Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
to award the Class A contracts, which were specifi cally, NEC3 Option
C (Target Contract with Activity Schedule) contracts with a gross
maximum or target price. This was seen as the most appropriate con-
tract for this particular risk profi le. However, where a restricted route
was not possible, a competitive dialogue route was used during the stage
one tender process. This occurred only on the Aquatics Centre project.
Class B contracts were used for temporary structures and facilities,
including basketball, BMX, hockey, Eton Manor and the construction
training facility. These were all projects where the scope of the works
required relocation or complete removal during the deconstruction
phase, post-Olympics, and where the temporary nature of the construc-
tion varied from temporary standard components to permanent, but
easily demolished, structures. These works also had considerable
LOCOG interfaces. LOCOG refers to the London Organising Commit-
tee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, who were responsible for
the overall organisation and staging of the event.
The contracting strategy for temporary venues and structures was one
of multiple element or trade package project management, and not
through a single contract. These assets were delivered through a set of
large lump-sum contracts called 'priced works packages'. An example
was a contract for the 'temporary pools', which formed one element of
the Eton Manor training complex, completed in conjunction with a
series of other contract elements including ground works, M&E, tem-
porary structures and building envelope. Some of the contractors bidding
for these works were more aligned to the events-management market
sector rather than to traditional construction. A mixture of contract
types was used according to the risk profi le, ranging from NEC3 Option
A to bespoke lease-back arrangements.
Class C contracts were used for civil-engineering works, such as
structures, bridges and highways, where the scope of the works could
be more easily defi ned. Design and delivery was seen as repetitive and
works occurred on multiple occasions and therefore presented only
a medium level of risk. A Public Contracts Regulations, PCR 2006
restricted, single-stage, design-and-construct route was used, based on
the NEC 3 Option A, Priced Contract with Activity Schedule. However,
for a limited number of more complex structures, such as the land
bridges, a two-stage route using NEC3 Option C was used. Again, the
risk profi les were relatively well defi ned.
Class D contracts were applied to enabling and landscaping works,
including hard and soft landscaping and the North and South Drop-Off
