Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016 Cork … · 2018-03-13 · Cork County Council-...

Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016

Cork County Council

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

Cork County Council- Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016

2


3


4


5

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


6


7

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


8

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 this inventory

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).


9

Cork County Council Expenditure being considered Expenditure being incurred >.5m Expenditure recently ended >.5m

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

Cap.Grt Scheme Cap. Proj>.5m

Current >.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) Social Housing 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 30 units (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 € 4,528,000

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, Allocation & Transfer Service A-Housing & Building € 514,083 € 2,216,547

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

Fermoy Duntahane Social Housing A-Housing & Building € 2,268,125

Courtmacsharry Social Housing A-Housing & Building € 2,000,000

Bantry (Convent Site) Housing A-Housing & Building € 2,000,000

Housing Rent & TP Service A-Housing & Building € 1,946,811

Hazelwood/Glanmire Improvement Scheme A-Housing & Building € 1,900,000

Cloyne (Spittal) Phase 2 A-Housing & Building € 1,859,000

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


10




Current >.5m€


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) Social Housing A-Housing & Building € 1,000,000

Bandon (Gagganstown) Part V Affordable 3,5,7,8 A-Housing & Building € 719,688

Ballydineen Halting Site A-Housing & Building € 710,000

Youghal St Francis Court A-Housing & Building € 631,738

Youghal The Estuary A-Housing & Building € 625,346

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 € 565,000

N28 Cork Ringaskiddy (TII) B-Road Transportation and Safety £ 40,900,000

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 € 3,020,000

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 (2016-2018)* B-Road Transportation and Safety € 1,550,000

Dunkettle Junction Re design B-Road Transportation and Safety € 1,500,000

N71 - Clonakilty town Overlay B-Road Transportation and Safety € 1,438,272.00


11




Current >.5m€


N22 Lissarda Village Pave Ren B-Road Transportation and Safety € 1,361,927

National Secondary Road - 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 € 1,050,000

Ballybrack Cycle Track - Phase 2 & 3 B-Road Transportation and Safety € 900,000

Kanturk Access Road B-Road Transportation and Safety € 880,625

Douglas Village Improvements B-Road Transportation and Safety € 840,000

Little Island Junction Upgrade B-Road Transportation and Safety € 840,000

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 € 600,000

N71 Newmills Realignment (TII) B-Road Transportation and Safety € 500,000

N71 Owenahincha Newmills realignment B-Road Transportation and Safety € 500,000

Lower Lee Flood Relief Scheme C-Water Services £ 40,000,000

Water Supply C-Water Services € 1,771,502 € 21,157,105

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 € 2,000,000

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 € 1,250,000

Pluvial Flood Relief Measures C-Water Services € 900,000

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


12




Current >.5m€


Crookstown Flood Relief Scheme C-Water Services € 500,000

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 € 1,255,000

Tourism Development & Promotion D-Development Management € 1,161,892

Industrial & Commercial Facilities D-Development Management € 1,016,842

Clonakilty Fire Station D-Development Management € 990,000

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 Housing Estates D-Development Management € 510,703

Haulbowline Remediation E-Environmental Services € 37,010,959

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 € 1,300,000

Macroom Fire Station E-Environmental Services € 1,100,000

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

Civil Defence HQ E-Environmental Services € 900,000

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 € 500,000

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 € 3,692,918

North Cork Arts Centre F-Recreation and Amenity € 3,500,000

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

Cork Harbour Greenway F-Recreation and Amenity € 2,000,000


13




Current >.5m€


Blackwater River Blueway F-Recreation and Amenity € 2,000,000

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

Kinsale Library- development of Old Mill F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,700,000

Mallow Boardwalk F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,631,088

Bandon Public Realm improvements F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,500,000

Clonakilty Phase 1 Greenway F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,500,000

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 Board Walk Project F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,200,000

Midleton Parking improvements F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,170,000.00

Skibbereen Public Realm F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,100,000

Mallow Public Realm F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,000,000

Cobh Lower Harbour Public Realm Works F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,000,000

Mallow Pedestrian Bridge F-Recreation and Amenity € 1,000,000

Kinsale Long Quay Carpark F-Recreation and Amenity € 900,000

Mobile Library purchase F-Recreation and Amenity € 750,000

Mallow new car park F-Recreation and Amenity € 600,000

Kinsale Short Quay Development F-Recreation and Amenity € 500,000

Dunmanway Town Square F-Recreation and Amenity € 500,000

Castletownbere Public Realm F-Recreation and Amenity € 500,000

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

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 € 1,870,000

County Hall Motor Tax building H-Miscellaneous Services € 1,800,000.00

County Hall Teagasc building H-Miscellaneous Services € 1,800,000


14




Current >.5m€


Area Office Overhead H-Miscellaneous Services € 1,111,474

Briery Gap Theatre Repair 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 € - € 54,884,860 € 39,284,824 € 80,900,000 € 326,803,532

€ 3,692,918 € 263,269,985

€ -

€ - € 42,315,944


15

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

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


16

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 individual projects/programmes.

