Re-roofing of the Agriculture and Food Science Centre at Newforge

The Assembly's independent auditor, Mr John Dowdall, published a report today on the Re-roofing of the Agriculture and Food Science Centre at Newforge. In 1988, the then Department of Agriculture undertook to replace the flat roofs on five buildings at the Centre, following a survey which declared the roofs to be unsafe and in need of replacement. Due to operational and funding constraints, the project was undertaken in phases, with re-roofing being finally completed in 2000. In addition to the new roofs, an Extension block and temporary accommodation for staff displaced during re-roofing, were also constructed. Overall, the total cost of the project amounted to some £12.5 million.

The Audit Office examined the Department's handling of the project, against the best practice guidance available during the life of the project. The report makes a series of recommendations, which will help the Department in its handling of future capital projects.

Main Findings

  • The project has solved the major problem of water seepage and has extended the life expectancy of the five buildings. In addition, the Department succeeded in re-roofing the blocks while maintaining the functioning of the Centre during construction operations. The actual re-roofing contract was completed within its planned 5½ year timetable. However, with final completion some 12 years after confirmation that the roofs needed replaced, the project took considerably longer than originally envisaged (paragraph 62).
  • The Department's handling of the project did not always follow best practice and its procedures could be strengthened in a number of important areas. The report notes that the Department is examining how best to take the Audit Office's recommendations forward, in line with best practice for construction procurement (paragraph 63).

On the Appraisal of the Project

  • The Audit Office found that the Department's project files did not contain certain key documents. For example, the Department was unable to provide copies of its investment appraisals - which assessed the costs and benefits of the proposed work - for the Re-roofing and Extension projects. The report also notes that the Department of Finance and Personnel files on the project were destroyed in 1998, even though the Re-roofing project was not completed until two years later. Best practice states that responsibility for maintaining records should be clearly designated, to ensure that all information is retained and handled in an appropriate manner. The Audit Office recommends that steps are taken to ensure that key documentation is retained during the life of capital projects and for an appropriate period - at least three years - following their completion (paragraphs 15 to 18).
  • There was no evidence that the Department had assessed the cost and timing implications of its decision not to use the Extension block as temporary accommodation during re-roofing, as originally planned. Given the £1 million cost of alternative temporary accommodation, its limited lifespan and low residual value, the Audit Office would have expected to see evidence of the Department's evaluation. The report recommends that where a management decision is to be made which impacts significantly on the outcome of a major project, the cost of pursuing that particular action must be assessed and recorded before the decision is finalised (paragraph 27).

On Project Implementation

  • The Department accepts that some updating of knowledge in relevant areas is required by staff with responsibility for capital projects, to enable them to better carry out their role and ensure compliance with best practice. The Audit Office recommends that the Department undertakes an assessment of the training needs of staff involved in capital projects and that relevant guidance is brought to their attention (paragraphs 35 to 38).
  • Additions and variations to the Re-roofing contract, after commencement, amounted to some £1.6 million. Although these did not affect the overall project timetable, the extent of the changes suggests that there could have been better project planning and definition at main contract tender stage. Best practice advises that minimising changes to design after construction has begun is a key factor in successful cost control during the construction stage (paragraphs 48 and 49).

On Project Monitoring

  • While noting that a number of monitoring mechanisms were in place during the life of the project, the Audit Office found no evidence that there had been a formal mechanism for monitoring and regular reporting to senior management within the Department. The Audit Office would have expected to see regular reporting, at key project milestones, to inform senior management on project progress (paragraph 53).

On Post-project Evaluations

  • Post-project evaluations measure the success of a project against its objectives and identify and record all relevant lessons to improve performance on subsequent projects. However, the report noted that the Department had not undertaken evaluations of the Extension and Re-roofing projects, even though these had been completed in 1992 and 2000 respectively. The Audit Office recommends that the Department takes steps to ensure that post-project evaluations are completed on a timely basis (paragraphs 57 to 59).