Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016 Cork ... · Cork County Council- Public Spending...

Cork County Council- Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016

Public Spending Code Quality AssuranceReport 2016

Cork County Council

For submission to the National Oversight and Audit Commission in compliance with the Public Spending Code.

1


2


Contents

Introduction 7

Step 1 - Project Inventory 8

Step 2 – Summary Information of Procurement >10m Euro 15

Step 3 – Public Spending Code Checklists 16

Step 4 – In depth project checks 30

Step 5 – Summary Report 57

3


Introduction

Cork County Council has completed this Quality Assurance Report as part of its on-going Public Spending Code compliance.

The Public Spending Code aims to ensure that the state achieves value for money in the use of all public funds. This Quality Assurance Report gauges whether Cork County Council meets these aims.

This Quality Assurance process contains 5 steps

1. An inventory of projects/programmes at the different stages of the Project Life Cycle

2. Online publication of procurement information relative to projects in excess of 10million Euro. Specifically those in progress or completed in the year under review.

3. Complete checklist relative to different Capital and Current expenditure programs stages

4. In-depth check on a number of projects/programmes 5. Summary Report

4


Step 1 - Project/Programme Inventory

This inventory reflects all of Cork County Councils Capital and Current Expenditure based Programmes/Projects in excess of >€500,000 for the reporting period.

Please note the following

CCC’s Annual Capital Programme, Annual Budget and AFS informs thisinventory

No new Current (Revenue) Expenditure projects are under development or have ended in this reporting period.

All Current (Revenue) expenditure includes pay.

Certain current Revenue and Capital projects are aggregates of numerous smaller projects or multiyear projects (denoted by asterisk). These are included in the inventory because the overall project exceeds>500,000 euro even though some spending falls outside the reporting period.

The inventory excludes Water Capital projects as IW oversees same (albeit with CCC as an agent).

5


Cork County Council Expenditure Expenditure recently ended >.5m

Current >.5m C

Cap. Proj 5-20m Current >.5m€ Cap. Proj>.5m Current >.5m€

Cap.Grt Scheme Cap. Proj>.5m

LIHAF works A-Housing & Building € 27,333,330

Single House Acquisitions 2017-2019* A-Housing & Building

€ 25,000,000

RAS Programme A-Housing & Building € 5,163,199 € 8,880,119

Energy Efficiency NSW 2016-2018* A-Housing & Building

€ 13,000,000

Clonakilty (Beechgrove) Social Housing A-Housing & Building

€ 11,864,318

Carrigaline (Kilnagleary) SocialHousing A-Housing & Building

€ 9,829,700

LA Housing Units Maintenance and Improvement A-Housing & Building € 7,934,047 Ballincollig (Poulavone) Social Housing A-Housing & Building

€ 7,735,000

Ballincollig (Town Centre) Turnkey 30units (Phase 1) A-Housing & Building € 7,735,000 Bantry Turnkey Housing A-Housing & Building € 6,268,000 Housing Grant Service A-Housing & Building € 5,616,791

€ 5,616,791

Housing Capital Programme Support A-Housing & Building € 5,422,489 Cobh Carrignafoy Social Housing A-Housing & Building € 5,131,824 Cobh Turnkey - College Manor A-Housing & Building

€ 5,131,824.00

Kanturk (Greenane) Part V Affordable (Phase 2) A-Housing & Building

€ 5,082,000

Passage West Social HousingTurnkey A-Housing & Building

€ 4,670,000.00

Dunmanway Kearneys Field A-Housing & Building

€

Voluntary Housing Scheme A-Housing & Building

€ 4,428,751

Disabled Person Grant Improvements (on CCC houses) (2016-2018) A-Housing & Building

€ 4,000,000

Repossessed Houses A-Housing & Building

€ 3,750,000

Capital Assistance Scheme Renovations Sheltered Housing 2016-2018* A-Housing & Building

€ 3,590,448

Kanturk Bluepool Infill Scheme A-Housing & Building

€ 3,182,000

Housing Assessment,

A-Housing & Building € 514,083

€ 2,216,547

6



Current >.5m C



Allocation & Transfer Service

Housing Loans A-Housing & Building € 2,563,245 Fermoy DuntahaneSocial Housing A-Housing & Building

€ 2,268,125

Courtmacsharry Social Housing A-Housing & Building

€ 2,000,000

Bantry (Convent Site) Housing A-Housing & Building

€

Housing Rent & TPService A-Housing & Building € 1,946,811 Hazelwood/Glanmire Improvement Scheme A-Housing & Building

€

Cloyne (Spittal) Phase 2 A-Housing & Building

€

Mortgage to Rent Scheme A-Housing & Building

€ 1,800,000

Macroom (Masseytown) Social Housing (Phase 2) A-Housing & Building

€ 1,467,954

Rosscarbery CAS Townlands A-Housing & Building

€ 1,331,018

Void Refurbishment Programme 2016-18* A-Housing & Building

€ 1,220,000

Bandon CAS 9 units A-Housing & Building

€ 1,115,014.00

Macroom (Masseytown) Social Housing (Phase 1) A-Housing & Building

€ 1,100,000.00

Mitchelstown Stag Park A-Housing & Building

€ 1,068,000

Ordinary Social Housing Scheme AIB 10 Properties A-Housing & Building

€ 1,058,500.00

Part V Housing South A-Housing & Building

€ 1,050,000

Sleaveen East Housing Scheme A-Housing & Building

€ 1,037,500

Fermoy (Oliver Plunkett Hill) SocialHousing A-Housing & Building

€ 1,000,000

Bandon (Gagganstown) Part V Affordable 3,5,7,8 A-Housing & Building

€

Ballydineen HaltingSite A-Housing & Building

€

Youghal St Francis Court A-Housing & Building

€

Youghal The Estuary A-Housing & Building

€

Cloyne (Spittal) Phase 1 5 units A-Housing & Building

€ 620,000.00

Housing Comm Dev Support A-Housing & Building € 611,115 The Nest Part V Affordable No 1,2,4 A-Housing & Building