Check

list

Code

Question

Code

Question Self-Assessed

Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3

Comment/Action Required

1 1 Does the local authority ensure, on an on-

going basis, that appropriate people within the

authority and its agencies are aware of the

requirements of the Public Spending Code (incl.

through training)?

3 All Senior Management, budget holder and project staff

are now aware of PSC requirements. Reminders are

issued to staff on project documentation.

1 2 Has training on the Public Spending Code been

provided to relevant staff within the authority?

3 DPER provided in-depth briefings to appropriate CCC

staff in April 2016.


17

Check

list

Code

Question

Code


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


1 3 Has the Public Spending Code been adapted for

the type of project/programme that your local

authority is responsible for? i.e., have adapted

sectoral guidelines been developed?

2 Departments now incorporate PSC compliance into their

existing project management practice.

1 4 Has the local authority in its role as

Sanctioning Authority satisfied itself that

agencies that it funds comply with the Public

Spending Code?

NA This has not arisen as CCC does not fund external bodies

for>500k. However it will be included in any future

arrangement.

1 5 Have recommendations from previous QA

reports (incl. spot checks) been disseminated,

where appropriate, within the local authority

and to agencies?

3 Yes, particularly arising from Internal Audit and other

such Quality Reviews.

1 6 Have recommendations from previous QA

reports been acted upon?

3 Yes these are put in place where feasible

1 7 Has an annual Public Spending Code QA report

been certified by the local authority’s Chief

Executive, submitted to NOAC and published

on the authority’s website?

3

1 8 Was the required sample of

projects/programmes subjected to in-depth

checking as per step 4 of the QAP?

3


18

Check

list

Code

Question

Code


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


1 9 Is there a process in place to plan for ex post

evaluations/Post Project Reviews? Ex-post

evaluation is conducted after a certain period

has passed since target project completion

emphasising project effectiveness and

sustainability.

2 Post project review analysis depends on the complexity

of same and outcomes.

1 10 How many formal Post Project Review

evaluations have been completed in the year

under review? Have they been issued promptly

to the relevant stakeholders / published in a

timely manner?

2 This is not formally defined so not currently possible to

say. However these take place when requested by

Sanctioning Authorities.

1 11 Is there a process to follow up on the

recommendations of previous evaluations/Post

project reviews?

2 Depends on case by case

1 12 How have the recommendations of previous

evaluations / post project reviews informed

resource allocation decisions?

2 Depends on case by case


19

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

st Code

Question

Code


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


2 1 Was a preliminary appraisal undertaken for all

projects > €5m?

3 Yes, both to CCC’s internal standards and sanctioning

body standards.

2 2 Was an appropriate appraisal method used in

respect of capital projects or capital

programmes/grant schemes?

3 Yes, in co-ordination with sanctioning body standards

2 3 Was a CBA/CEA completed for all projects

exceeding €20m?

3 Yes, in co-ordination with sanctioning body standards

2 4 Was the appraisal process commenced at an

early 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 the

Sanctioning Authority for all projects before

they 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 to

the relevant Department for their views?

3 Carried out by other bodies which then provide funding

to CCC.

2 7 Were the NDFA consulted for projects costing

more than €20m?

3 Carried out by other bodies which then provide funding

to CCC.

2 8 Were all projects that went forward for tender 3


20

Checkli

st Code

Question

Code


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


in line with the Approval in Principle and, if not,

was the detailed appraisal revisited and a fresh

Approval in Principle granted?

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 the

Approval in Principle in terms of cost and what

is expected to be delivered?

3 Yes

2 13 Were performance indicators specified for each

project/programme that will allow for a robust

evaluation at a later date?

2 Where applicable and identifiable. CCC needs to apply

further indicators in certain project types in light of

greater understanding post DPER briefing. This

particularly applies to projects with qualitative

outcomes.

2 14 Have steps been put in place to gather

performance indicator data?

2 Yes subject to data availability


21

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

Checklist

Code

Question

Code


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


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 economic appraisal, prepared for new

current expenditure?

NA Not applicable to relevant projects

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

3 5 Was an economic appraisal completed for all

projects exceeding €20m or an annual spend

of €5m over 4 years?


3 6 Did the business case include a section on

piloting?


3 7 Were pilots undertaken for new current

spending proposals involving total

expenditure of at least €20m over the

proposed duration of the programme and a

minimum annual expenditure of €5m?


3 8 Have the methodology and data collection

requirements for the pilot been agreed at the



22

Checklist

Code

Question

Code


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


outset of the scheme?

3 9 Was the pilot formally evaluated and

submitted for approval to the relevant

Department?


