Alerts

ER Newsline

More ...

Surveys
Forum

Search this site....

Home Forum
Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

New fund will encourage residents across East Renfrewshire to get on their bike or take a stroll ?
(1 viewing) (1) Guest

TOPIC: New fund will encourage residents across East Renfrewshire to get on their bike or take a stroll ?

Re: New fund will encourage residents across East Renfrewshire to get on their bike or take a stroll ? 8 months, 2 weeks ago #73

  • RM64
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 2139
  • Karma: 19
Sent: 29 October 2020 13:04
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - extension to deadline
Importance: High
Hi ,

any thoughts on extension?

Original deadline was 6 Nov prior to Sandra going on leave. The idea being …… sends over documents for evaluation and awards contract on her return on the 16 Nov.

I empathise with the short turnaround time, however keen to understand how this potentially impacts delivery.

P.S. I am less concerned about the Fenwick Road (south), however, mindful about the rest of Ayr Rd


Sent: 29 October 2020 13:12
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - extension to deadline

There is no doubt it’s a seriously tight timeframe.
Generally, my attitude is that if only 1 tenderer has asked for an extension, I would decline. If more than 1 asks for it – I would agree.   

However, in this case, my inclination is that the additional 8 days would give us better considered responses.

The downside of 8 days slippage is not too severe.

Regards


Sent: 29 October 2020 13:20
Subject: FW: Q via PCS-T - extension to deadline
Hi,

I would tend to agree with …… (below) that an additional 8 days would provide better quality responses. Heartened that slippage wont be too severe

Feel free to progress extension


RE: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries
Hi ,

I think we need to formulate a response to TQ’s received, however he is referring to Z clauses in NEC’s which I assume we should have detailed as ‘not being used’. My limited understanding of NEC is that this is a standard suite of T&C’s which is applicable for works project which can include professional services. We have selected the ‘Professional Services Short Term Contract’ and without having visibility of the content of this suite of terms it’s difficult to know what’s applicable and what’s not.

I think we need to go back to Scotland Excel to get the details of Clauses of the Scotland Excel framework for Engineering and Technical Consultancy Services Ref: 06-16 in which they have detailed this at framework level.
Given that we have taken some time and still not provided a response and as this is technically a legal document I do not have the knowledge or expertise to provide any further guidance, we may need to extend the deadline again to ensure that we are giving bidders sufficient time to provide a robust response given the legal implications that need to be considered.

I finish up tonight for a week’s annual leave but I will keep checking my emails in the hope that we can provide a response sooner rather than later.

Regards


Sent: 03 November 2020 11:06
Subject: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries
Morning ,

Received a Question via PCS-T this morning, looking for some clarification, would appreciate if you can provide a response to the undernoted:-

TQ1
Contract Data Part One – Insurance Table – Professional Indemnity
By way of notice as to the annual aggregate limits that apply to our PI cover we attach our certificate of insurance. (Not attached)

TQ2
Framework Contract Additional Clauses Z33
Z33 of Section 6B of the Scotland Excel Framework stipulates that the TUPE Regulations will apply. In order for us to appraise the attendant risks, please provide us with the employment details for all employees or other consultant's employees who have been spending a substantive amount of their time engaged in providing the services we are to provide OR please confirm TUPE will not apply. I don’t think this would apply – should this clause have been removed?

TQ3
Additional Clauses
1. In order to build certainty as to the duration of our liability under this contract please add the following; “Any and all claims against the Consultant under the terms of this Contract must be made before the expiry of the 5-year period immediately following practical completion of the Services or such shorter period as may be prescribed by law.”
2. Y(UK)3 - In light of the change of law in Scotland we request addition of the following clause; “Unless expressly stated to the contrary no provision of this Agreement is intended to or creates any right or benefit enforceable against the parties to this Agreement under the Contracts (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017 or otherwise”.
3. Limit of Liability - The Scotland Excel Framework anticipated a standard NEC3 PSC limit of liability to included in any call-off contract. A proportionate limit of liability would also allow us to submit a most economically advantageous tender. On that basis we would seek for the following to be included in the contract: again I think the undernoted is looking to ‘cap’ their liability and we have refused this to two other bidders.

