Purpose

Highway renewal works around the Olympia site
as part of its redevelopment (entitled 'Future Olympia'). Works are
proposed on Hammersmith Road, Blythe Road, Beaconsfield Terrace and
Maclise Road. The works will comprise footway repaving, laying new
kerblines, new crossing points, new lighting columns, new vehicle
crossovers, reinstatement of signalised pedestrian crossings on
Hammersmith Road (which where previously removed or stopped up due
to development works), a new taxi rank on Hammersmith Road,
reinstatement at the Kensington Olympia Station (eastbound) bus
stop (which was also removed due to development works), new cycle
lanes on Blythe Road/Beaconsfield Terrace and improvements to the
crossing facilities at the junction of Blythe Road and Beaconsfield
Terrace. These works are to be carried out under Section 278 and
Section 38 of the Highways Act.

Decision

1.    
Appendix 1 is not for publication on the basis that it contains
information relating to the financial or business affairs of any
particular person (including the
authority holding that information) as set out in paragraph 3 of
Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).
 
2.    
To approve a contract award to Preferred Supplier (Works) for the
works element of the requirement included at Appendix 1 (the
“Preferred Supplier (Works)”), using the existing
Highways term contract for the Contract Award Value (Works) for the
works element of the requirement included at Appendix 1 (the
“Contract Award Value (Works)”).
 

Reasons for the decision

1.    
The Council has a duty to discharge its obligations of the Section
106 agreement by undertaking the works for which this funding was
secured. These works can therefore be undertaken at no cost to the
Council.
 
2.    
The Council wants to make it easier for people to access the
Olympia site, particularly those travelling via sustainable means.
The works form part of the Mayor of London’s plan for Healthy
Streets, a long-term vision to encourage more Londoners to walk and
cycle by making London’s streets healthier, safer and more
welcoming.
 

Alternative options considered

Option 1: Do nothing
or decommission the service or requirement – Not
recommended
 
1.    
The service and works must be delivered to satisfy the
Council’s obligations set out in the planning application for
the Olympia development. Further, the works (including full
construction costs) are being delivered at no cost to the
Council.
 
Option 2: Deliver
the supplies, services, and/or works in-house (make/buy decision)
– Not recommended
 
2.    
The Council does not have in-house resources available to deliver
the works. The works are a major undertaking as the scheme area is
large, multiple parties are involved and there is significant
pressure to deliver to a specified timescale.
 
Option 3: Use an
existing contract, established by the Council, to provide the
supplies, services, and/or works – Recommended
 
3.    
Options exist to use existing contracts which have been compliantly
procured, to deliver both the works elements required. For the
works, use of the Council’s existing Highways term service
contract is proposed to enable contract award to the Preferred
Supplier (Works). Details of the Preferred Suppliers are included
in Exempt Appendix 1.
 
Option 4: Undertake
a fully regulated competitive and compliant procurement process,
advertised to the market – Not recommended
 
4.    
It is recognised that a full regulated procurement process,
advertised to the market would typically attract the widest
competition and achieve the best value for money for the Council.
The disadvantage to this approach is the time it takes to procure.
Competitive procurement can take between 10 and 16 months. An
alternative compliant route to award the works contract already
exists, which will enable contract award in the shortest time,
whilst also having already been compliantly procured, therefore
representing value for money in line with the Council’s
priority to be ruthlessly financially efficient.
 
Option 5: Procure
using a compliant framework, Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS), or
Dynamic Market – Not recommended
 
5.    
Similar to the full regulated procurement process, advertised to
the market, competition via a framework, DPS or dynamic market
would attract competition to achieve value for money for the
Council. The disadvantage to this approach is the time it takes to
procure. A mini competition for these requirements is estimated to
take between 6 and 12 months. An alternative compliant route to
award the works contract already exists, which will enable contract
award in the shortest time, whilst also having already been
compliantly procured, therefore representing value for money in
line with the Council’s priority to be ruthlessly financially
efficient.