€

N28 Cork Ringaskiddy (TII) B-Road Transportation and Safety

7



Current >.5m C



Local Roads - Maintenance & Improvement B-Road Transportation and Safety € 39,211,762 Reg Roads - Maintenance & Improvement B-Road Transportation and Safety € 16,458,909 N22 Ballyvourney Macroom (TII) Site Investigation and Land purchase B-Road Transportation and Safety € 8,320,000

€ 8,320,000

Plant and Machinery Purchase B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 7,216,117

Public Lighting operations B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 526,465 € 5,690,594

Carrigaline Western Relief Road B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 6,150,000

Clogher Cross Water dyke realigment B-Road Transportation and Safety € 6,050,000 N20 Buttevant Streets (TII) B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 6,000,000.00

N73 Annakisha South Realignment(TII) B-Road Transportation and Safety € 5,100,000 N72 Carrig to Ballygriffin Realignment (TII) B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 3,500,000.00

Castletownbere Traffic Management Plan B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 3,200,000

N71 - School Link Road B-Road Transportation and Safety

€

Carrigrohane Land Purchase B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 3,000,000.00

Car Parking operations B-Road Transportation and Safety € 2,915,244 Public Lighting Improvement (2016-2018)* B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 2,800,000

Non National Road LED Retrofit B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 2,800,000

Agency and Recoupable Services B-Road Transportation and Safety € 2,315,213 Lehenaghmore Road Design & Interim Works B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 2,060,000

Cork Science and Innovation Park Access Road Works B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 2,000,000

Killeagh Village Pavement Strengthening B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,945,398.00

Support to Roads Capital Prog B-Road Transportation and Safety € 1,932,303 Carrigaline Green Route Phase 2 B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,905,000

Clarkes/Moneygourney Road Improvement Scheme B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,630,000

Public Lighting Development

B-Road Transportation and Safety € 1,550,000

8



Current >.5m C



(2016-2018)*Dunkettle Junction Re design B-Road Transportation and Safety

€

N71 - Clonakilty town Overlay B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,438,272.00

N22 Lissarda Village Pave Ren B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,361,927

National SecondaryRoad - Maintenance & Improvement B-Road Transportation and Safety € 1,334,319 Midleton Road Drainage Works B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,254,932

National Primary Road - Maintenance & Improvement B-Road Transportation and Safety € 1,147,526 N72 Balygriffin Overlay B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,050,000.00

N72 Templenoe Overlay Scheme B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,050,000

Safety Works in Yards & Depots* B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 1,050,000.00

Bantry Culvert B-Road Transportation and Safety €

Ballybrack Cycle Track - Phase 2 & 3 B-Road Transportation and Safety

€

Kanturk Access Road B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 880,625

Douglas Village Improvements B-Road Transportation and Safety

€

Little Island Junction Upgrade B-Road Transportation and Safety

€

N72 Killetra Pavement Strengthening (TII) B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 800,000.00

N22 - Macroom Streets Pavement improvement B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 764,936.00

Road Safety Promotion/Educate B-Road Transportation and Safety € 751,794 N20 - Mallow (Annabella) Roundabout Works B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 730,010

Carrigaline Ferney Rd. B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 720,000

Traffic Management Improvement B-Road Transportation and Safety € 675,841 Midleton (Broomfield) Road Works B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 630,000

Leemount X Junction Upgrade B-Road Transportation and Safety

€ 628,000

Donnybrook Cross & Bus Stop B-Road Transportation and Safety

€

N71 Newmills Realignment (TII) B-Road Transportation and Safety

€

N71 Owenahincha Newmills realignment B-Road Transportation and Safety

€

Lower Lee Flood Relief Scheme C-Water Services Water Supply C-Water Services € € 21,157,105

9



Current >.5m C



1,771,502 Skibbereen Flood Relief Scheme C-Water Services

€ 12,500,000

Glashaboy River (Glanmire/Sallybrook) Flood Relief Scheme C-Water Services

€ 9,000,000

Douglas River Flood Relief Scheme (Including Togher) C-Water Services € 9,000,000 Waste Water Treatment C-Water Services

€ 540,629 € 7,460,849

Agency & Recoupable Services C-Water Services

€ 645,883 € 1,747,581

Youghal Coastal Protection Works C-Water Services

€

Local Authority Water C-Water Services

€ 508,487 € 1,334,276

Public Convenience Operations C-Water Services € 1,432,029 Group Schemes Administration C-Water Services € 1,311,797 Midleton Flood Relief Scheme C-Water Services

€

Pluvial Flood ReliefMeasures C-Water Services

€

Dursey Cable Car (2016-2018) C-Water Services

€ 650,000

Water Capital Programme Support C-Water Services € 527,916 Sheeps Head Sea Wall Rehabilitation Project C-Water Services

€ 502,000.00

Crookstown Flood Relief Scheme C-Water Services

€

Economic Development & Promotion D-Development Management

€ 1,744,961 € 7,240,704

Commercial & Enterprise Function D-Development Management

€ 3,647,699 € 1,791,914

Mallow Business Growth Hub D-Development Management

€

Tourism Development & Promotion D-Development Management € 1,161,892 Industrial & Commercial Facilities D-Development Management € 1,016,842 Clonakilty Fire Station D-Development Management

€

Celtic Food Cluster D-Development Management € 948,658

Building Control Service D-Development Management € 916,246 Industrial Unit Development D-Development Management

€ 900,000

Unfinished HousingEstates D-Development Management € 510,703 Haulbowline Remediation E-Environmental Services

