakeholders)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.22
Appendix D - Page 63
Programme & Resource Management Programme & Resource Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To determine and communicate the overall duration of the project and when activities and events are planned to happen, taking into account the project requirements, overall time constraint and the availability of resources.
B
Management Requirements A master Project Programme (see appendix B) has been prepared and continues to be developed to a sufficient level of detail to:
Show the overall duration of the project and when activities and events are planned to happen
show the key stages of activities required to meet the challenges to the project and deliver on it’s objectives,
Incorporate and clearly identify the key governance points and project milestones.
The Project Programme provides the framework for the planning of the project and reporting of overall progress. The Project programme is used to identify the resources required to delivery the project. The delivery of the required network capability through the provision and maintenance of the necessary infrastructure and passenger service operation will be by a private sector Concessionaire. The Concessionaire will be free to establish the Implementation Phase Programme, and the commencement date for public services to best suit their commercial requirements and interests, provided that this is broadly in line with the Promoters’ Project Programme. Delivery against the Concessionaire’s programme will, nonetheless, be monitored by the NET PM Team. C
D
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – providing strategic direction on the overall project duration and fit with the promoting Councils strategic planning. Responsible for agreeing the Project Programme and any subsequent changes affecting the governance points or project milestones.
Director, NET - Ensuring all necessary authorisations from the Project Executive, Authorised Officers and the Project Board are obtained to support the progression of the project in accordance with the Project Programme;
NET Phase Two Project Director – – Establishing the milestones and key governance points with the Project Board, and then directing the project resources and delivery within the agreed Project Programme. Securing resources and expertise and required, for example, appointing professional advisers to support the project. Monitoring and control of project progress.
Lead Project Manager supported by the Project Controls Workstream –; Preparing and maintaining a Project Programme as required; organising, managing and prioritising the project and workstream activities to best achieve the Project Programme requirements within the constraint of the Project Budget; reporting on Progress against Project programme. Identifying and obtaining any support or specialist advice required to support the project management, planning and control of the project. Monitoring the overall performance of the Concessionaire against their Implementation Phase Programme.
PM (Procurement & Project Controls) - day-to-day administration of the Project Programme; updating and reporting on progress against the Project Programme on behalf of the Lead Project Manager.
Workstream Managers, Consultants and Advisors – responsible for developing more detailed subprogrammes in order to effectively manage and monitor delivery of particular elements of the project or workstreams. Reporting on progress of any workstream or activity against the Project Programme and/or sub-programme as appropriate. Monitoring on progress of the Concessionaire against their Implementation Phase Programme.
Concessionaire –Responsible for establishing and managing the Implementation Phase Programme. Reporting on progress against the Implementation Phase Programme. Provision of detailed lookahead programmes to support stakeholder management and construction communications.
Management Approach The NET PM Team is to prepare a master Project Programme, and where necessary sub-programmes,
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 64
Programme & Resource Management Strategy utilising appropriate scheduling software. Progress on the project is to be regularly monitored by the NET PM Team against the Project Programme and sub-programmes The Programme and Sub-programmes are regularly updated to reflect changes in the project progress. Changes to the Project Programme not affecting the governance points or project milestones shall be agreed with the NET Phase Two Project Director Changes to the Project Programme affecting governance points or project milestones shall be subject to endorsement by the NET Project Board E
Tools and Techniques
Microsoft Project is used for the master Project Programme
Associated Management Strategies and procedures forming part of the Time & Programme Management approach:
F
Budget & Project Cost Management
Change Management
Change Control Management & Procedure
Evaluation The NET PM Team review the overall progress of the project at the fortnightly NET Team Meetings Regular progress reporting and programme updates are obtained from key advisers and consultants, usually on a monthly basis. Progress against the Project programme is reported to the NET Project Delivery Group every 4-weeks Progress against the Project Programme is reported to the NET Project Board quarterly All major changes are approved by the NET Phase Two Project Director, and/or NET Project Board depending on the impact of the change on the governance points and milestones.
G
Others Involved Liaison is required with third-party adjacent developments to co-ordinate timescales and durations and to mitigate potential programme conflicts and impacts. Close co-ordination is required with the Nottingham Hub Project and WPL Project
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Procurement & Project Controls)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.23
Appendix D - Page 65
TWAO Management Strategy TWAO Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To deposit a successful Transport & Works Act Order (TWAO) application and obtain the necessary powers to build and operate NET Phase Two.
B
Management Requirements An order is required under the Transport & Works (Application and Objections) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 to construct and operate a tramway in the UK. There is a well defined regulatory order process that must be followed. The process can be subjected to judicial review. Formal approval of the promoting Councils had to be obtained before making an order application to the DfT Secretary for State. The draft order preparation required close and co-ordinated working between various disciplines leading to a package of documents which collectively formed the Order Application. Other supporting documentation was also required. Members of the public and statutory consultees were able to formally object to or support the proposals. Details of these objections were made available to the Promoters, and in many cases the Promoters negotiated with the Objectors with a view to reaching an agreement and subsequent withdrawal of their objection. The NET Phase Two draft order was referred by the DfT Secretary of State to a Public Inquiry, and this placed close scrutiny on the development of the scheme.
C
D
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – obtain approval to submit TWAO application but formal approval was required by resolution of the Promoting Councils; responsibility for the powers and obligations provided by the TWA Order.
NET Phase Two Project Director – Ensuring arrangements are in place to obtain the necessary enabling powers (e.g. TWAO) and associated consents required to deliver the scheme.
Powers, Approvals & Stakeholders Workstream – overall co-ordination of the TWAO process with the other workstreams, management of the process and procedures for preparation of the TWAO application, preparation of the necessary documentation, associated case management and negotiations.
Scheme Assurance Workstream – capturing the powers, obligations and any associated undertakings, commitments and agreements as part of the Scheme Requirements (see Scheme Requirements Management Strategy).
Management Approach The TWAO Management Sub-Plan more fully identifies the process, including what, how, by whom, and by when; core interfaces with other workstreams, consultants and advisers, and key risk areas to a successful order application and award to enable these to be proactively managed and mitigated. Post-TWAO award, the powers, obligations and approvals will continue to be monitored during the Procurement, Implementation and Operational phases as appropriate.
E
Tools and Techniques Associated Management Strategies forming part of the TWAO Management approach:
Consents Management Strategy
Change Management Strategy
Communications Management Strategy
Environmental Management Strategy
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 66
TWAO Management Strategy
Land and Property Management Strategy
Stakeholder Management Strategy
Detailed programmes generated to assist the planning, resourcing and performance monitoring of the TWAO workstream. (see Detailed Programme to TWAO Application) In undertaking TWAO Management, the NET PM team consider the following best practice guidance:
ODPM, Transport & Works Act orders – A brief Guide.
DfT – Transport & Works Act, 1992 – A guide to procedures for obtaining orders relating to transport systems, inland waterways and works interfering with rights of navigation.
Management skills are key to balancing what may be conflicting priorities of the NET PM Team and stakeholders. Stakeholder interests are managed in accordance with the Stakeholder Management Strategy. Documentation of the consultation process (statutory and non-statutory), and ready access to the case files of potential supporters and objectors are essential to support objection management, Public Inquiry process and subsequent actions. Lessons learnt and best practice will be utilised when available to ensure the methods being adopted are current, effective and efficient F
Evaluation The performance and output of the TWAO workstream were reviewed at the fortnightly TWAO progress meetings. Progress and issues for resolution are reported to the NET PM Team fortnightly meetings.
G
Others Involved TWA Adviser, Legal Adviser, Parliamentary Agent, Technical Service Consultant, Environmental Consultant, Land Referencer, Transport & Economic Consultant
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: PM (Land, Property & Stakeholders)
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
D.24
Appendix D - Page 67
Value Management Strategy Value Management Strategy
A
Management Objective To define the perceived and actual value of the NET Phase Two scheme or project delivery arrangements to the promoters and stakeholders, and provide the framework to assess progress and achievements and optimise the scheme or delivery arrangements based on this value.
B
Management Requirements Value Management is technique to define the perceived and actual value to the promoters and stakeholders, then assess progress and achievements, and optimise the scheme or project delivery arrangements based on this value. It is a useful technique for keeping the project on track to achieve its objectives, keeping the objectives aligned with expectations, and evaluating opportunities to enhance value throughout the scheme development. A consistent approach to Value Management is to be adopted across the NET Phase Two project, but recognising that it is an intrinsic element of project delivery, scheme development and the decision making process. For example, Business Case management forms part of the Value Management approach where the overall ‘mix’ of benefits, risks, costs and timescales is reviewed and validated against such factors as issues, constraints, and other blockers. Value Engineering also plays a role, and is concerned with optimising the conceptual, technical and operational aspects of the required scheme capability that the project is to deliver as defined in the Scheme Requirements (see Scheme Requirements Management Strategy). It considers costs in relation to function. It provides in-sight about the value of possible alternative solutions, eliminating unnecessary cost and risk, whole life costing, improving buildability and construction efficiency, reducing operational costs, improve reliability and dependability, etc.
C
D
Management Responsibility
NET Project Board – ultimate responsibility for determining the value of the overall scheme, and therefore the value of the project, as part of the delivery of strategic policy for Greater Nottingham.
NET Phase Two Project Director – ultimate responsibility for determining the value of project arrangements in successfully delivering the scheme.
Lead Project Manager – Establishing appropriate arrangements aimed at maximising value within the project and scheme; ensuring any identified value management interventions are undertaken..
Scheme Assurance Workstream – oversight and co-ordination of the value management interventions; evaluation of identified opportunities against the Scheme Requirements, configuration and cost, and communication of recommendations.
Design Service Consultant – implementation of agreed value management recommendations, and continued value engineering, within the Technical Development of the scheme; support to the Scheme Assurance Workstream.
All Participants/ Workstreams – identification of opportunities to improve value or potential value management interventions; leading designated interventions as required.
Management Approach Value Management is undertaken as a series of interventions at key stages in the project. Interventions will impact more on the scheme and the project delivery at its earlier stages of development when scheme and project costs can still be influenced and the potential benefits of intervention are greater. Projects will benefit from interventions timed to take place just before key decision gateways. Key interventions points include:
review of Governance structures, PMP, MSP’s and Project Procedures,
review and analysis of Stakeholders & the Communication strategy,
review and analysis of Risk, Opportunities and Issues
review and development of the Business Case, including the costs, benefits, risks and timescales
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NET Phase Two – Project Management Plan v3.1
Appendix D - Page 68
Value Management Strategy
E
review and development of the Procurement strategy
review and analysis of the draft TWO order, objections, awarded powers and approvals
review and evaluation of tenders
phase gateway reviews
Tools and Techniques Associated Management Strategies forming part of the Value Management approach:
Scheme Configuration Management
Risk & Opportunity Management
Issue Management
Stakeholder Management procedure
Business Case Management
Scheme Requirements Management
Key VM Tools & Techniques include:
Value Engineering initiatives e.g. during the advance design
Facilitated VM workshops
Phase Gateway Reviews
In undertaking Value Management, the NET PM team will consider the following best practice guidance:
F
Office of Government Commerce (2003) Managing Successful Programmes, TSO, London, ISBN 0-11330917-1
Association for Project Management (2006), “APM Book of Knowledge”, 5th Edition
BS EN 12973:2000 Value Management
PD 6663 : Guidelines to BS EN 12973 : 2000 Value Management – Practical Guidance to its use and intent
Connaughton J, Green S (1996) Value Management in Construction: A Clients Guide.
Evaluation Progress on optimising value and with value management initiatives will be reviewed within NET PM Team meetings, NET Project Board, and during the phase gateway review process.
G
Others Involved Key Stakeholders, all managers, workstreams, consultants and advisers
H
Management Strategy Co-ordinator: Lead Project Manager
NET Project Management Team 20092002 NET-PMP-V3.1.DOC, PRINTED 7 APRIL 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase 2
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 19 – RISK REGISTER
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
NET Phase 2- Project Risk Register-V17.2 08.05.09.xls
STEP 1: Risk Identification
Chris Deas
4
Project
Chris Deas
Project
Chris Deas
1. Failure to meet gateway timescales 2. Receive red actions
5 Project Project
2
3
6
Undesirable
Set out procurement strategy and approach to vfm in the OBC
Chris Deas
ongoing
Failure to achieve succesful pass through Gateway reviews
Onerous residual actons could lead to progamme delays
2
2
4
Negligible
Implement actions arising from Gateway 2 and review checklist for future gateways.
Steve Tough
ongoing
Failure to obtain PRG Endorsement
programme delay and cost
1
3
3
Negligible
Review OBC against PRG requirements. PUK to act as shadow PRG
Sian Dunstan
Apr-09
2
5
10
Undesirable
OBC to be made available to DFT by end of Oct 08
Chris Deas
Oct-08
Failure to achieve Conditional approval.
Showstopper 2
5
10
Undesirable
On going dialogue with the DfT and Treasury. Submit OBC
Chris Deas
May-09
regular discussion with the DfT taking place
Alan Renfree
ongoing
Discussions with market are on going
Chris Deas Lack of market appetite in general for light Lack of market interest in the project rail, or rapid decline in Line One fortunes
Project Legal & Commercial Workstream Legal & Commercial Workstream Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
8
Unrealistic risk balance
Undue / more contractual complexity than anticipated
Non-compliant bids
3
4
12
Unacceptable
1. Market Testing of preferred procurement strategy.
3
4
12
Unacceptable
2. Establish the legal and commercial working group
3
3
9
Undesirable
3
3
9
Undesirable
3
3
9
Undesirable
3
3
9
Undesirable
Action Owners Comments (As at last review date)
Contract structure leads to delays and legal costs
1. Delay 2. Promoter must retain more risk 3. Lack of market appetite lead to high bid prices
On going Market Testing required
Oct-08 key OBC chapters made available to DfT Dec 08
1. Ongoing market testing
Chris Deas Spring 2008 Feb-08 Line One operations remain at a high level
Alan Renfree
ongoing
Alan Renfree
by Market testing and dialogue has not identified any new Aug08 issues.
2. Review NET line 1 against SOP4 allocations of risk and discus Chris Deas how to deal with key agreements
Nov-08 Draft contract terms reviewed against SOPC4 (Nov 08) Contract terms well developed and clear to enable further discussion with DfT / Treasury
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
3. Review derogation under SOP4 line 1 agreement
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
Determine risk allocation for Phase 2 contract
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
1
3
3
Negligible
1. DLA to advise on an ongoing basison the requirements of the Alex Guy OJEU process.
ongoing
DLA have drafted OJEU
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas Failure to comply with EU procurement rules/ state aid
1
3
3
Negligible
2. Seek Counsel's opinion to confirm that his advice still stands under the new procurement rules which take effect on 31 Jan 2006 - rec'd in June 2006.
Mar-09
Further counsel opinion to be sought
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
1
3
3
Negligible
3. Set up Legal and Commercial Working Group
10
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas Inappropriate evaluation criteria
11
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
12
Legal & Commercial Workstream Legal & Commercial Workstream
Lack of coordination with existing concessionaire
Procurement process is halted
Project
Chris Deas
Alex Guy
Oct-08
Risk balance included in Draft OBC Oct-08 Risk balance set out in draft concessionaire agreement Ma 09
Chris Deas Spring 2008 Feb-08 Legal and Commercial group in place
3
6
Undesirable
Develop a robust evaluation criteria and methodology- in line with Alex Guy gateway review procedures.
ongoing
Draft evaluation criteria produced jan 09
Evaluation criteria developing in parallel with other contract documentation
Incomplete information obtained from Line One Concessionaire Contractors
1. Delay and cost associated with lack of information/ inspection access 2. Reduced performance from Line One
2
3
6
Undesirable
Seek to retain good relations with current concessionaire
Chris Deas
ongoing
Target for termination protocol July 09
Protocol agreed with Arrow re technical information flow Discussions on termination arrangements ongoing
1. Could lead to political problems 2. Poor public perception of commercial deal 3. Challenge at PI
2
3
6
Undesirable
steve tough
Apr-09
Redevelopment agreement not secured with Housing 21 for Neville Sadler Court
Ongoing discussion with housing 21, the owners of neville sadler court and county council social services
2
3
6
Undesirable
steve tough
Apr-09
Housing 21 currently receiving design proposals for redevelopment
2
1
2
Negligible
1. Ensure that a robust procurement process is adopted
ongoing
Procurement arrangements fully planned and resourced
2
1
2
Negligible
2. Ensure that effective contractual management arrangements are in place
ongoing
Clear strategy in place
1.Prepare and monitor a detailed negotiation programme.
2.Confirm development plan.
Fail to meet project objectives
Alan Renfree / Alex Guy Alan Renfree / Alex Guy
Project
Chris Deas
2
1
2
Negligible
3. Develop O&M requirements and pms
Richard Hand
ongoing
Refer to Mott's RR: Requirements mgt, O&M planning (WP35), O&M modelling (WP07), PMS (WP32)
Project
Chris Deas
2
1
2
Negligible
4. Design for performance
David Wright
ongoing
Advanced Design being undertaken to reqts and PMS (various WP)
15
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
1
4
4
Negligible
Maintain relations with Concessionaire and continue to monitor performance.
Chris Deas
Ongoing
Dialogue continuing with Arrow
16
Strategic
Pat Armstrong
2
3
6
Undesirable
continual monitoring for changes
David Wright
ongoing
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
1. Start negotiations with Arrow - PWC to produce negotiation strategy.
clement walsh
Jul-09
21
Breach of concession agreement by Arrow Termination prior to procurement of Extension - Contractor default Legislative change (Sector specific/ Project Specific/ General changes giving rise to capital expenditure/ General changes giving rise to OPEX/ H&S/ Environmental changes/ HMRI)
Terminating the existing Concessionaire Compensation payment for terminating concessionaire Agreement agreement is higher than anticipated
20
Counsel's opinion received in June 2006 confirming his original procurement advice still stands. Further council opinion received in May 09 confirming procurement approach is appropriate.
2
Poor O&M performance by concessionaire under contractual arrangement
13
Chris Deas
Nov-08 As above (Nov 08)
1. Programme delay 2. Possible restart of procurement 3. Possible termination of contract 4. Less than optimum vfm
Chris Deas
Chris Deas
Chris Deas
Failure to establish appropriate evaluation criteria
Chris Deas
Project
1. Restart of procurement process 2. Potential compensation
Market testing of the proposed procurement strategy has been undertaken and the level of feedback received has demonstrated significant market interest. Dialogue with market players is being maintained and current feedback remains positive.
SOPC4 draft assessment complete
Legal & Commercial Workstream
9
Risk Champion's comments (As at last review date)
Gateway 2 undertaken in March 09, recommendations are being actioned.
Potential negotiating with only one Concessionaire/ no bidder
Chris Deas
Chris Deas 1. New guidance 2. Failure to adequately manage the process Chris Deas 3. Late entry of funders
Action Plan
Date Completed
Potential Increased bid costs and contractual complexity
Consequences (Impact on scheme objectives/ requirements)
Risk Level
Funding competition introduced as a requirement by the DfT.
Risk Event (What might happen if not corrected)
Chris Deas
6
7
Action Due Date
Project
Action Owner
Chris Deas DfT view on vfm changes
Impact
3
Root Cause/s (Known factors/ weaknesses)
Current Combined Score
Strategic
Notes
Current Score Probability
Risk Champion
Classification (Strategic / Project / Workstream)
Risk Ref 2
STEP 3: Response (current phase response plan)
STEP 2: Assessment (current)
Risk Classification
Increased costs to incorporate in design
strategy in place and discussions ongoing with Arrow to agree termination cost and evaluation protocol Discussion continuing with Arrow. Target to agree arrangements / protocol before commencement of OJEU
Additional costs/ may become unaffordable
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
Strategic
Chris Deas
3
4
12
Unacceptable
Strategic
1. Failure to secure WPL 2. Developer contributions fail to Chris Deas materialise 3. County Council contributions fail to materialise
1. Potential showstopper 2. Could be reason for not securing government 3 contribution
4
12
Unacceptable
2.Maximise development contribution
Strategic
Chris Deas
3
4
12
Unacceptable
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
May not be able to secure local contributions to scheme
HMRI / ORR transitional arrangements recently clarified - need to consider implications for NET Phase 2
clement walsh
ongoing
Discussion on going with Arrow to agree approach
Chris Deas
ongoing
The Process is in train for the making of the national WPL regulations. DfT consultation commenced 11 December 2008
Chris Deas
ongoing
Currently little opportunity to increase due to economic recession effects. Tesco S106 money to be drawn down
3. Secure County Council payment contribution
Steve Calvert
complete
Budget Agreed Oct 06
1. Scope review and VFM exercise as part of advanced design
David Wright
ongoing
2. Asset Valuation
1.Secure WPL funding in line with NET Phase two programme
Page 1 of 7
VfM effectively completed with scoping of AD. Opportunities being tracked and relaid into AD, such as Wilford toll bridge utility options
NET Phase 2- Project Risk Register-V17.2 08.05.09.xls
STEP 1: Risk Identification
25
Action Due Date
3
3
9
Undesirable
2. Maintain ongoing budget review
Alan Renfree
ongoing
3
3
9
Undesirable
3. Advanced design scope definition
Richard Hand
ongoing
David Wright
ongoing
clement walsh
ongoing
Action Plan
Date Completed
Action Owner
1. Possible delay to conditional/final funding approval 2. Rework of the Business Case. 3. Unaffordable bids.
Risk Level
Consequences (Impact on scheme objectives/ requirements)
Impact
Risk Event (What might happen if not corrected)
Action Owners Comments (As at last review date)
Legal & Commercial Workstream
1. Design and cost changes Chris Deas 2. Scope increase 3. Incorrect assumptions
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
4. Develop scheme cost model
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
5. Update of financial model
Chris Deas
3
2
6
Undesirable
1. Maintain dialogue with DfT through MVA.
Dave Carter
ongoing
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
3
2
6
Undesirable
2. Review key assumptions on lead up to Conditional Approval Submission.
Dave Carter
ongoing
key assumptions reviewed -Need to maintain understanding of potetntial changes in assumptions on a regular basis in advance of contract closure, key issues remain scheme costs, inflationand principal appraisal assumptions
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
3
2
6
Undesirable
3.Appraisal case to be updated prior to conditional approval application.
Dave Carter
ongoing
appraisal case updated for OBC. Outline draft expansion and reworking of appraisal to be developed to respond to April 2009 NATA refresh (linked to risk 25). Resources are in place to update as required.
Legal & Commercial Workstream Legal & Commercial Workstream
24
Root Cause/s (Known factors/ weaknesses)
Current Combined Score
Risk Champion Chris Deas
Notes
Current Score Probability
Classification (Strategic / Project / Workstream)
Risk Ref 23
Legal & Commercial Workstream
STEP 3: Response (current phase response plan)
STEP 2: Assessment (current)
Risk Classification
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Changes in appraisal assumptions
Chris Deas
Design and cost changes impact upon strength of Business Case and affordability
Strength of Appraisal Case re underlying assumptions and procedures (+ve / -ve)
Change in Rules/ Guidance for Appraisals Appraisal needs to be re worked and Forecasting
1. Possible delay to provisional /final funding approval 2. Rework of the appraisal
1. Extra costs for reappraisal 2. Showstopper
2
3
6
Undesirable
MVA to provide ongoing reviews and advice.
Dave Carter
ongoing
Risk Champion's comments (As at last review date)
Advanced design is ongoing, focussing on areas which are likely to attract risk premium by future bidders of the new concession. A development cost review has been competed. Cost model being updated with outputs from AD
Sep-08
Initial scoping required to refine current appraisal, depending on requirements for Conditional Approval set by DfT. Update to pick up post TWAO PI.
1. Most likely outcome assumed. 2. Formal New Guidance for LRT Promoters still awaited, but unlikely to fundamentally change the robustness of the economic, financial or funding case, though some erosion of the value for money is likely if, for example, DfT require monetisation of some of the environmental disbenefits. DFT advised on 25 Feb 08 that a full reappraisal will not be required
26
27
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Nazia Tanveer
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
Legal & Commercial Workstream
incorrect assumptions on land budget
1. Changes in insurance market/ level of claim 2. Inappropriate allocation of risk in Chris Deas contract
Third party land costs exceed budget allowance
Increased costs
Uninsurable Project / Excessive Premiums for insurances
Prohibitively high premiums
3
3
9
Undesirable
Continue to review land costs using professional advise on land values.
Nazia Tanveer
ongoing
Ardent provided a revised land estimate in July 2008. A contract will be let in 2009 for land and property services fo an initial period of 5 years - the succesful company will be required to update the land estimate as and when required.
3
2
6
Undesirable
1. Continue to review insurance levels based on market trends.
clement walsh
ongoing
To be covered in cost plan / QRA issue
3
2
6
Undesirable
2. Appoint insurance advisors
Alan Renfree
Jul-09
Interest rate needs to be monitored to ensure that financial closur is timed correctly
clement walsh
ongoing
Insurance advisors shortlisted may 09 Advise provided by AON as required. Insurance advisors appointment prior to OJEU.
