NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
REPORTBY THE COMPTROLLERAND AUDITOR GENERAL
Control of Prison Building Projects
ORDEREDBY THE HOUSEOF COMMONS TO BE PRINTED 14 JULY 1994
LONDON : HMSO 595 Ea.95 NET CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROTECTS
This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act.
John Bourn National Audit Office Comptroller and Auditor General 8 July 1994
The Comptroller and Auditor General is the head of the National Audit Office employing some 800 staff. He, and the NAO, are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies: and he has statutory authorityto reportto Parliamenton the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies have used their resources. CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Contents
Page
Summary and conclusions 1
Part 1: Introduction 7
Part 2: New prison projects 12
Part 3: Projects at existing establishments 30
Appendices
1 Holme House 40
z Woodhill Prison 41
3 Lancaster Farms 42
4 Doncaster 43
5 Wormwood Scrubs 44
6 Manchester Prison 45
7 Parkhurst 47
8 Dartmoor redevelopment 48 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROTECTS
Summary and conclusions
1 In 1980 the Prison Service embarked on a major prison building and modernisation programme: the greatest concerted effort to improve conditions and provide accommodation since the Victorian period. Twenty- one new prisons have since been built, providing 11,000 places at a cost of some El.2 billion. Moreover there has been extensive re-development and refurbishment work providing 7,500 additional new places at existing prisons and an increase in 24 hour access to sanitation from 46 per cent in 1981 to 90 per cent in February 1994. In 1993-94 expenditure on existing prisons will cost around f189 million.
2 Until 1 April 1988 the construction of all new prisons was both managed and funded by the Property Services Agency to a brief provided by the Prison Service. From that date the Prison Service has not been tied to the Agency and it meets the cost of new prisons from the Prisons budget.
3 The National Audit Office examined the Prison Service’s supervision and control of prison building projects based on a detailed analysis of twenty- three projects: seven new prisons and sixteen major refurbishments at existing prisons. The examination was carried out between January and June 1993. The main findings are set out below, linked with suggestions for further action.
On new prisons (a) The seven projects examined by the National Audit Office cost in all E542 million, of which E475 million was spent on construction. Expenditure on construction exceeded the estimated costs at tender stage by E78.9 million. Additional expenditure on individual projects was between CO.2 million and E24.4 million There have been delays in design and construction, but overall the average time taken to build a prison has fallen from seven years in the period before 1991-92 to four years subsequently (paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3). (b) Investment appraisals were carried out for each of the projects, but none met Treasury requirements in full. On timing for example, two projects were appraised when key decisions as to site, planning permission, design and size of prison had already been made. With two exceptions, the appraisal documents gave insufficient information on the prisons required. And in most cases it was unclear how the proposals related to the Prison Service’s future plans for the number of prison places, the types of prison needed and their location. The quality of recent appraisals has improved, however, and Treasury guidance is more closely followed. The Prison Service has pointed out that the options for the location of prisons were often limited because of the lack of alternative sites. Changes in the size and make-up of the prison population, the introduction of new security and control measures, and new thinking about the best location and structure of the estate, has led to a policy for
1 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
major new establishments of building multi-purpose Category B urban prisons. This has significantly reduced the risk of changes in type and role during the design, construction and subsequent lifetime of a prison (paragraphs 2.4 to 2.12). (cl Most new prisons which have opened since 1991 were built to one of two designs, with one design costing significantly more than the other. On average, the costs of the galleried wing style have been some .E38,000 per inmate place cheaper than the new generation design. But the latter are believed to offer better operational control and management, with savings in the numbers of staff needed, as well as important non- quantifiable advantages such as reducing tension. Moreover, the most recent new generation prison cost less per place than the average for the new galleried wing prisons (paragraphs 2.13 to 2.16). (d) On the projects examined, changes in design had led to additional costs. The main findings included non-compliance with the design brief, inadequate review of drawings by the project manager and client before construction, and inadequate co-ordination of drawings and specification between the individual professional disciplines. However, design development has to be seen in the context of the pressure to build new accommodation quickly and the efforts to introduce new, more efficient designs. The Prison Service has since taken steps to improve design briefing (paragraphs 2.19 to 2.22). (el Client changes have led to delay and added to costs. Some were necessary to improve security or to make prison operations more efficient. The need for these improvements could not always have been foreseen and sometimes emerged only after incidents at other prisons or following reports by the Prison Inspectorate.
The Prison Building Board, which was established at the end of 1987, introduced rigorous change control as a matter of priority. And the Prison Service has recently tightened its procedures to ensure that changes are authorised at an appropriate level (paragraphs 2.23 to 2.26). (f) A Prison Design Briefing System was introduced in 1990 to produce greater consistency in prison design and thereby reduce the risk of expensive design changes and innovative ideas overlooking features essential to the effective management of an establishment. The system provided a template for the design of prisons as a whole and individual elements within it to reduce design periods. However, future new prisons will be constructed by means of a design, construct, manage, and finance strategy to ensure flexibility and scope for innovation (paragraphs 2.27 to 2.31). (g) The project sponsors and managers responsible for the successful execution of building projects have been overloaded with work. This has inevitably limited their involvement with each project and weakened the financial and management control exercised, thereby contributing to cost overruns and delays (paragraph 2.36). (h) Treasury guidance requires project execution plans for each project to be drawn up that set out the budgetary and managerial control procedures, the procurement strategy to be adopted, and the responsibilities of the project sponsor and project manager. However, the prison building
2 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
programme was launched before such plans were in general use. Until the Prison Service untied in 1988, the Property Services Agency provided control and reporting procedures (paragraphs 2.37 to 2.40). (i) The emphasis of the costing system used on prison projects was traditionally cost monitoring rather than cost control and some projects exceeded their budgets with inadequate forewarning. For a number of projects reporting and cost control were of a high standard. However, project sponsors were often presented with bulky and confusing cost reports, with insufficient information on cash flow and analysis of the causes of variations. The quality of reports has improved over the last eighteen months or so, as project managers tailor them to meet the needs of project sponsors (paragraphs 2.43 and 2.45). (j] Independent reviews or technical audits have been carried out on six new prisons, either during the later stages of construction or after the prison was completed. Though specific to each project, a number of common themes emerged, particularly the need for a strong management team to exercise firm control over consultants and any proposed khanges to requirements. The audits also identified the reasons for cost increases but some of them were carried out too late in the day for remedial action to be taken (paragraphs 2.46 and 2.47).
On projects at existing establishments (k) For several projects there was considerable delay between design brief and contract letting, stretching to several years in some cases. The designs of many projects had to be revised because of changes required by new legislation or to increase security. And some projects were postponed for lack of funds, caused partly by overspending on other projects. In all of the fifteen projects examined by the National Audit Office for which the contract had been let, the final price exceeded the contract price by ten per cent or more. The Prison Building Board has stated that effective management of the prison programme is hampered by the constraints on the extent to which Government Departments can carry forward unspent funds from one year to another. This “annuality” constraint does not apply in the private sector (paragraphs 3.3 to 3.5 and 3.17). (11 The Prison Service needs to be involved at the pre-construction stage of projects. They operate effective procedures to develop and cost the initial brief to preliminary sketch plan stage; and this provides a good basis for the appointment of consultants to complete the design and act as supervising officer during the construction stage. The degree to which they are then involved depends on individual circumstances and they seek to avoid duplicating the work of private contractors (paragraphs 3.8 to 3.10). (m)Seven of the 15 projects mentioned above were completed to time; and though significant delays occurred on some of the others these were due in part to unforeseen circumstances beyond the Prison Service’s control. On the whole time extensions have been well contained (paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12).
3 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS,
(n] Generally, the standard of work on projects was satisfactory, with relatively few remedial works required after completion. The Prison Service has put to good use the experience they have gained from the refurbishment programme, the introduction of the Prison Design Briefing System and improved and expanded technical instructions (paragraphs 3.13 and 3.14). (0) A degree of over-programming is necessary in order to manage capital programmes such as that managed by the Prison Service, but too many schemes seem,in the past to have been put forward each year without a realistic assessment of what is achievable. As a result many schemes have had to be dropped, often because of lack of funds. To improve the identification and prioritisation of projects, long term development plans are being drawn up for each prison. This will facilitate more effective planning on a national basis. These plans are expected to be completed for all prisons by 1996. The Prison Service is also introducing measures to improve cash flow forecasting and thereby enable the timing of building starts to be matched more accurately to available resources. Other changes are being introduced to ensure that decisions on capital investment are consistent with the Service’s key priorities. Delays in introducing schemes agreed by the Prisons Board now rarely exceed one year (paragraphs 3.15 to 3.19). (p) Although the role of project manager is set out in guidance there have been uncertainties amongst design consultants as to who is responsible for what. Project managers have sometimes approved expenditure without the written authority of the sponsor although there are occasions when a timely decision is necessary to prevent higher costs in the future (paragraphs 3.20 to 3.23). (q) The sanitation programme has been well managed. Costs are likely to be contained within budget and the work was on schedule for completion by December 1994, provided that cells were released for installing facilities. However in February 1994 the Home Secretary announced that because of an increase in the prison population and the consequent need to adjust the timing of accommodation being taken out of use, the Prison Service would aim to achieve 100 per cent access to sanitation by February 1996. This target was originally recommended in the Woolf Report (paragraphs 3.35 to 3.37). 4 Priorto 1988the Property Services Agency was directly responsible for cost and delivery of all new prisons. From 1988 thecilgency continued to be responsible for managing the construction of all but one of the new prisons referred to in this report. In December 1992, the Property Services Agency Projects division was sold to Tarmac Construction Ltd and, trading as TBV Consult, has continued to provide this project management service. The new prison programme was therefore well advanced before either the Prison Building Board was established, or project sponsors were appointed. The Prison Service has introduced many important measures to improve the delivery of its prison projects to time and cost since it was established. It has been no mean achievement of the Prison Service and the Property Services Agency to build twenty-one new prisons in thirteen years and manage one of the largest construction programmes in the United Kingdom.