€ 37,010,959

10



Current >.5m C



Fire Service operation E-Environmental Services € 12,979,035 Development Management Service E-Environmental Services € 9,047,589 Recovery & Recycle Facility Operations E-Environmental Services € 6,429,347 Landfill Operation & Aftercare E-Environmental Services € 4,512,357 Burial Grounds Maintenance E-Environmental Services € 3,369,540 Forward Planning Service E-Environmental Services € 3,144,994 Youghal Landfill Capping E-Environmental Services

€ 3,100,000

Safety of Structures & Places E-Environmental Services € 2,162,508 Litter Management operations E-Environmental Services € 2,105,468 Water Quality,Air &Noise Pollution control service E-Environmental Services € 1,934,519 Street Cleaning operations E-Environmental Services € 1,818,546

Fire Prevention E-Environmental Services € 1,805,801 Waste Regs, Monitor & Enforcement service E-Environmental Services € 1,556,799 Kanturk Fire Station E-Environmental Services

€

Macroom Fire Station E-Environmental Services

€

Enforcement Service E-Environmental Services € 1,071,770

Civil Defence HQ E-Environmental Services €

Heritage & Conservation Service E-Environmental Services € 604,063 Fire Applicances purchase (3 no) E-Environmental Services

€ 506,087

Youghal Joint Burial Board E-Environmental Services

€

Library & Archive operations F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 906,538 € 9,154,175

Dunmanway Swimming Pool F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 5,600,000.00

Outdoor Leisure Areas Operation F-Recreation and Amenity € 3,993,471

Community Grants F-Recreation and Amenity € 3,692,918 North Cork Arts Centre F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Leisure Facilities Operation F-Recreation and Amenity € 2,632,388 Cork Harbour Greenway F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Blackwater River Blueway F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Arts Programme Operation F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,789,323 Kinsale Library- F-Recreation and Amenity

€

11



Current >.5m C



development of OldMill

Mallow Boardwalk F-Recreation and Amenity €

Bandon Public Realm improvements F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 1,500,000

Clonakilty Phase 1 Greenway F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Midleton Town Centre Access and Enhancement Project Phase II F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 1,407,735

Camden Fort Meagher renovation F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 1,395,000

Youghal Eco BoardWalk Project F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Midleton Parking improvements F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 1,170,000.00

Skibbereen Public Realm F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Mallow Public Realm F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 1,000,000

Cobh Lower Harbour Public Realm Works F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Mallow Pedestrian Bridge F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Kinsale Long Quay Carpark F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Mobile Library purchase F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 750,000

Mallow new car park F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 600,000

Kinsale Short QuayDevelopment F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Dunmanway Town Square F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Castletownbere Public Realm F-Recreation and Amenity

€

Spike Island Renovation (2016-2018) F-Recreation and Amenity

€ 500,000

Veterinary Service G-Agriculture, Education, Health and Welfare € 3,308,477 Op & Maint of Piers& Harbours G-Agriculture, Education, Health and Welfare € 760,601 Rates Administration H-Miscellaneous Services € 19,153,982 Pensions & Lump Sum Costs H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 575,066 € 16,306,041

Profit/Loss Machinery Account H-Miscellaneous Services € 8,776,014 Agency & Recoupable Services H-Miscellaneous Services € 6,784,696 Corporate Building Costs H-Miscellaneous Services € 6,114,606 General Corporate Services H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 932,613 € 4,643,911

Corporate Affairs Overhead H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 932,613 € 4,643,911

ICT H-Miscellaneous Services € 820,086 € 4,372,418

12



Current >.5m C



Human Resources Function H-Miscellaneous Services € 3,749,508 Finance Function Overhead H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 839,299 € 2,647,252

Carrigrohane Recreation & Amenity lands H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 3,000,000

Local Reps and Civic Leadership H-Miscellaneous Services € 2,642,910 Motor Taxation service H-Miscellaneous Services € 2,516,816

Fermoy Weir H-Miscellaneous Services €

County Hall Motor Tax building H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 1,800,000.00

County Hall Teagasc building H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 1,800,000

Area Office Overhead H-Miscellaneous Services € 1,111,474 Briery Gap TheatreRepair and Refurbishment. H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 1,000,000

ICT systems development H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 800,000

Profit/Loss Stores Account H-Miscellaneous Services € 793,108 Operation Morgue/Coroner Costs H-Miscellaneous Services € 592,797 Cobh PurchaseOld Town Hall H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 580,000

Financial ICT systems development H-Miscellaneous Services

€ 580,000

Franchise Costs H-Miscellaneous Services € 525,877

Totals € 21,869,124 €

€ 39,284,824 € 326,803,532 € 263,269,985 € -

€ -

€ 42,315,944

13


Step 2 – Summary Information on Website

As part of the Quality Assurance process Cork County Council has published summary information online of all procurement>€10million Euro. The link below leads to the PSC section of the website.

https://www.corkcoco.ie/your-county-council/accessibility-maps-publications

The following projects and relevant information are included at time of publication. Available information is subject to project stage.

Haulbowline Island Remediation

River Ilen Drainage Scheme

N22 - Ballyvourney-Macroom Road

N28 – Cork- Ringaskiddy Road

Clonakilty Beechgrove Social Housing

Carrigaline Kilnagleary Social Housing

Lower Lee Flood Relief Scheme

14

https://www.corkcoco.ie/your-county-council/accessibility-maps-publications


Step 3 – Public Spending Code Checklists

These checklists summarise CCC’s PSC compliance. No Current Programmes with expenditure > €500,000 commenced/finished during the reporting period. In –depth project checks informed the specific scores.

The Checklist scoring mechanism is as follows

I. Scope for significant improvements = a score of 1

II. Compliant but with some improvement necessary = a score of 2

III. Broadly compliant = a score of 3

In some cases fields are marked as N/A and information is included in the comment box

Checklist 1 – To be completed in respect of general obligations not specific to individualprojects/programmes.

