Decision

The Director of Neighbourhood
Services has approved the uplift of the Pre-Construction Services
Agreement (PCSA) contract by a total of £440,578 to John Sisk
& Sons to £1.35million, and a term extension of 3 months
to December 2025.
 
This
matter affects Birkenhead and Tranmere Ward and is not a key
decision.
 

Reasons for the decision

The Waterfront project consists of two aligned
funding pots, the first part being the pathfinder grant fund and
the second a LCRCA administered LUF transport grant for Argyle
Street. In order to deliver these in a co-ordinated approach one
single contractor was appointed to deliver the project as a whole.
The linking of these two elements, will create efficiency savings,
enable less disruption to the residents and businesses in the local
area and provide a fully linked up waterfront to the town
centre.

The uplift to the contract consists of
£91,000 of previously agreed uplift (agreed via internal
procedure in June 2025) and a further £349,578 of costs
seeking approval via this officer decision notice, representing a
total increase of £440,578. The uplift is for a variety of
reasons, consisting of feedback from local stakeholders, through a
range of platforms during previous consultations, whereby the
Council have commissioned some additional design elements to take
account of feedback received as part of the Councils ‘we
asked, you said, we did’ approach. The Council have also
proactively taken the opportunity to commission additional surveys
and site investigations (including further intrusive
investigations).
 
These additional surveys will further reduce
risk during the construction stage. This has included bringing
forward some surveys that could have been carried out during the
construction phase. The decision was made in conjunction with the
contractor to provide as much certainty as possible upfront for all
parties. This simultaneously creates the ability to enter into a
form of fixed price construction contract. The short timing
increase is required to allow these surveys to conclude and the
results incorporated into the final design.
 
The total figure also contains a contingency
sum for further design/site investigation work as part of value
engineering considerations should the estimated construction costs
exceed the available budget. If not required this contingency sum
will be able to be taken forward into the construction contract
instead.
 
This cost will be paid for out of the capital
grant funding for the project, consisting of a split of Pathfinder
and Levelling Up Transport Grant (administered via the LCRCA). It
is within the overall budget.
 
This cost for the PCSA has agreed by the
contractor and should ultimately enable the PCSA to be completed
and roll into a construction contract shortly thereafter.
 

Alternative options considered

1.Do nothing: No finance uplift or term
extension to the PCSA contract. This was disregarded as this would
mean that the RIBA 4 Design Stage would not be completed
appropriately and therefore the scheme would not be able to able to
progress into a construction contract.
 
2. A further option would to be award the new
elements of the contract via a competitive procurement exercise.
This was discounted because a tendering or competition process
would not be beneficial, as it would cause lengthy project delays
and further cost to the taxpayer when bringing up to speed a new
contractor and design team on board at this late stage in the
PCSA.