4 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
5 Looking ahead to future prison building, the National Audit Office examination identified a number of areas where the Prison Service could continue to improve performance, by:
l carrying out full investment appraisals on all appropriate projects. . ensuring that the Prison Design Briefing System is kept up to date and encouraging feedback from contractors. . ensuring that project sponsors and managers are not overloaded. . introducing tailored project execution plans for all projects. . bringing in independent advisers to carry out reviews at a much earlier stage of new prison projects, when their recommendations can be acted upon. . extending these independent reviews to major projects (over ~5 million) at existing prisons. . ensuring that design consultants are properly supervised. . ensuring that all projects put forward in the programme have been appraised and prioritised and have a realistic chance of going ahead. . reviewing the system of reporting on contractors’ performance to ensure that reports are completed on time for all projects and are acted upon. 6 All these recommendations are accepted by the Prison Service and steps are being taken to implement them to a timetable to be approved by the Prisons Board.
5 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Prison Service Statement of purpose, vision, goals and values
Statement of Purpose Values Her Majesty’s Prison Serviceserves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. In seeking to realise our vision and meet our goals, we will adhere to the following values: Our duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in c;stody anb . lntegrifyis fundamental to everything we do. We will after release. meet our legal obligations, act with honesty and Vision openness, and exercise effective stewardship of Our vision is to provide a service,through both directly public money and assets. managedand contracted prisons, of which the public can be proud and which will be regarded as a standard of Commitmenfby our staff and to our staff. Staff are excellencearound the world. the most important asset of the Prison Service.They will be empowered to develop and use their skills and Goals abilities to the full, while being held accountablefor Our principal goals are to: their performance.Teamwork will be encouraged. They will be treated with fairness, respect and keep prisoners in custody openness.Their safety and well-being will be a prime concern. maintain order, control, discipline and a safe environment . Care for prisoners. Prisoners will be treated with fairness, justice and respect as individuals. Their provide decent conditions for prisoners and meet punishment is deprivation of liberty and they are their needs, including health care entitled to certain recognised standards while in prison. They will be given reasonsfor decisions and, provide positive regimes which help prisoners where possible, involved in discussions about matters address their offending behaviour and allow them as affecting them. In working with prisoners, we will full and responsible a life as possible involvetheir families and others in the community as fully as possible. help prisoners prepare for their return to the community . Equality of opportunity. We are committed to equality deliver prison services using the resources provided of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination by Parliamentwith maximumefficiency. on improper grounds.
In meeting these goals, we will co-operate closely with Innovation and improvementare essential to the other criminal justice agencies and contribute to the success of the Service,requiring the acceptanceof effectivenessand developmentof the criminal justice change and the delivery of continuing improvements system as a whole. in quality and efficiency. source: Prison service corporateP/an 1993-96
6 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Part 1: Introduction
1.1 The Prison Service, which was established as 1.5 Overcrowding was a feature of prison life in an executive agency of the Home Office on the 1980’s and early 1990’s. In 1981-82 there 1 April 1993, is responsible for the provision was a shortfall of some 4,700 places and this and running of prisons in England and Wales. rose to 7,000 in 1987-88. Although The Director General is responsible for day-to- overcrowding has since fallen - in 1992 the day management and is directly accountable average population was lower than the to the Home Secretary for the Prison Service’s number of places available-the projected performance and operations. rise in the prison population cwer the next few years will put increasing pressure on the Service to provide additional places. Prison estate 1.8 The shortage of prison places has meant that 1.2 The Prison Service estate currently comprises many prisoners have had to share cells. In 131 prisons of varying types, size and age. March 1992 1,272 prisoners were held three to There are 48 pre-First World War a cell and 9,180 prisoners were held two to a establishments, dating mostly from the cell. Significant use has also been made of 19th century: 30 service camps and 9 country police cell accommodation, which is much house establishments which were taken over more expensive - the average daily cost of for prison use after the Second World War; keeping a prisoner in prison was f64 and 44 purpose built post-War establishments, compared with E234 for a police cell. Police of which one is still under construction. No cell accommodation cost the Prison Service new prisons were built between 1918 and E94 million in 1991-92. For most of 1993 no 1958. prisoners were held in police cells.
1.3 Category A and B prisoners are held in high security establishments; Category C are held The prison building programme in medium security establishments: and Category D are held in open prisons. Remand 1.7 To address these problems, the Prison Service prisoners are normally housed in local prisons began in 1980 a major programme of building or remand centres. The smallest establishment new prisons and improving existing ones. The is certified to hold 56 prisoners, the largest intention is to provide secure, safe, decent 1,213. and uncrowded conditions for all prisoners. Particular aims are:
l to ease overcrowding, by providing extra Prison population accommodation:
1.4 Although the prison population in 1992 was l to improve health, hygiene and safety and only 1,000 more than in 1982, there have been ensure that kitchens and other facilities significant fluctuations over the past ten meet minimum statutory requirements; years. Numbers rose from 44,000 in 1982 to a l to provide access to night sanitation: peak of 51,000 in 1987, but fell back to 41,000 by the end of 1992, mainly because of changes l to improve physical security. in sentencing policy and measures taken to 1.8 The current prison building programme will divert offenders from custody. The population be completed when Doncaster Prison is had risen again to 47,000 towards the end of opened in June 1994. Twenty-one new prisons 1993 and is expected to rise to sane 50,000 in will by then have opened since 1985, early 1995. providing over 11,000 new places at a cost of sane f1.2 billion. Capital expenditure has risen by 175 per cent in real terms since 1987-88, from f115 million to X315 million in
7 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PRO,ECTS
Figure 1: Expenditureon prison building 1987 to 1994 (at August 1993 prices) Expenditure 600 r (f million) f348.2
New BuildSchemes f240.9 400 \
300 Workat Existing f104.7 Establishments
200 f203.2 f209.5 f210.3
100
0 - - - 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Year
Source: Prison Service Note: The expenditure eachyear is expressed in real terms at August 1993prices by using the construction index of the gross domestic product at cmstant factor cast. While capital expenditure peakedin 1990-91, it is currently twice as large as in 1987-88.
1992-93 (Figure 1). In October 1993 there management of work at existing were plans to build six new prisons. And in establishments has always been undertaken by 1993-94 some f189 million is expected to be the Directorate of Works of the Prison Service. spent on refurbishment and development at existing prisons. 1.10 In December 1987 a Prison Building Board was set up to develop and supervise the delivery of the prison building programme in Management of the prison building accordance with the timetable set by the programme Home Secretary and within the resources provided. The Board also advises the Prison Service on major prison refurbishments. In 1.9 The Prison Service has the main responsibility for procuring new prisons and discharging these functions the Board is refurbishing existing ones. Until 1 April 1988 required to make the fullest use of private all new prisons were built and funded by the sector building management techniques, while Property Services Agency to a brief provided having regard to the need to monitor propriety by the Prison Service. From that date the and maintain standards. The Board comprises four members from the Prison Service and Prison Service has not been tied to the Agency and it meets the costs of new prisons from the three members from the private sector with experience of the construction industry. It Prisons budget. Those involved in the meets quarterly, receives regular reports on management and construction of prisons are each major project and monitors closely those shown at Figure 2. The planning, design and projects which give cause for concern.
8 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PRO,ECTS
Figure 2: The main participants in the prison building programme
Decidesthe number,role and location of new prisons, and which projects at existing establishmentsshould
Responsiblefor the
/ Proiect \ y Manager: Directorateof Works architects,structural engmeers, Role is to ensureprojects This role was to ensurenew prisons at existing prisons meet the engineers.and quantity s”rveyors. met the Sponsor’srequirements Sponsor’srequirements and and were completedto time and cosf. are completedto time and
Sometimesundertaken by the architect,the role of the supervising officer is to ensure that the construction follows the design specified and to administerthe
Constructsthe project according to the specificationof the design team, and any changesrequired by the Supervising Officer:
’ Tarmac Black & Veatch Consult 2 Design, Construct. Manage,and Finance The key wticitnnts in orison buildins include the woiect st~onsor.the troiect manaw and the design team.
9 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Previous examination of prison l whether the reasons for time and cost building by the Committee of overruns and deficiencies in quality have Public Accounts been identified and improvements incorporated into subsequent projects. 1.11 The Committee of Public Accounts reported 1.14 These issues are addressed in Part 2 (new on the prison building programme in 1988 prison projects] and Part 3 (refurbishments (Forty-second Report, Session 1987-88 and the sanitation programme). The National (HC 196)). It expressed concern over the long Audit Office examination was based on a delays in completing projects and detailed analysis of 23 projects: seven new recommended that the causes should be prisons and sixteen major investigated and prompt action taken to refurbishments/developments at existing recover lost time. The Committee noted that a prisons [Figure 3). The projects were chosen large proportion of the prison population were to represent the building programme at without access to night sanitation and urged various stages of design and construction. the Home Office to find ways to bring about a faster improvement in conditions. It looked 1.15 The National Audit Office examined case files forward to reviewing the results of proposed and interviewed project managers, project new contract strategies, the simplification of sponsors, building contractors, design procedures and how the Service intended to consultants and prison staff on site and at the control the building programme after untying Prison Service headquarters in London. The hm the Property Services Agency. wider views of design consultants and building contractors were also sought by 1.12 The subsequent Treasury Minute (Cm 533) questionnaire. noted the Committee’s concerns and itemised the action being taken to improve the 1.16 The National Audit Office were advised by management of projects, including the use of project management consultants, Trench different procurement methods and the re- Farrow & Partners, who were commissioned to programming of projects to allow lost time to examine the management of prison projects be recovered. To minimise slippage on future and the sanitation programme and draw out projects, greater use would be made of ‘repeat’ appropriate comparisons with best practice in designs: briefing documents would he the private sector. Trench Farrow & Partners standardised; and more stringent project had previously carried out an independent control procedures would be developed. The review of the construction of Blakenhurst Treasury Minute stated that efforts were being Prison on behalf of the Prison Service. made to speed up the sanitation programme and in February 1991 the Home Secretary announced that “slopping out” would end by December 1994.’