ChecklistCode

QuestionCode

Question Self-AssessedComplianceRating: 1 - 3

Comment/Action Required

1 1 Does the local authority ensure, on an on-going basis, that appropriate people within theauthority and its agencies are aware of therequirements of the Public Spending Code (incl.

3 All Senior Management, budget holder and project staffare now aware of PSC requirements. Reminders are issued to staff on project documentation.

15


ChecklistCode

QuestionCode



through training)?

1 2 Has training on the Public Spending Code beenprovided to relevant staff within the authority?

3 DPER provided in-depth briefings to appropriate CCC staff in April 2016.

1 3 Has the Public Spending Code been adaptedfor the type of project/programme that yourlocal authority is responsible for? i.e., haveadapted sectoral guidelines been developed?

2 Departments now incorporate PSC compliance into theirexisting project management practice.

1 4 Has the local authority in its role asSanctioning Authority satisfied itself thatagencies that it funds comply with the PublicSpending Code?

NA This has not arisen as CCC does not fund external bodiesfor>500k. However it will be included in any future arrangement.

1 5 Have recommendations from previous QAreports (incl. spot checks) been disseminated,where appropriate, within the local authorityand to agencies?

3 Yes, particularly arising from Internal Audit and other such Quality Reviews.

1 6 Have recommendations from previous QA 3 Yes these are put in place where feasible

16


ChecklistCode

QuestionCode



reports been acted upon?

1 7 Has an annual Public Spending Code QA reportbeen certified by the local authority’s ChiefExecutive, submitted to NOAC and publishedon the authority’s website?

3

1 8 Was the required sample ofprojects/programmes subjected to in-depthchecking as per step 4 of the QAP?

3

1 9 Is there a process in place to plan for ex postevaluations/Post Project Reviews? Ex-postevaluation is conducted after a certain periodhas passed since target project completionemphasising project effectiveness andsustainability.

2 Post project review analysis depends on the complexityof same and outcomes.

1 10 How many formal Post Project Reviewevaluations have been completed in the yearunder review? Have they been issued promptlyto the relevant stakeholders / published in a

2 This is not formally defined so not currently possible tosay. However these take place when requested bySanctioning Authorities.

17


ChecklistCode

QuestionCode



timely manner?

1 11 Is there a process to follow up on therecommendations of previous evaluations/Postproject reviews?

2 Depends on case by case

1 12 How have the recommendations of previousevaluations / post project reviews informedresource allocation decisions?

2 Depends on case by case

Checklist 2 – To be completed in respect of capital projects/programmes & capital grant schemes that were under consideration in the past year.ChecklistCode

Question Code



2 1 Was a preliminary appraisal undertaken for all 3 Yes, both to CCC’s internal standards and sanctioning

18


ChecklistCode

Question Code



projects > €5m? body standards.

2 2 Was an appropriate appraisal method used inrespect of capital projects or capitalprogrammes/grant schemes?

3 Yes, in co-ordination with sanctioning body standards

2 3 Was a CBA/CEA completed for all projectsexceeding €20m?

3 Yes, in co-ordination with sanctioning body standards

2 4 Was the appraisal process commenced at anearly stage to facilitate decision making? (i.e.prior to the decision)

3 Yes, as per sanctioning body funding requirements

2 5 Was an Approval in Principle granted by theSanctioning Authority for all projects beforethey entered the planning and design phase(e.g. procurement)?

3 Yes, as per sanctioning body funding requirements

2 6 If a CBA/CEA was required was it submitted tothe relevant Department for their views?

3 Carried out by other bodies which then provide fundingto CCC.

2 7 Were the NDFA consulted for projects costing 3 Carried out by other bodies which then provide funding

19


ChecklistCode

Question Code



more than €20m? to CCC.

2 8 Were all projects that went forward for tenderin line with the Approval in Principle and, ifnot, was the detailed appraisal revisited and afresh Approval in Principle granted?

3

2 9 Was approval granted to proceed to tender? 3 Yes in all cases

2 10 Were procurement rules complied with? 3 Yes in all cases

2 11 Were State Aid rules checked for all supports? 3 Yes in all cases

2 12 Were the tenders received in line with theApproval in Principle in terms of cost and whatis expected to be delivered?

3 Yes

2 13 Were performance indicators specified foreach project/programme that will allow for arobust evaluation at a later date?

2 Where applicable and identifiable. CCC needs to applyfurther indicators in certain project types in light ofgreater understanding post DPER briefing. Thisparticularly applies to projects with qualitativeoutcomes.

20


ChecklistCode

Question Code



2 14 Have steps been put in place to gatherperformance indicator data?

2 Yes subject to data availability

Checklist 3 – To be completed in respect of new current expenditure under consideration in the past year.

Checklist Code

Question Code

Question Self-Assessed ComplianceRating: 1 - 3

Comment/ActionRequired

3 1 Were objectives clearly set out? 3 Yes

3 2 Are objectives measurable in quantitative terms? 3 Yes

3 3 Was a business case, incorporating financial and economicappraisal, prepared for new current expenditure?

NA Not applicable to relevantprojects

3 4 Was an appropriate appraisal method used? NA Not applicable to relevant

21


Checklist Code

Question Code



projects

3 5 Was an economic appraisal completed for all projectsexceeding €20m or an annual spend of €5m over 4 years?


3 6 Did the business case include a section on piloting? NA Not applicable to relevantprojects

3 7 Were pilots undertaken for new current spending proposalsinvolving total expenditure of at least €20m over theproposed duration of the programme and a minimum annualexpenditure of €5m?


3 8 Have the methodology and data collection requirements forthe pilot been agreed at the outset of the scheme?


3 9 Was the pilot formally evaluated and submitted for approvalto the relevant Department?


