Comments on: Rules to be bent for Hull? http://ukwin.org.uk/2008/10/16/rules-to-be-bent-for-hull/ UK Without Incineration Network Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:36:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Shlomo http://ukwin.org.uk/2008/10/16/rules-to-be-bent-for-hull/comment-page-1/#comment-83 Shlomo Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:45:36 +0000 http://www.ukwin.org.uk/?p=449#comment-83 From Round 4 - Hull and East Riding OBC Review (41-page .pdf available upon request) Risk Management A risk register was initiated in March 2008 and has been used to identify risk and record action plans for risk management. The register was extensively reviewed and updated in September 2008. One of the highest impact risks facing the project is that by renegotiating parts of the contract with WRG rather than re-procuring the services the Councils could in theory face a challenge. An interested party could argue that the changes amounted to a “substantial change” and therefore necessitated a new procurement under EU procurement regulations. The Councils have taken legal advice from Pinsents and consider that the risk of a successful change is very small. It would require: a) an interested party to make the challenge, and b) the challenge to be made in time, and c) the courts acceptance that the challenge is valid. The Councils have concluded that the probability of all these conditions holding true us very low. Furthermore the alternative option (i.e. re-procurement brings with the almost certain prospect of litigation from WRG. A detailed paper analysing this issues is included in the OBC Risk Allocation From Round 4 – Hull and East Riding OBC Review
(41-page .pdf available upon request)

Risk Management A risk register was initiated in March 2008 and has been used to identify risk and record action plans for risk management. The register was extensively reviewed and updated in September 2008. One of the highest impact risks facing the project is that by renegotiating parts of the contract with WRG rather than re-procuring the services the Councils could in theory face a challenge. An interested party could argue that the changes amounted to a “substantial change” and therefore necessitated a new procurement under EU procurement regulations.

The Councils have taken legal advice from Pinsents and consider that the risk of a successful change is very small. It would require:
a) an interested party to make the challenge, and
b) the challenge to be made in time, and
c) the courts acceptance that the challenge is valid.

The Councils have concluded that the probability of all these conditions holding true us very low. Furthermore the alternative option (i.e. re-procurement brings with the almost certain prospect of litigation from WRG. A detailed paper analysing this issues is included in the OBC Risk Allocation

]]> By: Barry Robinson http://ukwin.org.uk/2008/10/16/rules-to-be-bent-for-hull/comment-page-1/#comment-82 Barry Robinson Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:55:56 +0000 http://www.ukwin.org.uk/?p=449#comment-82 I have drawn the attention of the two senior (director-level) Defra officers involved in the PFI bid, to many serious weaknesses in the documents involved. They seem not a jot fazed. I believe that we need to mount a 'Name and Shame' them, campaign. I have drawn the attention of the two senior (director-level) Defra officers involved in the PFI bid, to many serious weaknesses in the documents involved. They seem not a jot fazed.

I believe that we need to mount a ‘Name and Shame’ them, campaign.

]]>