Scopeof theNational Audit Office examination
1.13 Against this background, the National Audit Office examined the Prison Service’s supervision and control of prison building projects, focusing on:
l whether the costs and benefits of projects have been adequately evaluated; . whether projects have been completed to time, cost and quality:
’ In Febnmy ,994 the Home Secretary announced that by the end of 1994 more than 95 per cent of prisoners should haveaccess to sanitationand that the PrisonService aims to completethe programmeno later than February19%.
10 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Figure 3: Location of the prison projects examined by the National Audit Office
1 New Prisons
@ ExistingPrisons Manchester redevelopment
Dartmoor redevelopment Wormwoodscrubs: Advanceworks New spine link Stalford: Conversionof abattoir site New education block
Parkhurst: Refurbishmentof A and D wings Refurbishmentof B wing Erlestoke: Redevelopmentphase 2 Swansea: Officers’Mess and works unit
Projects examined by the National Audit Office representeda cross section of the building programme.
11 CONTROL OF PRISON B”ILDlNG PROECTS
Part 2: New prison projects
Performance on cost and time letting - Holme House took a year, compared with Lancaster Farms which took five years 2.1 This Part of the Report examines performance though the former was a repeat design while on cost and time on the seven selected the latter was one of the first two new building projects (Table 1). It then focuses on generation designs. Extensions to the how the suitability and costs of these projects construction period were relatively small, were assessed:the design and management ranging between three weeks at Wolds to a controls: and how costs and performance were year at Bullingdon. Overall the average time monitored. It concludes with a brief for design and construction of all prisons fell comparison of the construction of a typical from seven years before 1991-92 to four years United Kingdom prison and a similar after. American prison.
2.2 The outturn costs of the seven projects were Investment appraisal all higher than the tendered sums (Figure 4). Overall these projects cost f78.9 million mcxe 2.4 However well projects are subsequently than the estimated costs at tender stage. The managed, value for money will not be cost of the main contracts, excluding VAT, achieved if the wrong choices are made at the exceeded the estimated costs at tender stage outset. Investment appraisals are essential to by E61.6 million (18.2 per cent). Additional ensure that the correct choice is made from works and claims ranged from f0.2 million alternative schemes and that decisions are at the Wolds to g24.4 million at informed by a full and realistic assessment of Woodhill, the first of the new generation costs, benefits and risks. Documented design prisons. appraisals are a disciplined way of ensuring that all relevant aspects are covered and they 2.3 Delays to projects can also be costly, provide the Treasury with the information it especially when a shortage of prison places needs when considering whether to approve means that police cell accommodation has to funds. Treasury guidance advises that be used. The time taken to build each of the appraisals should: seven prisons varied between three and eight and a half years (Figure 51. The average was . be carried out for all new capital projects; nearly six years. This compares with a current Prison Service benchmark of 3%to 4 years . be carried out once a requirement for a from planning to completion for schemes prison is identified but before key commissioned since 1989. The variations decisions are made, preferably at the were greatest in the period between Preliminary Sketch Plan Stage. (Figure 6 production of the design brief and contract shows the main stages of a major project): Table 1: The new prison building programme Design Prison Number Construction Resource Total Year Of cost cost cost Completed PlXS (f million) (f million) (f million) New Gallery Bullingdon 649 53.8 10.4 64.2 1991 Holme House 649 59.0 7.2 66.2 1992 High Down 649 80.3 10.7 91.0 1992 New Generation LancasterFarms 374 64.5 a.7 73.2 1992 Woodhill 579 102.3 15.5 117.8 1992 ooncaster 779 79.9 12.5 92.4 1994 Other Wotds 320 35.4 1.9 37.3 1991 Total 3,999 475.2 66.9 542.1 Source: Prison Service The total cost of the projects examined,which provided some 4,000 places. was f542million.
12 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Figure 4: Capital expenditure on the seven new prison projects examined by the National Audit Office
Tender(including Variations Project AdditionalWorks
Bullingdon
Holme House
High Down
LancasterFarms
Woodhill
Welds
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Cost(f million)
source: Prison service Note: Doncasterprison is stitt under construction and the additional costs are estimated. Capital expenditure excludes resource costs Figure4 shows that each prison project incurred additional costs above the tender price, ranging from f0.2 million (Welds) to f24.4million (Woodhill).
l include the objectives and background of l to provide sufficient accommodation at the project, an assessment of the options existing prisons to the maximum extent; - including quantification of their costs and and benefits -and presentation of the results. l to provide sufficient accommodation to bring an end to the prolonged and costly 2.5 Although appraisals were carried out for each use of police cells in areas of the of the projects examined by the National community where it was required. Audit Office, none met the above criteria in full (see Figure 7). On timing for example, 2.7 With the exceptions of Holme House and two projects - Woodhill and Lancaster Farms Wolds Remand Prison, the appraisal -were appraised only at the Final Sketch documents gave insufficient information on Plan stage, after key decisions as to site, the prisons required. Background and planning permission, design and size of objectives for the projects were provided, but prison had already been taken. from the investment appraisal it was unclear how the requirement for a new prison fitted in 2.6 At the time of the National Audit Office with the Prison Service’s future plans for the investigation the key construction objectives numbers of prison places, the types of prison pursued by the Home Office were: required and their location. For example, information on Woodhill was a single line statement - ‘to identify the preferred design
13 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PRO,ECTS
Figure 5: Time taken to complete each of the seven projects examined by the National Audit Office
ContractLet Scheme ActualCompletion
Bullingdon
Holme House OriginalCompletion CompletionDate High Down
LancasterFarms
Woodhill
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 TimeLapse (months)
Source: Prison Service The time taken from design brief to completion varied from 39 to 100 months and Welds and Holme Housewere completed within the target set for more recent proiects.
for a local prison to accommodate 544 inmates although some prisons, including Holme to be constructed at Milton Keynes’. No House and High Down were repeat designs information was provided as to how this and a fully detailed evaluation was not prison fitted in with the overall requirement necessary. Potential benefits, such as the for prison places or why Milton Keynes was saving on police cell accommodation, were the chosen site. The site had in fact been seldom quantified. chosen after an exhaustive search for alternatives which had been carried out before 2.9 The depth of consideration given to the appraisal had been prepared. In contrast, alternative projects also varied. At least two the Holme House and Wolds appraisals options were considered for each prison, but clearly stated the prison required and where it the option ‘to do nothing’ or infill should be sited. development at existing sites was rarely examined. 2.8 All the appraisals estimated the capital costs of each project in accordance with Treasury 2.10 The Prison Service has pointed out that guidance, but the amount of detail given for options as to the design and location of the cost of running the prisons varied greatly. prisons were often limited. Sites large enough Full life-time costs were calculated in the for prisons, and well located in terms of Wolds appraisal, but all the others had where the population comes from and with significant omissions. For example, no staff convenient access by public transport, are not costs were calculated for Holme House easy to find. Once a site has been located, (Appendix 1) and High Down: and four of the success in obtaining planning agreement for a six appraisals did not consider such factors as new prison is more likely to be obtained if maintenance and energy consumption, pursued with speed. This does not mean that
14 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJSCTS
Figure 6: The stages of a typical project
Specifiesthe objectives,constraints and the Project Sponsor ProjectBrief operationalrequirements of the project I I
The scope of the works is defined,but detailed PreliminarySketch drawings have not been made.Input from the DesignTeam Project Sponsor is essentialto make sure the Plan design meets operationalneeds I I I I
All important design decisionshave beentaken, but the detailedcalculations and drawings have not been made.This should be the last oppottunitv for the Sponsorto chanaethe design
Oncefinal approval from the client has been given, the detailed drawings and bills of quantities are prepared
Oncethe project is complete,the PrisonService arrangesfor the buildings to be fitted out with appropriate equipment
On completion,the project managerhands over Project Sponsor Handover the schemeto the Sponsor who in turn passesit I over to the Prison Service.’ 1 I I I I
The typical construction of a new prison follows this pattern.
there will not be construction options that investment appraisals has improved, and need to be appraised, but the location and Treasury guidance is more closely followed. other matters related to outline planning For example, the appraisals for projects permission are likely to be fixed by the planned for construction in the 1990s -such absence of alternative sites. as Ashford, Marchington and Onley - included a range of options from doing 2.11 At the time many projects were planned, the nothing (which may involve using police cells Prison Service was under pressure to temporarily) to full private sector involvement complete the prison building programme to a in design, construction and management. demanding timetable, and the emphasis on Also, in April 1994 the Prison Service approving project starts was why Treasury improved its arrangements for reviewing and guidance on appraisals was not followed in implementing strategic estate development full. The National Audit Office examinations policies that will enable future demand for confirmed, however, that the quality of recent places to be met economically and effectively.