3 10 Has an assessment of likely demand for the newscheme/scheme extension been estimated based on empiricalevidence?

NA No applicable projects

3 11 Was the required approval granted? 3 Yes where involvingSanctioning Authorities.

22


Checklist Code

Question Code



3 12 Has a sunset clause (as defined in section B06, 4.2 of thePublic Spending Code) been set?

2 Applied where applicable

3 13 If outsourcing was involved were procurement rules compliedwith?

3

3 14 Were performance indicators specified for each new currentexpenditure proposal or expansion of existing currentexpenditure programme which will allow for a robustevaluation at a later date?

2

3 15 Have steps been put in place to gather performance indicatordata?

2

Checklist 4 – To be completed in respect of capital projects/programmes & capital grants schemes incurring expenditure in the year under review.

Checklist Code

Question Code



4 1 Was a contract signed and was it in line with the Approval inPrinciple?

3

23


Checklist Code

Question Code



4 2 Did management boards/steering committees meet regularlyas agreed?

3

4 3 Were programme co-ordinators appointed to co-ordinateimplementation?

3

4 4 Were project managers, responsible for delivery, appointedand were the project managers at a suitably senior level forthe scale of the project?

3

4 5 Were monitoring reports prepared regularly, showingimplementation against plan, budget, timescales and quality?

3

4 6 Did projects/programmes/grant schemes keep within theirfinancial budget and time schedule?

2

4 7 Did budgets have to be adjusted? 3 Some renegotiationneeded to take place tostay within budget.

4 8 Were decisions on changes to budgets / time schedules madepromptly?

2 Some postponementwhilst waiting for adecision.

4 9 Did circumstances ever warrant questioning the viability of NA

24


Checklist Code

Question Code



the project/programme/grant scheme and the business caseincl. CBA/CEA? (exceeding budget, lack of progress, changesin the environment, new evidence, etc.)

4 10 If circumstances did warrant questioning the viability of aproject/programme/grant scheme, was the project subjectedto adequate examination?

NA

4 11 If costs increased was approval received from the SanctioningAuthority?

NA

4 12 Were any projects/programmes/grant schemes terminatedbecause of deviations from the plan, the budget or becausecircumstances in the environment changed the need for theinvestment?

NA

Checklist 5 – To be completed in respect of current expenditure programmes incurring expenditure in the year under review.

25


Checklist Code

Question Code



5 1 Are there clear objectives for all areas of current expenditure? 3 Yes, as part of Budgetingand Business PlanningProcess

5 2 Are outputs well defined? 3 Yes including NationalPerformance Indicators

5 3 Are outputs quantified on a regular basis? 3 Yes

5 4 Is there a method for monitoring efficiency on an on-goingbasis?

2 Yes

5 5 Are outcomes well defined? 3

5 6 Are outcomes quantified on a regular basis? 2

5 7 Are unit costings compiled for performance monitoring? 2

5 8 Are other data compiled to monitor performance? 2

5 9 Is there a method for monitoring effectiveness on an on-goingbasis?

2

5 10 Has the organisation engaged in any other ‘evaluationproofing’ of programmes/projects?

2

26


Checklist 6 – To be completed in respect of capital projects/programmes & capital grant schemes discontinued in the year under review.

Checklist Code

Question Code



6 1 How many post project reviews were completed in the yearunder review?

2 Some Reviews take placebut no specific register ofsame

6 2 Was a post project review completed for allprojects/programmes exceeding €20m?

NA None completed in thisexpenditure bracket

6 3 Was a post project review completed for all capital grantschemes where the scheme both (1) had an annual value inexcess of €30m and (2) where scheme duration was five yearsor more?

NA None completed in thisexpenditure bracket

6 4 Aside from projects over €20m and grant schemes over €30m,was the requirement to review 5% (Value) of all other projectsadhered to?

Yes

6 5 If sufficient time has not elapsed to allow for a properassessment, has a post project review been scheduled for afuture date?

No

6 6 Were lessons learned from post-project reviews disseminatedwithin the Sponsoring Agency and to the Sanctioning

2 Yes as part of post project

27


Authority? (Or other relevant bodies) review where required.

6 7 Were changes made to practices in light of lessons learnedfrom post-project reviews?

2 Depending on project. Forexample better initialproject briefs is a keyoutcome.

6 8 Were project reviews carried out by staffing resourcesindependent of project implementation?

No

28


Checklist 7 – To be completed in respect of current expenditure programmes that reached the end of their planned timeframe during the year or were discontinued.

Checklist Code

Question Code



7 1 Were reviews carried out of current expenditure programmesthat matured during the year or were discontinued?

No

7 2 Did those reviews reach conclusions on whether theprogrammes were efficient?

No

7 3 Did those reviews reach conclusions on whether theprogrammes were effective?

No

7 4 Have the conclusions reached been taken into account inrelated areas of expenditure?

NA

7 5 Were any programmes discontinued following a review of acurrent expenditure programme?

NA

7 6 Were reviews carried out by staffing resources independent ofproject implementation?

NA

7 7 Were changes made to the organisation’s practices in light oflessons learned from reviews?

NA

29


30


Step 4 - In-Depth Reviews

Introduction

CCC has carried out an In-Depth Review of the following projects to provide assurance that Cork County Council Departments and Functions comply with the Public Spending Code.

Review Area Current Expenditure

Capital Expenditure

Value

Buttevant Street Renovation

Complete (2017) €6,000,000

“Motor Tax” building renovations

Complete (2017) €1,800,000

Arts Programme Operation

Yes (Under Progress)

€1,789,000

31


These reviews cover approx 15.6% of CCC’s total Capital Expenditure and 7.5% of Current Expenditure as an average for 2014-2016.