28
Strategic
Pat Change in national and/or international Armstrong economic environment
Adverse interest rate movement
1. Increase in cost of bids 2. Delay to financial close
3
2
6
Undesirable
29
Strategic
Chris Deas Change in national budget
Changes to taxation prior to financial close
Scheme less affordable
4
1
4
Negligible
Monitor
clement walsh
ongoing to financial close
30
Strategic
Pat Better price can be secured if in Euros Armstrong when bidding for Trams
Adverse foreign exchange movement before financial close
Additional costs (only if promoter taking this risks)
3
1
3
Negligible
exchange rate needs to be monitored to ensure that financial closure is timed correctly
clement walsh
ongoing to financial close
2
2
4
Negligible
1. Continual review by MM / MVA
Dave Carter
ongoing to financial close
2
2
4
Negligible
2. Progressed through advanced design.
David Wright
ongoing to financial close
O&M plan (WP35)+ O&M model line (WP07) ongoing
2
2
4
Negligible
3. Develop scheme cost model
David Wright
ongoing to financial close
scheme cost plan updated for gateway 1 and further refinements (WP SM05) 0/going
3
3
9
Undesirable
clement walsh
ongoing to financial close
3
3
9
Undesirable
1. Continue to engage with DFT
Chris Deas
ongoing
OBC to be submitted Spring 09
3
3
9
Undesirable
2. Programme review followed TWAO Inquiry.
Alan Renfree
Jun-09
Programme updated Oct 08 and to be revised past TWAO decision Spring 09
3
3
9
Undesirable
3.Develop and update Implementation programme
Alan Renfree
ongoing
Progressed through Advanced Design Work Package 33 Implementation Planning
1. Some parties may want to legally challenge the decision on Human Rights Act grounds 2. Package may be unaffordable to the county 3. May be unaffordably extended at PI
5
1
5
Negligible
Review against S.o.S decision on receipt of inspectors report
Ray Dunaijko
Jul-09
The final version of the F.A.P will be reviewed / revised in line with the findings of the PI inspector as approved by the SoS. It is unlikely however that any further modifications to the FAP will satisfy objectors.
Greater early expenditure on land
3
2
6
Undesirable
Paul Fearney (CoC) & Jon Sadler/Rod Martin (CiC)
ongoing
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
Legal & Commercial Workstream
1. Incorrect assumptions Chris Deas 2. Incorrect information from Line One 3. Higher than assumed operating costs
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
32
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
34
Legal & Commercial Workstream Legal & Commercial Workstream Legal & Commercial Workstream
31
35
Legal & Commercial Workstream
36
Legal & Commercial Workstream
1. Incorrect assumptions 2. Change in market conditions
Operational Costs higher than assumed
Cost of private finance increases above promoter assumptions
Increased costs - may result in unaffordable bid
Additional costs for project
Chris Deas 1. Delay in gaining approvals Chris Deas 2. Any other programme delay 3. Timing of funding
Costs are inflated as a result of programme delays
Shortfall in funding as funding is capped
Chris Deas
Chris Deas / Existence and extent of Financial Steve Assistance Package still has to be Calvert determined
Nazia Tanveer
Financial Assistance Package does not go far enough to satisfy affected parties
Blight notices served by owner/occupiers o Promoters forced to acquire properties before they are properties that need to be acquired. needed
Continual review
Deal with blight notices as and when they come in
Page 2 of 7
Unable to predict long term impact of credit crunch and banks are still lending on infrastructure deals.
PWC Taxation specialist advise provided prior to OBC draft
Continual review taking into account DSC and any new information on general LRT or specific NET operating costs / issues.
It is unlikely that any further blight notices will be received from properties
Work supporting PI improved understanding of operating cost issues. This new information to be considered in the round alongside the Detailed Design Contract which is considering Line One and Phase Two operational and cost issues. Need to agree whether detailed Line One data is available from the operator. Need for reporting/inputs at Conditional Approval stage. Confirmed line 1 cost info commercially sensitive and therefore will not be provided by Arrow
Programme updated April 09 and included in financial model included in OBC issued to DfT May 09
The FAP proposals are in the public domain in draft form, and have been explored at public enquiry. Necessary modifications to the FAP proposals may have a slight impact on increasing costs associated with the FAP
NET Phase 2- Project Risk Register-V17.2 08.05.09.xls
STEP 1: Risk Identification
Impact
Current Combined Score
Risk Level
Action Owner
Action Due Date
Undesirable
1. Continual review by Promoters, with cost information circulated to MVA and PwC
Steve Tough
ongoing to financial close
Alan Renfree
4
2
8
Undesirable
2. Advanced design to provide greater certainty
David Wright
ongoing
Alan Renfree
4
2
8
Undesirable
3. Establish Legal and Commercial Working Group
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
Chris Deas 1. Incorrect information from Line One 2. Incorrect revenue assumptions
3
3
9
Undesirable
3
3
9
Undesirable
1. Incorrect budgeting 2. Incorrect assumptions 3. Novel procurement method
38
39
Root Cause/s (Known factors/ weaknesses)
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Risk Event (What might happen if not corrected)
Procurement costs vary
Bidders take a lower revenue projection than assumed
Consequences (Impact on scheme objectives/ requirements)
Promoters budget problems, ie increased Promoter costs or increased funding requirements
Higher cost bid
Dave Carter
ongoing to financial close
2. Maintain understanding of transport demands in Phase Two corridor from on-going LTP monitoring.
Dave Carter
ongoing
3.Consider revenue sharing as part of risk balance
Dave Carter
Chris Deas
43
Powers & Approvals Workstream
1. Legal challenges at various stages of the process Judicial review Chris Deas 2. Perceived failure of procedures 3. Objectors delaying tactics - Judicial Review, (village green?) (copy from MM05)
Additional legal costs and potential delay
1
3
3
Negligible
44
Strategic
Chris Deas Change of local political agenda
Loss of local political support
1. Potential change in promoters make up 2. Need to consider alternative delivery approach 3. Potential Delay
2
4
8
Undesirable
Ensure that the City and Council local officers and members are fully briefed of consequences of loss or change in local political support
45
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Planning condition are too onerous
Increased cost to incorporate conditions
3
3
9
Undesirable
Regular discussion with the City, Rushcliffe and Broxtowe Planning Authorities.
47
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Conflict with stakeholders during the advanced design and subsequent stages of the project.
poor perception of the scheme and greater public opposition
2
2
4
Negligible
1
3
3
Negligible
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Steve Tough Poor precedents
Nazia Tanveer
Alan Renfree 1. There is a need for the new Lenton Lane bridge to cross the existing Heavy Rail lines Failure to secure Network Rail approval for proposed which will require NR approval design solution at Lenton Lane Bridge 2. There are a number of environmental
49 Powers & Approvals Workstream
Alan Renfree
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Initial estimates are higher than expected in NET budget.
Ensure that Glen O'Connell and Heather Dickinson are fully involved in the process to make sure that all relevant county / city Chris Deas processes are followed
Boarding and alighting surveys undertaken in March 2009. Work on understanding changes to demand patterns and revenue implications underway and will be reported for ITT documentation in due course
Further patronage surveys undertaken in April 09
Ongoing
Pat Armstrong
Jul-09
Steve Tough
Ongoing
Planning authorities fully involved in design development process
Continued development, monitoring and implementation of the stakeholder management schedule and plan.
Nazia Tanveer
ongoing
Discussions with key stakholders are taking place throughout the advanced design stage. Progress with specific stakeholders is reported at the fortnightly NET Team meeetings. Stakeholder management plan updated december 2009, schedule updates april 2009.
1.Negotiate a Bespoke or Framework Agreement through detailed discussion with Network Rail.
Alan Renfree
Summer 2008
Framework agreement, or Transfer and Interface Dec-07 Agreement (TIA), entered into prior to close of PI and allowing NR objection to TWAO to be withdrawn.
Negligible
2.Develop subsidiary agreements including APA and Property Agreement.
Alan Renfree
Draft Property Agreement with NR for review. Draft Asset Protection Agreement to be issued to NR in December 2008.
Alan Renfree
1
3
3
Negligible
3. Agree possession strategy with NR and TOC
Alan Renfree
Possession application submitted to NR in March 08. Revised possession strategy is nearing completion.
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Steve Tough
1
2
2
Negligible
1. Review correspondence, consultation and TWA material and SoS TWA reponses
Steve Tough
for ITN
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Steve Tough
1
2
2
Negligible
2. Develop commitments register which specifices if the obligations are passed to the concessionnaire.
Steve Tough
for ITN
1
2
2
Negligible
3. Need to establish protocols with key stakeholders and communications strategy for project
steve tough
ongoing
Third Party compensation claims
1. Abortive design and potential compensation costs 2. Delay to project 3. Potential issue for affordability
Steve Tough
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Steve Tough
1
2
2
Negligible
4. Requirements database
David Wright
Ongoing
Richard Hand
1
4
4
Negligible
1. DSC to maintain liaison with the certification / approval bodies (e.g. ORR) to confirm the regulatory requirements
David Wright
Spring 2009
DSC liaising with UK tram DfT and ORR. ROGS briefing to NET PM Team given by 1st July. Agreed to appoint competent person by OJEU (JAN 09)
1
4
4
Negligible
2. DSC to prepare plans and consents protocols to be established
David Wright
Spring 2009
DSC drafting system safety plan (WPSM04)and consents protocols (WPSM09). No certification is required for NET Phase Two prior to Concession Award
1
4
4
Negligible
3. Prepare the requirements specification taking account the above requirements
David Wright
Spring 2009
DSC drafted requirements specification - Refinement ongoing (WPSM02 and WP66)
1
4
4
Negligible
4. Evaluate the vehicle specifications returned and resolve potential discrepancies
David Wright
Spring 2009
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Richard Hand Richard Hand
Failure to secure certification approvals for Phase Two 1. Inappropriate specification (i.e. vehicles requiring either ‘type approvals’ or 2. Uncertainty of implementation of ROGS modifications to design during commissioning phase and also for the whole operation of the system)
Increased costs before contract close (post contract - concessionaire issue) and/or programme delays
Richard Hand
Nazia Tanveer Powers & Approvals Workstream
Failure to negotiate/ satisfy concerns
Nazia Tanveer
Failure to obtain agreement from Stakeholders or meet agreements made with stakeholders (including stats)
3
3
9
Undesirable
Establish and maintain a register of commitments given to stakeholders pre and during the TWAO stage in order to ensure items are actioned during the next stages of the project, including advanced design.
3
3
9
Undesirable
Ensure that commitments recorded on the register are implemented through Advanced Design and implementation planning
Original AIP signed off ahead of TWAO PI. Formal approval pending asset protection agreement (OPAPA). MM to update and resubmit as part of the advanced design. Due to low risk associated with this structure, design to be developed to AIP only, sufficient to gain key consents.
Requirements database to be finalised by OJEU.
Nazia Tanveer
ongoing
A register of commitments has been compiled to take account of commitments given in agreements / undertakings. This is presently being expanded to include commitments given pre/post TWAO stage and within inquiry documentation (such as rebuttals and proofs of evidence)
david wright
ongoing
Consent Matrix and Register being maintained as part of AD. Action with NET PM team to review 3rd party section of database
Delay or failure at TWAO
Page 3 of 7
Line One demand data continues to be made available by the operator primarily for LTP purposes. Possible need for further boarding and alighting survey to confirm demand patterns against background of poor ticket machine performance. Further monitoring of demand and supply patterns in the Phase 2 corridors is required and will be discussed shortly with NCC.
Draft register produced to be reviewed summer 2009.
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Powers & Approvals Workstream Powers & Approvals Workstream
EMDA and RFA funding secured.
PA is presently preparing briefing paper
3
Failure to comply with obligations, agreements and undertakings to third parties through the project development
Procurement programme currently has been developed in more deta and is being used to plan and monitor resource requirements and the procurement budget. Advanced Design continues to consider procurement options, although implementation planning has identified that advanced utility diversions will not be required. Application for additional funding is ongoing.
Legal and commercial working group is in place
Programme delay and potential for bidders to add risk premium.
considerations at this site
Risk Champion's comments (As at last review date)
Approach revised Jan 09. Risk sharing not to be pursued.
3
Powers & Approvals Workstream
56
Procurement costs reviewed in May 2008. The review in September 2008, ahead of the business case submission, has identified additional funding requirements for the mini P and to support the agreed minimum scope of advanced design. Further review required in Spring 2009. Costs reviewed and reported to project board Jan 09.
1
50
53
Inability to satisfy stakeholder concerns
Action Owners Comments (As at last review date)
Chris Deas Spring 2008 Feb-08 Done
1. Continual review by MM / MVA
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Date Completed
Probability
8
Risk Champion
2
Classification (Strategic / Project / Workstream)
Risk Ref
4
Alan Renfree
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Notes
Current Score
Action Plan
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Legal & Commercial Workstream Legal & Commercial Workstream
STEP 3: Response (current phase response plan)
STEP 2: Assessment (current)
Risk Classification
To be transferred to concessionaire Vehicle strategy & procurement being considered as part of advance design.
NET Phase 2- Project Risk Register-V17.2 08.05.09.xls
STEP 1: Risk Identification
Action Due Date ongoing
Construction strategy subject to review between Promoters Motts and NR. Further discussion required with HA once principles agreed. (WP01 and WP03)
Date Completed
Action Owner David Wright
Undesirable
2. Seek & incorporate contractor advice into technical work
David Wright
ongoing
Scheme Development Alan Renfree Workstream
3
3
9
Undesirable
3. Develop proposals which will allow early procurement
David Wright
ongoing
Methodology and programme is being developed and this will identify requirements for early procurement - by Promoters and/or preferred bidder. (WP01)
Scheme Development Alan Renfree Workstream
2
4
8
Undesirable
1. Discussions with NR & TOC
Alan Renfree
ongoing
Scheme Development Alan Renfree Workstream
69
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Alan Renfree
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Rejection by NR and TOC's of NET's possession requirements
Main Railway Station Constructability issues (pre order materials or cranes for i.e. the construction of station bridge) Unable to commence construction on programme
Availability of railway blockades / possessions for construction of the Station Bridge
Delay to project
Additional cost and delay if preferred method of working not acceptable.
Prolonged very bad weather rain/snow/heat wave making construction Extreme adverse weather conditions during very implementation hard/impossible
Impact would be on all works (earthworks, railway works)
Force majeure during implementation
Inadequate traffic management strategy during construction
Construction Incident Richard Hand
68
Project
Richard Hand
70
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Alan Renfree
Undesirable
2. MM to produce possession strategy for project.
Alan Renfree
ongoing
Revised possession strategy required to cater for updated construction methodology and revised stabling strategy (WP01)
2
4
8
Undesirable
3. Book possessions for February 2008 - then monitor any changes to the possession plan
Alan Renfree
On Going
Possession plan submitted to NR in March 2008 - using dates for both launch and crane option (latter most critical. (WP01)
1
3
3
Negligible
Terms of contract to address this risk.
Alex Guy
Issue addressed in current draft of the concession agreement.
contractor risk
2
2
4
Negligible
Transfer through contract
Alex Guy
Issue addressed in current draft of the concession agreement.
contractor risk
2
3
6
Undesirable
2
3
6
2
3
2
Undesirable
2. Appointment of contractor. Consider contractor implementation proposals
David Wright
WP PS01 - Scope to be drafted
6
Undesirable
3. Construction methodology has traffic management defined in engineering details
David Wright
Various work packages
2
4
Negligible
1. Appoint CDM Coordinator
Richard Hand
2
2
4
Negligible
2. Transfer duty as client to concessionaire
Alex Guy
Security/ theft/ vandalism
2
3
6
Undesirable
Industrial action
2
2
4
Negligible
2
4
8
Undesirable
2
4
8
2
4
2
Safety incident during implementation
Oct-07
Mott Macdonald are appointed as CDM coordinator for the pre-tender stage under DSC Contract
Design for security and maintenance
Transfer through contract
David Wright
Issue addressed in current draft of the concession agreement.
Alex Guy
1. Monitor Pre-existing development rights and TWAO outcome.
Steve Tough
TWAO
Undesirable
2. Dialogue with planning officers and developers to monitor any new planning applications
Steve Tough
Ongoing
8
Undesirable
3. Further consideration required at Arkwright St/Queens St area Done
Steve Tough
complete
2
4
Negligible
1. Revisit the model and possible redesign of elements of the scheme.
David Wright
Modelling being refreshed in AD (WP45). Initial results indicate that modelling remains valid.
2
2
4
Negligible
2. Need to ensure that the implications of what will be done are robust i.e. off line traffic impacts are fully understood.
david wright
Modelling being refreshed in AD (WP45). Initial results indicate that modelling remains valid.
Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream
2
2
4
Negligible
3. The Traffic model needs to include sensitivities to account for david wright projected traffic growth.
Modelling being refreshed in AD (WP45). Initial results indicate that modelling remains valid.
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
1
2
2
Negligible
1. Mitigation is to detail and monitor all schedules of consents / approvals / undertakings
David Wright
Ongoing
WP SM9 Consents Management. The mitigation for this risk is complete within the context of the AD Phase. Primarily relates to Concessionaire actions post award.
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
1
2
2
Negligible
2. Compliance with consent conditions to be monitored - with or without Advanced Design.
David Wright
ongoing
WP SM9 Consents Management. The mitigation for this risk is complete within the context of the AD Phase. Primarily relates to Concessionaire actions post award.
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Alan Renfree
3
2
6
Undesirable
transfer through contract
Alex Guy
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
2
3
6
Undesirable
1. Agree Protocol with Arrow regarding information requirements
Stephen Dale
Richard Hand
2
3
6
Undesirable
2. Obtain information about Line One required to support RD and Kevin AD Macdonald
ongoing
Price uncertainty and risk premiums, particularly 2 associated with;
3
6
Undesirable
3. Agree long list of due-diligence information required, and identify information to be sought pre-tender
Nov-08
Time and cost impact on scheme construction
Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream Incorrect assumptions in highway modellingAt Beeston, the highway modelling is proved to be Scheme incorrect Development Steve Tough Workstream
Failure by concessionaire to comply with all other approvals and/or consents
74
Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
latent defects in infrastructure
Lack of information on the infrastructure,
Additional construction methodology study being progressed for Chilwell Road/High Road for reporting & discussion with BACBRA Jan 07 Political aspect not transferred Being further considered as part of DSC implementation planning workstream. To include consideration of pros/cons of specific employers requirements to cover critical areas.
Cost / Delay
Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream 1. Worksites are not available due to new Scheme Restrictions on / lack of land available for work sites Development Steve Tough developments 2.Insufficient land is covered in the order Workstream
The potential to ‘piggy-back’ on the possession blockade planned for the East Midlands Re-signalling works is likely to be missed due to th extension to the NET Phase Two procurement programme. However, advanced design work and further construction planning associated with the erection of the bridge, either by crane lift or bridge launch, has eliminated the need for disruptive possessions.
8
Initial Implementation Plan developed and being refined (WP33)
Richard Hand
Finalisation of the construction execution strategy and possession strategy urgently required, to enable the programme to be finalised and the requirement or otherwise for alternative stabling to be agreed with NR/EMT. Implementation planning has identified that advanced procurement of plant and/or materials is unlikely to be required.
4
David Wright
Disruption / Loss of access during implementation
Risk Champion's comments (As at last review date)
2
1. COCP / Highways interface will outline strategy
1. Impact on other road users / safety issues 2. May not get HA approval to proceed - delay to works 3. Negative Publicity 4. Possible compensation
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
75
1. Discuss structure details and programme with NR, HA, City and County Highways.
9
Alan Renfree
73
Undesirable
3
Legal & Commercial Workstream
71
9
Action Owners Comments (As at last review date)
3
63
67
3
Action Plan
Further discussion ongoing with Morgan Est. Issues to feed into revised possessions strategy and construction methodology to be issued to NR in December 2009. Pros and cons (and costs) associated with the crane and launch options to be finalised soon. Both may allow bridge construction without disruptive possessions and, potentially, the need for alternative stabling. (WP01)
Insufficient materials / plant or long lead Scheme items Development Alan Renfree Workstream
Scheme Development Alan Renfree Workstream
66
3
Risk Level
Consequences (Impact on scheme objectives/ requirements)
Impact
Risk Event (What might happen if not corrected)
Current Combined Score
Root Cause/s (Known factors/ weaknesses)
Probability
Risk Champion
Classification (Strategic / Project / Workstream)
Risk Ref 72
Notes
Current Score
Scheme Development Alan Renfree Workstream
62
STEP 3: Response (current phase response plan)
STEP 2: Assessment (current)
Risk Classification
1. Scheme doesn't receive highway authority approval 2. Scheme is unreliable / journey times are too slow. 3. Delays to traffic in Beeston
Mar-09 1. Potential change in construction methodology and logistical difficulties 2. Strategy for approach to south side of Station agreed complet Issue addressed in current draft of the concession e agreement.
Programme delay and Rework
Underpinning the VISSIM modelling for Beeston are highway flows from the strategic traffic model. Outputs from this strategic model stil seem to be reasonable in the light of further work supporting the PI.
Partially mitigated during the design process
Tenderer unable to price operation and maintenance of
Page 4 of 7
Kevin Macdonald
Issue addressed in current draft of the concession agreement.
Spring 08
Spring Approach agreed 08 Data list produced and arrangements agreed with Arrow
Nov-08 Data list produced
contractor risk - although in the MTQ 2008, the feedback indicated resistance against this in respect of Line One defects.
NET Phase 2- Project Risk Register-V17.2 08.05.09.xls
STEP 1: Risk Identification
Action Due Date
Undesirable
4. Develop Strategy for Condition Survey of NET Line One
Kevin Macdonald
Autumn 2008
Richard Hand
2
3
6
Undesirable
5. Obtain necessary due diligence information
Kevin Macdonald
Spring 09
Data list agreed - gathering of information commenced
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
2
3
6
Undesirable
6. Undertake necessary Condition surveys as part of AD
Kevin Macdonald
Spring 09
Work Package to commence Feb 09
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
2
2
4
Negligible
1. Check and qualify content of information provided
Alan Renfree
Ongoing
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Chris Deas
2
2
4
Negligible
2. Advanced design warranted to concessionaire
Alan Renfree
Ongoing
Issue addressed in DSC appointment. Promoter will not warrant information to the concessionaire.
Scheme Development Workstream
Paul Alliott
3
3
9
Undesirable
1. Hold further technical discussions with the University of Nottingham and QMC, in particular with respect to sensitive equipment and EMC.
Nazia Tanveer
ongoing
Discussions are taking place with the relevant parties and a number of meetings have been held during the advanced design stage. Discussions with the QMC are proving challenging and may need to be elevated to enable matters to progress.
3
3
9
Undesirable
2. Advanced Design to address early design issues.
David Wright
ongoing
2
2
4
Negligible
Nazia Tanveer / Steve Tough
Ongoing
2
3
6
Undesirable
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Information supplied to bidders by Promoters proves incorrect
78
79
80
operation and maintenance of NET Line One
EMC & Stray Currents Scheme Development Workstream
Paul Alliott
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Chris Deas
Risk Event (What might happen if not corrected)
Tenderer unable to price operation and maintenance of NET Line One
Claim under warranty by concessionaire (if warranty provided)/ Lack of credibility of information
Failure to satisfy stakeholder requirements in relation to EMC and Stray Currents
83
Scheme Development Steve Tough Over optimistic or over cautious design Workstream
Land referencing drawings may show wider or narrower limits than required
85
1. Construction and operational constraints 2. Could weaken the TWAO case 3. Negotiations with third parties to acquire additional land 4. Payment of objectors costs
1. Check permanent and temporary limits are correct.
1. Design may be tweaked / CPO is necessary 2. Southside alignment developed to suit developers proposals. Developers proposals now accord with NET limits. 3. Draft Limits currently set wide in Beeston town centre
6
Undesirable
2. Advanced Design to identify any problem areas.
4
2
8
Undesirable
Mott Macdonald to review as built information. Additional surveys will be undertaken as required
David Wright
spring 2009
Response outstanding from NR to MM requests for further information on existing infrastructure in relation to EMC. Meeting held with NR in September 2008 to progress issue NR response awaited.
3
2
6
Undesirable
1. Co-ordinate design interface with BDP (HUB architects)
Alan Renfree
On Going
Design coordination between the two projects included in MM design scope. Initial meeting held June 08. CAD data exchange has identified conflict - BDP to address in necessary changes.
3
2
6
Undesirable
2. Review scheme interfaces
Alan Renfree
On Going
Scheme interfaces, design and phasing, subject to review (MM and Hub PM Team).
Richard Hand
3
3
9
Undesirable
1. Obtain C2 and C3 information
Callum Gibson
2005
Richard Hand
3
3
9
Undesirable
2. Agree Strategy & AD Work Package
3
3
9
Undesirable
3.Establish Utility Working Groups
Uncertainty in the design of the station
Failure to adequately manage the design interface between NET Phase Two and Nottingham Hub Project.
1. Delay to programme whilst records are sourced 2. If records are unavailable there may be a need for additional design and correlation 1. Additional design costs 2. Planning implications 3. Poor design - may have patronage implications 4. Delay in progressing design until station information available 5. Risk pricing by contractors
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
1. Delays to receipt of utilities records 2. Late understanding of detailed utilities diversions
Uncertainty with Utilities works
1. Could increase cost and lengthen programme 3 (depending on what has been assumed to date) 2. Could influence procurement 3 3. Concessionaire unwilling to take on utility risks or adds prohibitive risk premium
Stephen Dale david wright
3
9
Undesirable
4. Refresh C2/C3 data
3
9
Undesirable
5.Identify Utility Conflicts (DW)
David Wright
ongoing
Mar-09 Majority completed by Feb 09
ongoing
Feb-09 Completed Changed completion date to Oct 09. Good receipt of Mar-09 information to date, progressing commentary reports for ITN date.