15 CONTROL OF PRlSON BUILDING PRO,ECTS
Fisure 7: Analvsis of investmentaaaraisals for six of the oroiects examined bv the National Audit Office
Criteria for Options Appraisals New GenerationDesigns: Bullingdon Repeats: Design and Build: Woodhill Lancaster Doncaster Holme High Welds Farms HOUSe OWW Timing: -Was the optionsappraisal carriedout at the right time? 0 0 I Objectives: -Did the appraisalstate the numbersof inmatesto be I accommodated? -Did the appraisalset out the backgroundto the needfor a prison within the strategicplanning context? 0 0 0 I Considerationof options: -HOW many designoptions were considered? -Were the ‘da nothing’or ‘do minimum’options considered? I” b P b -Was infill at existing establishmentsconsidered? -How manyalternative ‘green field 0 I sites were considered? y o 0 0 0 Evaluationof costs/Benefits: -Were capital costs evaluated? 9 -Were staff costs evaluated? OI I -Were other runningcosts evaluated? 0 -Were savingsin police cell accommodationevaluated? 0 0 I -Were operational/regimefactors considered? I 0 I -Were costs/benefitsestimated over the whole lifetimeof the on I prison?
Source: National Audit Officeanafysis ‘An exhaustive search for alternative sites was conductedbefore the investment appraisal Figure 7 shows that inveStmentappraisals were carried out for each new prison examined by the National Audit Office, However,the quality of the approach varied and some requirementsof appraisals were not carried wt.
2.12 There have been rapid changes in the prison significantly reduced the risk of changes in population [both numbers and type of type and role during the design, construction prisoners); security and control measures have and, indeed, lifetime of a prison. had to be revised during design and construction in the light of major incidents: and some fundamental new thinking has Prison design and briefing emerged about the best location and structure of the estate. This has resulted in a policy of Prison design building multi-purpose Category B urban prisons instead of traditional locals, trainers 2.13 The design of a prison affects both capital and Category C accommodation. This has outlay and future running costs. For example,
16 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PRO,ECTS
prison layout and the size and number of l over a 60 year life span the new accommodation blocks are significant factors generation design offered a saving of smm in determining operating regimes and any E2 million in operational costs because special security measures. fewer staff were required.
2.14 Since the 184Os, prison design in England and l non-quantifiable factors were important: Wales has reflected the prevailing philosophy the new generation design was said to for supervising the prison population. In the reduce tension in the inmate population 19th century the emphasis was on discipline because it used smaller self-contained and control, with less consideration given to living units, improved the relationship prisoner welfare or recreation. Prison designs between staff and inmates, and had changed little until the major building operational advantages in control and programme of the late 1950% when fresh ideas management terms. on cell sizes, welfare provision and more efficient control operations began to evolve. l the Prison Service considered that the By the 1980s three main designs had emerged: savings in staff costs and the non- ‘hotel corridor’; ‘new generation’, based on quantifiable benefits outweighed the designs from the United States; and a revamp additional capital costs of E5 million and of the Victorian galleried wing style [see Woodhill was built to the new generation Figure 8). The main difference between these design. designs is the arrangement of cells within the main house blocks. 2.16 The analysis at Table 2 shows the costs of the galleried wing style and the Bullingdon 2.15 Since 1990 two prisons have been built to the Repeats to be, on average, respectively sane new generation design and one is under f38,OOOand E50,OOOcheaper per inmate place construction; eight prisons have been built to than the new generation prisons. However, the updated galleried wing design [of which the new generation prisons were believed to five were repeat designs, known as offer better operational control and “Bullingdon Repeats”); one prison has been management, with savings in the numbers of built to the hotel corridor design: and one staff needed. There are alSo some important prison has been built as an adaptation of non-quantifiable advantages, such as a several designs. The appraisal carried out for reduction in tension between inmates by the Woodhill illustrates how the Prison Service use of smaller, self-contained living units and evaluated the three main types of design [see improved relationships between staff and Box 11. inmates.
Box 1: Evaluation of the design for Woodhill Project brief In July 1987 the Prison Service identified the need for a local prison to accommodate 579 2.17 The project brief should enable the design prisoners at Milton Keynes. Three design team to draw up a detailed specification that options were considered in the appraisal: meets the Prison Service’s operational ‘hotel corridor’, galleried, and ‘new requirements. For successful completion of a generation’. The following were the main project to cost and time the brief must be clear findings: and comprehensive, specify any operational needs and constraints and be agreed by all the l the hotel corridor design was rejected by interested parties such as governors, security the Prison Service because in the past it officers, chaplains and caterers. Stringent had proved to be operationally procedures should operate to ensure that no unsatisfactory. It was not costed. changes are made unless they are absolutely essential. l castings for the other two options estimated that the capital costs of the 2.18 Analysis of cost overruns on the seven updated galleried design would be E42 projects identified most as arising from design million -some G million cheaper than changes and client changes required by the the new generation design. Prison Service.
17 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Figure 8: Prison Design from the 1840’s IO the 1990’s
Pre 1918: The fbrstmafor prison building programme.Mnsf prisonswere radial in design with ho&joCkS (-WngS”) radialing from a ce”fral hub. Ba”kS OfCells opened “d lO”g galleries. Uwg” imporfed from America. Examplesinclude: Pentonville (1842): Wandsworth (,849): Nlancnester(1869).
jgj8.1958: NOnew prixons were builf. Many service campsand counfryhouses were lake” e 2’” over by the Serviceand convertedinfo prisons.Examples include: Latchmere House (1948): I StandfordHill (1950):Verne (1949). 1RADIAL Penlonville 1842
~959.1979: The secondmajor building programmeof 22 new prisons useda series 01 designs based on hotel coridors which madeinmate supervisiondilficulf and led 10high manning levefs.Hwsebf”cks were smaller than the Victoria” prisonsand designemphasised communalacfivdies. Examples include: Blundestone(1963); Featherstone(1977): Low Newton(1976).
1979 10dale: he third building Programme0121 new prisonsaimed 10protide a~~omrrmdafionQuickly. Gecause 01 lhis a numberof designswere repeated.Designs fell info 3 caparies:
HolelCorridordesign: Basedon updated 1960sdesigns. Cells openedon corridors.Oark HOT’ELCORRIDORFeatherslOne 1977 alleyways were createdwhich causedsupervisory problems. Nof popularwith inmales or staff. ExampIeSinclude: Wayland (1985): Littlehay (1988); Brfnslord(1991).
Gaffev designs:lnfroduced in 1984to replacethe discreditedcorridor designand baseda” the best aspects01 Victoria” designs.A cruciform gallery style replacedthe radial design. fnsleadof long wings. discretehouse blocks 01three gallerieswere createdwith lheir own communalfacilities. The galleries were wider and cells larger than the VictOriandesigns. Because01 the fast track approachthe designal Eulliqdo” prison was fake” and repeateda furtherfive fimes. These‘Bullingdo” repeats” were finishedby 1993.Examples include: Belmarsh(1991): High Dow” (1992): Blakenhurst(1993).
New Gem-r&” design:Based on a United Slates designoffering Savingsin manpowercosts and giving a more relaxedatmosphere. Housebloclc; are much smafferholding around 60 GALLERIED8ulli”odo” 1991 inmateseach and are triangular in shapegiving greater light Eachhouseblock is arrangedin two levels arounda centralatrium area usedfor eating and recreationalpurposes. Sfaff ran conlmliomares less consuicously andfoslef bener personal felalionships. HOuSeblOCkS are basedaround Commu”al greens. Three havebee” built: Woodhiff(1992): Lancaster Farms (1993): Oancaster(1994).
The Future:the PrisonDesign Briefing System. Easedon new generationprinciples. NO prison hasyet bee” built to this design.
Source: PrisonService figure 8 shows how prison design has evolvedover lime from fhe austereVictoria” designs fo the’communal’living environmenlsoffered by the new generationdesigns. 1 NEWGENEilATION Milt”” Keynes1992
18 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Table 2: The construction costs of 13 new prisons Design Prison Number Cost’ Year Cost Average Of Finished Per Cost Per Places (f’000) Place Place (ffOO0) (f’OO0) New Gallery Bullingdan 649 64,200 Whitemoo? 534 57,250 1991 1:; Moorland2 649 53.681 1991 a3 Eelmarsh 841 1991 189 126 Elmley2 649 1991 128 Blakenhurst2 649 1992 139 Holme House2 649 1992 102 High Down2 649 1992 140 New Generation LancasterFarms 374 1992 196 Woodhill 579 1992 203 164 Doncaster~ 779 1994 119 “ST?, Welds 320 1991 117 117 Brinsford 475 1991 94 94 Source: Prison Service b!otes: 1 The total cost includes VAAT.variations of price and resource costs. 2 Bullingdon repeat design (averagecost per place: ff f.5~700). 3 Theseprisons hold high security prisoners, necessitatingadditional physical security. Table 2 shows that the cost per cell varied from fB3,OOOto f203,OOO.The cost per cell for new generation projects is some f38.000 higher than for new gallery projects.