“Notwithstanding any other provision in this contract, the total liability of the Consultant under or in connection with this contract (other than for death, personal injury or fraud), whether in contract, tort, breach of statutory duty or otherwise shall not exceed the lower of ten times the fees paid for the scope of services and £2 million.
The Consultant shall have no liability under this contract for any loss of profit, indirect or consequential losses howsoever caused and whether or not such losses were foreseeable at the time of carrying out of the services”

Regards
Procurement Category Manager
Corporate Procurement Section
East Renfrewshire Council



Sent: 03 November 2020 17:12
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries
Hi ,

I think the Conditions of Contract we need are either Professional Services Contract (PSC) or Professional Services Short Contract (PSSC), both from the NEC3 suite of documents. This would apply also for my forthcoming “design of cycle path” Mini Comp.  

I dropped a note to ………. to see if he has an electronic copy – but he doesn’t.

He does have a hard copy which I will collect just as soon as I get the OK to enter the office.

Can’t really offer any answers until then, I’m afraid.    

Meantime, do we know what Conditions applied to The Scotland Excel Framework contract?

Regards


Sent: 04 November 2020 08:08
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries
Hi ,

I’ve downloaded this from SXL website that contains information, hopefully this is what you’re looking for?


Sent: 04 November 2020 09:08
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries
Hi ,

I was very happy to see the attached documents and hoped we would just be able to make reference to it as the Framework’s ‘master’ conditions - and that would resolve all issues for ……..’s contract and my subsequent contract.
But it was not to be.

The document seems to imply we just have to state whether we are going for Professional Services Contract (PSC) or Professional Services Short Contract (PSSC) – both from the NEC3 suite of contracts. The short contract would be the way to go, methinks, as neither contract has any great complexity or risk.
All good – so far.

The bad news is that the document you attached constantly refers to “Renfrewshire Council, Cotton Street, Paisley” so we would need to change that. Do you have it as a ‘word’ document?

There is also on Page 68 a list of information we need to provide, like ‘start date’, ‘completion date’, ‘damages’ etc  - not difficult to provide most of the info but can’t fill it in on a pdf.

There are some options (Page 70) on the consultant’s liability limit which have to be completed by us. (That might be what one of the tenderers was querying).

Finally, there is a long list of “Z” clauses which are probably valid but would have to be checked out.

Regards

Re: New fund will encourage residents across East Renfrewshire to get on their bike or take a stroll ? 8 months, 2 weeks ago #74

  • RM64
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 2139
  • Karma: 19
Sent: 04 November 2020 15:26
Subject: FW: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries

….…. downloaded a Short Contract template, which I reckon is what you want to refer to in your contract. Most of it is easily filled in, but there are a couple of Clauses that look a bit tricky – namely, insurance and arbitration. You may need to seek advice from Legal for these.

I am hoping get into the office soon to lay hands on a hard copy of the NEC3 Short Contract, but I doubt it will help re insurance and arbitration.

Regards


Sent: 04 November 2020 15:31
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries
Hi ,

Please see document uploaded in relation to PSC Option A Contract Data template, check the information on this.

Regards


Sent: 04 November 2020 15:38
Subject: FW: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries

This just in.
The answer to all your prayers. (But check it!)

Regards


SXL NEC3 T&C's Engineering & Technical FW
5/11/2020
Afternoon,

Looking for some help, can you possibly provide a copy of the NECs T&C’s that have been set up for Professional Services Short Term Contract (PSSC) for the above FW, so that we can have visibility of the clauses stated within the NEC terms.

Many Thanks
Regards
Procurement Category Manager
Corporate Procurement Section
East Renfrewshire Council



Sent: 05 November 2020 11:42
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries
Morning,

Just wondered how you are getting on with the TQ’s as I’m due to finish up today  for a week’s annual leave and would like to deal with this before I finish up.