9
Undesirable
6. Undertake intrusive / non-intrusive surveys
Richard Hand
3
3
9
Undesirable
7. Agree C4 diversion designs and timing
David Wright
ongoing
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
3
3
9
Undesirable
8. Review need for implementation of any utility diversions in advance of the Concession
David Wright
ongoing
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
3
2
6
Undesirable
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream Species not picked up in environmental modelling Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream
Discovery of unexpected protected species during implementation
Janet Burns Nov-06
Recorded in ES & Code of Construction Practise. Planning Nov-06 Directive amended to include certain requirements aimed a mitigation (e.g. Archaeological scheme).
6
Undesirable
1. Concessionaire unwilling to take on all or part 3 of the Archaeological Risk or adds prohibitive premium 2. Delay to consortium Programme due to 3 unforeseen impacts or finds 3. Delay to operation of system 4. Additional costs due to unforeseen impacts or 3 finds5. Compensation Issues
2
6
Undesirable
2. Capture Environmental requirements as part of requirements definition
Richard Hand David Wright
Covered within AD work Package SM10
Requirements definition to be completed by OJEU
2
6
Undesirable
3. Develop Environmental Management Plan during AD, identifying proposed mitigations and recording extent of actions undertaken during AD. (Work Package SM10)
2
6
Undesirable
4. Prepare and draft schemes (e.g. archaeological) identified as being required pre-concession.
Richard Hand
Examplar methodology being produced in Advanced Design in conjunction with NCiC Archaeologist. This will be the template for the concessionaire
3
2
6
Undesirable
5. Undertaken Surveys or other investigations, data gathering identified as being required pre-concession
Richard Hand
Not yet determined
3
2
6
Undesirable
6. Contract Terms to transfer responsibility for ecological impact, including any further re-surveys
Alex Guy
ongoing
2
4
8
Undesirable
Janet Burns
complete
2
4
8
Undesirable
2
3
6
Undesirable
1.Ensure ES up to date
2. Responsibility to be transferred through contractual arrangement.
David Wright
1. Continuation of desk top studies
Richard Hand
Page 5 of 7
Mott Macdonald are progressing the Utility Diversions Work Package according to programme. A review of diversion requirements in each design area has been completed via Utility Working Group Meetings and sketch diversions are currently in preparation.
All utility companies have been actively involved in the development of utility diversion plans and have advised that no long lead advanced works are necessary.
2
1. Delay the construction programme 2. Potential to delay of operation of the system
MM have identified design interface issues - options to resolve to be confirmed but not considered major at this stage. Hub QRA in September also identified this as a key risk - coordination between the two schemes is ongoing.
By definition there are large areas of uncertainty with utilities diversions and this will be reflected in the cost plan.
3
Richard Hand
NR have confirmed EMRS scheme to introduce DC immune track indicators.
Jun-08 Utility Working Groups initiated June 2008. complet C2/C3 refresh completed. e
3
1. EIA and ES missed something 2. Insufficient or out-of-date environmental information (e.g.Surveys) prior to Construction 3.Scheme for dealing with Archaeological Unforeseen Environmental Impacts arise during finds not agreed with LPA Implementation 4. Unforeseen Archaeological finds 5. Discovery of unprotected species 6.Unforeseen contamination 7. Environmental incident
1. Design may be tweaked / CPO is necessary 2. Southside alignment developed to suit developers proposals. Developers proposals now accord with NET limits. 3. Draft Limits currently set wide in Beeston town centre
Spring 2008 Sep-08 Strategy and WP13 agreed awaiting sign-off
3
Richard Hand
Technical discussions are ongoing with the University of Nottingham and QMC, in particular with respect to sensitive equipment and EMC. Work Packages have been put in place with Mott Macdonald to develop solutions as part of the advanced design. For stray current, working group has been established with the utility companies and a strategy document has been submitted to Network Rail.
2005
David Wright
1. Undertake desk Top Studies, Environmental Impact assessments and prepare ES
Arrangements in place with DSC to assimilate line one data
Closed at TWAO application
David Wright
Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream
Advanced Design work Packages established: WP17 - University & QMC EMC WP64 - Stray Current Management WP89 - EMC (Inc NR)
callum gibson
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
87
1. Failure of TWAO 2. Increase construction costs to mitigate 3. Compensation costs
1. Close scrutiny of ongoing planning applications and negotiations with developers
Risk Champion's comments (As at last review date)
autumn Approach agreed 08
3
Scheme Development Alan Renfree Workstream
84
1. Increased costs 2. Extended tender period
Action Owners Comments (As at last review date)
2
Scheme Development Alan Renfree Workstream
Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream
Action Plan
David Wright
Scheme 1. Lack of detailed records from NR or lost Development Alan Renfree Shortage of current rail infrastructure and asset records 2. Source records are held by 3rd parties Workstream
Scheme Development Workstream
1. Extensions to SCADA system 2. Space in the Control Room 3. Impact on operational performance 4. Impact on infrastructure
Failure to secure adequate safeguarding of route from Third Party planning applications
Scheme Steve Tough Development
82
Consequences (Impact on scheme objectives/ requirements)
Date Completed
Action Owner
6
Scheme Development Workstream
Root Cause/s (Known factors/ weaknesses)
Risk Level
Impact
Current Combined Score
3
Risk Champion
Probability
77
Notes
Current Score
2
Classification (Strategic / Project / Workstream)
Risk Ref 76
STEP 3: Response (current phase response plan)
STEP 2: Assessment (current)
Risk Classification
contractor required to develop and maintain environmental management plan, identifying proposed actions and action taken against each requirement.
TWAO
Specific and locational environmental risks are contained within the DSC Engineering and Operation risk register. Work package 96 established for for Archaeology
NET Phase 2- Project Risk Register-V17.2 08.05.09.xls
STEP 1: Risk Identification
TWAO
2
3
6
Undesirable
3. Review ground liabilities based on GI data for promoter
Richard Hand
TWAO
2
3
6
Undesirable
4. Check who is liable for dealing with this type of issue on line 1 and transfer learning to Phase 2
Richard Hand
TWAO
Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream
2
3
6
Undesirable
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Steve Tough
4
2
8
Undesirable
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Steve Tough
4
2
8
4
2
Scheme lack of survey information Development Steve Tough Workstream
Powers & Approvals Workstream
1. Impact of noise 2. Operational performance 3. Accidents 4. Reliability Steve Tough 5. Impact on local Traders
ongoing
1. Review phase 2 planning conditions with TWA Order and implement phase 2 noise policy
Steve Tough
ongoing
PI
Undesirable
2. Lessons learnt from line 1
Callum Gibson
ongoing
PI
8
Undesirable
3. Local traders : complete financial assistance package
Ray Dunaijko
ongoing
PI
Esme Macauley
ongoing
2
8
Undesirable
4. Continue pushing forward with Public Relations strategy
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
2
3
6
Undesirable
1. Ongoing design reviews
Callum Gibson
ongoing
Nov-06
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
2
3
6
Undesirable
2. Ensuring arguments at the inquiry are sustainable
Callum Gibson
End Of Public Enquiry
Nov-06
2
3
6
Undesirable
3. Develop dynamic operational model (including junction / traffic modelling and power simulation) to validate overall network david wright spring 2009 configuration
WP07 modelling o/g - static model complete, initial power simulation complete. Dynamic model o/g. PW45 Traffic modelling o/g
2
3
6
Undesirable
4. Agree junction operating principles, including level of priority, fo each junction / junction complex.
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
96
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
97
Scheme Development Workstream
Chris Deas
98
Scheme Development Workstream
Chris Deas
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
101
Project
Chris Deas
102
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Strategic
Chris Deas
1. Failure to secure appropriate Urban Traffic Control (UTC) priorities or UTC priorities change during operation Failure to achieve desired Phase 2 system run times 2. Traffic regulations 3. Run time modelling may be incorrect. 4. Output from the Public Inquiry (i.e. low tram running speeds, additional stops etc.)
1. Failure of UTC Controller 2. Failure of UTC SCADA interface 3. Failure of tram detection
1. Road Traffic accidents 2. Abandoned Vehicles 3. Weather conditions 4. Utility failure
1. Impact on Business Case 2. May impact on Phase 1 operations.
David Wright
spring 2009
Advanced Design WP45 : Traffic modelling
Alex Guy
Spring 2009
Relationship between HID and concession Agreement required confirmation before OJEU
2
3
6
Undesirable
1
1
1
Negligible
Review robustness of the scheme to continue to operate under unusual circumstances
David Wright
Ongoing
1
1
1
Negligible
1. Review robustness of network to continue to operate under selected abnormal scenario
David Wright
spring 2009
TTK work Packages take into account system robustness
1
1
1
Negligible
2. Retained within the PMS allowance and ability to discount wors Richard days in daily timetable measures to mitigate against such external Hand factors affecting availability payment
Xmas 2009
addressed by Advanced design work Package 32 : PMS
1
1
1
Negligible
3. Transfer Risk to concessionaire
1
2
2
Negligible
Initial O&M plan to review robustness of the scheme to continue t operate under unusual circumstances
Under performing subcontractor
2
2
4
Negligible
Handover of assets on expiry or termination of concession
2
3
6
2
3
2
Impact on passenger service
Disruption to tram operation due to incidents involving third parties force majeure events.
Special public events cause disruption or extreme demand
Failure to set achievable performance standards
1. Delay or disruption to fax services 2. Concessionaire unwilling to accept such risk
1. Impact on service 2. Concessionaire unwilling to accept risk or places high risk premium on O&M
Abstraction from existing Public Transport
Assumption made on operations and maintenance proved to be incorrect
Stakeholder Communications plan has been updated and included within the Project Management Plan
5. Define mechanism for changes to traffic management or UTC priorities for trams at junctions and how it is dealt with in the contract
Disruption to tram operation due to UTC failure
Lifecycle maintenance - component requires replacement earlier than anticipated
Changes in city centre parking policy causing -ve variance in patronage
Impact on revenue to concessionaire and promoter
Captured in design development
Alex Guy
ongoing
draft concession agreement passes risk to concessionaire
David Wright
Ongoing
Advanced design WP35 addresses this
Addressed in Concesstion Agreement
Alex Guy
spring 2009
No further action required.
Undesirable
To be addressed in concession agreement
Alex Guy
spring 2009
Included in draft termination protocol being discussed with Arrow - positive dialogue undertaken.
6
Undesirable
Advanced design to develop performance standards as follows: 1. Agree strategy and DSC WP
Richard Hand
3
6
Undesirable
2. Develop PMS2 and associated requirements
David Wright
Draft PMS (WP 32) to be tested with the TTK model prior to OJEU
2
3
6
Undesirable
3. Test PMS2 against appropriate scenarios
David Wright
Proposal received by NET PM team for review from Motts Feb 09
1
2
2
Negligible
1
2
2
Negligible
Assess asset condition through targeted review of maintenance records, audit and condition survey as appropriate.
david wright
Addressed through advanced design work package 92
1
2
2
Negligible
develop initial O&M plan to inform scheme costs (Capex and Opex)
david wright
Operations and maintenance plan in preparation under Work Package 35
2
2
4
Negligible
liaison with other members of the city council regarding long term Chris Deas strategies
1. Increased OPEX Cost 2. Increased maintenance costs 3. Concessionaire risk premium
Page 6 of 7
Aug-08
Ongoing
Risk Champion's comments (As at last review date)
Addressed by work package SM 10, and geotechnical investigations
4
Scheme Development Workstream
103
1. Bad PR 2. Political impact 3. District / Third Party support 4. Potential compensation claims
David Wright
5. Residual risks addressed in Advanced Design Work Package SM10
Action Owners Comments (As at last review date)
Steve Tough
Richard Hand
100
Perception of Line 1 and the impact on Phase 2 (-ve)
1. Additional on-site remediation may be required 2. Additional compensation may be payable 3. May impact on value of land during the TWAO process 4. Business Case implications for long term liabilities and the value of the land
Action Plan
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Scheme Development Workstream
94
Date Completed
Richard Hand
91
93
Action Due Date
2. Survey of land prior to CPO process
Unforeseen contaminated land liabilities (over and above that assumed)
Consequences (Impact on scheme objectives/ requirements)
Action Owner
Impact
Current Combined Score
Undesirable
Risk Event (What might happen if not corrected)
Risk Level
Probability
6
Risk Champion
3
Classification (Strategic / Project / Workstream)
Risk Ref
2
Root Cause/s (Known factors/ weaknesses)
Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream
92
Notes
Current Score
Scheme Development Steve Tough Workstream 88
STEP 3: Response (current phase response plan)
STEP 2: Assessment (current)
Risk Classification
On going dialogue with Highway authorities confirming priorities can be delivered
NET Phase 2- Project Risk Register-V17.2 08.05.09.xls
STEP 1: Risk Identification
Strategic
106
107
Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Legal & Commercial Workstream
Alan Renfree
Strategic
Steve Tough
Steve Tough
Project
Alan Renfree
Project
Alan Renfree
Powers & Approvals Workstream
Steve Tough
116
119
126
Protestor action delays programme
1.Lack of coordination between NET and adjacent railway development projects 2. Lack of Network rail commitment / priority
Delay due to programme interface with other major works e.g. A453
Mismatch in timescale between NET Phase 2 and the Nottingham Hub and other railway projects
Onerous construction phasing restrictions
Date Completed
Action Due Date
Negligible
2
2
4
Negligible
2
3
6
Undesirable
1. Advanced Design to produce performance specification inc pms and tram requirement and system acceptance
2
3
6
Undesirable
2.transfer risk through contract
2
4
8
Undesirable
1. Transfer risk through warranted advanced design
2
4
8
Undesirable
Transfer through contract
Alex Guy
1
2
2
Negligible
Contract to address risk transfer
Alex Guy
ongoing until financial close
2
2
4
Negligible
Steve Tough
Ongoing
The HA have now published orders for A453 dueiing with public inquiry expected in late 2009.
2
2
4
Negligible
David Wright
ongoing
WP33 - A453 programme currently shows overlap with NET phase 2
2
4
8
Undesirable
Alan Renfree
On Going
Phasing of projects coordinated with EMRS and Hub scheme. Liaison with Hub and EMRS projects ongoing.
2
4
8
Undesirable
Alan Renfree
On Going
Framework agreement in place at PI stage. Bespoke asset protection agreement to be developed in consultation with NR and TOC.
3
3
9
Undesirable
Steve Tough
Ongoing
Dialogue with district ongoing
1. Develop integrated transport arrangements and include in concession spec.
Action Owner
4
Risk Level
2
Steve tough summer 09
Action Owners Comments (As at last review date)
Inputs for concession specification agreed May 09 2. Regular contact with bus operators and council public transport team
Steve Tough
Ongoing
Motts reviewing physical infrstructure as part of advanced design, e.g. ticket machines, information signage ect.
David Wright
ongoing
WP32
ongoing
being addressed by consents management (WP SM9) and system safety strategies and protocols (WP SM4)
Impact on service and reputation
1. delay to start of operations 2. Loss of social benefits 3. Liquidated damages for the concessionaire
Delay and additional costs.
1. Monitor developments
Alex Guy David Wright
reflected in draft concession agreement
Delay and additional costs. 2. AD to capture issues in initial Implementation Planning
1.Seek flexibility in programme and design interfaces.
1. Programme delay and increased costs 2. Risk pricing by contractors 2.Negotiate a Bespoke or Framework Agreement through detailed discussion with Network Rail.
1. Discussion with City, Rushcliffe and Broxtowe local authorities.
3
9
Undesirable
2. Advanced Design to incorporate construction phasing plans
David Wright
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
3
2
6
Undesirable
1. Undertake network wide operational modelling and determine service capacity (WP07)
David Wright
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
1. Retrofitting of Fleet / Line 1 2. Need to ensure that all systems can interface. 3 3. Unforeseen Capex / Opex
2
6
Undesirable
2. Develop depot design (WP 08)
David Wright
initial static modelling complete, dynamic modelling on going
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
3
2
6
Undesirable
3. Develop route upgrades / interfaces (eg station street, traction power, structures (WP44)
David Wright
Initial investigation of depot implications underway (for ES reporting). Key issue being considered as part of DSC work.
3
2
6
Undesirable
1.Manage interfaces with Local Authorities
Steve Tough
Ongoing
3
2
6
Undesirable
David Wright
ongoing
2
2
4
Negligible
David Wright
Ongoing until financial close
2
2
4
Negligible
2. PA requirements to be identified and agreed in the advanced design procurement.
2
2
4
Negligible
1
2
3
6
Undesirable
1.Transfer risk of energy consumption volume to concessionaire through the contract
ongoing ongoing
Powers & Approvals Workstream Powers & Approvals Workstream
Steve Tough
Additional scope and timing impacts as a result of other City Council aspirations (Nottingham Railway Station, Meadows Gateway, Meadows Housing PFI)
Programme Delay
Planning Authority requirement for enhancements (eg public realm works)
Urban design scope / standards / costs increase
1. Extension to programme. 2. Increased project costs
1. Limited market interest 2. Procurement approach
If affordability criteria is used for the procurement this gives potential for a limited market to collude when bidding
No competition in tender process resulting in poor value for money
Change in market prices for energy supply
Promoter unable to source energy supply at prices under its current energy supply contract.
increased costs
Other development projects progressing. Steve Tough
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Scheme Development Workstream
Richard Hand
Project
Chris Deas
Strategic
Chris Deas
Strategic
Chris Deas
Strategic
Chris Deas
Strategic
Chris Deas
strategic
Pat Armstrong Change in majority party following UK Elections Pat Armstrong
Delay to Conditional Approval and PRG Endorsemen Global Credit Crunch
Change in majority party following UK Elections
strategic Pat Armstrong
HUB subject to Network Rail GRIP review - programme interfaces are being considered currently. Possession planning has been developed in consultation with NR and with reference to the Hub and EMRS projects Coordination between the two schemes is ongoing and NR are to convene a programme interface meeting for early in the New Year.
Construction programme elongation and associated CAPEX increase 3
Additional / unforeseen increased scope due to need to fully integrate phase 2 with line 1 (extra over work)
risk transfers to concessionaire (DLA)
Issue addressed in current draft of the concession agreement.
Steve Tough
Increased service aspirations/ modernisation/ compatibility
Risk Champion's comments (As at last review date)
MVA reviewing integrated ticket and passenger information Report produced July 09
May impact on overall business case
Impact of the current financial downturn
Inability to secure funding in timely fashion
Following the UK elections, the incoming govenernment introduces legilslation to repeal the Nottingham Workplace Parking Order
Loss of source of local funding contribution
Following the UK elections, the incoming Government decided to drop the NET Phase 2 Project
Loss of source of local funding contribution
Pat Armstrong 127
2
Action Plan
Powers & Approvals Workstream
117
118
Fleet/system defects
1. Scheme is perceive as being designed, build wrong 2. System cannot be operated safely Delay in securing an authority to operate 3. Uncertainty regarding the application of ROGS
1. District Council may seek additional restrictions 2. COCP
111
114
1. Poor Specification 2. Poor design and implementation 3. Lack of robust demonstration of performance prior to commencement of pax service 4. Poor maintenance
Other development projects progressing. Strategic
109
113
Competing modes of transport causing reduction in patronage levels
Consequences (Impact on scheme objectives/ requirements)
Chris Deas
108
112
Risk Event (What might happen if not corrected)
Impact
More competitive services offered by competing modes of transport
104
105
Root Cause/s (Known factors/ weaknesses)
Current Combined Score
Risk Champion Chris Deas
Notes
Current Score Probability
Classification (Strategic / Project / Workstream)
Risk Ref
Strategic
STEP 3: Response (current phase response plan)
STEP 2: Assessment (current)
Risk Classification
2.Advanced Design to address interface. 1. Monitor changes to benchmarked cost. As part of Advanced Design.
addressed by implementation plan Work Package 33
David Wright
Alex Guy
ongoing
2
3
6
Undesirable
3
3
9
Undesirable
Close liaison with the DfT regarding regulations. Ensure full information is provided to DfT.
Chris Deas
3
3
9
Undesirable
Monitor and assess impact on OBC
Chris Deas
ongoing
2
4
8
Undesirable
1. Continue to identify / investigate other potential local funding sources
Chris Deas
ongoing
2
4
8
Undesirable
2. Maintain dialogue with government and respective parties to highlight benefits of WPL
Chris Deas
ongoing
2
4
8
Undesirable
1. Maintain dialogue with government to highlight the benefits of Chris Deas NET Phase 2
ongoing
2
4
8
Undesirable
2. Contact main opposition parties and seek support for Net Phase 2
Sep-09
Page 7 of 7
WP 05 : Scheme cost estimate
WP SM09: Consents management Various locational work packages
2. Monitor prices and follow approach carry out market testing to Alan renfree identify best solution when existing energy supply contract expires
Chris Deas
WP03
Promoter proposes to follow approach based on 4p's standard documentation for street lighting PFI Projects.
Continue to monitor and assess impact on the OBC and ongoing monitoring of Line One revenues
IAR is presently preparing a communications / lobbying approach.
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 20 – PROJECT PROGRAMME
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
Printed : 09-Apr-09 10:39 Project Manager : Alan Renfree Planner : Chris Cooke
Master Schedule All activites Activity ID
Activity Name
Original Start Duration
NET Phase Two Project Programme Key Milestones
Finish
Total Float
1813 26-Apr-07 A
04-Aug-14
0
604 23-Feb-09 A
01-Aug-11
749
Physical % Owner Complete
NET2770 NET2780 NET2790 NET2880 NET2800
Issue PIN Gateway 2 - Review Make Order (TWAO) DfT Confirmation of WPL DfT Conditional Approval and PRG Approval confirmed
0 0 0 0 0
23-Feb-09 A 03-Mar-09 A 03-Apr-09* 02-Jun-09* 19-Jun-09*
1390 0 1335
100% 100% 0% 0% 0%
NET2810 NET2820 NET2830 NET2840 NET2850
Issue OJEU notice Design for ITN Issue ITN Tenders returned BAFO received
0 0 0 0 0
13-Jul-09* 23-Jul-09* 13-Nov-09* 22-Apr-10* 05-Nov-10*
1283 1275 1195 1085 946
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
NET2860
Financial close
0 921 26-Apr-07 A
01-Aug-11* 07-Jan-11
759 892
0%
489 09-Jan-09 A
17-Dec-10
900
1 1 0 4 20 0 618
09-Jan-09 A 10-Feb-09 A 05-Mar-09 A 05-Mar-09 A 16-Dec-10 17-Dec-10* 07-Jan-11
Project Management Gateway Reveiws NET2710 NET2720 NET2730 NET2870 NET2890 NET2760
Gateway 2 - Internal review Gateway 2 - Planning meeting Gateway 2 - Review Complete Gateway 2 - Review Gateway 3 - Preparation Gateway 3
Project Interfaces Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) NET1830 NET2110
NET2560 Appoint D&B Contractor NET2570 Complete MSCP East Midlands Re-signalling (ERMS)
0 11-Jul-08 A 45 11-Dec-08 A 19 30-Apr-09 0 269 31-Jul-09 0 31-Jul-09* 1 30-Aug-10* 3 27-Dec-10
15
29-Apr-09
15
26-May-09 02-Jun-09 30-Aug-10
15 15 978
0% Pat Armstrong 0% Pat Armstrong
30-Aug-10 07-Jan-11
1306 1024 892
0% Alan Renfree 0% Alan Renfree
930 1328
0% Alan Renfree
TWAO Submission Public Inquiry Inspectors Report Secretary of State Decision Make Order (TWAO)
0 53 116 155 0 18
26-Apr-07 A 06-Nov-07 A 18-Jan-08 A 01-Jul-08 A 01-Jan-09 A
17-Jan-08 A 30-Jun-08 A 02-Feb-09 A 03-Apr-09* 29-Jan-09 A
20 20 0 131
01-Jan-09 A 01-Jan-09 A 29-Jan-09 A 07-Jul-08 A
28-Jan-09 A 28-Jan-09 A 29-Jan-09 A 16-Jan-09 A
100% Kevin Macdonald 100% Kevin Macdonald 100% Kevin Macdonald
Requirements Capture
100% 100% 100% 100% 0%
Capture requirements Stakeholder review Upload in DOORS Requirements subject to change control.