Design changes l Bullingdon - an independent review of the project found problems in the design 2.19 In August 1993 the National Audit Office of the workshop, laundry and kitchen - estimated that design changes accounted for see Box 2. around half of the additonal costs arising on the seven new prions 1987-93. Examples 2.20 The Prison Service has noted that design included: development had to be seen in the context of pressure to build new accommodation as l Woodhill (see Appendix 2) - in 1990 the rapidly as possible, especially when large Property Services Agency estimated that numbers of prisoners were being held for some S3 million of construction costs prolonged periods in police cells. At the same were due to poor design management. The time major efforts were made to introduce test contractors complained that they were designs that would be more efficient to run hampered by a lack of design information than existing prisons. and conflicting designs and delays in responding to enquiries. Matters were Box 2: Consultants’ review of the design brief complicated by a longstanding dispute for Bullingdon between the main contractor and the The Prison Service commissioned Clarson project manager about responsibility for design co-ordination. Goff Management to review Bullingdon after its completion. The report was completed in January 1993. l Lancaster Farms (see Appendix 3) - additional costs of Es.7 million on this Clarson Goff reported that: project were due to design and development changes, with drawings for mechanical and electrical work not being “It is very clear from our scrutiny of the properly co-ordinated with other aspects various files that neither the complete brief or, of the building. Consultants who reviewed mere important, the specialised prison the project in 1991 considered the original requirements were made available to BDP [the project brief to have been sufficient; but architect] in a reasonable manner.” the procedures for updating the brief proved unsatisfactory when the nature of the project changed.
19 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
In particular: 2.22 The Prison Building Board also considered that the Property Services Agency and the l Workshop-In mid 1986, the architects Prison Service hgd not had enough staff to were working to a brief for a “shell only”. check a sufficient number of design drawings. This arose mainly as a result of the Prison The Agency recommended that in future there Service being unable to provide the brief. should be a properly documented and detailed client brief: that client reviews of . Laundry-In 1987, well beyond the design proposals should be undertaken at 35, original completion date for this stage of 65 and 95 per cent completion of the the work, the Prison Service advised that drawings; and that design proposals should be the architect:s design was totally subject to independent review. These unsuitable. At the time when the project recommendations have yet to be taken up for went out to tender, a revised brief from new projects, although the Prison Service has the Prison Service was still outstanding. taken steps to improve design briefing and it is intended that new prisons will be designed, l Kitchen - Services form a significant part constructed, managed and financed by the of the design in a kitchen. The architects private sector in future. were well into the detailed design stage - having had to make a number of assumptions -before belated Prison Prison service changes Service input resulted in the need for considerable changes. 2.23 When the design for a prison is being developed changes may be found necessary to Although a serious problem, the foregoing improve security, or to make the running of were confined to specific areas of the prison. the prison more efficient. Before such changes Of far greater concern, were the lack of details are authorised the costs need to be fully and other specialist guidance provided to the evaluated and any delay identified. Over architect during this stage. Property Services 1,200 requests for client changes were made Agency instructed the architect to make for the seven prison projects examined by the recorded assumptions where they were National Audit Office. Typical examples of lacking information. In the consultants’ view: client changes are given in Box 3. “the seeds for the subsequent problems which Bullingdon was to experience (delays and cost overruns) were well and truly sown.” I 2.21 In September 1990 the Property Services Agency analysed design changes for the Prison Building Board. At one project (Bullingdon) it found that design faults had led to a substantial proportion of the changes andaccounted for some of theincreased costs. Projects with other designs (such as Woodhill) exhibited a similar pattern, the main fingings were:
l non-compliance with the design brief, arising because design teams from the private sector lacked experience of prison building:
l inadequate review of drawings by the project manager and the Prison Service before construction:
l inadequate co-ordination of drawings and specificaliuu balwaan tiivil engineers, architects and quantity surveyors. CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDINGPROJECTS
Box 3: Some examples of significant client 2.26 The Prison Building Board sought to changes introduce rigorous change control into the management of the programme when it was Lancaster Farms established at the end of 1987. In September l Revisions to Prison Service estimates of 1990 the Board reviewed changes at the 13 numbers of young offenders found a new prisons then under construction. On the greater demand for cells for juveniles on whole the Board was satisfied that the design remand rather than for those convicted, changes were necessary and had not led to than had previously been the case. The any significant delay. But there were cases of prison design was changed to poor co-ordination; for example the tender accommodate remand prisoners as well documents for one contract did not include at a cost of El.9 million. design changes that had already been found necessary on similar projects. The Prison Woodhill Service therefore subsequently revised the procedure for authorising changes, all such l During construction it became apparent requests for ~520,000OI more having to be that the planned 300 car park spaces approved by the project sponsor. would not be sufficient. The opening of other new prisons had demonstrated a 2.26 A more fundamental measure to standardise greater demand for car parking than and improve design and briefing was the originally envisaged. The Prison Service introduction of the Prison Design Briefing required 186 additional spaces. The System; see below. change cost f88,OOO.
l Disturbances at Moorland and Brinsford Young Offender’s Institutions in 1991 Prison Design Briefing System brought to light a number of previously unrecognised security and control 2.27 The Prison Design Briefing System, which was deficiencies. This led to necessary introduced in 1990, was developed by the changes at Woodhill -including extra Prison Service and the Property Services security grilles - at a cost of E866,OOO. Agency to produce greater consistency in prison design and thereby reduce the risk of Doncaster expensive design changes and prevent imaginative/innovative designs overlooking l To help prevent inmates committing features essential to effective prison suicide, the Prison Service requires 10 per management. It provides a template for the cent of cells to accommodate 2 inmates. design of prisons as a whole and for Because the design for Doncaster was individual building elements within a prison drawn up before this requirement was (see Figure 91. brought in, the design for Doncaster did not include double cells. To include them 2.28 The Prison Design Management Group of the cost an additional f35,OOO. Prison Service is currently responsible for maintaining and approving revisions to the 2.24 Prison Service changes have also led to delay, Briefing System. Any major departures, such often unavoidably. Following the riots at as proposals that would affect the basic design Haverigg and Lindholme in 1988, and the approach, must be approved by the Treasury. helicopter assisted escape at Gartree in 1989, Future arrangements for managing changes the Prison Service revised the security will depend on the reorganisation of Prison arrangements at prisons then under Service Headquarters. construction. At Woodhill, for example, additional “anti-dash” fencing was added to 2.29 No new prison has yet been built to the prevent inmates using the sportsfield and System although elements of it, such as central areas to rush in groups at central houseblocks, have been applied to new buildings or the perimeter wall. Installing (Welds) and existing [Manchester] aerial fouling wires across the open spaces establishments. delayed the project by sex&l weeks.
21 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Fiwre 9: The Prison DesiclnBriefintl Svstem(PDBS) In 1987 a dedicateddesign team was set up by the Service to produce a design brief which would set out client requirements,design principles. standards of provision and costs limits based on current policy requirements.update the functional element briefing guides producedin 1976, and incorporate lessons learnt from British and Americanexperiences so as to be able to repeat the design without the needto reinvent the wheel. In October 1988 the “PDBS” was published. It consists of 27 separate booklets each describing the different prison functions such as inmate housing, food services and chaplaincy centre (see diagram 1 below). It aims to: - bring together and up-date existing guidance and instructions relating to prison design and construction in such a way that the process of providing new prisons may be expedited and made more cost effective: - give architects and contractors Sufficientinformation about the prison system to enable them to design and/or build establishmentswhich meet the needsof the system; - provide diagrams and illustrative design solutions which will minimise the likelihood of imaginative new designs overlooking features essential to the effective managementof the establishment. A PDBSprison is plannedto promote the sense of a normal life. The design incorporates many features of American new generation designs - buildings are constructed around a community green or other central area. Cells are ranged around three sides of an internal rectangular association space (see diagram 2) giving a simpler building geometry than the triangular new generation design. Becausethe daily life of a prison is structured with periods of the day allocatedto different activities, closely related functions are grouped into zones. The positioning of these zones should produce a circulation system that can be easily and naturally observed by staff, thereby cutting down an manpower costs. Eachof the 27 booklets show the positioning of zones. circulation maps. design requirements(such as space required) and more detailed drawings on specificationsand design.
- ______--___------_--_ PerYrnckr5ecutiry~;~~~~~ Exhrn~l works 1 PrismF”“C,iD”S 02-Inmate ho&g 03-Segregation ““ii J=;+-Fj, pJ ‘1 1 04. AdminiStratiOnomces 05 FoodWviCeS Lx-Entrybuilding 07-Administration and discharge 08. GeneraStOreS & laundry 09 lnd”SfneSam l”nm tmininL! 10 PhySical&recreation centre 11 visitscomplex 1 12. Vlsitm receptioncentre 13 Ed”cationalSetviCeS 14-Theshop 15-Medical ServiCeE 16. Chaplaincycentre 17 HOrtiC”It”racentre 18 WOlkSdepanment 19. Stancentre 20. Pelimetersec”nly gp” j 26 Exlernarworks m j Li; . Restncted .-______.----- 2%____ f PA __------L-_---.-,j/
pq2 Diagram 1: Site plan for a typical PDBSprison.
television/ met roam
v e&mE lobby ShowerrnOrnS entry Diagram 2: A detailed site plan for the ground floor of a typical PDBShouseblock.
Source: Prison Desion Briefino &stem booklets oroduced bv the Prison Service Figure 9 shows the aims of the Prison Design Briefing System design and the relation betweenfunctional elements.
