The Environment Agency has told a meeting of councillors that West Kirby flood wall still remains value for money, despite a 71 per cent increase in the final cost.
The Audit and Risk Management Committee met last night to consider whether or not the contract for the scheme was procured and administered appropriately.
Simon Fox, assistant director for highways and infrastructure, told councillors that the cost of the contract had risen from £11.5 million to £19.7 million because of unforeseen ground conditions, accommodating the RNLI, changing the design for the flood gates and inflation.
He said: “All the additional costs have been met from additional grants in aid from the Environment Agency, which which was only secured following a very rigorous business case submission and approval process.
“A final audit of the project grant funding has been conducted by Defra, who said they were reassured of the legitimacy of needing five major variations over the life of the project. The project’s been managed under a robust internal governance structure by appropriately experienced, professionally qualified council officers.”
Elizabeth Lowe, the Environment Agency’s commercial business relationship manager, said the procurement process used was “the best route to market” and that VolkerStevin were “exceptional contractors, so all that expertise was perfect for this project”.
She added: “This project has gone up in value but it still retains a business benefit cost ratio, so for every £1 you put in you get £2 back. So it’s already remained in the best interests of the public purse and that’s why both the Environment Agency and Defra group finance have supported this project all the way through, because it is in the best interest.”
Ian Lockhart from government department Defra told councillors that there had been “a lot of rigour around investigating value for money” throughout the contract.
Liberal Democrat councillor, Stuart Kelly, said: “I can see no concerns about the procurement of it. It’s a big civil engineering project by the sea. You could almost in fairness have said as soon as you put a spade in the ground it’s not going to look anything like your computer models.
“I am satisfied with the procurement on the basis of this report and I am satisfied that savings were made as per the contract as it went along and I am satisfied that the additional costs, given that it was a civil engineering contract, were properly incurred.”
Earlier, councillors had heard a statement on behalf of local residents, who put forward an alternative report, arguing that there were “design excesses” and “other more economical solutions” could have been used.
Committee chair, Cllr Jennifer Johnson, said there were lessons to be learned in relation to consultation and engagement during the decision making process, and noted the impact on local businesses during the construction.
However, she concluded: “From our discussions and looking at the information we’ve been provided with, the risk and the scrutiny lies very much more with Defra and the Environment Agency than it does with us and that our liability has not been incurred to the same degree as their liability.”