20 07-Jul-08 A 10 04-Aug-08 A 54 18-Aug-08 A 0
01-Aug-08 A 15-Aug-08 A 01-Dec-08 A 02-Jan-09 A
100% 100% 100% 100%
NET1010
Review relationships, linkages and wording
10 02-Jan-09 A
15-Jan-09 A
100% Richard Hand
NET1030
Requirements baselined
1 16-Jan-09 A 357 03-Mar-08 A
16-Jan-09 A 17-Apr-09
1320
Complete TWAO agreements Agree NR OPAPA Identify obligations
218 242 110 275
03-Apr-09 03-Apr-09 17-Apr-09 11-Aug-09
1390 1390 1380 1239
Legal and Final OBC Info Complete OBC
128 01-Feb-08 A 64 04-Aug-08 A 0 24-Jul-09
04-Aug-08 A 16-Apr-09 24-Jul-09
13 1239
0 24-Jul-09
24-Jul-09
1262
0 24-Jul-09
24-Jul-09
1239
0 24-Jul-09 13 24-Jul-09
24-Jul-09 11-Aug-09
1262 1239
0% Kevin Macdonald
0 24-Jul-09 3 24-Jul-09
24-Jul-09 28-Jul-09
1262 1262
0% Chris Deas 0% Chris Deas
NET2590 NET2650 NET2580
Business Case NET1330 NET1340 Cost estimates NET420
Review and final update of cost estimates
Approvals NET430 Final approval of cost estimates Financial Model NET950 NET960
Review Cost Estimates Run Model
03-Mar-08 A 01-May-08 A 01-Sep-08 A 01-Feb-08 A
Q1
Q2
2011 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Steve Tough Steve Tough Steve Tough Steve Tough Steve Tough
NET1000 NET1020 NET1060 NET1300
3rd Party Agreements
Q4
100% Pat Armstrong 90% Pat Armstrong
07-Jan-11 03-Apr-09
Define project OBS Define reporting requirments Resource load programme
2010 Q3
Steve Tough
02-Jun-09
160
Q2
Steve Tough Steve Tough Steve Tough Steve Tough
10 27-Dec-10* 485 26-Apr-07 A
Project Controls NET1530 NET1550 NET1540
11-Jul-08 A
0 0 892
100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Nottingham Station Blockade
TWAO NET2660 NET2670 NET2680 NET2690 NET2700
02-Mar-09 A 19-Nov-10
221 11-Jul-08 A
WPL Order application to DfT DfT start national WPL regulations consultation
NET2120 DfT make national WPL regulations NET2130 DfT confirm Nottigham WPL order Nottingham Station Refurbishment
NET2640
09-Jan-09 A 10-Feb-09 A
2009 Q1
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
100% Richard Hand
Primary Baseline
Remaining Work
Baseline Milestone
Actual Work
Critical Remaining Work
Milestone
90% Steve Tough 70% Alan Renfree 90% Steve Tough 100% Steve Tough 85% Steve Tough 0% Kevin Macdonald
% Complete
Page 1 of 5
Date 07-Apr-09 08-Apr-09 09-Apr-09
Revision 6.0(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.1(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.2(DDATE 31-MAR-09) ISSUED
Checked
K MACDONALD
Approved
A RENFREE
Q4
Printed : 09-Apr-09 10:39 Project Manager : Alan Renfree Planner : Chris Cooke
Master Schedule All activites Activity ID
Activity Name NET970 DfT
Original Start Duration
Finish
Total Float
Draft Final Financial model
10 29-Jul-09 95 01-Dec-08 A
11-Aug-09 03-Jul-09
1262 5
NET1770 NET1820 NET1790 NET1810 NET1800
DfT review of refreshed business case Formal submission of OBC Formal Conditional Approval timetable PRG Meeting DfT Conditional Approval and PRG Approval confirmed
10 0 35 0 3
16-Apr-09
19-Jun-09
13 13 13 5 5
NET500
Section 151 officer acceptance of CA conditions.
10 22-Jun-09
03-Jul-09
5
01-Dec-08 A 17-Apr-09 17-Apr-09 17-Jun-09* 17-Jun-09
210 28-Jul-08 A
NET 1 (Line 1 - Existing)
04-Jun-09
11-May-09
Physical % Owner Complete
85% 0% 0% 0% 0%
NET1370
Agree line 1 information needs to be updated.
70 28-Jul-08 A
01-Dec-08 A
100% Chris Deas
NET1420
DLA Piper to issue revised termination agreement
0
23-Jan-09 A
100% Chris Deas
NET1380
Arrow to respond with comments on revised document
1 16-Feb-09 A
16-Feb-09 A
100% Chris Deas
NET1390
Parties meet to discuss termination document
0
26-Feb-09 A
100% Chris Deas
NET1400
DLA to issue final draft of termination document
0
31-Mar-09
1376
0% Chris Deas
NET1410 NET1310 NET1350
Execution of termination document Finalise Line 1 Termination Agreement Negotiate maintenane & spares contarct with Bombardier
0 40 03-Nov-08 A 30 31-Mar-09
23-Apr-09 30-Apr-09 11-May-09
1376 1334 1364
0% Chris Deas 60% Chris Deas 0% Chris Deas
69 28-Jul-08 A
30-Jan-09 A
70 28-Jul-08 A 511 19-Feb-08 A
30-Jan-09 A 23-Jul-09
1252
133 01-Sep-08 A
17-Apr-09
1320
65 0 5 5 203
01-Sep-08 A 19-Jan-09 A 19-Jan-09 A 13-Apr-09 07-Jul-08 A
01-Jan-09 A 19-Jan-09 A 10-Apr-09 17-Apr-09 30-Apr-09
131 20 131 11 0 511
07-Jul-08 A 12-Jan-09 A 07-Jul-08 A 23-Feb-09 A
09-Jan-09 A 23-Feb-09 A 27-Feb-09 A 30-Apr-09 30-Apr-09 23-Jul-09
39 39 1252 39 1311 56
NET2600 NET2610 NET2620 NET2630
Create boiler plate Data export from DOORS Finalise HID Review HID
Performance Measurement System (PMS) NET250 NET270 NET260 NET280 NET300
Develop provisional timetable Draft Pay Mech Develop availability & PMS Produce Final PMS Approval of PMS
Design Development NET1040 NET1090 Clifton Line
19-Feb-08 A
Design for ITN Design Development
0 1 19-Feb-08 A 436 07-Jul-08 A
23-Jul-09 23-Jul-09 30-Jun-09
NET2050
C9. (WP21) Clifton Park & Ride (not inscope)
120 30-Jul-08 A
09-Jan-09 A
NET2020
C6./C7./C8. (WP58) Clifton North/Centre/South
NET2000
C4./C5. (WP57) Fairham Brook/South Church Drive Nth
1380 1380 1311
100% 100% 95% 0%
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
100% 100% 100% 80% 0%
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
96% Richard Hand
171 11-Aug-08 A
15-May-09
89
93% Richard Hand
107 454 109 284
01-Jun-09 30-Jun-09 30-Jun-09 06-Jul-09
78 57 57 52
83% Richard Hand 82% Richard Hand 82% Richard Hand
27-Apr-09
103
0% Richard Hand
30-Jul-08 A 31-Mar-08 A 07-Jul-08 A 03-Nov-08 A
06-May-09 15-May-09 04-Jun-09 12-Jun-09
96 89 75 69
92% 95% 96% 46%
NET1920 B12. (WP09) Beeston Town Centre Wilkinson Depot
296 31-Mar-08 A 250 31-Mar-08 A
06-Jul-09 15-May-09
53 87
77% Richard Hand
NET2060 D. (WP08) Wilkinson Depot Beeston Line - City
260 31-Mar-08 A 311 31-Mar-08 A
15-May-09 23-Jul-09
89 39
89% Richard Hand
112 03-Nov-08 A
01-Jun-09
78
95% Richard Hand
B21. Queens Road Improvements RESCOPE
NET1950 NET1940 NET1930 NET1910
B16. (WP21) Toton Park & Ride B14/15. (WP10) Chilwell & Inham N... B13. (WP20) Chilwell Road B11. (WP94) Fletcher Road & Lower Road
NET1360
B2./B3./B4 (WP50) Meadows Way/Queens Drive/NG2
20 31-Mar-09* 186 221 136 1
Q1
Q2
Q3
100% Richard Hand 102
NET1960
Q4
0% Richard Hand 78% Richard Hand
28-Apr-09
03-Nov-08 A 07-Jul-08 A 07-Jul-08 A 31-Mar-08 A
2011 Q3
100% Richard Hand
20 05-Nov-08 A
NET1990 C3. (WP56) Wilford & Compton Acres NET1970 C1.(WP55) Queens Walk NET1980 C2. (WP55) River Trent Open Space Beeston Line - Broxtowe
Q2
1304 100% Chris Deas 100% Chris Deas
Highways Interface Document (HID)
Q1
0% Chris Deas
01-Dec-08 A 01-Dec-08 A
Design
Q4
Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas
69 28-Jul-08 A 69 28-Jul-08 A
Consider impact of future development
2010 Q3
Chris Deas
Agree Line 1 Termination protocol Agree due diligence information will be available for bidders
NET1560
Q2
0% Chris Deas
NET1320 NET1430
NET 3 (Proposed)
2009 Q1
Primary Baseline
Remaining Work
Baseline Milestone
Actual Work
Critical Remaining Work
Milestone
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
% Complete
Page 2 of 5
Date 07-Apr-09 08-Apr-09 09-Apr-09
Revision 6.0(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.1(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.2(DDATE 31-MAR-09) ISSUED
Checked
K MACDONALD
Approved
A RENFREE
Q4
Printed : 09-Apr-09 10:39 Project Manager : Alan Renfree Planner : Chris Cooke
Master Schedule All activites Activity ID
Activity Name
Original Start Duration
Finish
Total Float
Physical % Owner Complete
NET720
B1. (WP03) Nottingham Station & Meadows Gateway
247 31-Mar-08 A
05-Jun-09
73
65% Richard Hand
NET1860 NET1880
B7. (WP04) QMC Viaduct B9. (WP52) University Boulevard/B10. Queens Rd East
267 31-Mar-08 A 126 03-Nov-08 A
19-Jun-09 29-Jun-09
64 58
88% Richard Hand 76% Richard Hand
NET1870 NET820
B8. (WP93) University & Science Park B5. (WP15) Kings Meadow & Lenton Lane
153 23-Jun-08 A 163 11-Aug-08 A
17-Jul-09 23-Jul-09
44 39
23% Richard Hand 92% Richard Hand
B6. (WP15) Gregory St & Abbey St
192 11-Aug-08 A 315 19-Feb-08 A
23-Jul-09 17-Jul-09
40 1256
92% Richard Hand
NET2100 NET910 NET870 NET830 NET860 NET1140 NET2070 NET890 NET980 NET1070 NET1120
WP05 Topographical Surveys WP66 - LRV procurement strategy WP13 - Utility Diversions WP01 - Network Rail interface plan... WP12 - Tram DKE WP46 - Structures Register WP45 - Traffic Modelling NE01 - Network Extensions WP64 - Stray current management NE02 - Outside Planning Applications WP40 - System Expansion and Obsolescence Report
218 255 188 70 187 102 172 125 176 152 84
31-Mar-08 A 31-Mar-08 A 31-Mar-08 A 19-Feb-08 A 31-Mar-08 A 10-Nov-08 A 02-Jun-08 A 08-Sep-08 A 11-Aug-08 A 01-Sep-08 A 03-Nov-08 A
26-Nov-08 A 31-Mar-09 A 09-Apr-09 22-Apr-09 24-Apr-09 27-Apr-09 28-Apr-09 29-Apr-09 06-May-09 06-May-09 08-May-09
NET1130 NET1170 NET2750 NET990 NET840 NET850 NET2740 NET2090 NET1100
WP48 - Phase 2 Traction Power De... WP68 - NET Phase 2 Design Manual WP33 - Implementation Planning WP89 - Network Rail & 3rd party EMC WP07 - Operational Modelling WP11 - Flood risk Assessment WP32 - PMS2 WP06 Ground Investigation WP35 - Operations & Maintenance Planning
123 129 192 168 186 125 195 274 116
17-Nov-08 A 19-Nov-08 A 07-Jul-08 A 22-Sep-08 A 31-Mar-08 A 31-Mar-08 A 18-Aug-08 A 31-Mar-08 A 03-Nov-08 A
18-May-09 18-May-09 19-May-09 26-May-09 27-May-09 27-May-09 29-May-09 08-Jun-09 29-Jun-09
NET880 NET1080 NET1180 NET1150 NET1200 NET1110 NET1190 NET1050 Approvals
WP17 - EMC at QMC Nott Uni WP28 - Line Side Buildings (Basem... WP73 - Traffic Road Safety Audit WP62 - Trackform Design WP93 - University & East Drive WP37 - General Noise & Vibration WP95 - Refresh of Technical Design WP18 - University Noise and Vibration
273 133 134 130 125 108 133 134 0
28-Apr-08 A 03-Nov-08 A 03-Nov-08 A 10-Nov-08 A 03-Nov-08 A 10-Nov-08 A 03-Nov-08 A 23-Jun-08 A 23-Jul-09
30-Jun-09 02-Jul-09 03-Jul-09 07-Jul-09 09-Jul-09 16-Jul-09 16-Jul-09 17-Jul-09 23-Jul-09
NET1850 Network
NET710
Approve Final Verification and Validation Report
NET480 NET490
Agree high level requirements Data export from DOORS database Create Boiler plate Concession Spec completed Consistency review Review Concession Spec Finalise Concession Spec
Procurement Issue ITT Tender period Tender review Appoint Insurance advisor Commence service
Commercial Market Consultation NET340 NET330 NET350
Finalise procurement strategy Meet with Individual organisations Bidder's day - Announce finalised Proc Strat
01-Sep-08 A 01-Dec-08 A 02-Jan-09 A 30-Apr-09 14-May-09 19-Jan-09 A
0 19-Jan-09 A 0 19-Jan-09 A 765 07-Jul-08 A
19-Jan-09 A 19-Jan-09 A 01-Aug-11
0 15 20 0 0 178
27-Mar-09 A 31-Mar-09 21-Apr-09 19-May-09 08-Jun-09* 01-Sep-08 A
69 01-Sep-08 A 84 01-Sep-08 A 1 22-Jun-09* 765 07-Jul-08 A
PIN Prepare & Review PIN Issue PIN
14-May-09
04-Aug-08 A 24-Nov-08 A 01-Sep-08 A 20-Jan-09 A 01-May-09 19-Jan-09 A
178 01-Sep-08 A
Tender NET10 NET20
21 10 60 1 10 0
46 27-Mar-09 A
Insurance advisor NET2910 NET2920 NET2930 NET2940 NET2950
23-Jul-09
193 04-Aug-08 A
Concession Spec NET470 NET460 NET450 NET600 NET240 Part 1
0
113 104 102 103 102 101 96 96 94
100% 100% 90% 99% 95% 7% 80% 97% 96% 51% 0%
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
88 88 87 82 80 80 79 73 58
80% 20% 90% 65% 87% 95% 94% 90% 0%
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
56 55 54 52 1321 45 45 44 39
75% 0% 1% 5% 23% 47% 50% 79%
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
39
-22 -22
22-Jun-09
1359 1359 1359 1345 1275
22-Jun-09
1275
23-Feb-09 A
39 05-Jan-09 A 0
23-Feb-09 A 23-Feb-09 A
Q4
Q1
Q2
2011 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
0% Richard Hand
100% 100% 100% 60% 0%
Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand Richard Hand
749
20-Apr-09 18-May-09
01-Aug-11
2010 Q3
100% Richard Hand 100% Richard Hand
1286
39 05-Jan-09 A
Q2
-22
08-Jun-09
04-Dec-08 A 29-Dec-08 A 22-Jun-09
2009 Q1
14
100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
100% Kevin Macdonald 100% Kevin Macdonald 0% Kevin Macdonald
749
Primary Baseline
Remaining Work
Baseline Milestone
Actual Work
Critical Remaining Work
Milestone
100% Kevin Macdonald 100% Kevin Macdonald
% Complete
Page 3 of 5
Date 07-Apr-09 08-Apr-09 09-Apr-09
Revision 6.0(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.1(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.2(DDATE 31-MAR-09) ISSUED
Checked
K MACDONALD
Approved
A RENFREE
Q4
Printed : 09-Apr-09 10:39 Project Manager : Alan Renfree Planner : Chris Cooke
Master Schedule All activites Activity ID
Activity Name
Original Start Duration
Approvals
0 23-Feb-09 A
NET390 Approval to issue PIN (Project Direc... OJEU and Prequalification OJEU NET40 Prepare OJEU notice NET170 Review NET50 Issue OJEU notice Approvals
Finish
Physical % Owner Complete
18-Nov-09
145 05-Dec-08 A
13-Jul-09
19-May-09
05-May-09 05-May-09
05-May-09 18-May-09 19-May-09 19-May-09 18-Nov-09
38 37 38 38 1169
0% 0% 0% 0%
Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald
24-Apr-09 19-May-09 05-Oct-09 05-Oct-09 09-Nov-09 13-Nov-09 18-Nov-09 11-Nov-09
37 38 0 0 0 0 1192 0
60% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald
1 10-Nov-09 1 11-Nov-09 342 07-Jul-08 A
10-Nov-09 11-Nov-09 16-Nov-09
0 0 1172
155 155 10 10 10 10 6 6 0 342
03-Nov-08 A 03-Nov-08 A 10-Aug-09 24-Aug-09 07-Sep-09 07-Sep-09 21-Sep-09 21-Sep-09 28-Jul-08 A
07-Aug-09 07-Aug-09 21-Aug-09 04-Sep-09 18-Sep-09 18-Sep-09 28-Sep-09 28-Sep-09 13-Nov-09 16-Nov-09
34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 0 1172
NET1440 Agree data room structure NET1570 Write procedure NET1450 Create Data Room NET1460 Test Data Room NET1480 Data room signed off NET1470 Open Data Room for bidders ITN Document
121 107 121 20 1 0 141
28-Jul-08 A 28-Jul-08 A 21-Jan-09 A 31-Jul-09 28-Aug-09 16-Nov-09 01-Sep-08 A
20-Jan-09 A 20-Jan-09 A 30-Jul-09 27-Aug-09 28-Aug-09 16-Nov-09 29-May-09
NET110 Prepare ITN document Concession Agreement
145 01-Sep-08 A 264 07-Jul-08 A
29-May-09 27-Jul-09
104 84 30 30 20 1
01-Dec-08 A 01-Dec-08 A 27-Feb-09 A 26-Jun-09 24-Jul-09 27-Jul-09
-22 37 37
1 27-Jul-09 226 16-Nov-09
27-Jul-09 13-Oct-10
37 946
0% Kevin Macdonald
110 0 110 5 10 2
23-Apr-10 30-Sep-10 30-Sep-10 28-Sep-10
22-Apr-10 22-Apr-10 27-Sep-10 06-Oct-10 13-Oct-10 29-Sep-10
0 0 0 968 963 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Submission to Project Board Project Board Mtg
1 28-Sep-10 1 29-Sep-10 45 30-Sep-10
28-Sep-10 29-Sep-10 01-Dec-10
0 0 0
0% Kevin Macdonald 0% Kevin Macdonald
NET610
Check amendments and BAFO clarifications
10 30-Sep-10
13-Oct-10
0
0% Kevin Macdonald
NET620 NET630 NET640 NET650 NET670 Approvals
Issue BAFO BAFO Period BAFO received BAFO evaluation Recommendation of Preferred Bidder
1 16 0 16 0 2
14-Oct-10 05-Nov-10 05-Nov-10 29-Nov-10 29-Nov-10 01-Dec-10
0 0 0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Prepare PQQ criteria PQQ Criteria Approved Await PQQ responses PQQ responses received PQQ evaluation Inform successful qualifiers Hold feedback sessions
22 1 60 0 25 2 5 2
PQQ NET30 NET1590 NET60 NET70 NET80 NET90 NET100 Approvals
NET380 Submisison to Project Board NET1600 Project Board Mtg ITN NET1610 NET1620 NET1630 NET1640 NET1650 NET1660 NET1670 NET1680 NET230 Data Room
NET180 NET190 NET200 NET210 NET220 Approvals
Compile ITN Suite Prepare Exec Summary of ITN Submission to Project Board Project Board Mtg Submission to City Council Submission to County Council City Council Exec Board Mtg County Cabinet Mtg Issue ITN
Resolution of ITN issues of principle 1st Draft of Contract 2nd Draft of Contract 3rd Draft of Contract Finalise Contract
NET310 Approval of Finalised Contract Tender Period NET120 NET130 NET140 NET150 NET160 Approvals NET400 NET1690 BAFO
Tender Period Tenders returned Tender Evaluation & clarification Inform successful bidders Hold feedback sessions
19-May-09 02-Feb-09 A 02-Feb-09 A 19-May-09 13-Jul-09 06-Oct-09 12-Nov-09 12-Nov-09 10-Nov-09
07-Jul-08 A 07-Jul-08 A 02-Feb-09 A 15-May-09* 29-Jun-09 27-Jul-09
16-Nov-09
14-Oct-10 15-Oct-10 08-Nov-10 29-Nov-10
Q4
Q1
Q2
2011 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
0 37 38 0 37
0 10 0 0 204
2010 Q3
100% Kevin Macdonald
01-May-09 04-May-09
Project Director Approval Submission to Project Board OJEU Approved Project Board
Q2
1169
05-Dec-08 A 04-May-09 13-Jul-09* 05-May-09
NET530 NET370 NET410 NET440
2009 Q1
23-Feb-09 A
0 23-Feb-09 A 237 05-Dec-08 A 44 1 0 10
Total Float
49 49 49 1195 78 78 37
Primary Baseline
Remaining Work
Baseline Milestone
Actual Work
Critical Remaining Work
Milestone
85% Kevin Macdonald 0% Kevin Macdonald 0% Kevin Macdonald
0% Kevin Macdonald 0% Kevin Macdonald 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald
100% 100% 20% 0% 0% 0%
Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald
60% Kevin Macdonald 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald
Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald
Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald Kevin Macdonald
% Complete
Page 4 of 5
Date 07-Apr-09 08-Apr-09 09-Apr-09
Revision 6.0(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.1(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.2(DDATE 31-MAR-09) ISSUED
Checked
K MACDONALD
Approved
A RENFREE
Q4
Printed : 09-Apr-09 10:40 Project Manager : Alan Renfree Planner : Chris Cooke
Master Schedule All activites Activity ID
Activity Name
Original Start Duration
NET660 Submission to Project Board NET1700 Project Board Mtg Final Negotiations NET730 NET680 NET1580 NET1500 NET1720 NET700 Approvals NET690 NET1710 NET1740 NET1760 NET1510 NET1730 NET1750
Finish
Total Float
Physical % Owner Complete
1 29-Nov-10 1 30-Nov-10 162 01-Dec-10
30-Nov-10 01-Dec-10 01-Aug-11
0 0 749
0% Chris Deas 0% Chris Deas
Issue Alcatel letter Commercial negotiations Commercial negotiations complete Finalise FBC FBC Complete Financial close
10 104 0 30 0 0 40
01-Dec-10 15-Dec-10
0 0 840 0 824 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas
06-Jun-11
15-Dec-10 13-May-11 13-May-11 06-Jun-11 06-Jun-11 01-Aug-11 01-Aug-11
Submission to Project Board Project Board Mtg Submission to City Council Submission to County Council DfT's final submission review City Council Exec Board County Council Cabinet
10 10 10 10 20 10 10 704
06-Jun-11 20-Jun-11 04-Jul-11 04-Jul-11 04-Jul-11 18-Jul-11 18-Jul-11 01-Sep-08 A
20-Jun-11 04-Jul-11 18-Jul-11 18-Jul-11 01-Aug-11 01-Aug-11 01-Aug-11 02-Aug-11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas Chris Deas
704 01-Sep-08 A
02-Aug-11
0
105 01-Sep-08 A
30-Apr-09
455
90% Steve Tough
32 01-May-09
15-Jun-09
455
0% Steve Tough 0% Steve Tough 0% Steve Tough
0% Alan Renfree 0% Alan Renfree 0% Alan Renfree
Planning and Property Private Purchase
22-Apr-11
NET2270
Agree strategy for inclusion in the Concession Agreement
NET2280
Develop processes and prepare forward plan
NET1210 NET1160
Issue 'Notice to treat' (1354 plots) Issue 'Notice to enter' (1354 plots)
0 01-Jul-11* 0 02-Aug-11* 748 02-Aug-11
01-Aug-14
-78 0 0
Concessionaire appointment Construction Finish construction
0 783 02-Aug-11 0 748 02-Aug-11
02-Aug-11 01-Aug-14 01-Aug-14 04-Aug-14
0 0 0 0
748 02-Aug-11
01-Aug-14
0
100 02-Aug-11 683 20-Dec-11 127 04-Feb-14
20-Dec-11 01-Aug-14 04-Aug-14
0 0 0
0% Alan Renfree 0% Alan Renfree
129 04-Feb-14 0 04-Aug-14
01-Aug-14
0 0
0% Alan Renfree 0% Alan Renfree
Construction NET1220 NET1230 NET1520
Operations Transition (NET Line 1) NET1240 NET1270
Line 1 handover Line 1 operations
Full Operation (Network) NET1280 NET1290
Trial / shadow running Start passenger service
Primary Baseline
Remaining Work
Baseline Milestone
Actual Work
Critical Remaining Work
Milestone
% Complete
2009 Q1
Q2
2010 Q3
Page 5 of 5
Q4
Q1
Date 07-Apr-09 08-Apr-09 09-Apr-09
Q2
2011 Q3
Revision 6.0(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.1(DDATE 31-MAR-09) DRAFT 6.2(DDATE 31-MAR-09) ISSUED
Q4
Q1
Q2
Checked
K MACDONALD
Q3
Approved
A RENFREE
Q4
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 21 – PROGRAMME ENTRY APPROVAL ACCEPTANCE LETTERS
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT (NET)
APPENDIX 22 - STATEMENT ON CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
1
Statement on consultation and communication
Summary This statement provides an overview of public consultation and communications relating to NET Phase Two. The first part (sections 1-9) provides a history of the consultation process so far and the second part (section 10) outlines plans for the future communications strategy. All consultation and communication is underpinned with the following values: Openness: to make as much information available as possible, consistent with the constraints of long term accuracy, time, budgets and commercial sensitivity Honesty: to be as balanced as possible when presenting information Fairness: to ensure all areas and groups are consistently treated on an equal basis. Every effort has been made to provide residents, businesses and other stakeholders with sufficient information to make an informed and reasoned judgement, to provide the opportunity to comment at each stage of project development and to respond to queries raised throughout the consultation process.