22 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PRO,ECTS
2.30 The National Audit Office’s consultants 2.34 After the Home Office untied from the concluded from their technical review of the Property Services Agency in 1988, sponsors Prison Design Briefing System that “it is well- had full responsibility for commissioning of conceived and well-executed. It should new works projects and were no longer reduce the overall time taken to design a obliged to use the Agency’s services. prison and assist the Service to build prisons However, the Prison Service continued to use to a uniform standard. The space standards the Agency for all new prisons, on the adopted, and the standards of construction grounds that using commercial firms would required, reflect the Prison Service’s present require greater in-house resources and divert commitment to improve the overall standards attention from delivery of the programme. of inmate accommodation and physical Although the performance of the Agency had security.” been poor on some projects in the past [for example the 33 per cent cost overrun at 2.31 However, some design consultants who have Belmarsh) the Board considered that their used the System have claimed the lack of performance was improving and preferred to flexibility does not allow the designer stick with them. sufficient room to come up with individual design solutions that could provide the client 2.35 With one exception, project managers from with enhanced features, cost savings or the Property Services Agency were appointed improved facilities. The Prison Service accept to oversee all new prison contracts. The the need for flexibility and scope for exception was the Lancaster Farms project innovation. Future new prisons will be where in 1991 an independent review found constructed by means of a design, construct, that the Agency was not giving the Home manage and finance strategy which will allow Office the service a client could reasonably for these concerns. expect, with weaknesses in project management leading to increased costs and delay. The Prison Building Board therefore Project sponsorship appointed a project manager from the private sector to see the project through to 2.32 Following the transfer of financial completion. responsibility from the Property Services Agency in April 1988, the Prison Service became the ‘owners’ of their projects. Management of workload Sponsors -usually architects or administrators with a construction 2.36 Ideally, sponsors should not have more than background-were appointed with overall one or two projects to manage, otherwise their responsibility for the successful completion of workload is too great to allow projects to be particular building projects. Treasury efficiently controlled in accordance with guidance recommends that sponsors should Treasury guidelines or in a way that would be set project objectives: draw up and carry expected on projects in the private sector. through implementation plans: and evaluate However the Prison Service appointed only the completed project against its original three sponsors (reduced to two in 1993) for objectives. In summary, the sponsor has a the whole prison building programme, dual function: including major m-developments. As a result, the sponsorship teams were sometimes l to act as a focal point in co-ordinating the responsible for as many as five major projects Prison Service’s requirements; at any one time. This overload almost certainly limited the sponsor’s involvement l to assess,procure, monitor and control with each project and weakened the financial the external resources needed to and management control exercised, thereby implement the project. contributing to the cost overruns and delays experienced on several projects. 2.33 The National Audit Office examined how sponsorship had developed since 1988 and how effective sponsors had been in managing their projects.
23 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROTECTS
Proiecis
High Down ATypical Houseblock
The new prison at Banstead(High Down) was designedto the gall&d wing style. It opened in 1992.
The Sportshall
24 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Manchester After the riot - 1990
After refurbishment- 1993
25 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Project execution plan 2.39 It will be important to ensure that project execution plans - including procurement 2.37 Treasury guidance requires that there should strategy, targets and criteria for satisfactory be a plan for each project that sets out the implementation - are a clear requirement at budgetary and managerial control procedures, the outset of all future projects. The project the procurement strategy, and the sponsor should also be fully involved when responsibilities and relationship between the plans are drawn up. sponsor and project manager. 2.40 An appropriate procurement strategy is 2.38 The prison building programme was launched fundamental to achieving the objectives of any before project execution plans were in general construction project. The strategy should be use and prior to 1988 relevant matters were set out, together with the control and dealt with by the Property Services Agency reporting procedures, in the project execution who used their own internal control and plans. The type of contract adopted should reporting procedures. Perhaps in reflect such factors as the timing and consequence, Prison Service involvement in complexity of the project, the standard of the early stages of planning a new project was quality required and how risks should be patchy and a lack of clear allocation of shared between client and contractor responsibilities may have led to the (see Box 4). weaknesses in control identified elsewhere in this report. 2.41 Before 1988 the “traditional contract path” was almost always used in prison construction, with the design being completed before construction work started. The
Box4: Alternative contract strategies available to the Prison Service and their attendant risks
The ContractEnsures: Traditional Design &Build Management Design & Manage Normal Accelerated Management Construction contract Management Timing: -the projectwill be completed quickly: clmummm Project Changes --changes to the project can be madeduring construction: mmomIm Complexity -technically complex buildings can be built: rnIUEIrn [luality -good quality designand workmanship: mmummu cost -a firm price for the project beforeconstruction begins: mummum Responsibilities --one firm will managethe designand construction: oomoclm -the designteam is responsible for any designproblems: mmu~mu . Risk -the client is responsiblefor any time or cost slippages: muImmu Key: 0 Yes m No 0 Partially
Source: Basedon simplified information from the Central Unit of Purchasing .~. ..~. Box 4 shows the f”ll ranoe 0, COntractStrateOleS. I he PrISo” SerWce“as “earl” alwa”s “seti t”e tra[llt,O”al approac”
26 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROTECTS
advantages of this approach are that it is Project managers have often presented widely used and well tried in the public and sponsors with bulky and confusing cost private sectors; the client is able to secure a reports which have failed clearly to firm price and timescale on the basis of a identify current and estimated completed design; and the client’s interests expenditure. are protected during construction by a professional team appointed to supervise the Sponsors have been dissatisfied with the work. The main disadvantages are (i) project information given on projected cash flow, completion usually takes longer because drawings from the project’s contingency construction cannot begin until detailed fund, and analysis of the causes of design is complete: and [ii) the contractor alterations to the programme and changes does not contribute to the design. to the project.
2.42 Under pressure to construct prisons more Reports have often been too late for quickly, in recent years the Prison Service has effective remedial action to be taken. adopted other forms of contract, with some success. For Wolds Remand Centre a “design, 2.45 However, for a number of projects both develop and construct” contract was used that reporting and cost control have been of a high enabled the Prison Building Board to secure standard. And following Prison Service an innovative design from the private sector representations to the Agency in mid-1990, that could be built quicker and more cheaply project managers began to tailor reports to the than the prisons already under construction. requirements of project sponsors and the Wolds, at E35.4 million, was the smallest and quality of the reports improved. cheapest prison to build of those examined by the National Audit Office (Figure 4) and took the least time to design and construct (Figure Independent reviews 5). The cost per prisoner place was below average. 2.46 Treasury guidance recommends that independent reviews of projects should be carried out when sponsors are concerned Financial monitoring and control about time and cost overruns. Between October 1990 and August 1992 the Board 2.43 The Property Services Agency’s costing commissioned reviews, or ‘technical audits’, system used on prison projects has on six new prisons [Figure 10). Each review emphasised cost monitoring rather than cost cost about f30,OOO.Though the reviews were control. Some new projects, such as Lancaster specific to each project, a number of common Farms and Holme House exceeded their themes emerged: budgets with inadequate forewarning. At Lancaster Farms for example, the cost the need to assessfully the risks involved implications of additional works were in a fast track approach to building evaluated after the work had been carried out. prisons, including the demands on design Consultant quantity surveyors have also project management; tended to place greater emphasis on checking the cost of schemes at pre-agreed stages rather the need to have a strong project than working alongside design consultants management team and better supervision and assisting them to design to budget. And of design consultants; cost and design consultants have often been geographically separated, which has hindered the need for the project sponsor to control close teamwork. , changes to the requirements of a project; 2.44 Financial information has not always been the need for forward looking project compiled and presented in a form which reports, with adequate allowance for made it easy to understand and use. For contingencies. example:
27 CONTROL OF PRISCIN B”ILDING PRcl,ECTS
2.47 Each technical audit was undertaken either Comparison with prison during the later stages of construction, or after construction in the United States the prison was completed. Whilst audits carried out at this stage have some benefits - 2.48 The Prison Service have examined the design such as identifying the reasons for cost and operation of prisons in other countries - increases -they offer little or no scope for the new generation design came from the timely remedial action. As already noted United States, for example-but they have (paragraph 2.19) many of the problems in not directly compared the construction of prison construction arise at the design stage, British prisons with their counterparts and reviews during the preconstruction overseas. The National Audit Office period would give design teams the commissioned Trench Farrow & Partners to opportunity to rectify weaknesses before site compare the construction of a new prison work begins. built in the United States [Dougherty County
Figure 10: The date each technical audit was commissionedcompared to the construction period of each prison
Prison 1387 1388 1383 1330 issi 1332 1333 1334 I 1 1 I 1 I (:I 1 I 1 I 1 II
Blakenhurst
i I Bullingdon ! ;. j
Doncaster
i I Woodhill ,
Belmarsh I
.