32


Programme or Project Information

Name Buttevant Street Renovation

Detail

This project involved the renovation and reconstruction of aspects of Buttevant’s street fabric including

road resurfacing pavement rehabilitation Street lighting Concealed utilities

Responsible Body TII/Cork County Council

Current Status Completed

Start Date 2015

End Date 2017

Overall Cost 6 million Euro

33


Objectives Inputs Activities Outputs OutcomesUrban Renewal

Resurfacing

Funding

Council Staff

Consultant Staff

Contractor Staff

Materials

Project Design and RiskAssessment

Public Consultation

Archaeologicalinvestigation

Servicerelocation/undergrounding

Pavement works

Re surfacing

Street furnitureimprovements

Improved Road surface

Improved Pavementsurfaces

New services whererequired

Improved public realmalong Main Street

Improved urban

environment

Better road surface

More attractive to

investment

34


Section B - Step 1: Logic Model Mapping

As part of this In-Depth Check, CCC Performance and Governance Unit have completed a Programme Logic Model (PLM) for theButtevant Street Renovation.

Objectives: Urban renewal was the key objective and particularly to restore usability to this attractive streetscape. At the same time the high traffic throughput necessitated road resurfacing. No alternative high level project objective was available considering the location of the works. However, within this context, numerous design and engineering solutions were analysed to ascertain which was the most cost effective.

Inputs: The primary input to the programme was the capital funding of €6 million which was provided for by TII contributing 2.75meuro and CCC providing the funding balance. CCC staff provided project design and oversight whilst Arups Engineering consultantsprovided direct supervision. The specific works were carried out by Priory Construction. Archaeological investigation work wascontracted to Rubicon.

Activities: Project Activities included

Project Design and Risk Assessment

Public Consultation

35


Archaeological investigation

Service relocation/undergrounding

Pavement works

Re surfacing

Street furniture improvements

Outputs: Having carried out the identified activities using the inputs, the outputs of the project are for improved

Improved Road surface

Improved Pavement surfaces

New services where required

Improved public realm along Main Street

Outcomes: The envisaged project outcome was to improve the Main Streets public realm through better pedestrian facilities and amore attractive environment. Similarly the improved road pavement has allowed for faster and easier vehicular transit through thetown. Utilities have also been undated where appropriate taking advantage of the road opening works.

Section B - Step 2: Summary Timeline of Project/Programme

The following section tracks the Buttevant Street Renovation from inception to conclusion in terms of major project/programmemilestones

36


June 2014 Part 8

November 2014 Project Tender

February 2015 Project Start

October 2016 Project Work Finalised

March 2017 Final Project Payments

Section B - Step 3: Analysis of Key Documents

The following section reviews the key documentation relating to appraisal, analysis and evaluation for the Buttevant StreetRenovation.

37


Project/Programme Key Documents

Title Details

Part 8 and Managers Report

Project ObjectivesRelevant National PolicyEnvironmental ThresholdsPublic Consultation SubmissionsProject Recommendations

Monthly Progress Monitoring meetings -Minutes

Public ConsultationHealth and SafetyArchaeologyProject decisionsTraffic ManagementUtility LiaisonPayments

Monthly formal progress report

Key Document 1: Part 8 and Managers Report

38


The document is clearly laid out and includes the key scheme objectives. It also summarises key project thresholds including publicconsultation, environmental and heritage assessment. However it makes little reference to actual project management and stagecompletion. Nevertheless these items are included in the project contracts.

Key Document 2: Monthly Progress Monitoring meetings - Minutes

The monthly progress report meetings are clear with issue summaries and assigned roles as appropriate. However a statement atthe start would be desirable setting out the overall project status.

Key Document 3: Monthly formal progress report

Again this document clearly lays out the individual project issues (archaeology, Safety Audits, Utilities, Works). However again itdoes not have an overall statement as to project status.

Section B - Step 4: Data Audit

39


The following section details the data audit that was carried out for the Buttevant Street Renovation. It evaluates whetherappropriate data is available for the future evaluation of the project/programme.

Data Required Use Availability

Necessary Road repairs

Assess impact of improved road surface in terms of lower repair requests and costs

Yes, held by TII/CCC as part of Pavement Management System.

Economic impactsAssess scheme impact on town vitality

Planning Policy Unit to assess at next Local Area Plan review

Utility repairsAssess impact of utility works in terms of reducing repair occurrence.

Available through CCC “Road Opening Licence” System.

Data Availability and Proposed Next Steps

40


As per the table above, it should be feasible to construct a before and after snapshot of the projects success. However this projectwill require several years to bed in particularly in terms of improving Buttevant’s economic performance.

Section B - Step 5: Key Evaluation Questions

The following section looks at the key evaluation questions for the Buttevant Street Renovation based on the findings from theprevious sections of this report.

Does the delivery of the project/programme comply with the standards set out in the Public Spending Code? (AppraisalStage, Implementation Stage and Post-Implementation Stage)

In terms of tenders the project phase complied with procurement guidelines and it was not necessary to omit any works in order to achieve expected costs. Specific project goals and timelines are also in place. Finally, a post project review will be carried out to ascertain “lessons learned” within the context of future such proposals.

Is the necessary data and information available such that the project/programme can be subjected to a full evaluation at alater date?

The project’s high levels goals are qualitative the improvements have been welcomed by Buttevant’s inhabitants. The contributoryobjectives (constructions, improved drainage etc)

What improvements are recommended such that future processes and management are enhanced?

The project ran on budget but ran over initial timeframe as a much higher level of archaeological inspection was required than originally anticipated. In particular the presence of several National monuments required both Ministerial consent and detailed excavation works. In terms of future projects CCC considers that it is now in a better position to manage works in areas with a concentration of archaeology.

