Agenda item

Hedd Vaughan-Evans (Head of Operations) to present the report.

 

1.    That the Board approve the streamlined approval route for Full Business Cases (FBC) as set out in Paragraph 4.10 of this report where:

Ø  There has been no change in the scope of the project since the approved Outline Business Case (OBC) or any subsequent change request that was approved.

Ø  Spending objectives targets (e.g. jobs) have not reduced by more than a 10% tolerance since the approved Outline Business Case (OBC) or any subsequent change request that was approved by the Board.

Ø  There is no additional financial ask of the North Wales Growth Deal since the approved Outline Business Case (OBC) or any subsequent change request that was approved by the Board.

Ø  No further delegated authority is required from the Board.

2.    In all other cases the normal FBC approval process would apply.

 

The report was submitted by Alwen Williams (Portfolio Director).

 

RESOLVED

 

1.      That the Board approve the streamlined approval route for Full Business Cases (FBC) as set out in Paragraph 4.10 of this report where:

Ø  There has been no change in the scope of the project since the approved Outline Business Case (OBC) or any subsequent change request that was approved.

Ø  Spending objectives targets (e.g. jobs) have not reduced by more than a 10% tolerance since the approved Outline Business Case (OBC) or any subsequent change request that was approved by the Board.

Ø  There is no additional financial ask of the North Wales Growth Deal since the approved Outline Business Case (OBC) or any subsequent change request that was approved by the Board.

Ø  No further delegated authority is required from the Board.

2.      In all other cases the normal FBC approval process would apply.

 

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

 

To set out a proposal to streamline the approval process for Full Business Cases (FBC) to ensure final investment decisions by the Board can be made in a timely and effective manner.

 

DISCUSSION

 

In response to a request for an explanation of the 10% tolerance in the second bullet point of recommendation 1, it was explained that the tolerance was set to recognise that there were usually minor changes as projects went through this process, particularly through procurement, and that 10% was generally recognised as a logical and proportional reduction that provided flexibility, yet not a substantial figure.    As such, if 1 or 2 jobs changed during the process, that wouldn't necessarily mean having to restart the process.

 

It was asked whether the refined process would apply to projects currently undergoing the Final Business Case (FBC) development process, and whether the new regime would be operational immediately.

 

In response, it was noted that it was intended to implement this immediately, if the Board agreed with the recommendation, so it would apply to projects that were in the process of developing a Final Business Case (FBC).    It was also explained that the refined process would benefit those projects as delays could mean cost increases.

 

In response to a comment regarding transparency and the Board's accountability, it was made clear that the refined process involved streamlining the back office assurance functions that took place before bringing business cases to the Board, and could take several months.  It was added that this would not happen in all cases, however.

 

It was asked whether there were real-world examples of cases where the reduction in the amount of time tender prices were valid led to a situation of having to re-procure.   

 

In response, it was noted:-

 

·         That this had not happened within the Growth Deal itself, but that our partners had expressed concern that they had live projects where the tender prices were only valid for a maximum of 30 days, or 60 days, and therefore there was no time to go through the assurance and project approval process before the tender price expired.

·         If a project could not be approved in time, there was a risk that the partners and project sponsors would either go back to their contractor of choice, which would mean cost increases, or in the worst-case scenario, re-procurement.

·         While the Growth Deal had yet to experience this, we were not far from having to face those challenges ourselves as projects neared Final Business Case approval.

 

Bangor University's Digital Signal Processing Project (DSP) was cited as an example of a project that came to within days of the tender price expiring, and the Engineering Centre at Coleg Llandrillo's Rhyl campus, as an example of a scheme where it had to re-tender at an additional cost of £1m, as a result of the Welsh Government's failure to approve the final project quickly enough.

 

It was suggested that the Business Delivery Board should be involved in assessing projects as that would create more credibility from a private sector perspective, and would not add to the timetable.

 

In response, it was noted:-

 

·         That the Business Delivery Board had a key role in the approval process of Outline Business Cases as they made recommendations to the Ambition Board. 

·         That the report did not fully consider the role of the Business Delivery Board in the process of approving Final Business Cases, which could be discussed further with their representative on this Board.

·         That adding more meetings to the process added to the schedule, but if the Business Delivery Board and Ambition Board meetings could be effectively aligned, then it should be possible to include both, without extending the timetable.

 

It was suggested that the Business Delivery Board could be consulted over email, rather than holding formal meetings, and therefore everyone would still feel included.

 

We agreed to hold a conversation with the Business Delivery Board representative to see how best to engage with the body.