Lancaster Farms rl
I I I I I I / I 1387 1388 1383 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 Year I I Source: Prim Service Technical audits were commissionedby the Prison Service during the later stages of construction. 01after the prison was completed when they offered little scope for remedial action. ) I
28 I CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Jail] with a similar sized new prison in the l Dougherty provides no visitor’s centre, United Kingdom (Doncaster). Dougherty was staff/social centre, or separate built to accommodate a maximum of 650 segregation/punishment unit; medium and remand inmates, although it could be enlarged to house 850 inmates. l Doncaster has better facilities for physical Doncaster (Appendix 41 is designed to hold recreation; 720 Category B male inmates, including remand inmates. l overall, Doncaster (594,000 sq ft) is over twice the size of Dougherty (265,000 sq ft). 2.49 Although the size of the prisons is similar, the prisons are very different in the way they are 2.50 Clearly there are significant differences run and the facilities they offer. Prison between the United Kingdom and the United regimes in the United States are spartan States, both in the approach to prison regimes compared to Doncaster, with fewer and prisoner environment and in the recreational and educational facilities. Trench respective construction industries. These Farrow identified the following main make cost comparisons difficult. And though differences in design: the Dougherty and Doncaster projects may be broadly similar, they are not necessarily on security, the perimeter fence of typical of wider prison construction in the Dougherty is manned by armed guards two countries. However, some of the and different control methods are used to differences are sufficiently striking to suggest enforce security measures. At Doncaster that there could be benefits in further research the walls between prison cells and by the Prison Service into how foreign jails internal features generally incorporate are designed and built and the scope to adopt greater (and more costly) protection worthwhile cost saving ideas, in construction against destruction. In the United States techniques and in the placing and control of the main emphasis on security is the contracts. The Prison Service expects that its perimeter wall, with cell walls being less planned approach to the building of new well protected; prisons -by design, construct, manage and finance by the private sector - will provide the medical facility at Dougherty was a an opportunity for innovative ideas for cost third the size of Doncaster, with greater savings consistent with operational use being made of outside medical requirements. services;
the kitchen/stores provided similar facilities, but Dougherty’s was half the size of Doncaster’s;
Doncaster has a larger administration, reception and discharge block:
Doncaster’s house blocks are larger than Dougherty’s although one reascm for this is the different regimes for inmates ranging from single cells to dormitory accommodation:
29 CONTROLOF PRISONBUILDING PROlRCTS
Part 3: Projects at existing establishments
3.1 Between April 1988 and March 1993, the 3.3 Excluding VAT and variations of price, the Prison Service spent scum E854 million on average cost increase was El.6 million (18.6 extension and refurbishment projects at per cent above the tendered price). In the existing establishments. A further 70 projects, projects examined all showed cost increases with an estimated cost of E236 million, were of mure than ten per cent of the tender. A due to start in the twelve months from April summary of the main reasons for cost and 1993. This Part of the Report examines the time overruns is at Box 5. These are explored effectiveness of the Prison Service’s design in more detail in paragraphs 3.4 to 3.10 below. and management control, based on an examination of 16 projects at eight establishments (Table 3). It also assessesthe Pre-contract period progress and achievements of the sanitation programme. 3.4 The length of time between producing the design brief and letting the contract ranged from one month at Manchester to 10 years at Time and cost Swansea (Figure 11). In the 1980s the designs for several projects (including Swansea, 3.2 Analysis of the delays incurred on the 15 Dartmoor, Parkhurst and E&stoke], were put projects examined* shows that for several on hold and the contracts were eventually let projects there was a considerable delay several years after the design briefs had been between design brief and contract letting, prepared. Some projects were postponed for stretching to several years in some cases lack of funds (partly caused by overspending (Figure 11). The time taken between design on other projects). In other cases different briefing and project completion varied schemes took priority, for security and other between one and twelve years. reasons. * the contractfor Parkhurst8 wing had not beenlet at the time of the examination.
Table 3: Refurbishmentand redevelopmentprojects examined by the National Audit Office Establishment Project Total Cost (Em) . Bristol - new kitchen 1.79 - A wing refurbishment 5.57 * ErIestoke - Redevelopment,including new kitchen and hospital 3.16 * Dartmoor - Redevelopment,including new kitchen and refurbishment of wings 23.50’ . Manchester - K wing refurbishment 1.eo - G, H & I wings refurbishment 10.82 - Site 1 redevelopment 33.33 - Site 2 redevelopment 19.49 I - Site 3 redevelopment 12.50 . Parkhurst - A and D wings refurbishment 13.77 - B wing refurbishment2 * Stafford - Abbatoir conver9on 2.58 ., - Educationblock 2.23 I * swansea - Officers’ mess and works unit 1.59 . WormwoodScrubs - Advanceworks 6.44 ! - Spine link 34.55’ I Source: Prison service files I Notes: ’ estimated figures p the wntract for this project has yet to be let I The total cost of the projects examined ranged from betweenfl million and f34 million. I
30 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Figure 11: Time lapses between the date of the project brief and completion for the schemes examined
Bristol -A wing refurbishment
ErIestoke -Redevelopment
Dartmoor -Redevelopment’
Manchester -K wing -G.H and I wings -Site 1 -Site 2 -Site 3
Parkhurst -A and 0 wings
Stalford -Abbatoir conversion
Stafford -Educationblock
SWaLlSea -Officers’mess
)VV;;~od -Advanceworks -Spine Link’
I I I I I I I 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 Time lapse (months)
Source:PrkonSeNice IWet ’ Pmiect not vef finished. There were delays to nine projects betweenthe design brief and contract letting stages. During the construction stage seven of the 15 were built on time.
3.5 The designs of many projects had to be requirements of each project to an in-house revised because of changes required by new design team within the Directorate of Works. legislation or to take account of the The team develops the initial brief to recommendations of the Prison Inspectorate preliminary sketch plan stage and external or the findings of the Woolf Report on the consultants are then appointed to complete 1990 prison disturbances. Thus, the Prison the design and act as supervising officer for Design Briefing System, endorsed by Woolf, the construction of the project. The for example, recommended that kitchens Directorate of Works complete the design should not be sited close to living works for those projects that cost less than accommodation as inmates could prolong a El million. riot if they gained access to food. A new kitchen proposed for Parkhurst had to be 3.7 Developing and costing the design to redesigned. preliminary sketch plan stage, prior to external consultants being retained, provides a good basis for the appointment of Briefing consultants and avoids abortive design fees. It ensures that the principal design decisions 3.6 Briefing is key to the successful completion of have been made and any delays associated a project on time and within budget. The with approval of the preliminary design and Prison Service specifies the purpose and
31 CONTROL OF PRISON B”ILDlNG PRO,ECTS
Box 5: Projects at prisons where there have been significant cost increases Project StatUS Reasons Bristol kitchen CompletedJanuary 1991. The desiqn brief for the kitchen oriainated in 1980. but as construction did not be0 at a cost of Cl.8 million. until June 1989, the design had to be upgradedto meet current standards. an increase of f0.4 million EnvironmentalHealth Officers examinedthe plans in 1990 and required substantial over the original tender. changesdue to legislation. Inmate changing accommodationwas introduced together with additional provision for staff. This resulted in revised layouts for the raw meat storage facilities, the bin store and raw materials storage area in order to reduce cross contaminations. ErIestoke Phase II CompletedMarch 1990, at The Prison Service drew up the brief for the design in 1981 but construction of this a cost of f3.2 million. an phase did not start until June 1987. During this time the design became outdated increase of f0.9 million and had to be upgradedto meet revised hygiene requirements.The changes cost over the original tender. f0.2 million and resulted in a claim from the contractor for f0.16million for delay and disruption. Whenthe project was completed, standardsfor kitchens changed again costing f0.3 million. A further contract for f0.4 million was let to improve the facilities including additional mechanicalventilation, and washing and clothes changing for inmates. Dartmoor (Appendix 8) Due to be completed in July The design brief was specified by the Prison Service in 1978. but the contract was 1994, at a cost Off23.5 not let until September 1990. The cost of the project increased becauseof the need million. an increaseof fl.2 to update the design to meet current standardsand to comply with the million over the original recommendationsof a physical security review following the prison disturbancesat tender. Dartmoor in 1990. The security improvements (f0.8million) included revised roofing details, splitting A and 8 wing into two separatesecure Units,and adding control and restraint staircases. ParkhurstA andII wings Completedin December The increase in cost was becausethe design was overtakenby the recommendations 1992 at a cost of f13.8 arising from the Woolf Repolt into the prison disturbances in 1990. The Report led million, an increaseof El.5 to a security review at Parkhurst.which recommendedchanges to the project, for million over the tender. example adding a control and restraint staircaseto allow Prison Officersaccess to the wing in the event of a riot. WormwoodScrubs Due to be completed in May The cost of the advancedwork contracts increasedby f3.1 million primarily because (Phase II) 1994 at an estimated cost the Prison Sewice were unable to comply with the terms of the contract and had to of f34.55million, an renegotiatethe terms with the contractor. The main works contract is estimated to increase of f4.9 million cost at the most an additional f4.9 million becauseof the Unforeseenneed to remove over the original tender asbestos insulation (f430.000).client changes of f100,OOO.and a disputed claim estimate. from the contractor for f4.i million due to the delays and additional costs of meeting these changes.The client changes did include a saving of f425.500 becausethe Prison Service decided not to equip and complete the operating theatre in the prison hospital as it was no longer considered necessary. Manchester CompletedSeptember 1993 The NationalAudit Office identified client changes of some f10 million. including at a Costof f89 million - f4.9 million to improve security and f1.9 million to upgrade facilities. The main an increase of f21 million changeswere due to extensive reconstructionwork required under F Wing (Chapel on the estimate when the Slack) and in the damaged roofs. There was a large amount of damage caused by contracts were let. water in the buildings and around the site which causedthe replacementof the 40 foot high retaining wall to SherbourneStreet. The security changes involved f1.8 million to replaCe a fence around the Croft site with a perimeter wall which is appropriate for category S inmates. The imprOVementS to facilities involved upgrading the overall standard of the establishmentto that of a new prison and included the refurbishment of workshops (f0.6 million) and installing an astro-turl football pitch (f175.000).