3 10 Has an assessment of likely demand for the

new scheme/scheme extension been

estimated based on empirical evidence?

NA No applicable projects

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

3 12 Has a sunset clause (as defined in section

B06, 4.2 of the Public Spending Code) been

set?

2 Applied where applicable

3 13 If outsourcing was involved were

procurement rules complied with?

3

3 14 Were performance indicators specified for

each new current expenditure proposal or

expansion of existing current expenditure

programme which will allow for a robust

evaluation at a later date?

2

3 15 Have steps been put in place to gather

performance indicator data?

2


23

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


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


4 1 Was a contract signed and was it in line with

the Approval in Principle?

3

4 2 Did management boards/steering

committees meet regularly as agreed?

3

4 3 Were programme co-ordinators appointed to

co-ordinate implementation?

3

4 4 Were project managers, responsible for

delivery, appointed and were the project

managers at a suitably senior level for the

scale of the project?

3

4 5 Were monitoring reports prepared regularly,

showing implementation against plan,

budget, timescales and quality?

3

4 6 Did projects/programmes/grant schemes

keep within their financial budget and time

schedule?

2

4 7 Did budgets have to be adjusted? 3 Some renegotiation needed to take place to stay within

budget.


24

Checklist

Code

Question

Code


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


4 8 Were decisions on changes to budgets / time

schedules made promptly?

2 Some postponement whilst waiting for a decision.

4 9 Did circumstances ever warrant questioning

the viability of the project/programme/grant

scheme and the business case incl. CBA/CEA?

(exceeding budget, lack of progress, changes

in the environment, new evidence, etc.)

NA

4 10 If circumstances did warrant questioning the

viability of a project/programme/grant

scheme, was the project subjected to

adequate examination?

NA

4 11 If costs increased was approval received from

the Sanctioning Authority?

NA

4 12 Were any projects/programmes/grant

schemes terminated because of deviations

from the plan, the budget or because

circumstances in the environment changed

the need for the investment?

NA


25

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

review.

Checklist

Code

Question

Code


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


5 1 Are there clear objectives for all areas of

current expenditure?

3 Yes, as part of Budgeting and Business Planning Process

5 2 Are outputs well defined? 3 Yes including National Performance Indicators

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

5 4 Is there a method for monitoring efficiency on

an on-going basis?

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-going basis?

2

5 10 Has the organisation engaged in any other

‘evaluation proofing’ 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


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


6 1 How many post project reviews were

completed in the year under review?

2 Some Reviews take place but no specific register of

same

6 2 Was a post project review completed for all

projects/programmes exceeding €20m?

NA None completed in this expenditure bracket

6 3 Was a post project review completed for all

capital grant schemes where the scheme both

(1) had an annual value in excess of €30m

and (2) where scheme duration was five years

or more?

NA None completed in this expenditure bracket

6 4 Aside from projects over €20m and grant

schemes over €30m, was the requirement to

review 5% (Value) of all other projects

adhered to?

Yes

6 5 If sufficient time has not elapsed to allow for

a proper assessment, has a post project

review been scheduled for a future date?

No

6 6 Were lessons learned from post-project

reviews disseminated within the Sponsoring

2 Yes as part of post project review where required.


27

Agency and to the Sanctioning Authority? (Or

other relevant bodies)

6 7 Were changes made to practices in light of

lessons learned from post-project reviews?

2 Depending on project. For example better initial project

briefs is a key outcome.

6 8 Were project reviews carried out by staffing

resources independent 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


Compliance

Rating: 1 - 3


7 1 Were reviews carried out of current

expenditure programmes that matured

during the year or were discontinued?

No

7 2 Did those reviews reach conclusions on

whether the programmes were efficient?

No

7 3 Did those reviews reach conclusions on

whether the programmes were effective?

No

7 4 Have the conclusions reached been taken into

account in related areas of expenditure?

NA

7 5 Were any programmes discontinued

following a review of a current expenditure

programme?

NA

7 6 Were reviews carried out by staffing

resources independent of project

implementation?

NA

7 7 Were changes made to the organisation’s

practices in light of lessons 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.

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

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

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


32

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 the Buttevant

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.

Objectives Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Urban Renewal

Resurfacing

Funding

Council Staff

Consultant Staff

Contractor Staff

Materials

Project Design and Risk

Assessment

Public Consultation

Archaeological investigation

Service

relocation/undergrounding

Pavement works

Re surfacing

Street furniture improvements

Improved Road surface

Improved Pavement

surfaces

New services where

required

Improved public realm

along Main Street

Improved urban

environment

Better road surface

More attractive to

investment


33

Inputs: The primary input to the programme was the capital funding of €6 million which was provided for by TII contributing 2.75m euro and

CCC providing the funding balance. CCC staff provided project design and oversight whilst Arups Engineering consultants provided direct

supervision. The specific works were carried out by Priory Construction. Archaeological investigation work was contracted to Rubicon.