41


Section C: In-Depth Check Summary

The following section presents a summary of the findings of this In-Depth Check on the Buttevant Street Renovation Project

Summary of In-Depth Check

The Buttevant Street Renovation project involved the repair and replacement of pavement and roads in the town as well as otherpublic realm and utility improvements. This in turn would improve the streets permeability to both motorists and pedestrians whilstalso providing a more attractive environment for residents and businesses.

TII part funded the works as a Sanctioning Authority to the extent of 2.75m euro. CCC provided the funding balance.

In terms of project scoping an initial risk assessment identified the following key concerns.

Broken or Leaking mains/sewers

Unknown archaeological and heritage sites (Buttevant is a medieval town)

Whilst CCC oversaw the project, Consultant Engineers managed the works on a day to day basis. This working relationship was managed through regular progress report meetings.

The project ran on budget but ran over initial timeframe as a much higher level of archaeological inspection was required than originally anticipated. In particular the presence of several National monuments required both Ministerial consent and detailed excavation works.

The project outcome is considered as a success as the town is a more attractive environment and this should lead to improved economic and social outcomes. This in-depth review considers that this capital project meets PSC criteria.

42



Name “Motor Tax” building renovations

Detail

This project involved the renovation and reconstruction of the old “Motor Tax building” on the County Hall Campus. It is now used as a Community and Enterprise Public Office

Responsible Body Cork County Council

Current Status Completed

Start Date 2014

End Date 2017

Overall Cost 1.8 million Euro

43



As part of this In-Depth Check, CCC Performance and Governance Unit have completed a Programme Logic Model (PLM) for the“Motor Tax” building renovations

Description of Programme Logic Model

Objectives Inputs Activities Outputs OutcomesIncreased office

accommodation

Improved Energy

Efficiency

Cost effective

Refurbishment

Funding

Planning Permission

CCC Design Staff

Consultant Engineers

Contractors

Project Design and RiskAssessment

PublicConsultation/PlanningPermission

Surveys

Construction works

Fitting out

Finished building

On budget

No significant H&Sissues

Office space

Public Accessibility

Energy Efficiency

Lower costs vis a vis newbuilds.

44


Objectives: CCC has primary responsibility for community and economic development in the County. The current office accommodation in County Hall was not suitable in the context of both size and public accessibility. CCC decided to renovate an existing disused building on the campus (Motor Tax) for the purposes of office accommodation.

Inputs: CCC provided 1.8 million euro for the project and was the sole funding organization. CCC staff provided project design andsupervision in conjunction with consultant engineers.

Activities: Project Activities included

Project Design and Risk Assessment

Public Consultation/Planning Permission

Surveys

Construction works

Fitting out

Outputs: Having carried out the identified activities using the inputs, the outputs of the project are for improved

Office space

Public Accessibility

Energy Efficiency

Lower costs vis a vis new builds.

Outcomes: The envisaged project outcome was to provide a high quality office space whilst reusing an existing building with lowerrunning costs going forward. This was achieved although the project did run over initial schedules due to ongoing cost discussionswith potential contractors.

45



The following section tracks the “Motor Tax” building renovations from inception to conclusion in terms of major project/programmemilestones

June 14 Project Scoping

April 15 Planning Permission granted

November 15 Tender issued

June 16 Tender awarded

July 16 Construction commenced

April 17 Construction Complete

46



The following section reviews the key documentation relating to appraisal, analysis and evaluation for the “Motor Tax” buildingrenovations


Title Details

Monthly Progress Monitoring meetings -Minutes

Health and SafetyWorks ProgressNecessary Changes

Lessons Learned ReviewProject TimelineStage Outcomes and alternative optionsLessons Learned

Key Document 1: Monthly Progress monitoring meetings - Minutes

The monthly progress report meetings are clear with issue summaries and assigned roles as appropriate. However a statement atthe start would be desirable setting out the overall project status.

Key Document 2: Lessons Learned Review

This is a very comprehensive document prepared by a Project Team member. It runs through the entire project highlighting reasonsfor time delays (particularly related to tender document preparation and changed scope). The scope change was primarily due to

47


an internal restructuring which resulted in changed office space requirements. The review concluded that this area should be better managed in future and that a Project Execution Plan should be finalised early in a public works project for identifying the brief, communications and stakeholder responsibility


The following section details the data audit that was carried out for the “Motor Tax” building renovations. It evaluates whetherappropriate data is available for the future evaluation of the project/programme.


Office Space Accommodation Post Occupation Survey

Energy Efficiency Cost effectivenessEnergy usage analysis (Billing, metering)


As per the table above, it should be feasible to construct a before and after snapshot of the projects success.

48



The following section looks at the key evaluation questions for the “Motor Tax” building renovations based on the findings from theprevious sections of this report.


The appraisal stage was not documented as fully as it could have been and Steering Group meetings were informal. The tender stage ran over schedule due to pre tender internal design changes and post tender cost negotiations. Nevertheless this process resulted in a project which ran to budget and with a relatively straightforward construction period.


Yes, as the main brief was to improve office space quantity and quality at a set construction and running cost.


A detailed project brief at the start would have facilitated the process through informing the design and tender phase. In the case ofthis project the requirements changed somewhat at the outset to reflect a Directorate restructuring. This resulted in some designchanges.

49



The following section presents a summary of the findings of this In-Depth Check on the “Motor Tax” Renovation Project

Summary of In-Depth Check

This project involves the renovation of a disused office building on the County Hall campus for use by the Local Enterprise Office/Community Department. This renovation finished in mid Q2 2017 at a cost of 1.8million Euro.

The project goals were as follows

Return a building to active use

Bring more staff into the County Hall campus

Reduce payments on rent for off campus office accommodation.

Alternative accommodation off campus would still result in high rent payments and there was inadequate space in the County Hall building itself for this Department. At the same time this service experiences a high quantity of public visits and this is facilitated by its location.