1.
Consultation history
1.1
The first part of this report, sections 1-8 below, summarises the history of the consultation process which has sought to undertake comprehensive consultation at key stages in the development of the project.
2.
‘A Tram Network for Nottingham’ (2001)
2.1
The consultation process began in early 2001 with an initial leaflet, ‘A Tram Network for Nottingham’, explaining that the City and County Councils, (the Promoters of NET), were developing potential route options to extend NET Line One which was under construction at that time. Approximately 17,000 leaflets were distributed. This ‘high level’ leaflet named various places in Greater Nottingham that the routes could go to and feedback was sought on the options. Following feedback from this consultation, a further leaflet was distributed in early summer 2001 outlining seven possible route options, including two each for Beeston, Clifton, and West Bridgford with an extension of the Beeston route to Chilwell. This was distributed to residents and businesses along each of the seven route corridors. An illustration of the potential routes was shown. The feedback form was post-paid and included a series of tick boxes, which were used to indicate preferences for routes. This generated around 2,000 replies which were, for the most part, positive and encouraging. Feedback on the issues raised during consultation was given in the form of ‘Consultation News’ leaflets issued during August and September 2001.
2.2
Results from this consultation were analysed and reported to the promoting Councils who subsequently approved further consultation and development work on three route directions; West Bridgford, Clifton and Beeston/Chilwell.
2.3
A number of local pressure groups emerged at this stage: In favour of the proposals: BACIT (Beeston and Chillwell Integrated Transport); and CW Yes! (Say Yes to the Clifton and Wilford tram). Against the proposals: ENT (Environment Not Trams) for the Compton Acres/Wilford area; BCT (Better Community Transport) for the Lower Road/Fletcher Road and Beeston area; and
4642135.01
2
BCBRA (Beeston and Chilwell Business and Residents Association) for the Beeston and Chilwell area. 3.
‘Have Your Say’ (Winter 2001 - Spring 2002)
3.1
The purpose of the ‘Have Your Say’ consultation was to seek views at a more detailed level, for example, alternative route options to Beeston (via QMC or Boots) and sub options through Beeston, plus whether and how the Beeston route should continue into Chilwell. The Clifton route options were via Wilford or Queen’s Drive and included sub-options through Wilford and Clifton. The West Bridgford route options were via Gamston or Sharphill. This second stage of consultation took place between November 2001 and February 2002. Over 70,000 brochures were delivered to households in the southern part of Greater Nottingham; West Bridgford, Beeston and Chilwell, Clifton and the Meadows. Some sections of the Meadows area received more than one brochure as they fell into the distribution area of more than one route corridor; this was in addition to a Meadows-specific leaflet which was also distributed.
3.2
The brochures included maps, aerial photographs and cross sections of the routes. All of the different options were colour -coded and the key issues, such as journey times, predicted passenger numbers, environmental impact and land required were explained in order for recipients to make an informed decision before commenting. Pre-paid feedback cards were included. Exhibitions were held along the proposed routes, where the public could ask questions and view more details about the routes. Information was also posted on a newly developed part of the NET website, www.netphasetwo.com. Where necessary, translators were provided for a number of minority languages and large print versions of the brochures were made available.
3.3
Positive responses to this consultation consisted mainly of the respondents’ route choices and negative responses consisted of reasons why the project or certain routes should not go ahead. The responses were independently analysed and the analysis was appended to reports to both Councils in April and May 2002. As a result of the consultation and other technical work, the Councils determined to pursue routes to Chilwell via QMC and Beeston and to Clifton via Wilford.
3.4
Two ‘your questions answered’ booklets were produced and circulated in the Beeston/Chilwell and Clifton/Wilford areas. These booklets answered the most frequently asked questions raised during consultation, and gave responses from the NET Project Team; these were also posted on the website. Various communication methods were also used to inform people that a route to West Bridgford was not to be pursued at this stage.
3.5
The alignment of the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route passes in close proximity to three elderly people's homes (Richmond, Greenwood and Sandby Courts), and requires some demolition at a fourth (Neville Sadler Court). The NET Project Team has kept residents and wardens at all four complexes in touch with significant scheme developments. Open meetings for residents were held in autumn 2003 at Richmond, Greenwood and Sandby Courts, and further sessions were offered in spring 2007. At Neville Sadler Court, considerable discussions have been held since 2002 with the owners of the site, Housing 21, who are naturally concerned about disruption to residents but recognise the benefits of a possible redevelopment with enhanced facilities. Two presentations and 'question and answer' sessions, in 2003 and 2006, were held at Neville Sadler Court to answer their queries about the project and listen to their concerns. To engage the residents in shaping the proposals for redevelopment, a further session took place in spring 2007. All four complexes were provided with a large print reference copy of the detailed section consultation booklet in 2004, to supplement the standard versions that were issued to all residents.
4642135.01
3
4.
NOP opinion poll (Summer 2002)
4.1
In the late summer of 2002, an independent market research report (NOP) was commissioned of a demographically balanced sample of 1,000 people along each of the two routes. The headline results were as follows: Clifton via Wilford • Three quarters of the people asked felt that public transport needed to be improved. • 3 people to every 1 approved of the route. • 4 people to every 1 approved of the re-opening of old railway routes for public transport. Chilwell via QMC and Beeston • Three quarters of people asked believed that public transport needed to be improved. • Nearly 2 people to every 1 approved of the route. • Three quarters of people asked supported the idea of a locally funded financial assistance package for Chilwell Road/High Road traders.
5.
Two routes for further development and tram stop name consultation (Autumn 2002)
5.1
Leaflets introducing NET Phase Two (or Lines 2 and 3, as they were known at the time) were produced and distributed in September 2002. The leaflets highlighted the chosen route options for further development work and showed the routes over ordnance survey mapping, along with the proposed tram stop names and invited comments from members of the public regarding the tram stop names. All residents and businesses along the two chosen route options were consulted.
5.2
Results from this consultation were fed into development work and queries raised were responded to.
6.
Network updates (January and February 2003)
6.1
Additional network update documents were distributed in January and February 2003 along both proposed route corridors giving residents an update of the work ongoing over the previous 6-8 months, what would happen next with the two routes being developed, and answering some of the more frequently asked questions. These documents also gave a short introduction into what the public could expect in terms of consultation in the months ahead and the overall process going forward from that stage. The updates were also used as a way to tackle some of the public misconceptions that were revealed in the NOP opinion poll undertaken in summer 2002, for example, it was clarified that trams would run through onto NET Line One.
7.
Design consultation (Summer 2003 – Spring 2004)
7.1
By this stage, a number of consultations had been carried out and route options developed further. As such, this consultation was primarily concerned with issues of outline design and mitigation rather than a general debate on the appropriateness or otherwise of trams, or the routes chosen. The vast majority of people who live or work near the proposed routes had already had the chance to put their views forward regarding the routes and trams generally via the previous consultations. With this in mind, a series of local consultations took place between August 2003 and May 2004 with those people closest to (living or working alongside) both proposed routes (within 100/200 metres). These were carried out by the circulation of seven booklets covering various sections of the route. Information was also posted onto the NET website and plans made available for public inspection at appropriate local venues – this was to allow others with an interest in the project, but who may not live next to the routes, to consider the proposals. In the region of 15,000 booklets were distributed to residents, businesses and stakeholders.
7.2
4642135.01
The seven booklets were distributed over the two routes, directly through people’s doors and to public areas such as libraries. The booklets covered the following route areas/sections:
4
Clifton via Wilford: • Between Nottingham Station and Wilford Toll Bridge, Wilford, • Between Wilford Toll Bridge and Farnborough Road, Clifton, • Between Farnborough Road and Clifton Park and Ride site. Chilwell via QMC and Beeston: • Between Nottingham Station and Abbey Street, Old Lenton, • Between Abbey Street and Fletcher Road, Beeston, • Between Fletcher Road and High Road, Beeston, • Between High Road and Toton Lane Park and Ride site. 7.3
The booklets included base plans showing the position of the tramway and proposed adjacent highway and property layouts were overlaid with urban design proposals. The booklets also included explanatory notes to help with understanding. In some specific locations, artists’ impressions were provided to help the public to visualise the changed environment. Also cross sections of a ‘typical’ environment showing the tramway were used to help the recipient make an informed judgement. Comments were sought, in particular with respect to the following: • tram alignment; • tram stop location; • revised road layout; and • proposed landscape. Meetings with community groups and materially affected parties were held.
7.4
Overall, the response rate was relatively low in some areas but high in ‘hot spots’. A number of useful points were made and incorporated into further design development
7.5
Responses were logged internally (names and addresses for future correspondence) and forwarded to an independent consultant (Key Data) who analysed the responses, producing reports for each area/section covered in a particular booklet and a summary report for each route. Themes for each area/section were hence recognised and helped formulate consultation responses for each area/section based on the main issues raised. In addition, individual letters were sent to those who raised more location-specific or individual issues, offering meetings and further information where possible. The feedback responses relating to the main issues raised were posted on the NET website.
7.6
As the Design Consultation was asking for feedback on the specifics of ‘how the route looks in my area’, some key changes were proposed following this feedback: Clifton via Wilford route: • Reintroduction of a footpath along the centre of Queen’s Walk following concerns about security of side paths; • Revised access arrangements for Nottingham Moderns Rugby Club in Wilford; • Relocation of the Compton Acres tram stop to minimise impact on an adjacent property; • Changes to the Ruddington Lane crossing to minimise visual impact on adjacent properties; and • Changes to the layout of parking bays and tree provision in Clifton following comments from residents. Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route: • Provision of cycle facilities behind the Meadows Way tram stop; • A revised location for the ng2 stop which better serves the new development and minimises land impacts;
4642135.01
5
• • • •
A right turn entry into the Highfields Sports Club, giving a high level of accessibility; A revised alignment along University Boulevard moving the tramway further from the hockey pitches within Highfields Sports Club; A rationalisation of the off-street car parking on Chilwell Road; and New proposed tram stop at Cator Lane.
8.
Stakeholders
8.1
In addition to the ‘general’ public (in this instance residents and businesses along the route) extensive consultation with third party stakeholders has taken place at each stage of the consultation process. This has included local interest and environmental groups and affected parties, and major third party and statutory consultees. Examples include Broxtowe Borough Council, Rushcliffe Borough Council, the Highways Agency, the Environment Agency, English Nature (now Natural England), English Heritage, Network Rail, Pedals, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, local bus operators and affected landowners including Housing 21 and Highfields Sports Club. It is anticipated that discussions with these groups will continue through the subsequent stages of the project.
8.2
As part of the design consultation undertaken between summer 2003 and spring 2004 materially affected parties were identified and contacted prior to the consultation booklets being distributed. As a result a continued dialogue was put in place answering the issues raised by those concerned. Some land owners were subsequently offered more information and advice where it was possible and were offered visits by an officer who would explain face-to-face the impact on their land/property and the mitigation measures proposed.
8.3
Specific and intensive dialogue has taken place with residents and businesses of Chilwell Road/High Road, Gwenbrook Avenue and Lime Grove Avenue, Chilwell, where land is proposed to be acquired and a Financial Assistance Package (FAP) is proposed to aid businesses through the construction period. From August to December 2004, businesses along Chilwell Road/High Road were contacted as part of a consultation to obtain feedback regarding a FAP, the purpose being to obtain views on what form a potential FAP might take. Following this, responses were answered and meetings proposed to enable face-to-face discussions to take place regarding the FAP. The consultation letter included some open ended questions and a sample of the FAP used for Hyson Green traders along NET Line One. The deadline date for responses was extended from the end of October 2004 to the middle of December 2004.
8.4
As recommended by the Department for Transport’s A Guide to TWA Procedures, the Promoters have consulted those named in Schedules 5 and 6 to the TWA Applications Rules. The organisations listed were sent a copy of the TWA application or a notice of it at submission stage (26th April 2007).
9.
Continued communications (Summer 2004 onwards)
9.1
Since summer 2004, further specific consultations have been undertaken on a number of local issues, including Chilwell Road/High Road (see point 8.3 above), Nottingham Emmanuel School proposals (Autumn 2004) and the alignment through open space in Chilwell (January 2007).
9.2
A newsletter entitled ‘Express Magazine’ was created to keep the general public informed about developments surrounding NET Phase Two. The newsletter also contains updates on the progress of NET Line One, as well as news and views from various stakeholders on tramrelated issues.
9.3
There have been six editions of Express: • • • •
4642135.01
Issue 1 – Summer 2004 Issue 2 – Spring 2005 Issue 3 – Summer 2006 Issue 4 – Spring 2007
6
• • • •
Issue 5 – Autumn 2007 Issue 6 – Spring 2008 Issue 7 – Spring 2009 Issue 8 – Spring 2009
Over 250,000 copies of Express Magazine have been circulated across the conurbation through distribution with the local newspaper, mail outs to registered stakeholders, and also copies being hand delivered to businesses and residents along the routes. 9.4
Throughout the period of the TWA application process, extensive communication was undertaken to keep all stakeholders, businesses and residents aware of developments. The objective of this communications activity was to provide an update concerning the TWA process, explain what the public could expect and how they could participate in the overall process going forward.
9.5
As part of the formal TWA notification procedures, stakeholders, businesses and residents along the route were written to in order to ensure they were notified of developments. Emphasis was given to explaining how stakeholders can participate in the Public Inquiry process. The TWA application documents, including the Environmental Statement’s NonTechnical Summary, the Environmental Statement itself and how this report was accessible to the public through printed versions being made available for inspection at libraries and public offices along the routes. Electronic versions were also produced and distributed via CD to stakeholders as well as being available for download from the NET Phase Two website.
9.6
Promotional literature, such as the Express Magazine, was distributed to inform the wider conurbation. Express Magazine was a key tool to keep audiences up-to-date with the TWA application. Issue 4 was distributed in spring 2007 and informed people that the TWA application would be made and how they could participate in the consultation process. Issue 5 was distributed in autumn 2007 and informed people that a Public Inquiry would be held in November and explained the processes surrounding the Inquiry. Issue 6 was distributed in Spring 2008 and thanked people for participating in the Public Inquiry, explained how the Inspector would make a report to the Secretary of State for Transport and the next steps for the project. Two editions were distributed in spring 2009; a special edition celebrating the fifth anniversary of NET Line One operations, and a further edition giving information on the Secretary of State’s decision to award the TWA Order. Further communications support for the Public Inquiry included the production of an A5 booklet simply entitled ‘NET Phase Two’. This booklet was distributed to people attending the Public Inquiry and aimed to provide information on a range of issues related to the project including everything from project funding information to environmental impacts. The booklet was also downloadable from the NET Phase Two website.
9.7
A large number of stakeholders engaged in the TWA process with a significant number of stakeholders confirming their formal support of the proposals by writing to the Secretary of State for Transport and also appearing at the public inquiry. Those who wrote in support of NET Phase Two included the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce, the East Midlands Development Agency, the East Midlands Regional Assembly, University of Nottingham, Nottingham Trent University, Castle College and Bio City.
9.8
During the TWA stage a number of agreements were negotiated with stakeholders, which in some cases resulted in the withdrawal of objections. The agreements set out the commitments, undertaking and consultation to be undertaken with the stakeholder in question at the relevant stage in the projects development and implementation.
9.9
Media work surrounded the TWA and Public Inquiry process including the issuing of the following press releases to local print and broadcast media: • March 2007
4642135.01
Release reporting the Promoters had agreed to submit the TWA application
7
• April 2007 • • • • • • • •
Release reporting that the TWA application had been submitted and how to participate in the consultation process June 2007 Release reporting that the consultation had closed and the next steps July 2007 Release reporting that the DfT had announced that a Public Inquiry would be held August 2007 Release reporting that the Promoters had submitted their Statement of Case to the DfT October 2007 Release reporting that the Promoters had submitted their Proof of Evidence to the DfT November 2007 Release reporting that the Public Inquiry had opened January 2008 Release reporting that the Public Inquiry had closed September 2008 Release reporting that a Public Inquiry would be held to consider the open space certificate March 2009 Release reporting the Secretary of State’s decision to make the TWA Order
The above press releases were also posted on the Phase Two website. 10.
Future communications strategy
10.1
Construction work can commence following the scheme’s procurement. Communications work will aim to ensure that disruption during NET Phase Two construction is tolerated for the future benefits that its operation will bring. The objective of this communications activity will be to create an understanding of the construction process, to give fair notice of the disruption and to provide a clear channel of communication with those causing the disruption.
10.2
Great care will be taken to minimise disturbance when works are taking place. Effort will be made to ensure that the impact on people living or working in the area will be mitigated by sensitive working methods, close public liaison, and intensive communication of information. These guiding principles will be respected in the Code of Construction Practice, which will set out how construction work can be undertaken. The team of communications professionals responsible for NET Phase Two will use similar techniques and learned experience from NET Line One. During construction the following activities will be established: • Meetings with community groups and materially affected parties will be proactively arranged and also conducted on request. • There will be a dedicated point of contact responsible for liaising with local businesses and residents on a day to day basis. • Local Liaison Groups will be set up where appropriate to provide a regular liaison forum with both the contractors and City/County Council Officers to discuss and review how work is going. • There will also be a hotline number, which will enable immediate contact with the Project Team. • Leaflets and flyers containing construction news updates will be tailored for and distributed to all individuals affected by the works.
10.3
The wide Nottingham conurbation will be kept up to date with development progress through further editions of Express Magazine, website updates and ongoing media relations across both local and trade publications.
April 2009
4642135.01
8
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 23 – STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT NET PHASE TWO STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN Version2.0, December 2008
NET Project Management Team NET Project Office 4th Floor Lawrence House Talbot Street Nottingham NG1 5NT tel: fax: email: web:
+44 (0)115 915 6100 +44 (0)115 915 6092 tram@nottinghamcity.gov.uk www.netphasetwo.com
NET Project Management Team
Nottinghamshire
County Council
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
FIC:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 3
Contents REVISION HISTORY
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN
4
1
What is Stakeholder Management?
5
1.1
Introduction
5
1.2
Objectives
5
1.3
Scope
5
1.4
Principles
5
2
3
How we manage Stakeholders?
6
2.1
Identification of Stakeholders
6
2.2
Analysis of Stakeholders
7
2.3
Engagement Strategy
9
What is the process for Stakeholder Management?
10
3.1
Overview
10
3.2
Stakeholder Management Schedule
11
4
Who is responsible for Stakeholder Management?
12
5
References
13
A
APPENDIX: EXTRACT FROM STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE
13
Revision History Revision Record Rev
Originator
v0.1
Anthony Blackburn
V1.0
Nazia Tanveer
V2.0
Nazia Tanveer
Approved
Date
Comment
20 Dec 2006
Working Draft
Chris Deas
17 April 2008
Updated
Chris Deas
9th December 2008
Updated
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 4
Introduction to the Stakeholder Management Plan The overall governance and management arrangements for the Nottingham Express Transit Phase Two (NET Phase Two) project are captured in the “NET Phase Two Project Management Plan” (PMP). The PMP, together with associated management strategies and plans, describes what the project is and what we are setting out to achieve. It defines who is involved, what key people and organisations are responsible for doing, and how they will work together and communicate. It indicates when things will be done and how much they will cost. This Stakeholder Management Plan sets out the overall methodology that is to be adopted to ensure the effective management of stakeholders in delivering the NET Phase Two Project. The Plan describes who the stakeholders are, what we want to achieve and how we intend to achieve it. The intention is that this Plan will assist persons within the City and County Councils, the NET Project Board, NET Project Delivery Group, NET Development Board, and the NET Project Management Team and our consultants and advisers to understand the arrangements that are in place to assist with the engagement of stakeholders. Table 1 - Project Management Documents Document 1
Project Management Plan (PMP)
2
3
Management Strategies
Management Sub-Plans (MSP)
Content This document describes how the NET Phase Two project will be managed.
The Promoters (NCiC & NCoC)
It defines the NET Phase Two Project at high level in terms of What? Why? Who? When? How Much? and How?
NET PM Team
In particular, emphasis is given to the way the project will be governed, and authority for decision making is given and received.
NET Development Board
The PMP is the key working document informing the NET PM Team how the project will be managed.
Key Stakeholders (e.g. DfT)
The PMP includes summary management strategies, describing the NET Phase Two PM Teams approach to key management topics.
NET PM Team
The PMP includes a Stakeholder Management Strategy.
Project Consultants, Advisors & Contractors
Specific topics that require detailed individual plans will be developed into Sub-Plans. These will be referenced in the PMP and made available to the project team.
NET PM Team
This document forms the Stakeholder Management Sub-plan to the PMP. 3
Project Procedures
Audience
Procedures will be developed for specific activities where the Project requires a controlled consistent approach from all those involved with the management of the project.
NET Project Board
Project Consultants, Advisors & Contractors
NET Project Board
NET Project Board Project Consultants, Advisors & Contractors
NET PM Team Project Advisors, Consultants & Contractors
This Plan is part of a suite of documents explained in table 1 above. The PMP and the suite of supporting documents are ‘live’ documents and will be updated on a regular basis to reflect the development of the project so that they continue to be suitable and effective. Any comments or enquiries regarding the PMP suite of documents should be directed to the NET PM Team at the address referenced on the front cover.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 5
1
What is Stakeholder Management?
1.1
Introduction Our Stakeholder management Strategy in the PMP defines Stakeholder Management as “the systematic identification, analysis and planning of actions to communicate, engage and negotiate with, and influence stakeholders. Stakeholders are all those who have an interest or role in the project or are impacted by the project.” This section explains our understanding of Stakeholder Management, our objectives and the scope of this document.
1.2
1.3
1.4
Objectives
To ensure that the appropriate stakeholders are kept informed regarding the status of the NET Phase Two Project, throughout the project’s development.
To proactively manage the relationship of the NET Phase Two Project with all its stakeholders throughout the project lifecycle - development, delivery and operation.
To ensure that all enquiries and concerns raised by the stakeholders are recorded, reviewed and responded to in a timely and effective manner.
To promote support for the scheme.
To assist the obtaining of necessary consents required to deliver and operate the scheme.
Scope
The Stakeholder Management Strategy and the Communication Management Strategy for the NET Phase Two project are the strategic documents relating to communications. They are brought together in the Communications Plan, which deals with day to day communications.
This document details the overall methodology that is to be adopted to ensure that all stakeholders are identified, that their interests and influences are understood, their requirements captured and defined and that communications with them are managed, to ensure a positive level of support.
A Consents Management Procedure also exists to support, manage and engage with Stakeholders where formal consents are required.
Principles Stakeholder management is a critical part of managing the NET Phase Two Project as stakeholders have influence over both the criteria by which its success can be judged and the relative values within the Project. The two leading causes of project failure are insufficient involvement of stakeholders and infrequent communication with sponsors and other key stakeholders. This Stakeholder Management Plan therefore serves to identify, examine and understand the drivers behind the stakeholders’ views and hence
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 6
outline a procedure for the effective management of stakeholders within the NET Phase Two Project. The main activities associated with this process are:
Continual identification of organisations and key individuals, for example through day-to-day management of the project or formally through the process of stakeholder mapping or by workshops/ brainstorming sessions.
Analysis of the stakeholders to understand their interests and the level of influence and level of interest of the stakeholders, including identifying both positive and negative influences and their potential impact.
Capture the requirements of individual stakeholders and stakeholder groups.
Development and agreement of an engagement strategy for individual stakeholders or stakeholder groups.
Communication plays a vital part in this process, including the processes required to ensure timely and appropriate generation, collection and dissemination of information.
2
How we manage Stakeholders?
2.1
Identification of Stakeholders Stakeholder management began with identifying all the stakeholders involved in or affected by the project. Stakeholder identification is an ongoing process and will continue as the progress progresses through its development, delivery and operational stages. Stakeholders are identified and captured on a Stakeholder Management Schedule (SMS). The format of the SMS has evolved over time and the current format is shown in an extract of the document included as Appendix A. It currently focuses on the advance design stage of the project, the stage the project is currently at. As the NET Phase Two Project develops, the ongoing management of stakeholders will be critical to its success.
identification
and
In order that the list of stakeholders can be more efficiently managed, a number of key categories of stakeholder have been identified:
1. Internal - those groups or individuals within or working for the Promoters,
including the Councils’ Executives, other departments, employees and consultants who have been engaged on the NET Phase Two Project. The promoting councils also have a range of statutory or regulatory duties as the local highway authorities, planning authorities, traffic authorities and environmental health.
2. Core - those key stakeholders who are central to the stakeholder liaison throughout development and delivery of the scheme, and indeed may play a key role in enabling delivery of the project. This group includes:
Local Authorities – including Broxtowe Borough Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council in their role as local planning authorities.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 7
Government/ Statutory Bodies – including Department for Transport, local MPs, East Midlands Development Agency, HMRI, English Heritage and the Environment Agency. There is a requirement to consult with some of these bodies as part of the statutory process.
Affected Land Owners/ Occupiers/ Frontagers - including Network Rail, train/freight operators, key commercial developers along the route and materially affected landowners/occupiers.