Activities: Project Activities included

Project Design and Risk Assessment

Public Consultation

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 a more

attractive environment. Similarly the improved road pavement has allowed for faster and easier vehicular transit through the town. Utilities

have also been undated where appropriate taking advantage of the road opening works.


34

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/programme milestones

June 2014 Part 8

November 2014 Project Tender

February 2015 Project Start

October 2016 Project Work Finalised

March 2017 Final Project Payments


35

Section B - Step 3: Analysis of Key Documents

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

Project/Programme Key Documents

Title Details

Part 8 and Managers Report

Project Objectives

Relevant National Policy

Environmental Thresholds

Public Consultation Submissions

Project Recommendations

Monthly Progress Monitoring meetings -

Minutes

Public Consultation

Health and Safety

Archaeology

Project decisions

Traffic Management

Utility Liaison

Payments

Monthly formal progress report


36

Key Document 1: Part 8 and Managers Report

The document is clearly laid out and includes the key scheme objectives. It also summarises key project thresholds including public

consultation, environmental and heritage assessment. However it makes little reference to actual project management and stage completion.

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 at the 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 it does not have

an overall statement as to project status.


37

Section B - Step 4: Data Audit

The following section details the data audit that was carried out for the Buttevant Street Renovation. It evaluates whether appropriate 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 impacts Assess scheme impact on

town vitality

Planning Policy Unit to

assess at next Local Area

Plan review

Utility repairs

Assess impact of utility

works in terms of reducing

repair occurrence.

Available through CCC

“Road Opening Licence”

System.


38

Data Availability and Proposed Next Steps

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

sections of this report.

Does the delivery of the project/programme comply with the standards set out in the Public Spending Code? (Appraisal Stage,

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 a later date?

The project’s high levels goals are qualitative the improvements have been welcomed by Buttevant’s inhabitants. The contributory objectives

(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.


39

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 other public realm

and utility improvements. This in turn would improve the streets permeability to both motorists and pedestrians whilst also 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.


40


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


41


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 Outcomes Increased office

accommodation

Improved Energy

Efficiency

Cost effective

Refurbishment

Funding

Planning Permission

CCC Design Staff

Consultant Engineers

Contractors

Project Design and Risk

Assessment

Public Consultation/Planning

Permission

Surveys

Construction works

Fitting out

Finished building

On budget

No significant H&S

issues

Office space

Public Accessibility

Energy Efficiency

Lower costs vis a vis new

builds.


42

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 and supervision

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 lower running

costs going forward. This was achieved although the project did run over initial schedules due to ongoing cost discussions with potential

contractors.


43


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

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


44


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


Title Details

Monthly Progress Monitoring meetings -

Minutes

Health and Safety

Works Progress

Necessary Changes

Lessons Learned Review

Project Timeline

Stage Outcomes and alternative options

Lessons 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 at the 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 reasons for time

delays (particularly related to tender document preparation and changed scope). The scope change was primarily due to an internal


45

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 whether appropriate data

is available for the future evaluation of the project/programme.


Office Space Accommodation Post Occupation Survey

Energy Efficiency Cost effectiveness Energy usage analysis

(Billing, metering)


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


46


The following section looks at the key evaluation questions for the “Motor Tax” building renovations based on the findings from the previous

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 of this

project the requirements changed somewhat at the outset to reflect a Directorate restructuring. This resulted in some design changes.


47


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.


48

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.


49


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


50


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

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 also operates under

National Arts Plan which informs its strategic goals. This translates into the various grants and support schemes targeted 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


51

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


52


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

Candidates

Award amounts

Aims

Project Completion Summary for individual

projects

Project Outcome

Expense Items

Attendance/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 by Municipal

District. It is quite clear and helps to ensure an appropriate sectoral and geographic funding breakdown.

Key Document 2: Project Completion Summary:


53

This document is prepared by applicants post project completion and is a requirement for funding drawdown. It requires them to detail 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 is available for

the future evaluation of the project/programme.


Event Attendance Ensuring maximum VFM Post project review

submissions

Expenditure Cost effectiveness Post project review

submissions


The above information enables Arts staff to build a VFM picture relative to previous years and also highlight projects which are more likely to

require higher or lower funding amounts.


54


The following section looks at the key evaluation questions for the “Arts Programme” based on findings from the previous sections of this 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 to inform

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.


55


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 the funded event or other item has been carried out. All grant awardees must then submit a completion report which aims to establish if the 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.

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


56

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.


57

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.

Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016 Cork … · 2018-03-13 · Cork County Council-...

Documents

Transcript of Public Spending Code Quality Assurance Report 2016 Cork … · 2018-03-13 · Cork County Council-...