Many Thanks
Regards


Sent: 05 November 2020 12:36
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - Legal Queries
Hi

Hopefully I have the right end of the stick on this… I have updated the Professional Services Short Contract work to the best of my abilities – see attached (please check!). I am assuming this is the correct contract rather than the Professional Services Contract (Option A) previously completed.

I have not included telephone, email and the delay damages, I don’t think the later is applicable in this instance.

I am also assuming that the insurance cover is in line with the Mini-comp tender.

I also note reference to an “appendix 1” within the price list at end of contract. Just wanted to highlight as I don’t have a copy.

Get back to me if you need anything else.

Senior Strategy Officer
Roads & Transportation


Sent: 17 November 2020 12:50
Subject: MC 20 21 038 - COVID-19 Transport Response Measures; Spaces for People - Technical Evaluation
Afternoon,

The above tender deadline closed yesterday and I have finalised the qualification evaluation, we have received 4 submissions from the undernoted:

Aecom
Mott McDonald
Stantec
WSP

I have now opened up the technical envelope and you should be able to commence your technical evaluation. Please ensure that that you provide a justification for your scoring as we will require to provide feedback to the unsuccessful bidders.

I noticed that ………. is on annual leave until 23rd November, can you wait for his return to start his evaluation? Or is there anyone else that could possibly do it?

Regards
Procurement Category Manager
Corporate Procurement Section
East Renfrewshire Council


Sent: 17 November 2020 22:21
Subject: RE: MC 20 21 038 - COVID-19 Transport Response Measures; Spaces for People - Technical Evaluation
Hi ,

great news.

I would volunteer …….., but that would be outside my paygrade.

Can you provide some information on how to access the ‘technical envelope’ for evolution?



Re: MC 20 21 038 - Covid Transport Measures
Hi ,

head of service is Gillian McCarney. Happy to proceed with award. J

 


Sent: 25 November 2020 14:48
Subject: MC 20 21 038 - Covid Transport Measures
 Hi ,
 
The technical evaluation has now been concluded and the commercial envelope has now been opened for review. I attached a copy of attachments offered by all bidders for you to review (there doesn’t appear to be anything that jumps out), let me know if you are happy to proceed or require further clarification in relation to any of the bidders commercial offer(s).
 
Regards
Procurement Category Manager
Corporate Procurement Section
East Renfrewshire Council


Sent: 25 November 2020 20:46
Subject: RE: MC 20 21 038 - Covid Transport Measures
 Hi ,

looks OK to me. Happy to proceed.
 
( – I have saved a spreadsheet of collated pricing schedules here if this is of interest)
 


Sent: 26 November 2020 09:12
Subject: RE: MC 20 21 038 - Covid Transport Measures
Hello,
 
I’m intrigued – who won?
 
Regards


Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:29:52 AM
Subject: RE: MC 20 21 038 - Covid Transport Measures
Hi All,
 
Please see attached final rankings – AECOM have achieved the highest overall score therefore is the 1st ranked bidder. Can you advise who your Head of Service is? And if you are happy to proceed to award?
 
Regards

Re: New fund will encourage residents across East Renfrewshire to get on their bike or take a stroll ? 2 months, 3 weeks ago #75

  • RM64
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 2139
  • Karma: 19
13/9/2021

Published Barrhead News On Line -

News


4 hrs ago

Ayr Road: Petition hits out at cycle lane bollards causing road disruption

By Pippa Smith Reporter

A PETITION has been launched over fears of “serious road safety concerns” on a two-mile stretch of road in East Renfrewshire.

Residents living on Ayr Road, in Newton Mearns, have slammed East Renfrewshire Council following the installation of cycle lane bollards, which now stretch from the Crookfur Park to the Malletsheugh junction.

Karen Flo, who set up the petition, believes that the cones are creating issues for delivery drivers, essential visitors, and emergency vehicles who are “unable to stop safely on the road”.

Homeowners on Ayr Road have also raised concerns over “ongoing disruption” to the flow of traffic, leading to “increased congestion, emissions and air pollution”.

The petition states: “Ayr Road is one of the busiest roads in Newton Mearns and has a variety of road users including drivers and cyclists.