Transport Interests – including Nottingham City Transport, Trent Barton, and PEDALS.
Environmental Bodies - including Nottinghamshire Nottingham Civic Society and Sport England.
Utilities – including Severn Trent Water/ Sewerage, British Telecom, e.on and Transco.
Wildlife
Trust,
3. Influential Groups –
Emergency Services – including East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue, and Nottinghamshire Police.
Residential and business properties where no land is taken – those people who may be impacted by the scheme, although no land is taken, such as residential and businesses properties in close proximity to the route.
Local Pressure/ Action Groups – those groups, who support, oppose or who are generally interested in some aspect of the project. They tend to represent local residential interests (ENT, CW Yes, BACIT, BCT etc) or the local business community (BCBRA, etc).
Other Stakeholders/ Influential Groups – including Boots, Capital One and Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce and Trade.
4. General Public – the public as a stakeholder represents everyone who might
be directly impacted by, or benefit from, or simply have an interest in the NET Phase Two Project. Regardless of whether they work for a particular company or are a member of a certain group which falls into the categories above, individual views are still important and for the NET Phase Two Project to achieve its objectives such views need to be recognised. Some of the above categories may identify the same individuals but it is often useful to differentiate between stakeholders ‘wearing different hats’.
2.2
Analysis of Stakeholders The objective of analysing stakeholders is to achieve an understanding of their interests in, and impact on, the NET Phase Two Project, so that engagement addresses their particular interests, requirements, issues and needs. This includes harnessing the support of those in favour of the project and managing the risks posed by stakeholders who oppose the project.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 8
Due to the large number of stakeholders involved, it is necessary to analyse the potential impact and potential power of each individual stakeholder or stakeholder group. This analysis provides a basis for the prioritisation of stakeholder engagement and method of such engagement, to ensure that communications are targeted appropriately and that the level of detail reflects the needs of the relevant stakeholders. The technique to be adopted for analysing stakeholders considers each stakeholder in terms of:
Importance – the extent to which a stakeholder’s problems, needs and interests are affected by the project.
Influence – the extent to which a stakeholder is able to act and thereby affect the project.
The results of the above exercise are compared with the power matrix shown below, so that the appropriate level of engagement can be determined. It is important to recognise, however, that the power matrix is a guide and the categorisation of each stakeholder or stakeholder group is carefully considered against available information. Importance
High
Low
Low
Influence
High
A Vital Contributors/ Champions and/ or concerns need to be addressed. Strong buy-in required. B Contribute to delivery and/ or concerns need to be addressed. Actively liaise or consider.
C Support desirable.
Brief stakeholders regularly to maintain interest and keep them in the loop. D Keep informed by briefing as and when necessary.
Figure 1 - Stakeholder Power Matrix
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 9
Stakeholders on the top left of the matrix are integral to the process of delivering the project, whereas those on the bottom right mainly require to be kept informed about the process.
(A) – these stakeholders will be vital contributors, have requirements that must be met and/ or have concerns that need to be addressed. Strong buy-in will therefore be required. They are likely to have the most influence over the project and full engagement with these stakeholders is required to gain their support and commitment. Formal agreements with some stakeholders in this category during the Transport and Works Act Order application stage have been progressed.
(B) – these stakeholders will contribute to the delivery of the Project and/ or will have concerns that need to be considered. Active consultation and where necessary, agreement, will be required. Again, formal agreements with some stakeholders in this category during the Transport and Works Act Order application stage have been progressed.
(C) – the support of these stakeholders will be desirable and they will therefore need to be kept informed of decisions, particularly those that may affect them directly. Engagement with these stakeholders will be important to achieving wider public support.
(D) – these stakeholders may not be directly affected by the project and engagement with them will be as and when necessary.
Each stakeholder on the Stakeholder Management Schedule is allocated against one of these categories. A stakeholders’ interest and influence changes over time or be different in each phase of the project and they may therefore move up or down the matrix as the project progresses. The schedule is therefore reviewed periodically by the NET PM Team, the frequency of which is based on the category of the stakeholders. Any requirements identified as part of this process, such as the need for ‘consent’ or a commitment that needs to be satisfied will be documented in the scheme’s requirements database and specification in accordance with the Requirements Management Strategy.
2.3
Engagement Strategy The objectives of the engagement process are to keep stakeholders’ awareness and commitment high, maintain consistent messages within and outside the NET Phase Two Project, ensure we identify stakeholder requirements and ensure that expectations are consistent with what will be deliverable. To ensure successful communications, engagement with stakeholders should be clear (to ensure relevance and recognition) and directed (to send the right message to the right audience). Many of the stakeholders in categories (A) and (B) have statutory powers or agreements are in place that requires some form of consent from them in order to deliver or operate the tramway. The consents management procedure exists supported where appropriate by individual stakeholder protocols, to manage these ‘formal’ consents. Where such ‘formal’ consents exist, this will be identified on the Stakeholder Management Schedule.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 10
The NET Phase Two Communications Plan will help determine what more broadly will be communicated, how it will be communicated, by when, and by whom, throughout the Project. The questions to consider for each stakeholder are:
What are the objectives of each engagement/ communication?
What are the key messages?
Who are the stakeholders the communications are trying to reach?
What information will be communicated and by whom?
When will information be disseminated, and what are the relevant timings?
How much information will be provided, and to what level of detail?
What mechanisms will be used to disseminate information?
How will feedback be encouraged, what will be done as a result of feedback?
3
What is the process for Stakeholder Management?
3.1
Overview Most stakeholders identified should be part of the engagement process, with the majority (categories ‘A’ and ‘B’) having influence over or being significantly affected by the project. Category ‘A’ stakeholders have a key role to play in the project and should be briefed routinely and/or fully engaged in the process, since they have the power to disrupt the process. Category ‘B’ stakeholders require careful management and significant consultation, since they are integral to the success of the process, and have the potential to cause difficulties. The interests of the Category ‘C’ stakeholders need to be considered, and these stakeholders should be kept informed through regular communication channels to maintain their interest, and make them aware that their interests are recognised and are being considered. Category ‘D’ stakeholders should be kept informed on an as and when basis dependant on their involvement in the process. Where statutory powers or agreements exist, and consents are required, these will be managed through the Consents Management Process. Communication channels will also be established to ensure that stakeholders can be managed throughout the NET Phase Two Projects lifecycle. The channels used for communications will vary depending on the stakeholders’ influence and impact
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 11
and the current phase of the project. However, the likely engagement/ communication scenarios are:
Consent Protocol – establishing formalised arrangements for engaging and progressing ‘formal’ consents and approvals with individual stakeholders. These will generally be for category ‘A’ or ‘B’ stakeholders.
Individual discussions/negotiations – these will be required with the Category ‘A’ stakeholders, in order that objections to the project are removed or minimised. These are likely to comprise a number of different engagement methods, including meetings, workshops, formal correspondence with individual stakeholders and the requirement for formal agreements, where necessary.
Group discussions/ negotiations – these may also be required with key (category A) stakeholders but would focus mainly on category ‘B’ or ‘C’ stakeholders, being one communication that covers a number of similar stakeholders (such as a letter to all residents on a particular street, or a meeting with residents of a retirement complex), rather than engagement with each stakeholder individually. However, general group meetings with residents are not likely to be appropriate as these can be hijacked by the vociferous minority and may not lead to constructive dialogue, which is why written correspondence with residents is the preferred method of engagement in these instances. It is the approach that has been adopted so far on the NET Phase Two project.
Newsletters/ Press Releases/ Media – these may be for specific information that is relevant only to one or more stakeholder groups, or for general information for all audiences (including the general public). These could be in either paper form or electronic form, including website updates.
Road shows/ Displays/ Exhibitions – these are useful in providing a continuing ‘presence’ in the community and to raise awareness of the project’s aims and objectives.
In all cases, it will be important to capture feedback. For the individual and group discussions, it is likely that these will focus on fairly detailed issues and formal responses to the NET Project Management Team will therefore be encouraged. It will also be appropriate for the NET Project Management Team to analyse and consider the feedback. Where the engagement is on a more general project level, such as newsletters or exhibitions, the use of feedback forms or questionnaires is seen as a more appropriate method of encouraging feedback and the Communications Team will report on the comments received. If the aims of the stakeholder management process are to be met, it is important that adequate resources are allocated and that stakeholder engagements are prioritised, to ensure that the right engagements happen at the right time. The Stakeholder Management Schedule aims to achieve this by identifying the timescale within which the engagement needs to happen and the person responsible within the NET Project Management Team for the overall engagement.
3.2
Stakeholder Management Schedule The Stakeholder Management Schedule contains the details that are required for the effective management of each stakeholder or stakeholder group including:
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 12
4
The key issues associated with the stakeholder or stakeholder group, for which resolution is ultimately required;
Reference to any specific requirements in the requirements database relating to the stakeholder or stakeholder group;
The strategy and actions proposed or required to resolve the key issues or satisfying the requirements
The target for completing actions; and
The person responsible for co-ordinating the overall engagement with the stakeholder.
Who is responsible for Stakeholder Management?
The overall governance of stakeholder engagement is the responsibility of the NET Project Board. The Project Board will allocate management responsibility on the basis that those best placed to manage a particular stakeholder engagement will be a reflection of the nature of the stakeholders’ interest. Those with a strategic interest tend to be best served corporately by the promoting Councils, NET Project Board, and the NET Development Partnership and the Director NET, whilst those with a specific project interest by the NET Project Management Team.
The Stakeholder Management Schedule allocates overall responsibility for individual stakeholder engagements to a member of the NET Project Management Team. The allocation of responsibility has been an ongoing process throughout the project’s lifecycle, on the basis that overall responsibility should be allocated to those team members that are best placed to deal with the specific stakeholder issues. The Stakeholder Management Schedule acknowledges that each stakeholder may have a number of issues that need addressing by different members of the NET Project Management Team. Therefore it is the NET Project Management Team member with overall responsibility who should co-ordinate and oversee the individual addressing of issues.
The Stakeholder Management Schedule is issued to all individuals who are identified as being responsible for a particular stakeholder. The responsible person is required to update the schedule giving particular consideration to the target date, which may be subject to change.
The schedule will then be regularly reviewed by the NET Project Management Team, with priority being given to those stakeholders with whom resolution is expected/required the soonest. The NET Project Management Team will consider the change in status of any stakeholders and ensure that the schedule is amended accordingly.
The Stakeholder Management Schedule is made available for consideration by the NET Project Board and Director, NET, so that any key issues/ actions with stakeholders can be managed at the appropriate level.
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 13
5
References
Project Management Plan
Stakeholder Management Strategy (C.21)
Communications Management Strategy
Communications Plan
Stakeholder Management Schedule
Consents Management Procedure and Protocols
Requirements Management Strategy
Requirements Management Plan
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\MCOLVE\DESKTOP\APPENDIX 23 - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT PLAN.DOC
NET PHASE TWO - STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE
NET Phase Two– Stakeholder Management Sub-Plan v2.0 Contents & Introduction – Page 14
Table Not Included
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 24 – COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT NET PHASE TWO COMMUNICATIONS PLAN Version3.0, April 2009 NET Project Management Team NET Project Office 4th Floor Lawrence House Talbot Street Nottingham NG1 5NT tel: fax: email: web:
+44 (0)115 915 6100 +44 (0)115 915 6092 tram@nottinghamcity.gov.uk www.netphasetwo.com
Nottinghamshire
NET Project Management Team
County Council
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
Communications & Marketing Strategy NET Contents
1
Introduction
2
Communications Objectives
2
3
Background and Lessons Learned
2
3.1
NET Line One
2
3.2
Workplace Parking Levy
3.3
Environmental and Sustainability Issues
4
2
2-3 3
Target Audiences
3
5
Communications Brand
6
Key Messages
4
7
Communications Deliverables
4
8
Ownership of NET Communications
9
Measurement and Reporting
10
3-4
5-6 6
9.1
Fortnightly Reporting
6
9.2
Monthly Reporting
6
9.3
Quarterly Reporting
6
Resources & Budget Requirements
7
APPENDIX 1: COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT
7
APPENDIX 2: COMMUNICATIONS SUB-PLAN
7
Document Control Rev
Originator
Approved
Date
1.0
Esme Macauley
Pat Armstrong
Original 28 March 2008
2.0
Ioan Reed-Aspley (Nov 08)
Steve Tough
Updated 21 November 2008
Nazia Tanveer Chris Deas 3.0
Ioan Reed-Aspley
NET Project Management Team
Steve Tough
Updated 7 April 2009
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
1
Introduction to the Communications Management Strategy (CMS)
This CMS is a strategy document which builds on previous communications work and refines it to reflect the latest thinking and current context surrounding NET Phase Two. It looks ahead at the NET Phase Two project communications requirements leading up to a 2011 construction start date. The CMS provides the strategic basis for communications management. The CMS has been developed in parallel to the Stakeholder Management Strategy (SMS) which provides the strategic basis for stakeholder management. Both documents come together in the Communications Sub-Plan (CSP) which charts the detailed, tactical communications activities appropriate for stakeholders in each annual quarter. Further explanation is provided below in section 4: Target Audiences and section 7: Communications Deliverables.
2
Communications Objectives
The objectives of the communications strategy are driven by the goals of the NET Phase Two project. As such, the main objectives are; 1.
To communicate proposals regarding the project effectively in order to maximise positive opinions and active support from stakeholders
2.
To ensure widespread knowledge and understanding of the proposals.
3.
To deliver a consistently high quality of communication to ensure that the design and implementation of NET Phase Two is welcomed by residents, visitors & key stakeholders.
4.
That the disruption during construction is tolerated while highlighting the benefits that its operation will bring.
5.
To highlight Nottingham’s success developing public transport infrastructure.
To realise these objectives, effective communications planning and implementation, together with robust stakeholder management, will be needed. Appropriate resources will also be required.
3
Background
In developing this strategy we have considered the issues surrounding the history of the NET system and broader context of NET Phase Two.
3.1
NET Line One
The progression since the introduction of NET Line One is important. NET Line One is operational, its benefits are clear and there is a public desire for its extension but further education is needed to bring about an understanding of the impacts NET Phase Two will have and the benefits it will bring. NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
3.2
NET Phase Two Public Inquiry
The proposals for NET Phase Two have undergone a full public inquiry in Nov & Dec of 2007. A re-opened public inquiry which focused on two specific issues to do with the exchange land in Wilford and Compton Acres and the migration of Golden Plover in Clifton took place in October 2008. The Secretary of State announced his decision to make the TWA Order in March 2009, and a version of the ‘Express’ leaflet has been distributed to provide further information about the decision.
3.3
Workplace Parking Levy
NET Phase Two is linked to WPL. There is the perspective that local employers are being made to foot the bill for the NET Phase Two local financial contribution. The WPL communications campaign has so far managed to avoid the adversarial positioning of ‘stop’ and ‘go’ campaigns, but the 'stop' campaign will continue to be revived by key stakeholders. The benefits of NET Phase Two are central to the promotion of the WPL scheme, alongside improvements to the Link bus network and modernisation of Nottingham stati on as part of the Hub project. The City Council has worked with the 6C’S to investigate the long term potential for a RUC scheme across the region, as part of TIF, and concluded that a RUC scheme would not bring further benefits than the WPL scheme and as such should not be pursued further. NET Phase Two will be promoted alongside the Big Wheel campaigns for walking and cycling as well as the roll out of the Business Club website. Also, throughout 2008 the Public Transport Team are developing a substantial support package for 100 key business sites within the conurbation to include public transport infrastructure and travel planning measures. The current financial climate has meant that there are concerns about the affect of the WPL on businesses in Nottingham. As a result, the DfT has still not approved the regulations.
However, a decision is expected before the
end of June. Much of the communications work has been focused on engaging with key decision makers and stakeholders to get them to support the case for WPL. Local Nottingham MPs have been very proactive in drawing this to the attention of Government Ministers. Communications actions to support a number of potential outcomes resulting from a Government decision are currently being developed.
3.4
Environmental and Sustainability Issues
Minimising congestion, pollution and climate change currently features strongly in the media. Linking NET Phase Two to climate messages is desirable.
4
Target Audiences
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
The Stakeholder Management Strategy (SMS) has been developed in parallel to this document. The SMS is supported by: 1.
A Stakeholder Schedule - a ‘live’ document that lists the key stakeholders, the issues associated with each, the actions required and the person responsible for progressing the actions with each stakeholder.
2.
A Stakeholder Map - an analysis document which ranks stakeholders according to their influence and impact so that communications approaches and activity can be appropriately targeted to stakeholder groups.
The SMS and CMS are brought together through the Communications Sub-Plan which charts the detailed, tactical communications activities appropriate for the stakeholder workstreams.
5
Communications Brand
The communications brand of NET Phase Two is a based on the established and well recognised brand of NET Line One. The tone and feel of NET Phase Two communications needs to continue to be energetic and ambitious. It needs to communicate how Nottingham is moving forward, the joined up big picture and overarching vision of the future. It needs to show the connection between NET Phase Two and the wider regeneration of Nottingham. However, NET Phase Two community groups have criticised the communications for being too glossy and promotional, and the content of communication material comes under intense scrutiny. Therefore, in communications with these groups, a balance must be struck which may lead to more technical, conservative version of the energetic and ambitious tone. Communications activities need to continue to be human – they must have faces/spokespeople – as this approach will be more effective at reducing resident and business ‘mistrust’ than faceless activities such as promotional literature or websites.
6
Key Messages
Revised key messages which need to be communicated as part of the communications & marketing activity from January 2009 onwards have been developed (see appendix 2). A more generic key messages document are available as part of the 'NET Phase Two communications toolkit'. The NET Phase Two communications toolkit also contains a NET Phase Two core script, key statistics, top ten facts and Q&A. The toolkit acts as a resource for preparing printed communications materials or assisting spokespeople with presentations, speeches and interviews.
7
Communications Deliverables
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
The Communications Sub-Plan is set out in Appendix 1. It charts the detailed, tactical communications activities appropriate for the stakeholder workstreams in each annual quarter. The Communications SubPlan is reviewed regularly with the NET Phase Two Project Team. The main workstreams of communications deliverables which are charted in the CSP are; 1.
to research and plan monthly proactive media stories
2.
to manage a reactive media handling service
3.
to develop and maintain the NET Phase Two website
4.
to develop Express Magazine and distribute at least twice per year
5.
to develop six monthly advertising via the Business Arrow
6.
to develop maps and basic info literature
7.
to develop seeing is believing days
8.
to promote NET Phase Two via the communications workstreams of WPL, Big Wheel, Hub, Public Transport and other teams within Nottingham City Council.
9.
to prepare for communications activity during NET Phase Two construction & operation phases (see appendix 3)
10. to report communications activity including gauging public opinion and perceptions of NET Phase Two 11. to support myth-busting communications activities with priority stakeholders 12. to review and manage representations from stakeholders 13. to ensure the proactive engagement of stakeholders Communications and stakeholder management approaches, activity, and materials must adhere to DfT’s Draft Guidance for Local Authorities, the Government’s Code of Practice for Consultation and the Audit Commission's Code for Publicity in order to demonstrate that best practice and due legal processes have been followed. All publications are available on request in different formats to assist people who are visually impaired or who live locally and speak different languages.
8
Ownership of NET Phase Two Communications
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
Ownership and responsibilities are identified below between the following groups; Environment & Regeneration Communications Team: The primary responsibility for delivering the communications workstreams sits within the E&R Communications Team. The E&R Team progress will be reported regularly to the NET Phase Two Project Team, monthly to the Central Communications Team and quarterly to the Project Steering Group and Project Board. Central Communications Team: The Central Communications Team, given their NET Line One experience, provide advice for setting, agreeing and signing off the strategic direction for the E&R Communications Team delivery. If the E&R Communications Team has limited capacity they can seek and co-ordinate the support of the Central Team for assistance with media and events. The E&R Communications Team and Central Team need to work closely to ensure a WPL presence in the Business Arrow, handle NET Phase Two media enquiries and sign off communications materials through the approval process. NET Project Team: The NET Project Team need to ensure adequate and effective communications support is planned for and delivered by the E&R Communications Team. The Project Team will provide senior level advice and sign-off of the Communications Strategy and Sub-Plan activities. Where appropriate the Project Team will need to provide the legal and technical information for the E&R Communications Team. The Project Team and E&R Communications Team need to work closely to brief Project Spokespeople and develop and review the content of the communications toolkit. Project Spokespeople: Visible and active senior level leadership will be a critical success factor in the communications strategy. With the support of the Project Team and E&R Communications Team, the Project Spokespeople have responsibility for taking time out of the ‘day job’ to conduct media interviews, attend high level stakeholder meetings, business networking events and conferences as well as having ultimate responsibility for sign off of communications materials. Spokespeople for the NET Phase Two Promoters are: 1
Portfolio Holder for Transport, Nottingham City Council
2
Director, NET
3
Director, NET Phase Two
4
Director, Transport, Nottinghamshire County Council
9
Measurement and Reporting
Formal and informal measurement techniques will be adopted to review the effectiveness of the communications activity on an on-going basis. This will periodically feed back into the communications strategy to drive continuous improvement and quality.
9.1
Fortnightly Reporting
At each fortnightly meeting the E&R Communications Team and Project Team will: •
Review the Communications Sub-Plan for progress against activities since the previous period
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
•
Agree the key activities planned for the next period
•
Explore blockages that are limiting communications effectiveness and corresponding recommendations for solutions and/or requests for support
•
Review progress against the communications risks as outlined in the risk register
•
Report changes to the public and political ‘climate’ as understood through informal (e.g., conversations with stakeholders and/or Councillors) and formal (e.g., media coverage, hits on the WPL website) measurement, since the previous period
•
Review feedback on effectiveness of communications activities and stakeholder engagement activities
Where appropriate these activities will be included as part of the weekly Central Communications Team Touchbase Meeting and activity planner.
9.2
Monthly Reporting
Each month the NET Phase Two Project will feature as part of 1) a one to one supervision between the E&R Communications Officer and the E&R Communications Manager and 2) a one to one the Director of Communications and Marketing.
9.3
Quarterly Reporting
Each quarter the E&R Communications Officer will provide a written 'round up' as part of the information presented to the Steering Group and Project Board.
10 Resources & Budget Requirements A full time PO2 Senior Communications Officer has been recruited who has responsibility for communications and marketing of NET, The Hub and WPL. A full time SO1 Communications & Marketing Officer is yet to be recruited.
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
APPENDIX 1: COMMUNICATIONS SUB-PLAN Issue
Date added
G/S/B
Completion target date
Resource level & source
Current status
Manage a reactive media handling service
Jan 09
Gold
ongoing
IR-A
reactive media handled and rebutted
Support myth-busting communications activities with priority stakeholders
Jan 09
Gold
to start when client ready
IR-A
Develop and implement a M&C strategy from Jan 09 up to and including construction & operation phases.
Jan 09
Gold
28 Nov 08
IR-A
strategy being prepared
Silver
ongoing
IR-A
Much depends on expected DfT announcements
Promote NET via the communications workstreams of WPL, Hub, Public Transport and other teams within NCC To receive, review and manage representations from stakeholders
21 November 2008
Gold
ongoing
IR-A
To ensure the proactive engagement of stakeholders
21 November 2008
Gold
ongoing
IR-A
Done. Draft artwork ideas to be worked up by NCT.
Redevelop the NET P2 website
Feb 09
Gold
Jan 08
IR-A
Copy updated. website needs overhaul
To develop Express Magazine for 5th anniversary event
Feb 09
Gold
March
IR-A
Done.
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
Prepare key messages in the event of WPL decision holding up NP2
Feb
Gold
Ongoing
IR-A
Prepare PR around properties to
Feb
S
Ongoing
IR-A
End of Feb
IR-A with NCT
be demolished.
Prepare PR for results of user survey. Work with Nichola Tidy
Feb 09
Support NCT with their plans to celebrate 5th anniversary of NET Line One.
Feb/March 09
G
9 March 09 day of celebration
IR-A supporting NCT
Develop PR activity for TWAO decision
March
Gold
Announcement made at end of March
IR-A
Produce a second version of Express to go to residents when the Order is announced.
March
Gold
April
IR-A
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
Key messages developed and circulated. Used to support PR activity and lobbying Due to increasing number of properties affected by proposals, PR strat to be developed to handle very sensitive issue. Press release sent out
IR-A prepared key note speeches, assisted with preparation of press release, managed media handling Press release issued
APPENDIX 2: KEY MESSAGES – JAN 09 ONWARDS It is important that all communications reflect the link between the WPL, NET Phase Two and the redevelopment of the railway station and how all three contribute to the wider regeneration of Nottingham. Workplace Parking Levy The WPL is a key funding source for NET Phase Two. The current financial climate has meant that there are concerns about the affect of the WPL on businesses in Nottingham. As a result, the DfT has still not approved the regulations. This uncertainty around funding is prohibiting the level of proactive communications. Key messages about timings will have to be managed carefully. A statement about the NET Phase Two timescale will be prepared. Connectivity - to Beeston and beyond! Key messages include -
Direct trains from Beeston to Hucknall An improved, faster service with more regular trams Improved train times to London
Cost benefit to region Messages have been prepared to outline the cost benefit of improving public transport links. Case studies The proposals alone for NET Phase Two have already encouraged investment to the city with companies like Specsavers opening their head office here recently. User satisfaction survey & success of Line One NCT has recently received the results of this year’s Line One user survey. A decision will be taken when to release the results. The success stories from Line One, including the excellent track record Nottingham has developing a good public transport infrastructure. NET Line One fifth anniversary. The high five campaign Working with NCT, a big event is planned on Monday 9 March to celebrate the 5th anniversary of Line One. Artwork is being prepared and proposals will be taken to the Arrow Board in December. This will be a celebration of public transport success in Nottingham. We’re proud of the tram. School children will be encouraged to write poems about travel, their favourite journeys or even their experiences of the tram.
