Content

The Director of Culture &
Community Safety is recommended to:
 
Approve the commissioning
strategy outlined in this paper to commence a direct award of a
contract to McArdle Sport Tec through the Football Foundation
PlayZones Framework Alliance Contract
with an estimated value of £600,000, as outlined further in
the report and subject to grant funding being secured as described
in this report.
 
Note the timescales for
delivery in line with the PlayZone
funding programme.
 

Reasons for the decision

The PlayZone project presents an opportunity to
leverage approximately £512,000 in external investment into
Croydon which will significantly improve the two sites.
 
80k of match funding from the
Council is funded by CIL.
 
 
The terms and conditions of the
PlayZones grant require funding and
arrangements to be confirmed for the maintenance and management of
the completed PlayZone over a period of
at least 15 years. The recommended model represents the best value
approach for the council to achieve this.
 
A model of working more closely
with VCFS partners to secure additional investment, deliver
services and meet need in the community also aligns with the
council’s Target Operating Model. Croydon Voluntary Action
are a VCFS partner. Although Oasis are not, collaborating with them
on this project helps strengthen Croydon’s position in
securing external investment, as identified during the external
grant application process.
 
The council risk losing this
investment opportunity by not following this this
approach 
 
A condition of the grant
requires procurement through the Football Foundation PlayZones Framework Alliance Contract as it is a
single supplier framework the appointment will be via a direct
award. This is a compliant route to market, and the supplier has
been through a competitive tendering process demonstrating value
for money for the Council.
 

Alternative options considered

The Council could choose not to
proceed, but this would leave two sites with minimal opportunities
for future redevelopment. Both facilities are currently in a poor
condition and continue to deteriorate. Consequently, usage of both
facilities appear quite low and the
surfaces also present safety hazards, particularly during adverse
weather conditions.
 
The Council could choose to
invest in improving the sites itself rather than accept the
external funding terms and conditions. This option would allow
other procurement routes to be considered, as a condition of the
grant is that we must procure via FF’s framework. Ahead of
submitting the application to the Football Foundation, the
Council’s finance team prepared a high
level analysis of this option in comparison with submitting
the funding bid. Making some assumptions on potential profit and
income generated through the investment, this analysis found that
there would likely be a direct cost of around £300k (to a
lower specification than required by the FF) and a total cost of
borrowing of £140k assuming a 15
year lifespan and interest at 6%. The model identified a
breakeven period of 11 years, though this would be contingent on
income targets being met which would not be confirmed. Overall this was viewed as a riskier option than the
one recommended in this report. This can be found in the
appendices