Delivery Partner Panel by runout


									                                   Delivery Partner Panel
                                      Northern Cluster
                          Meeting Held in Leeds on 22 February 2010
                                    Questions & Answers

Business Model questions

No questions raised.

PLI questions

Will there be any mixed use sites progressed via the PLI?

The initial three sites to be announced are not mixed use, representing relatively small
residential schemes. Although the later PLI sites are not yet confirmed potential exists for
these to include residential led mixed use schemes.

Following on from the five cores standards being adopted for PLI does this mean that
there will be fewer standards on PLI sites?

Whilst the standard PLI brief will focus on the five cores standards each PLI site will include
additional local requirements which may pick up the EP legacy standards.

Will the GVA developed financial appraisal model cover additional local standards?

It is our intention that the model will cover this.

Yorkshire and Humber questions

What sort of returns are envisaged by the HCA’s PRSI partners?

The level of return will depend on the individual project and sharing of risk.

Does the recent Kickstart announcement mean there will be Kickstart 3?

The recent Kickstart announcement relates to specific projects that are starting on site as a
result of Kickstart, Round 1, and includes a project in Kirklees.

In the Central Cluster meeting potential to use the DPP to explore soft market testing
was identified as an option. Is there the possibility this could be adopted within
Yorkshire and Humber?

The potential to use the DPP to soft market test sites is an idea which has some merit and may
be particularly relevant for Local Authority interest in the DPP and PLI. Potential exists to
aggregate such exercises in workshops with Local Authorities in due course.

Will training target be included in DPP mini-competition?

Potential exists for training to be included as it has for Kickstart and NAHP. This will be clear
in individual site briefs.

North East questions

No questions.

North West questions
No questions.

Manchester questions

The presentation noted that the main contractor was already on board. Can you clarify
the relevance of the opportunity to the DPP?

The main contract for the physical works is already in place via an MCC panel arrangement.
There may be a wider development opportunity during 2011/2012. The intention is to use the
DPP to review the value of the existing options for the scheme and suggest further options
reflecting DPP members’ commercial strengths. Essential the DPP will be providing a service.

How big is the initial development opportunity?

The existing opportunity is 100 units.

The presentation made reference to 60% home ownership, what does this element

This is a generic measure which in this instance includes pathways to ownership units
(affordable – supported – home ownership).

What are the refurbishment standards?

It is not clear what standards are to be adopted as MCC are seeking to secure an additional
£3m to raise standards.

Who takes development risk?

It would appear the MCC is taking the development and sales risk.

Rotherham questions

What status does the 24% affordable housing target have?

The target is the Local Authority requirement. The HCA will typically fund to local aspiration
levels unless specific national targets such as those within PLI have an effect.

1NG questions

No questions

Technical questions

Is there an issue between the panel length and the potential appointment of DPP
members for projects which have a longer delivery period?

The panel has been set up in order to enable projects established during the period of the
panel but which extend beyond the three (or four years) of the panel.

Further comment – the EU Commission and indeed the OGC recognise that call offs from
panels (or framework agreements) can extend beyond the term of the panel. The provision
which needs to be understood is that the panel cannot be used to circumvent the HCA’s
obligations to comply with the Public Contract Regulations and Amendments thereon. The
normal practice, which applies to more simple and manageable services or supplies
purchases, is for frameworks to operate for no more than 4 years and that appointments from
them are limited to a year after the framework exists. The nature of projects and development
timetables provides a sound basis for looking at reasonable extensions to these without
breaching the HCA’s compliance obligations. The panel itself has not been procured for longer
than four years as a new arrangement, therefore allowing for review, restructuring as well as
maintaining an element of commercial pressure on members whilst giving those unsuccessful
firms opportunities to address their failure this time. It is accepted that appointments will on
occasion need to be longer than one year beyond the end of the panel due to the nature of the
projects, but the HCA and other bodies will need to review each project and associated
timetables to ensure no specific compliance obligations are breached. As a general rule
therefore call offs from the framework which extend beyond the panel term for a reasonable
period and projects with 10, 15 or 20 year delivery timetable may need to be divided into
phases to bring the project term more in line with the length of the panel and reasonable period
which it calls off started within this period can run.

Would joint ventures between panel members be allowed?

As the panel is not seeking to undermine established practices and such joint ventures have
occurred in the past the principle appears reasonable. What is important is that the
establishment of such joint ventures within the panel are not sprung on the HCA and are made
known at the earliest opportunity – either at Stage 1 or 2 of the mini-competition process. The
precise detail of how this will work is to be investigated, but initial thoughts are that this would
be possible.

When local authorities are holding mini-competitions who will be responsible for the
initial phone around?

The mini-competitions held by Local Authorities are managed by them, and the HCA has no
ownership of the initial expression of interest stage or how these mini-competitions are

Further comment – However, if panel members have bad experiences the HCA will seek to
inform Local Authorities of their obligations and the HCA’s right to withdraw access due to bad
practice. The HCA will investigate instances of bad practice be firstly contacting other panel
members to corroborate the facts and recommend corrective action if necessary.

Is it possible for information to be made available via ITP or extranet website?

No commitment to an extranet can be made at this time although considered desirable.

Do Local Authorities need to sign up with all members?

It is more likely that Local Authorities will establish framework agreements only with the firm
selected at the end of the project specific mini-competition. This helps make the process
efficient for Local Authorities and DPP panel members. Instances may arise where the Local
Authority has a large portfolio of sites it would like to put through the framework and signs up
to the whole framework with all participants. Whilst this has happened on the HCA’s
professional services frameworks (with the ODA and a number of Development Corporations)
this approach is not expected for the DPP due to the volume of transactions an individual Local
Authority will have.

Is the application for NAHP grant and the pre-qualification process separate to DPP?

The DPP and NAHP PQQ process are separate and will continue to be subject to different
renewal and update processes.

To top