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
APPENDIX 3: CONSTRUCTION PHASE COMMUNICATIONS Introduction The role of communications during the construction phase will be to ensure that any disruption will be better tolerated by both those directly affected by the work and members of the public generally. Building on success.The communications for NET Line One are considered to have been an exemplar of best practice and there has been significant national interest in the Nottingham experience. The high standards set have been adopted for other major transport schemes in Nottingham, such as the Turning Point and Old Market Square projects. Communication activity in the build up to and during the construction process will build on the success of the work done for NET Line One. The communications team will work very closely with the concessionaire and the main contractor. Managing negative PR. The “toolkit” outlined below will help manage the almost certain negative PR a construction project of this scale will attract. Issues which are likely to be raised in the media include: demolishing properties, particularly residential and older people’s homes the uprooting of trees along University Boulevard habitat loss in Wilford and Compton Acres, Clifton Park & Ride and other landscape changes residents complaining about disturbance from noise traffic congestion from road works advance. Communication tools needed for the construction phase -
Tram telephone Hotline, answered by the communications staff. Out of hours answerphone. Queries emailed to contractor’s Construction Information Officer who will liaise with the customer.
-
Contractor involvement to gather information at an early stage through liaison with the local community, avoid any surprises and plan for any problems, in close consultation with the Highway Authority.
-
Public meetings – to explain broadly what the works would entail and seek people willing to take part in local liaison groups.
-
Local liaison groups – meeting periodically and acting as a conduit for information transfer – one for each zone along the route, made up of representatives of local businesses Traders Associations, local community groups, residents associations, volunteers from the public meetings together with bus operators, police, the contractor and the promoters.
-
Leaflets – periodic distribution covering general matters or specific areas of work and day-to-day flyers to individual streets about imminent works.
-
Newsletters and brochures explaining the next stage of works (issued at approximately six month intervals)
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
-
Other special publications for target audiences, e.g. aimed at university students for distribution at freshers’ fairs, or on themes, e.g. safety issues
-
Website constantly updated with construction and traffic management news
-
Advertising, sponsorship and press/media
-
Direct consultation about very localised matters
-
A full-size tram replica on display for a week in the city centre to promote the benefits of the scheme
-
Weekly internal meetings with representatives from all parties to identify public relations issues and actions required, based on the works programme for the next three weeks and beyond
-
Face of the tram. A representative to appear on local radio stations to answer phone-in queries, and to be a key spokesperson
-
Work with Highways Agency to prepare communications activity around road safety issues – how to negotiate tricky junctions etc.
NET Project Management Team
Nottingham Express Transit – Phase Two
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO APPENDIX 25 – DRAFT BENEFITS REALISATION STRATEGY AND PLAN
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
Nottingham Express Transit Phase Two DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan Report for Nottingham City Council April 2009
Document Control Project Title:
Nottingham Express Transit
MVA Project Number:
C0590300
Document Type:
Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
Directory & File Name:
NET Benefits Realisation Strategy v1-1_010509.doc
Document Approval Primary Author:
Nick Richardson
Other Author(s):
David Carter
Reviewer(s):
Imogen Miller
Formatted by:
Sally Watts
Distribution Issue
Date
Distribution
Comments
1.0
01/04/09
NET Project Team
Full Draft – expanded earlier version circulated as part of Gateway 2 documentation
1.1
01/05/09
NET Project Team
Minor changes, principally associated with relationship to PMP Sub-plans
Contents 1
Introduction
1.1
Purpose of the Strategy
1.1
1.2
Status of the Strategy
1.1
1.3
NET Project Aims
1.2
1.4
Relationship to Scheme Evaluation
1.3
1.5
Relationship with the Project Management Plan
1.4
1.6
Relationship with the Local Transport Plan
1.5
1.7
Relationship between the Joint Promoters of NET Phase Two
1.6
2
Monitoring of Success
2.1
Measuring the Impacts of NET Phase Two
2.1
2.2
Benefits During Development
2.2
2.3
Benefits During Construction
2.4
Aim NET 1: Providing a Sustainable Alternative to Car Use
2.12
2.5
Aim NET 2: Increasing Public Transport Capacity to Accommodate Growth
2.16
2.6
Aim NET 3: Improving Accessibility and Reducing Social Exclusion
2.18
2.7
Aim NET 4: Integrating Public Transport and Improving Interchange
2.20
2.8
Aim NET 5: Supporting Land Use Policy, Regeneration etc
2.23
2.9
Aim NET 6: Promoting Environmentally Friendly Transport
2.24
3
Benefits Realisation Programme
3.1
3.1
Introduction
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
1.1
2.1 2.7
3.1
i
1
Introduction 1.1
1.1.1
Purpose of the Strategy This Draft Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan has been developed for the Promoters of Nottingham Express Transit (NET) Phase Two Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council.
It provides an outline of the management of benefit delivery required to
maximise the potential of the system.
The Draft Strategy makes clear the relationships
between the expected benefits of the scheme, the organisations that will deliver those benefits, timescales and the review process required throughout the design, construction and early operational phase of NET Phase Two. 1.1.2
The Draft Strategy has been prepared broadly in accordance with guidance for the Office of Government Commerce’s Gateway Review processes. OGC guidance states that:
a Benefits Management Strategy is used to establish the approach to managing benefits; and
a Benefits Realisation Plan is used to track realisation of benefits across the programme.
1.1.3
This Draft Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan combines both the approach to managing benefits as well as setting out the method of tracking the realisation of benefits. It defines:
1.1.4
when benefits will be realised;
how benefits should be managed actively; and
who will be responsible for delivering those benefits.
The Draft Strategy should help inform the on-going stakeholder engagement process and will be a useful means of communicating the benefits of the Phase Two extensions for the Promoters, other authorities, regional agencies, Department for Transport, local business interests, local people, interest groups (such as Campaign for Better Transport) and developers.
1.2 1.2.1
Status of the Strategy This document provides a Draft Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan that will be developed further following the Secretary of State’s granting of the ‘planning’ approval through the Transport and Works Act Order and the move through the approvals processes to procurement.
This stage of development will take on board any impacts of planning
obligations imposed on the system (such as those required during construction) and further consultation within the Promoting authorities. 1.2.2
The scheme was accepted into the Local Authority Major Scheme Programme on the basis of the Skeleton Outline Business Case submitted to the Department for Transport in 2006. The Draft Strategy and Plan takes into account minor changes in scheme development and expected delivery as set out in the refreshed Outline Business Case to be submitted in early 2009.
1.2.3
The Draft Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan has been developed alongside an emerging Draft Evaluation Requirements specification and is linked to the Project Management Plan, in
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
1.1
1
Introduction
particular the Project Evaluation Management Sub-Plan. The evaluation of NET Phase Two is intended to demonstrate, at discrete points in time, the performance of the scheme development and implementation against its own objectives and in support of the wider objectives as set out in the Local Transport Plan, with the output from this being an ‘evaluation’ or ‘post-implementation review’. 1.2.4
At this stage in the project development, the Benefits Realisation and Evaluation elements are being prepared as distinct, but related, elements of the management process supporting and measuring benefits delivery. They are both essential in progressing with the schemes. As the scheme advances, the Evaluation programme and Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan could ‘converge’ further.
Gateway 5 considers ‘Operations Review and Benefits
Realisation’ and focuses on ensuring that the project delivers the benefits identified in the business case and benefits plans. 1.2.5
A Gateway 5 review is expected to take place after the Promoters have carried out an evaluation or post-implementation review, suggested by the Gateway guidance to be around 6-12 months after opening.
Whilst this may be appropriate for some small transport
schemes, the benefits of expanding the NET system will take longer to be realised as travellers become accustomed to the availability of the system. 1.2.6
Depending on the configuration of the overall public transport network, system ‘maturity’ could be around three to four years after opening for many of the expected impacts. Benefits associated with travellers behavioural change, such as modal shift, would only emerge after this length of time. However, other potential benefits, especially those related to property development and land-use changes could become apparent over an extended timescale. Therefore, a properly configured evaluation would consider such impacts over a longer period than suggested by the Gateway guidance, pointing to the need to maintain and actively consider the Benefit Realisation Strategy and Plan well beyond the suggested first 612 months after opening.
1.3 1.3.1
NET Project Aims NET Phase Two will play a major role in the development of the Nottingham conurbation and will build on the success of NET Line One with two additional light rail lines into the south and west of the Greater Nottingham conurbation.
The scheme will contribute to achieving
national indicators and the objectives of the Promoters as highlighted in the Local Transport Plan, Development Plans and strategic documents. Furthermore NET Phase Two will support the objectives of the Greater Nottingham Partnership (GNP) which is one of seven subregional strategic partnerships formed by the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA). 1.3.2
NET Phase Two has been developed to support, directly or indirectly, a number of the national indicators used to assess local performance under the New Local Performance Framework (NLPF) which came into operation refining the scope and extent of monitoring expected of local authorities in measuring their performance.
This framework includes 10
national transport related indicators and is supported by a number of locally defined indicators. 1.3.3
In addition to the mandatory and local performance measures considering for the LTP, a number of specific project aims have been set for the system. These aims were included in the Transport and Works Act Order application documents and are set out below.
The
benefit management arrangement for the operational elements of the scheme proposed in
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
1.2
1
Introduction
this Draft Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan have been structured around these project aims.
Project Aim NET1
To provide a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys in order to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network including the A453 and A52
NET2
To increase public transport capacity to accommodate growth in Greater Nottingham
NET3
To improve accessibility and reduce social exclusion and realise further the investment in NET Line One
NET4
To contribute to integrated public transport in Greater Nottingham and improved interchange
NET5
To support land use policy, regeneration and neighbourhood transformation strategies in the City Centre, the district centres of Beeston and Clifton, and other important employment and residential Areas
NET6
1.4 1.4.1
To extend the use of an environmentally friendly mode of transport
Relationship to Scheme Evaluation As noted above, the Draft Evaluation Requirements specification will be developed further, alongside additional development of this Draft Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan. The project evaluation will be based on the Department for Transport’s Guidance on the Evaluation of Major Local Authority Transport Projects. It will identify how the performance of NET Phase Two should be considered, with an emphasis on measuring performance, understanding
scheme
impacts
and
disseminating
this
to
Government
and
wider
stakeholders. In contrast, the Draft Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan is targeted at a different audience and is intended to set out the management of and responsibilities for benefit delivery. 1.4.2
The Draft Evaluation Requirements specification will include a review of the process and impact evaluation components and set out the key technical evaluation issues, including data availability, the need for on-going monitoring of NET Line One and the linkages to similar exercises being undertaken for other transport investments in Nottingham. Key elements of the Draft Evaluation Requirements specification include:
Evaluation Objectives;
Evaluation Reporting and Communications;
Key Performance Indicators;
Impact Evaluation;
Process Evaluation; and
Timing and Wider Linkages.
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
1.3
1
Introduction
1.5
Relationship with the Project Management Plan
1.5.1
The NET Phase Two Project Management Plan sets out the management processes adopted during project development.
The Project Management Plan recognises the importance of
benefit delivery and that active management will be required throughout the various phases of delivery of NET Phase Two.
In addition, monitoring and subsequent evaluation will be
required to assess the outcomes and performance of the scheme. 1.5.2
The Project Management Plan (PMP) identifies 24 management strategies covering all workstreams and phases of the project development and delivery, including, and of particular relevance here, Benefits Management.
The Benefits Management Strategy
(Appendix D.3 to the PMP) seeks to provide an on-going management process which sets out the criteria for project success and provides a means of monitoring and evaluating achievement against those criteria on a regular basis. 1.5.3
The Benefits Management Strategy provides a framework for managing the delivery of benefits, identified in this Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan. The technical requirements for monitoring and evaluation the scheme performance are set out in the Draft Evaluation Requirements considered above.
1.5.4
The PMP acknowledges some overlaps between a number of the 24 management strategies and that in these cases a more detailed treatment is required.
Accordingly, a number of
Management Sub-plans (MSP) have or will be developed to give an indication of the way certain activities are approaches, how the relevant management strategies will be implements, who is involved in each activity, and how the interfaces and constraints will be managed. 1.5.5
Of importance here is the Project Evaluation Management Sub-plan.
This sub-plan is
intended to pull together a number of benefit and evaluation strands with the principles agreed between the Promoters and DfT prior to the concession award and in accordance with the Programme Entry Approval.
Key issues to be considered in the sub-plan include: the
handling of interactions between the evaluation of NET Phase Two and direct and indirect linkages to the evaluation of other transport and wider investments elsewhere in Nottingham; budget issues to confirm the expected availability of resources and how these overlap with the more extensive monitoring LTP monitoring programme; and dissemination routes for the evaluation, covering both process and impact issues. 1.5.6
Figure 1.1 sets out the linkages between the key three documents that provide the process, management and performance monitoring arrangements for NET Phase Two.
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
1.4
1
Introduction
Figure 1.1 Process, management and performance monitoring linkages
1.6 1.6.1
Relationship with the Local Transport Plan The joint Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP) recognises the contribution that NET Line One has made to the local transport network. NET Phase Two scheme is a central feature of the LTP. The plan identifies the prospect of long term growth in traffic and identifies that it is essential for measures to be taken to address travel behaviour and to facilitate a cultural change towards more sustainable alternatives.
1.6.2
The tram network is considered to be the most important measure because of the considerable increase in public transport use it is expected to achieve, particularly in corridors where traffic is particularly heavy and where significant lengths of segregated running, avoiding traffic delay are possible. The three corridors served by NET Phase Two (the A453, A52 and A6005) are three of the busiest traffic routes in Nottingham. NET Phase Two is also recognised in terms of its importance in the wider context. This is in terms of supporting policies for economic development, protection of the environment and promoting urban renewal. NET is seen as ‘one of the key factors for creating a climate of investment and the high quality tram service will maintain or enhance sustainable economic activity.’
1.6.3
Figure 1.2 outlines the broad relationships between the NET Phase Two project aims and those of the Local Transport Plan for the period to 2010/11. Whilst the delivery of NET Phase Two will fall outside this period, the principles set out in the LTP objectives are likely to remain broadly similar with the move to LTP3 covering the period beyond 2011, though with a refocusing towards the around the DaSTS agenda.
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
1.5
1
Introduction
Figure 1.2 Relationship between NET Phase Two project aims and LTP objectives
Relationship between the Joint Promoters of NET Phase Two 1.6.4
NET Phase Two is jointly promoted by Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Councils.
In the following Draft Strategy and Plan, both authorities appear as ‘Benefit
Manager’.
There has been a long history of the two councils closely working together,
including the development of the high performing joint Local Transport Plan submissions covering Greater Nottingham.
This close working relationship was demonstrated in the
development of NET Line One and has been further strengthened during work supporting NET Phase Two. Suitable arrangements will be put in place to ensure focused management of benefit realisation across the two authorities.
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
1.6
2
Monitoring of Success 2.1
2.1.1
Measuring the Impacts of NET Phase Two This section identifies the key components of the expected range of key benefits and impacts of NET Phase Two and provides an outline of how these benefits can be monitored and measured, and importantly here, who can manage benefit delivery.
2.1.2
This section is structured around the aims of the scheme which are expanded to cover the construction phase.
It also takes account of other wider monitoring requirements and
practical considerations. 2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
A series of tables are presented in this section which:
link the benefits to measurable themes;
define how this will be realised and managed actively; and
who will be responsible for its delivery.
Each table sets out, for each of the currently configured delivery indicators:
key stakeholders;
suggested benefit delivery manager;
potential measures of success and an indication of linked performance indicators;
timescale for analysis and review; and
outline risks associated with benefits delivery.
It is intended that the tables will be refined in response to the emerging Draft Evaluation Requirements specification and confirmation of the key performance indicators for NET Phase Two. The performance indicators will address the aims of NET Phase Two, with the measures of performance being wide ranging, but with an emphasis on:
the core deliverables of the expanded NET system;
transport network capacity, efficiency, accessibility and usage; and
key impacts arising from the delivery of NET including social and distributional impacts and economic development issues.
2.1.6
A data scoping exercise will also be undertaken to confirm that the measures and monitoring associated with the performance indicators are both practical and affordable. Indicators will include both quantitative measures (such as system patronage, modal shift and congestion estimates), together with qualitative indicators (including for example, individual attitudes to service provision and corporate views on the influence of the NET system on business location decisions). Consideration of the analyses underpinning the New Local Performance Framework will provide an understanding of the wider linkages between NET and LTP transport strategy, of which NET itself is a primary component.
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.1
2 2.2 2.2.1
Monitoring of Success Benefits During Development A number of monitoring activities will be required during the on-going scheme development phase which are not directly linked to the wider objectives but contribute by ensuring that the scheme can be delivered on time and to the specification required. Design and safety are major considerations to ensure expected benefits are not eroded before construction. Similarly, programming issues and budget/resourcing considerations need to be tightly controlled to ensure that mitigation in response to time or cost over-run does not compromise benefit delivery. Integrated design
2.2.2
It is important that the needs of all transport users (walkers, cyclists, public transport passengers and operators, freight and services vehicles and private motorists) are taken into account throughout the design process. Consideration of any changes to the design of the scheme is required to identify the potential impacts against all scheme objectives.
The
explicit or implicit refocusing of scheme priorities as a result of changes in design could potentially lead to an erosion of the delivered benefits. 2.2.3
Following extensive design work supporting the Transport and Works Act Order submission, a NET Phase Two Design Services Contract has been let to further refine and manage a detailed (part-warranted) design process.
The benefit manager should continue to be the
joint Promoters, with support from the NET Phase Two Design Services consultant.
Benefit(s):
Integrated design
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET Phase Two Design Services consultant
Benefit Manager
Promoters
Measure of Success
‘Sign-off’ of design by key approvals parties Majority support from consulted groups
Supporting Measures
Health and Safety Executive, CDM, Network Rail, highway authority requirements to be met
Linked Performance
CDM Regulations and other standards as appropriate
Indicators Timescale
Ongoing throughout design and construction period
Review Process
Throughout scheme design processes
Risks
Delays to formal approvals Funding availability
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.2
2
Monitoring of Success Designing for Personal Security
2.2.4
Whilst general design issues, considered in the previous table, cover a range of general system-wide issues, personal safety and security issues have been identified separately. These are linked to wider community issues and with specific local authority performance targets that have been set through the Local Transport Plan process.
Benefit
Designing for personal safety
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET Phase Two Design Services consultant
Benefit Manager
Promoters
Measure of Success
Attitude surveys indicating strong security of users.
Supporting Measures
Design for personal security with advice from police crime prevention and good infrastructure design e.g. lighting, help points, good walking access to stops, CCTV, etc.
Linked Performance
LTP target L16 – Personal Security
Indicators Timescale
Throughout scheme design processes
Review Process
Consider trends and comparison with other transport modes
Risks
Obtaining robust and representative samples Agreeing a meaningful definition of ‘feeling more secure’ to enable comparative analysis and measurement
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.3
2
Monitoring of Success Outline Development and Approvals Programme
2.2.5
NET Phase Two has had an extended approvals timescale, with lengthy periods awaiting Programme Entry approvals and the determination of the Transport and Work Act Order. However, the Secretary of State approved the Transport and Work Act Order in March 2009 and this has provided an increased confidence in the project programme.
2.2.6
The current programme provides a robust timescale for submission and approvals of the Conditional and Full Approvals, though many key risks remain, including technical development delays, increased scheme development and delivery costs and further delays in planning and funding approvals related to market conditions, funding availability and political consideration.
2.2.7
Benefit delivery could be compromised by further delays in the development and approvals programmes (especially where benefits are responding to transport network constraints) and through reduced scheme scope if costs increase (for example by eroding elements of the scheme specification).
Benefit
Outline programme
Stakeholders
Department for Transport, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET Phase Two Design Services consultant, NET planning and delivery consultants
Benefit Manager
Promoters
Measure of Success
Progress against development and approvals programme
Supporting Measures
Planning approvals (Transport and Works Act now approved, but other more minor approvals remain relevant) Funding approvals (Conditional Approval and Full Approvals)
Linked Performance
Gateway review process
Indicators Timescale
Conformity with development and approvals programme
Review Process
Fortnightly progress meetings (legal and commercial, project delivery group) Gateway review progress
Risks
Technical development delays Increased scheme development and delivery costs Delays in planning and funding approvals
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.4
2
Monitoring of Success Development Budgets and Resources
2.2.8
Benefit delivery can be compromised by constraints on budgets and resources in two principal areas: „
budgets and resources to progress scheme development; and
„
budgets and resources available for delivery - to fund construction work itself.
The following table considers the budgets required to ensure that development progress in advance of approvals can be maintained.
Benefit
Development budgets and resources
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Benefit Manager
Promoters
Measure of Success
Sufficient budgets and resources available to ensure technical progress to meet development/approvals programme
Supporting Measures
Promoters budgeting processes
Linked Performance
Available benchmarking data
Indicators Timescale
Conformity with development and approvals programme
Review Process
Regular monitoring of available budgets and resources, covering both in-house and external support
Risks
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
Constraints on scheme development funding and resources
2.5
2
Monitoring of Success Delivery Budgets
2.2.9
The following table considers the delivery budgets that are required to ensure that benefits delivery is not eroded through restrictions on available funding development progress in advance of approvals can be maintained.
Benefit
Delivery budgets
Stakeholders
Department for Transport, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Benefit Manager
Promoters
Measure of Success
Sufficient delivery budgets for tendering exercise to deliver the full scheme specification
Supporting Measures
Promoters budgeting progresses
Linked Performance
Available benchmarking data
Indicators Timescale
Conditional and Full Approvals periods
Review Process
Regular updates to financial modes to take into latest PFI market conditions and inform on PFI credit requirements Close dialogue with progress on workplace parking levy issues, including technical and approvals issues
Risks
Insufficient PFI credits available during concession tendering Restrictions on PFI credit available from central government Inability of Nottingham City Council to deliver workplace parking levy funds or alternatives to fully support local contributions
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.6
2
2.3 2.3.1
Monitoring of Success
Benefits During Construction A number of additional monitoring activities will be required during the construction phase which, similar to the development phase, are not directly linked to the wider objectives but contribute overall by ensuring that the build is to the necessary quality and can deliver the expected scheme benefits. The primary issues here are related to construction progress and safety for construction workers and people living close to the Phase Two alignment during scheme construction and testing. Construction Progress
2.3.2
All stakeholders will be committed to delivering a scheme that is both on time and within budget. Regular monitoring against planned progress will ensure that any potential overrun, in terms of both construction and financial programmes, can be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.
Benefit
Construction progress
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Network Rail, District authorities, Contractors
Benefit Manager
Contractors
Measure of Success
Progress as planned against construction programme and budget
Supporting Measures
Traffic management with diversions as required Temporary stopping up of footpaths and access as required Timely use of Network Rail possessions
Linked Performance
Available benchmarking data
Indicators Timescale
Conformity with construction programme
Review Process
Daily check of activity, tasks signed-off and budgets
Risks
Late materials or labour supply
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.7
2
Monitoring of Success Safe Construction
2.3.3
As noted earlier, safety is a major consideration for construction workers and people living close to the road and other constructions. In addition to the design issues considered above, there is a clear need to ensure actual construction practices minimise exposure to risk.
Benefit
Safe construction
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, District authorities, Contractors
Benefit Manager
Contractors
Measure of Success
Site accident rates during construction are lower than accepted thresholds
Supporting Measures
Health and Safety Executive requirements to be met
Linked Performance Indicators Timescale
Daily throughout construction period
Review Process
Logging of all accidents against risk assessment
Risks
Site risks
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.8
2
Monitoring of Success Complaints
2.3.4
Maintaining the goodwill of the community affected by the construction of NET Phase Two will be essential both for the long-term relationship that the community will have through the use of the system and from the Promoters perspective.
Although the responsibility for
system construction will be passed to the private sector, the impacts of poor community relationships will be felt by the Promoters both in the short-term through satisfaction ratings, and in the longer-term if promoting further extensions to the system. There will be a need to note and respond appropriately to complaints arising during the construction process.
Benefit
Complaints
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Contractors
Benefit Manager
Contractors
Measure of Success
Minimal complaints especially regarding restrictions to access, changes to public transport services and routing and environmental issues e.g. noise/vibration and air quality
Supporting Measures
Regular dialogue with local residents and businesses
Linked Performance
LTP8 air quality – concentration of nitrogen dioxide in both
Indicators
city centre and QMC AQMAs
Timescale
Construction period
Review Process
Regular review of progress and potential difficulties
Risks
Unexpected problems
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.9
2
Monitoring of Success Testing the Scheme and Associated Infrastructure
2.3.5
Prior to opening, the infrastructure and vehicles will need to be tested.
This will involve
investigating the integrity of the structures and operating features and ensuring that the vehicles and wider system attributes perform as expected.
A shadow service will be
operated to ensure that any snagging problems are dealt with before fare-paying passengers use the system.