Emergency measures during lockdown saw orange plastic cones appear which acted as a temporary extension to the pavement for people out walking.

“These cones have now been replaced and extended with black and white plastic bollards which act as hard segregation for cycle lanes.

“While we appreciate that East Renfrewshire Council is trying to support and encourage cycling, there seems to be limited or no benefit from the installation of the bollards which are in place.”

The Barrhead News previously spoke to Stephen Page, who is among those to hit out at the bollards, claiming they were putting the safety of road users at risk.

“It has implemented changes to the cycle path and road that have made an accident extremely likely but refuse to accept the road is more dangerous,” the 56-year-old said.

A council spokesperson said the bollards aim to safeguard the existing cycle lane and help keep people safe.

They added: “The measures on Ayr Road are being undertaken on a trial basis following community feedback identifying a local demand for improved active travel provision in the area.

“There has been significant increase in active travel during Covid-19, and these measures aim to safeguard the existing cycle lane.

“Consultation has been ongoing since November 2020, and we continue to consider the views of residents, pedestrians and road users.”

To view the petition, visit HERE.

www.change.org/p/east-renfrewshire-counc...arns?recruiter=false

Re: New fund will encourage residents across East Renfrewshire to get on their bike or take a stroll ? 2 months, 2 weeks ago #76

  • RM64
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 2139
  • Karma: 19
15/9/2021

Published edinburghlive On Line Website -

www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-n...red-warning-21261189

News Edinburgh News The City of Edinburgh Council

By Joseph Anderson Local Democracy Reporter

09:30, 9 AUG 2021 Updated16:21, 9 AUG 2021

Edinburgh Council given 'red' warning over Spaces for People scheme

The council has been warned that ‘significant improvement is required’ to the controversial scheme, while watchdogs found there was no clear cost for ending it.

Edinburgh City Council watchdogs have warned the local authority that ‘significant improvement is required’ over its controversial Spaces for People scheme.

The council’s internal auditors have concluded that both the council’s finances and reputation have been put at risk by the traffic schemes, which were first implemented in response to the need for social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic.

The damning report gives the council a ‘red’ rating - the second worst possible - which means ‘significant and/or numerous control weaknesses were identified, in the design and/or effectiveness of the control environment and/or governance and risk management frameworks’.

The report concludes that:

Initial SfP initiatives considered for prioritisation were based on suggestions from a relatively small group of officers and external local community stakeholders

The majority of initiatives were initially prioritised by six project team members in April 2020

Where public feedback was incorporated into projects, no audit trail was available to confirm that this was completed

There is currently no clear strategy for determining the potential exit costs associated with reversing individual projects, or transitioning them into permanent solutions, and it is currently unclear how any significant exit costs will be funded.

The council’s reputation took a hit due to a public perception that feedback provided through the Commonplace survey was not considered in relation to ongoing schemes

The report will be discussed at a meeting of the council’s governance, risk and best value committee, which is due to meet on Tuesday August 10.

The history of the Spaces for People in Edinburgh has been mired in controversy, with various pressure groups and community organisations both criticising and lauding the traffic schemes.

In May 2020 the Scottish government announced funding for the Spaces for People programmes, which aimed to provide safe options for essential journeys during the coronavirus pandemic.

Since April of that year, the council has used the £5m it received from the Scottish government to introduce various road closures and temporary traffic measures using emergency coronavirus powers.

At the time, the council used Temporary Traffic Regulations Orders (TTROs), which allowed them to install temporary bike lanes, wider pavements and road closures for a maximum of 18 months.

The council says residents living near these schemes were able to provide feedback which was then used to alter and improve the schemes, but anti-Spaces for People campaigners and resident’s organisations have complained about the perceived lack of consultation and improvements to the schemes.

But in June, as the council approached the end of the 18-month TTRO period, city planners began extending the Spaces for People schemes for another 18-month period using Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (ETROs).

This means some ‘temporary’ traffic schemes will have been in place for three years before either being made permanent or scrapped entirely.
Time to create page: 0.64 seconds