FOI Request - Findochty Harbour Pontoon Renewal

Request 101003259830

My queries relate to amendments to the design and construction of the access bridge that appeared to have occurred in the intervening period of time between the submission of your company's tender and the installation of the bridge.  The differences between the "before and after" design and construction can be seen quite clearly in the attachments to this email.  The "after" shows a ramp enclosed within an overhead truss frame whereas the "before" shows an unenclosed ramp with a balustrade on either side.  

Had it been the intention to use the latter and is that what had been priced for in your tender?  On Intermarine's drawing is annotated "internal aluminium bridge" which seems to infer that it was intended to be enclosed within some other structure, in which case was the latter allowed for in your tender and if it was, why was it not shown on the drawing?  According to Moray Council "The cost of the design change was £7,431.33" but does not clarify what the change was; can you?  Moray Council also states that "The design (of the bridge) was changed to meet the dredging levels and to optimise the design of the bridge which led to the current solution.  This is an aluminium solution rather than steel.", but the first part of that statement doesn't make very much sense to me and the bridge was specified as aluminium from the start.  Perhaps you can also shed some light on this?

Response 23-03-2023

1. Was it the intention of the council or the contractor to use an unenclosed ramp?
This information is not held by the council, and is not held by the contractor on behalf of the council. The contract used was a design and build contract. The contract had a performance specification and the style of ramp was not specified within the contract. Therefore change of style of the ramp is not a breach of contract. The tendered design does not automatically become the agreed final design. Information that is not held falls under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 - Information not held.

2. Why was an intention to enclose the bridge within some other structure not shown in the drawing?
This information is not held.
a) no intention of this. The contract allowed all forms of access ramp to be designed and finalised post contract award. Exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 - Information not held.
b) see above

3. What was the design change that cost £7,432.33?
The change was the dredge level depth which include the following cost elements:- -Design time
- additional material and manufacture cost for extended bridge -additional material and manufacture cost for longer guide rails

4. Explanation of dredging level impact on design
Information not held, exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 - Information not held. To clarify, the lower dredge level mean the total rise and fall required was longer than the tender value. This change mean that longer guide rails were needs and a long ramp/bridge required to ensure compliance with the specification with regard to ramp slope.

5. Belief that the bridge was specified as aluminium from the start.
Information not held, exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 - Information not held. To clarify, the bridge/ramp material was not specified by the council during or after the tender process. During the detailed design post award along with design change to the contract chose the material which best suited to meet the requirement of the specification including and design change made by the client.