The initial project analysis confirmed that the best VFM outcome would result through renovation of the existing building as opposed to demolition and rebuild. It is anticipated that approximately 600,000 Euro has been saved when comparing the former and latter.

CCC is entirely funding the project and has received full planning from Cork City Council. The project is directly managed by the Co.Architect who reports directly to a Divisional Manager.

The project was tendered for in accordance with procurement guidelines and resulted in a contract in line with expected costs.

50


Project management meetings between contractor and the Co. Architect occur at particular thresholds and in any case not longer than a 2week interval.

A post project review has concluded that it is viable to refurbish older buildings at a competitive cost vis a vis newer buildings whilst still reaching high quality standards. However a detailed project scope may have reduced the time needed to design and tender for the proposal.

Assessment: This in-depth review considers that this capital project meets PSC criteria.

51



Name Arts Programme Operations

Detail

This project involves the promotion and support of Arts in Cork County including

Grants

Event Support

Bursaries

Art Procurement

Responsible Body Cork County Council

Current Status Underway

Start Date Ongoing

End Date Ongoing

Overall Cost 1.789 million Euro

52



As part of this In-Depth Check, CCC Performance and Governance Unit have completed a Programme Logic Model (PLM) for theArts Programme

Objectives:

Support development of Arts at a local level

Support emerging and established creative artists in County Cork

Develop new audiences for the Arts

Foster and encourage excellence in the Arts

Advocate for the local Arts sector on a local, national, and international level

Support the Arts through provision of resources, services and communication of funding opportunities.

Inputs: The primary input to the programme is the Sections budget of 1.789 million and it’s assigned staff. The section alsooperates under National Arts Plan which informs its strategic goals. This translates into the various grants and support schemestargeted at different aspects of artistic endeavor in the county.

Activities:

Artists in schools Scheme

Artist-in-Residence in the Community

Music Education Scheme

Music, Drama and Dance Programming

53


Voluntary Arts Training Programme

Community Based Arts Development

Youth Arts Development.

Bursary Schemes.

Residency Projects.

Commissioning.

Film making support

Purchase of work.

Outputs: Having carried out the identified activities using the inputs, the programme outputs are for

Artistic events of all types

Individual Arts works

Outcomes:

Greater participation in Arts at all levels

Increased Arts based tourism

54



The Arts Office runs grant and bursary competitions and supports events throughout the year.


The following section reviews the key documentation relating to appraisal, analysis and evaluation for the “Arts Programme”


Title Details

Grant Award Summary CandidatesAward amountsAims

Project Completion Summary for individualprojects

Project OutcomeExpense ItemsAttendance/Success factor

Key Document 1: Grant Award Summary

This document outlines the grant award outlay for the relevant year. It is intended for Council Members and breaks down awards byMunicipal District. It is quite clear and helps to ensure an appropriate sectoral and geographic funding breakdown.

Key Document 2: Project Completion Summary:

55


This document is prepared by applicants post project completion and is a requirement for funding drawdown. It requires them todetail the attendance or other quantitative indicators associated with the project. This information is then collated into a database.


The following section details the data audit that was carried out for the “Arts Programme”. It evaluates whether appropriate data isavailable for the future evaluation of the project/programme.


Event Attendance Ensuring maximum VFMPost project review submissions

Expenditure Cost effectivenessPost project review submissions


The above information enables Arts staff to build a VFM picture relative to previous years and also highlight projects which aremore likely to require higher or lower funding amounts.


56


The following section looks at the key evaluation questions for the “Arts Programme” based on findings from the previous sections ofthis report.


The Programme is multi annual and spread across a wide range of grants and other bursaries. However each funding stream is periodically reviewed and scoped in relation to new funding streams.


Yes, each grant recipient must return data to the Arts Office prior to funding payment. This information is then collated and used toinform later projects.


An online application system and database would greatly benefit this process. This is currently under consideration as part of the“Your Council" Online platform rollout. Process mapping has already taken place to facilitate this.


57


Through its Arts programme CCC aims to achieve the following

Stimulating public interest in the Arts

Promoting knowledge, appreciation, and promotion of the Arts

Improving standards in the Arts

CCC also procures works and awards grants along the following themes

Bursary Schemes.

Residency Projects.

Commissioning including “% for Arts” scheme

Purchase of work

In terms of Grant assistance CCC awards grants based on pre established artistic and financial requirements approved by Members and in keeping with the 2003 Arts Act. In practice a wide range of artistic works are funded including events, recitals, festivals and items from individuals.

All applications are assessed according to these criteria to ensure that a wide range of projects are promoted from an artistic and geographic viewpoint., The Arts office also aims to ensure that CCC funding does not duplicate alternative funding from other bodies. Post submission closure date the Arts Department issues a report to Members prior to any grant award. In this way CCC aims to reconcile both artistic integrity and effective use of public funding.

Artists and community groups must acknowledge CCC’s role in the promoting the event or works and cannot claim funding until thefunded event or other item has been carried out. All grant awardees must then submit a completion report which aims to establish ifthe proposed goals were achieved including target audience, numbers attending events, key issues encountered and a breakdown of expenditure items. In this way the Arts Office is better able to advise and co-ordinate future applications as well as target future initiatives.

Going forward, CCC is examining moving to an online application system which would further improve efficiency and public accessibility.

Assessment: it is considered that this service is carried out in line with PSC guidance.

58

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/act/24/enacted/en/html


59


Step 5 – Summary Report

Cork County Council considers that it complies with Public Spending Code requirements.

In terms of future progress CCC

Has set up a Procurement Unit

Includes PSC project appraisal as part of its Internal Audit scope in terms of Capital Project Assessment.

Intends setting up a project inventory for all Capital Projects specifically funded by CCC.

60

Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016 Cork ... · Cork County Council- Public Spending...

Documents

Transcript of Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016 Cork ... · Cork County Council- Public Spending...