Benefit
Testing of Phase Two infrastructure and vehicles
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Contractors, NET operator, Health and Safety Executive
Benefit Manager
Contractors, NET operator
Measure of Success
Satisfactory completion to mandatory standards
Supporting Measures
Pre-opening testing to ensure reliability and familiarity
Linked Performance
LTP asset management indicators
Indicators
Health and Safety Executive
Timescale
On completion of sections of route
Review Process
Programme of tests to be determined for concrete, surfacing, stop infrastructure, compatibility with vehicles etc
Risks
Failure to meet concession specification. Vehicle availability
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.10
2
Monitoring of Success Long Term System Delivery
2.3.6
The long-term delivery of benefits arising from NET Phase Two is dependent on the financial viability of the system during its operating concession.
A successful and financially viable
operation will provide both business benefits to the concessionaire and wider social benefits to the promoters.
The concession length is a finite period, where there is potential for
benefits to be realised over a much longer period of time. A financially viable operation will also provide the basis for a successful re-tender and reinvestment in the system to maintain benefits over the longer-term.
Benefit
Long-term system delivery
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET concessionaire
Benefit Manager
NET concessionaire
Measure of Success
Financial sustainability to support business development
Supporting Measures
Delivery of wider social benefits
Linked Performance
Financial performance
Indicators Timescale
On-going, highlighted during annual business reporting cycles
Review Process
On-going financial performance monitoring
Risks
Concessionaire unable to delivery financial sustainability requiring contract termination
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.11
2
2.4 2.4.1
Monitoring of Success
Aim NET 1: Providing a Sustainable Alternative to Car Use Once Phase Two is operational, new journey opportunities will be available in the form of an attractive alternative to car use for many journeys e.g. journeys to work in the city centre and other employment locations, to provide faster journeys than by existing bus services. Increasing the share of public transport use should also contribute to reductions in road traffic and the benefits associated with this including congestion, safety and air quality. Reduced Traffic Congestion
2.4.2
Park and ride sites are in place at Hucknall, Phoenix Park, Moor Bridge, Wilkinson Street and The Forest and Phase Two includes sites at Toton Lane (A52) and Clifton Lane (A453). The contribution that Phase Two makes to the wider tram network will support a culture of strong public transport throughout the city and suburbs.
Benefit
Reduced traffic congestion
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, bus operators
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Changes in the number of NET users compared with base data from start of operation Levels of NET park and ride site use compared with car parks in the city centre and other major destinations Observed changes in traffic levels NET corridors due to mode shift from car to tram (LTP monitoring, cordon counts and passenger surveys) Customer satisfaction surveys
Supporting Measures
More restrictive parking policies Stronger publicity Travel planning for businesses
Linked Performance
LAA/National Indicator NI 167 Congestion – average journey
Indicators
time per mile during the morning peak (replaces LTP7) National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102) LTP2 Change in area-wide road traffic mileage LTP6 Changes in peal period traffic flows to urban centres
Timescale
Peak period, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually
Review Process
Extracting ticket sales data for compilation
Risks
Travel patterns hard to change
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.12
2
Monitoring of Success Changes in Peak Traffic Flow
2.4.3
Phase Two is intended to provide a service that is superior in many respects to conventional bus services and provides an extended network that creates more journey opportunities. This means that services need to be both reliable and punctual if they are to appeal to current car users and reduce congestion.
Benefit
Changes in peak period traffic flow to Nottingham city centre
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, bus operators
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Change in traffic flow between 0800 and 0900 and between 1700 and 1800 over a weekly period compared with base data. Congestion indicators in key corridors (LTP monitoring, cordon counts and passenger surveys)
Supporting Measures
More restrictive parking policies including Workplace Parking Levy
Linked Performance Indicators
LTP6 Changes in peak period traffic flows to urban centres LAA/National Indicator NI 167 Congestion – average journey time per mile during the morning peak (replaces LTP7)
Timescale
Peak periods on a daily basis
Review Process
Automatic traffic count data to be compiled for peak period, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis
Risks
Traffic growth Wider network utilisation issues
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.13
2
Monitoring of Success Reduction in Journey Times
2.4.4
Journey times should improve for Phase Two users as long sections of route are segregated and journeys will be unimpeded by other traffic flows and growth in traffic flows into future years. The growth in road traffic congestion in the Beeston and Clifton corridors should be reduced if people transfer to tram, either directly or via park and ride. This should benefit both trams users and road users.
Benefit
Reductions in peak and inter-peak journey times
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, bus operators
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Reduced journey times
Supporting Measures
Junction improvements e.g. traffic signal timings
Linked Performance
LAA/National Indicator NI 167 Congestion – average journey
Indicators
time per mile during the morning peak (replaces LTP7) LTP5 Bus punctuality indicators
Timescale
Sampled data over monthly and annual periods
Review Process
Vehicle journey time data to be reviewed (data capture by GPS and/or ANPR methods)
Risks
Traffic growth Wider network utilisation issues
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.14
2
Monitoring of Success Improve Road Safety
2.4.5
Improvements in road safety can arise through changes in the functionality of the network (for example removing unsafe features or mitigating risk through better traffic management arrangements and designs feature) but also through reduced accident exposure (for example through reduced traffic flows). In addition to design features, NET Phase Two is expected to reduce the growth in traffic flows and therefore marginally affect the long-term accident exposure.
Benefit
Improve Road Safety
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council,
Benefit Manager
Promoters
Measure of Success
Out-turn accident rates Actual or perceived accident exposure
Supporting Measures
Traffic management arrangements, including road users, cyclists and pedestrians. Alternative route availability and signage
Linked Performance
LAA/National Indicator NI 47 Accidents – people killed or
Indicators
seriously injured in road traffic accidents (replaces BVPI 99x) LAA/National Indicator NI 48 Accidents – children killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents (replaces BVPI 99y) LAA/National Indicator NI 167 Congestion – average journey time per mile during the morning peak (replaces LTP7)
Timescale
Annual basis
Review Process
Consider trends and comparison with other transport modes
Risks
Traffic growth On-off accident ‘events’ Difficulties in obtaining actual or perceived accident exposure assessments
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.15
2
2.5 2.5.1
Monitoring of Success
Aim NET 2: Increasing Public Transport Capacity to Accommodate Growth Increasing public transport network capacity is one of the key objectives of NET Phase Two providing the opportunity to support the maintenance and expansion of economic growth using sustainable transport modes. Increased Capacity
Benefit
Increased public transport capacity
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET operator, bus operators
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Capacity available on NET (seating and standing) Passenger capacity on tram and bus networks on radial routes Sampled NET demand and crowding levels for different times of day and days of week
Supporting Measures
Improved stops to provide additional space and facilities for users Changes to the structure of the bus network
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger
Indicators
journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102)
Timescale
Monthly
Review Process
Sample monitoring of peak period loadings
Risks
Limited scope to extend vehicles or introduce larger vehicles
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.16
2
Monitoring of Success Increased Mode Share for Tram
2.5.2
Linked with public transport network capacity issues is the mode share of tram as an important part of the public transport and transport network offer. Evidence from NET Line One suggests that overall public transport mode shares in the Line One corridors have increased over time. Based on this experience, it is expected that a similar pattern will occur for NET Phase Two.
Benefit
Increased mode share for tram
Stakeholders
NET Operator, Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET operator, bus operators
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Observed modal count data, particularly using Inner Traffic Area cordon counts and passenger surveys Higher proportion of tram use and reduced proportion of car use for redevelopment sites, particularly journeys to work
Supporting Measures
More restrictive parking policies Stronger publicity Travel planning for businesses
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger
Indicators
journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102) LTP2 Change in area-wide road traffic mileage RTS mode share objectives
Timescale
Annually
Review Process
Sample monitoring of peak period mode share
Risks
Travel patterns hard to change
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.17
2
2.6 2.6.1
Monitoring of Success
Aim NET 3: Improving Accessibility and Reducing Social Exclusion Accessibility to essential services is at the core of the Local Transport Plan and enables people to access new opportunities.
NET Phase Two has been designed to be a fully
accessible system for all users, including people with mobility impairments.
On NET Line
One mobility impaired users represent a significant proportion of overall patronage and it is apparent that these users have experienced a higher quality of service than was available before the system opened and is available in corridors not served by NET. Satisfaction with the service will need to be measured alongside physical attributes of the scheme. Improved Accessibility 2.6.2
Accessibility forms a major strand of Phase Two. Allowing people to access key facilities by public transport is essential to promote social inclusion, especially for people who do not have access to private transport. Phase Two serves Queen’s Medical Centre, the University of Nottingham and is close to Nottingham Trent University Clifton Campus, connecting to the city centre campus on Line One.
Benefit
Improved accessibility to key facilities
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET operator
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Improved accessibility to facilities including employment, healthcare, education, leisure, etc indicated by accessibility planning Distributional analysis of system use by equalities impact groups (social groups, mobility impaired users, etc) Attitude surveys of equality impact groups Extent of ‘cross-city’ NET use
Supporting Measures
Travel plans for key facilities
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 175 Access to services and facilities by
Indicators
public transport, walking and cycling (replaces LTP1) National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102) National Indicator NI 198 Children travelling to school – mode of travel usually used (replaces LTP4)
Timescale
Annually
Review Process
Mapping of public transport accessibility in relation to location of key facilities
Risks
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
Travel patterns take time to adjust to land use changes
2.18
2
Monitoring of Success Reduced Deprivation
2.6.3
The conurbation has areas of deprivation which can in part be addressed with the provision of better public transport services.
In particular, better accessibility to employment
opportunities is vital to the encouragement of economic growth and prosperity.
Benefit
Reduced deprivation due to improved accessibility
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Improved deprivation and income indices attributable to better transport links Distributional analysis of system use by equalities impact groups (social groups, mobility impaired users, etc) Attitude surveys of equality impact groups
Supporting Measures
Development of employment opportunities
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 175 Access to services and facilities by
Indicators
public transport, walking and cycling (replaces LTP1) National Indicator NI 176 Working age people with access to employment by public transport National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102) East Midlands economic development
Timescale
Annually
Review Process
Compare indices with current figures
Risks
Wider economic circumstances affect delivery of employment
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.19
2
2.7 2.7.1
Monitoring of Success
Aim NET 4: Integrating Public Transport and Improving Interchange By ensuring public transport services are well connected and integrated a broader range of travel options become available for travellers and this affr5ods people greater flexibility when choosing travel mode. The suitability of public transport to meet these needs can be greatly enhanced through good interchange and integrated system, such as ticketing and timetabling, and in the longer term, by integration of transport and land use planning. Promoting Park and Ride
2.7.2
Park and ride has had a long and successful in Nottingham, boosted by the additional provision of high quality facilities and access facilitated by NET Line One.
Phase Two
expands the network coverage to provide major sites at both the Clifton and Toton Lane termini.
Benefit
Promoting park and ride
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET operator, bus operators
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Increase provision and usage of park and ride facilities Customer satisfaction surveys
Supporting Measures
Good park and ride site design Active and passive park and ride site security measures
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger
Indicators
journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102)
Timescale
Regular monitoring of site security. Annual monitoring of site quality and usage
Review Process
Survey travellers to understand travel patterns involving interchange and compare with current journeys
Risks
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
Lack of timetable convergence
2.20
2
Monitoring of Success Increased Mode Share for Rail
2.7.3
NET Line One provides one element of the public transport offer in and around Nottingham. Line One terminates adjacent to Nottingham station where a range of main line and local rail services is available.
This arrangement will be improved with Phase Two and better
interchange as part of the Nottingham Hub (or Station Masterplan) proposals. The concept of the seamless journey - in which users experience easy interchange - can be built around NET.
Benefit
Increased mode share for rail passengers
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, rail operators, NET operator, bus operators
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
More use of NET to access rail services Customer satisfaction surveys
Supporting Measures
More restrictive parking policies Stronger publicity Travel planning for businesses
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger
Indicators
journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102)
Timescale
Monthly and annual
Review Process
Survey station users by count of station car park use supplemented by interview surveys compared with base data
Risks
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
Lack of attractive interchange at stations
2.21
2
Monitoring of Success Promoting Interchange
2.7.4
Integration covers the physical interchange arrangements associated with the scheme e.g. walking to stops, the interface with bus services and access to rail services. It also includes structural integration between transport and land use planning, ensuring that development sites take advantage of the new accessibility provided by Phase Two.
Benefit
Promoting interchange
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET operator, bus operators, rail operators
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
More interchange journeys bus/rail and bus/bus with mode shift from car especially in Beeston, Clifton and other interchange locations Delivery of part/fully dedicated connecting bus services (if committed by concessionaire or promoter) Use of integrated ticketing on NET system Customer satisfaction surveys
Supporting Measures
Good interchange design, particularly at Nottingham Station
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger
Indicators
journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102)
Timescale
Annually
Review Process
Survey travellers to understand travel patterns involving interchange and compare with current journeys
Risks
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
Lack of timetable convergence
2.22
2
2.8 2.8.1
Monitoring of Success
Aim NET 5: Supporting Land Use Policy, Regeneration etc Transport links are a major feature of planned land use changes and NET Phase Two will enhance accessibility to regeneration areas and provide a strong positive image of modern transport for potential developers. neighbourhood transformation.
NET Phase Two will be an important element of
It will provide a core route around which other design
elements can be based and will also promote sustainable travel and reduce the impact of cars.
Benefit
Support for increased economic activity, land values and employment
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, East Midlands Development Agency, local businesses, developers
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Extent of employment and investment in scheme corridors Attitude surveys of business and residents regarding their views of the scheme Perception of support offered by NET in locational decisionmaking by developers Residential property prices in Line One and Phase Two corridors Perception of quality of urban realm in Strategic Regeneration Frameworks and Neighbourhood Plan areas
Supporting Measures
Parking policies including Workplace Parking Levy
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 176 Working age people with access to
Indicators
employment by public transport East Midlands economic development Neighbourhood strategies
Timescale
Annually
Review Process
Compare indices with current figures
Risks
Wider economic circumstances affect delivery of employment
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.23
2
2.9 2.9.1
Monitoring of Success
Aim NET 6: Promoting Environmentally Friendly Transport The need for environmentally acceptable transport has never been greater.
Apart from
creating a system that has relatively low emissions (especially at the point of use) and low levels of noise (per passenger journey), NET Phase Two can contribute to wider environmental aims by supporting a mode shift away from car use. Minimising Noise Impacts
Benefit
Minimising noise impacts
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, NET operator
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, district councils (Environmental Health)
Measure of Success
No adverse noise impacts of scheme
Supporting Measures
Dialogue with residents and businesses
Linked Performance
LTP quality of life indicators
Indicators Timescale
Regularly through construction phase, especially in sensitive locations Less frequently after completion and during operations
Review Process
Noise surveys from designated properties compared with preconstruction levels
Risks
Localised noise levels increase due to inappropriate mitigation measures
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.24
2
Monitoring of Success Improved Local Air Quality
2.9.2
Local air quality will be improved as a result of a reduction in car use in favour of NET Phase Two which has no emissions along the alignment as vehicles are electrically powered.
Benefit
Improved air quality
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, district councils (Environment)
Measure of Success
Improved air quality due to reduction in traffic arising from mode shift to NET
Supporting Measures
Reduced congestion
Linked Performance
LTP8 air quality – concentration of nitrogen dioxide in both
Indicators
city centre and QMC AQMAs
Timescale
Annually
Review Process
Data extracts from roadside monitoring stations Traffic flow monitoring and modal share indicators
Risks
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
Wider effects of atmospheric change
2.25
2
Monitoring of Success Reduced Carbon Emissions
2.9.3
NET Phase Two is expected to have a small, but positive impact on carbon emissions, allowing for the power requirements of the system and impact on modal shift encouraging people to transfers from car direct to NET or via park and ride.
Benefit
Reduced Carbon Impacts
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, district councils (Environment)
Measure of Success
Changes in carbon emissions arising from reductions in traffic flows due mode shift to NET. Carbon emissions associated electricity generation used in NET operations
Supporting Measures
Reduced congestion
Linked Performance
LTP14 carbon dioxide emissions – volume of carbon dioxide
Indicators
emitted by vehicles in Greater Nottingham
Timescale
Annually
Review Process
Traffic flow monitoring and modal share indicators. NET system power consumption and electricity sources
Risks
Market conditions result in significant differences in carbon emissions from both vehicles and associated Wider effects of atmospheric change
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.26
2
Monitoring of Success Promoting Sustainable Travel
2.9.4
The provision and use of new infrastructure needs to be supported by other elements of the smarter choices agenda to maximise synergies and develop a truly integrated network that provides for sustainable travel.
Benefit
Promoting sustainable travel
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Higher proportion of non-car modes
Supporting Measures
Travel plans for development sites
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger
Indicators
journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102) LTP2 Change in area-wide road traffic mileage LTP6 Changes in peak period traffic flows to urban centres East Midlands growth targets
Timescale
One year and five years after site completions
Review Process
Mode share compared with area-wide current share
Risks
Regeneration programme influenced by wider influences
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.27
2
Monitoring of Success Travel Planning Initiatives
2.9.5
It is likely that some people within the local community will need to be made aware of travel choices and be encouraged to use sustainable transport modes. The enlarged NET system provides opportunities to reinforce travel planning initiatives though providing new and expanded services.
Benefit
Travel planning initiatives
Stakeholders
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, local businesses, developers, schools,
Benefit Manager
Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Measure of Success
Mode shift from car to tram from survey data Assessment of saved emissions due to mode shift from car Assessment of emissions from NET operations
Supporting Measures
Travel information initiatives e.g. workplace and school travel plans and links to planned development sites
Linked Performance
National Indicator NI 177 Local bus and light rail passenger
Indicators
journeys originating in the authority area (replaces BVPI 102) (Retained) BVPI 104 Satisfaction with local bus services LTP2 Change in area-wide road traffic mileage LTP3 Cycling trips LTP6 Changes in peak period traffic flows to urban centres
Timescale
Through construction phase and operation phase
Review Process
Annually
Risks
Funding levels to maintain an effective programme of initiatives
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
2.28
3
Benefits Realisation Programme 3.1
3.1.1
Introduction This section presents an indicative timetable for the tracking, monitoring and reporting of the key benefits and impacts of NET Phase Two. The outline timetable is presented as a benefits realisation programme running across the design, construction and operating phases of NET Phase Two. The following figure provides an indication of early or advanced data collection requirements and where continuous monitoring is likely to be available, primarily in support of local transport plan monitoring activities.
3.1.2
It is expected that this programme will be revised and enhanced as the scheme progresses. It will be important to review the key programming elements linked to progress through Conditional Approvals and toward tendering and Full Approvals. In the short-term the timing of advance data collection is crucial to avoid repeating survey activity or missing suitable survey windows. exercise,
are
Technical issues of data collection, and the need for a data scoping
considered
further
in
the
Evaluation
Requirements
Report,
including
consideration of the changes to the Local Transport Plan monitoring required by the New Performance Framework. BENEFIT year
Design Phase 1 2
Construction Phase 1 2 3
Operating Phase 1
2
3
4
5
Development Integrated design
advance data collection
Designing for personal safety
duration
Outline development and approvals programme
continuous monitoring
♦
Development budgets and resources
formal reporting
Delivery budgets Reporting
♦
Construction Construction progress Safe construction Complaints Testing of Phase Two infrastructure and vehicles Long-term system delivery Reporting
♦
NET1 Sustainable Alternative to Car Use Reduced traffic congestion Changes in peak period traffic flow to city centre Reductions in peak and inter-peak journey times Improve road safety Reporting
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
3.1
3
Benefits Realisation Programme
BENEFIT continued
Design
Construction
Operating Phase
NET2 Increasing Public Transport Capacity advance data collection
Improved public transport capacity
duration
Increased mode share for tram
♦
Reporting
♦
♦
♦
♦
continuous monitoring
♦
formal reporting
NET3 Improving Accessibility and Reducing Social Exclusion Improved accessibility to key facilities Reduced deprivation due to improved accessibility
♦
Reporting
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
NET4 Integrating Public Transport and Improving Interchange Promoting park and ride Increased mode share for rail passengers Promoting interchange
♦
Reporting NET5 Supporting Land Use Policy, Regeneration, etc Support for increased economic activity, land values and employment Reporting NET6 Promoting Environmentally Friendly Transport Minimising noise impacts Improved air quality Reduced carbon impacts Promoting sustainable travel Travel planning initiatives Reporting
DRAFT Benefits Realisation Strategy and Plan
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
3.2
NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT - PHASE TWO
APPENDIX 26 – DCLG CHECKLIST FOR CRITERIA TO BE COVERED IN AN OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE
NET Phase Two Outline Business Case Submitted May 2009
DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DCLG) CHECKLIST FOR CRITERIA TO BE COVERED IN AN OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE* Outputs Output Specification First draft output specification – Paragraph 13.1.1 and draft specification is provided in Appendix 16. Specification based on precedent from similar projects – NET Line One - Paragraphs 13.1.2 – 13.1.3 Illustrative solution for the project- Section 13.2 Planning and Performance framework Consistency with Promoters’ plans, including Service Plans, Best Value, Capital Strategy, Asset Management Plans - Sections 4.1 – 4.4, 4.8 – 4.13. Sustainable Development Consistency with the OGC guidance note Green Public Private Partnerships – Paragraph 13.1.5. Design Quality Design quality – Paragraphs 13.1.7 – 13.1.8 and Section 13.3. Design quality indicators/benchmarking – Paragraphs 13.3.6 – 13.3.7 Use of expert advice on design – Paragraph 13.1.7 Design quality in evaluation criteria for bidders – Paragraph 13.3.10 Egan Report – 13.1.4 Use of guidance on design quality in PFI projects – 13.3.1 – 13.3.6; 13.3.8 – 13.3.9 Options Appraisal Project options Options appraisal against lower cost alternatives - Section 7. Cost/benefit analysis of the alternative options – Paragraph 7.4 Consistency with the ‘Green Book’ – Paragraph 6.1. Procurement Options Value for Money Qualitative Assessment – Section 11.1 and Appendix 1 Value for Money Quantitative Assessment – Section 11.2 and Appendix 14 and 15 Stage 2 project specific assessment, consistency with general programme assumptions, and source for financial information – Paragraph 11.2.1 Affordability PFI payments Financing Plan – Paragraphs 10. 5 – 10.13 and Appendix 13. Financial model sign off by advisers – model was prepared by financial advisors Pricewaterhouse Coopers – See paragraph 10.1 Sources of funding Funding terms – Appendix 10 Rationale for funding terms –Appendix 11 Calculation of PFI credits – Appendix 12 * Taken from the Local Government PFI Project Support Guide (2008-09)
Affordability Contract PFI contract Payment Mechanism
Risk Register
Indemnity or guarantees Accounting Treatment Use of Financial Reporting Standard Balance Sheet treatment Deliverability Project Director Project team
Sponsorship and support
Other sources of funding – Paragraphs 10.8 and 17.1.3 – 17.1.5 Payments over the whole life of the contract – Appendix 12 Acceptance of the payments the Promoters will have to meet themselves – Paragraph 17.1.5 Standardisation of PFI Contracts (SoPC4) – Paragraph 9.2. Derogations from standard terms – Paragraph 9.2 and Appendix 6. Level of payment based on performance standards or usage – Paragraphs 8.1.5 and 13.1.2 – 13.1.3 and Appendix 17. Payments made before works are completed and accepted – Appendix 12 in section ‘Calculation of the Special Grant.’ Risk Register – Section 15 and Appendix 19 Standard form guidance – Paragraph 15.1 and the Risk and Opportunity Management Strategy (p113 – 115) included in the Project Management Plan (Appendix 18). Indemnities or guarantees in respect of contractor liabilities – Paragraph 9.5. Standard accounting requirements – Section 12. Balance sheet treatment – Paragraphs 12.1 and 12.2. Role of Project Director, NET and the NET Phase Two Project Director – Paragraph 14.4 and Section 3 and Appendix A of the Project Management Plan (Appendix 18). Project Management team – Section 14 and Section 3.3 and Appendix A of the NET Phase Two Project Management Plan (Appendix 18). Previous PFI experience – Paragraph 14.1 Management Structure – Paragraph 14.4 and Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the NET Phase Two Project Management Plan (Appendix 18). Delegation of powers is included in paragraph 3.2.2 of the Project Management Plan. Involvement of 4ps – Paragraphs 14.2 Support from key Councillors – Paragraph 17.1.1 Project champion – Paragraph 17.1.2 Communications strategy – section 17.2 and Appendices 22,23 and 24.
* Taken from the Local Government PFI Project Support Guide (2008-09)
Commercial interest Internal risk register Advisors Timetable Statutory Processes Sharing of information Operational Phase
Market testing – Section 8.2 and Appendices 2,3 and 4. Risk register – Section 15, Appendix 19 and the Risk and Opportunity Management Strategy (p113 – 115) included in the Project Management Plan (Appendix 18). Paragraphs 14.2 and 14.3. Project Programme – Section 16 and Appendix 20. Consistency with model procurement timetables – Paragraph 16.4. Transport and Works Act and associated approvals – Section 18. Local consents – Paragraph 18.3 – 18.4 Paragraph 9.3. Transition from procurement to the operational phase – Paragraph 16.3 Resouces to monitor the operational contract – Paragraph 14.6 and Appendix 13.
* Taken from the Local Government PFI Project Support Guide (2008-09)