the associated budget overcome. More meetings to be held with professional firms importantly, this procedure takes advantage of and other Prison Service specialists such as the extensive experience gained on previous the prison governor and engineers. projects by the Directorate of Works (and in the past, by the Property Services Agency) in 3.9 Although the Prison Design Briefing System making the earliest, and often most critical, does not strictly apply to works to existing design decisions. prisons, the initial brief for such projects is developed in accordance with the system 3.8 The Prison Service has noted that the amount wherever possible. Consultants who have of detailed control and involvement with worked with the Prison Service design teams consultants will vary. They do not want to have been generally content with recent duplicate the work which is contracted out briefs, but some have noted the need to but there is a need to give guidance and improve liaison arrangements and the speed information to private firms, as well as to of response to enquiries. perform budgetary control and quality checks on contractors’ work. It is regular practice for
32 CONTROLOF PRISON BUILDING PRO,KTS
Box 6: Additional expense and delay on the Construction period Wormwood Scrubs project 3.10 For 8 of the 15 projects examined, extensions Kim Wallis were contracted in January 1988 of time were granted for a total of 239 weeks to prepare the site at Wormwood Scrubs for - 78 weeks of which were due to problems in the main contractor. The estimated cost was allowing the contractor access to the site at E3.3 million. The work included bricking up Wormwood Scrubs [Appendix 5 and Box 6). the ends of each wing to prevent inmates The remaining 7 projects were built on time. gaining accessto the site. Because this Analysis of the records held by Project involved working in close proximity to Managers (see Figure 12) revealed that the inmates, Prison Officers had to escort the extensions were due to: contractor’s staff and lorries around the site. l Client changes - 26 weeks (16 per cent): The contract stipulated that the prison delays arose because of changes required would provide 14 escort staff each day. By by the Prison Service. For example, the November 1988 this was still not being met, scheme at Manchester (Appendix 6) G, H and on some days there were only three and I wings was delayed by some 6 weeks escort staff. The contractor’s staff were either because the Prison Service added electro- locked out of the prison, or their movements magnetic locking to the gates to improve around the site were severely limited. security.
In February 1989 the Prison Service l Design changes and development - attempted to recruit an additional seven 34 weeks (21 per cent): delays occurred staff, but this was unsuccessful and the because of design faults, or the need to contract had to be renegotiated in April develop designs further. For example, the 1989. The Prison Service agreed to pay Kier refurbishment of Bristol A wing was Wallis an additional g1.5 million and delayed by some 18 weeks partly because accepted a 16 month delay to the project. the original design had not recognised that the roof timbers needed to be
Figure 12: Reasonsfor extensions of time for projects at existing establishments
Design Cha:nges -
- Client Changes
UnforeseenEvents
- Not Recorded
Source: Prison Service project files and National Audit Officeanalysis Figure 12 shows that client and design changesaccounted for 37 per cent of extensions of time during construction.
33 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROTECTS
replaced. Delay was also caused by the glazing will be subject to vandalism original contractor going into receivership unless the Prison Service puts grilles and additional works elsewhere in the acrm~ it. The exit door for the fire prison. escape was on the ground floor, but it did not open outwards -to allow the l unforeseen circumstances - 70 weeks flow of people to escape-but (43 per cent): delays amse because of inwards. This is contrary to building factors the Prison Service could not regulations. reasonably have foreseen. For example, Parkhurst and Wormwood Scrubs projects - poor construction of E&stoke kitchen, were each delayed by 15 weeks when segregation, medical and reception wings. asbestos was discovered during In 1991 the prison governor reported a construction. number of faults, including poor drainage in the kitchen. At the time of construction 3.11 Whilst there have been significant delays to the contractor was in financial difficulties several projects during construction, some and went into receivership during the 40 per cent of these were due to unforeseen defects liability period; circumstances beyond the Prison Service’s control. On the whole, time extensions have - Bristol kitchen was completed in March been well contained. 1991. Three major defects were found by prison staff - the air extraction system led to combustion problems with the oven Quality and negative pressure in the building causing doors to fly open; the wrong taps 3.1’2 Generally, the standard of work on the had been fitted to sink appliances; and projects examined was satisfactory, with drainage was poor. Similar faults, relatively few remedial works required after including ventilation and drainage completion. Projects which did require problems, were reported by the Chief additional work included: Inspector of Prisons when he visited Bristol in June 1992. - poor design work of Parkhurst A and D 3.13 But these examples were the exception. The wings (Appendix 7). These were designed National Audit Office’s consultants reported by a number of draughting agency that the standard of the work they had consultants under the supervision of the inspected was generally good and consistent Directorate of Works. Examples of defects with the size and reputation of the contractors found by Trench Farrow & Partners when retained for the works. Projects have benefited they visited the prison in April 1993 from the experiences gained wer several years included: of a substantial refurbishment programme, the a series of vertical ducts provided the introduction of the Prison Design Briefing services to each cell. There was an System and improved and expanded technical access panel for each duct on each instructions. landing. The ventilation grilles on each access panel were flimsy, easily vandalised and incorporated blades Project prioritisation and appraisal which could readily be removed and used as weapons. The Prison Service 3.14 Each yezarthe Prison Service determines the intends to replace each of the grilles: priorities of the building programme for works at existing establishments. Since the late popular pack cheap fluorescent light 1980s the main priorities have been to provide fittings have been used on all additional accommodation; improve physical balconies and in cells. These fittings security; provide access to night sanitation; are easily vandalised and did not and to improve hygiene and safety, especially conform with current Prison Service in kitchens and laundries. Lower, but still technical instructions; important, priorities have included projects a fire escape stairway had been such as new sports halls and staff facilities. installed in the centre of A and II wing. It had been fully glazed using expensive fire rated glazing. The
34 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
3.15 Proposals by area managers and headquarters Table 4: Recreational and ancillary facilities staff are assessed and prioritised according to under construction in 1992-93 national and area needs and subsequently Project Expenditure Total Cost approved by the Prison Board. On the whole, 1992-93 lfLlOO1 these arrangements have worked well, but (f000) there were a number of concerns: Stafford: all weather pitch 13 136 Aylesbury: exercise yard 102 - Huntercombe:gymnasium 3;: 730 there has been significant over- Maidstone: sports pitch 103 programming since the mid 1980s. Too Littlehey: staff social club ii 500 many schemes were put forward each year Parkhurst: sports hall 214 1,676 Oownview:sports hall 24 1,606 and given approval by the Prison Building Wakefield:sports hall 446 504 Board (and its predecessors) without a Wakefield:closed circuit television 100 221 realistic assessment of what was Liverpool: sports field 7 476 New Hall: club extension 3 262 achievable. As a result many schemes had Swansea:mess and works to be dropped, often because of lack of department 24 1,649 funds, and were ‘rolled forward’ to the Total cost 1,293 7,965 next year. Even then they were not This table shows that twelve projects under construction in guaranteed to go ahead. This was a factor 1992-93 involved recreationaland ancillaly facilities. that contributed to the long periods between design brief and contract letting 3.16 The Prison Building Board has pointed out (paragraph 3.2). In 1992-93 for example, that for both the new prison programme and 4.5 projects were approved by the Board projects at existing establishments, the but only 23 were started. Eight new effective management of the programme has schemes were started at short notice. been hampered by ‘annuality’. Such a However, within the need to manage the constraint does not impede the management capital programme on an annual basis of private sector construction programmes. some over-programming is necessary. The Prison Service recognises, however, that Delays to projects are always possible and it must manage its programme as efficiently as postponements and cancellations can possible within the financial regime occur for a variety of reasons, ranging applicable to all publicly funded projects. from planning negotiations to contractors going into receivership. Some over- 3.17 To improve the identification and programming ensures that full use can be prioritisation of projects, long term made of available funds within each development plans are being drawn up for financial year. each prison. This will be of considerable assistance to the Prison Service in planning - some projects went ahead at the expense and establishing programmes of work on a of higher priority schemes. In 1992-93 the national basis. As well as improving the Prison Service spent U.2 million on Prison Service’s ability to plan the 11 projects [Table 4) to improve facilities development of its estate as a whole, and such as sports halls, recreational individual prisons in particular, the buildings and staff facilities. The total development plans should assist the rapid expenditure to date on these projects has preparation of an appropriate design when been f7.7 million. building works are required urgently. The - Treasury guidance recommends that plans are expected to be complete in 1996. major capital projects should be The Prison Service is also introducing appraised. Of those projects examined, the measures to improve cash flow forecasting Prison Service appraised the two largest and an enhanced strategic planning capability -the refurbishment of Manchester and in headquarters to ensure that capital the development of Wormwood Scrubs - investment reflects the Service’s key and analysed seven alternative options for priorities. each. Detailed appraisals were not, however, carried out on other projects. 3.18 In April 1993 the Director General introduced new procedures for approving projects at Prison Board level. Each project is now considered more rigorously at preliminary sketch plan, final sketch plan and tender stage and a more thorough investment appraisal is
35 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROTECTS
required. Details of the new system have still 3.20 The role and duties of project managers are set to be finalised and fully implemented because out in a desk guide. However, in some cases of the need to ensure that they do not result in the project manager had taken on the role of a loss of momentum in the programme. sponsor, his own functions having effectively been delegated to the supervising officer (usually the architect). This had happened, for Project management example, at Dartmoor, Parkhurst, Bristol and Swansea, where project managers had 3.19 Project managers are responsible for ensuring sometimes approved expenditure without the that schemes meet client requirements and are written authority of the project sponsor. The delivered on time and within budget. Unlike Prison Service has pointed out that situations new prison buildings, where responsibilities sometimes arise on a project where the for sponsorship and management were shared manager is faced with making a timely between the Prison Service and the Property decision. This could result in immediate Services Agency, project management at expenditure but the lack of a decision could existing prisons has been the sole lead to a higher cost in the long term. In these responsibility of the Prison Service. The cases the project managers would have to Service currently employs a direct labour account for their actions to the sponsors. force of 200 professional and technical staff in the Directorate of Works (Figure 13) to 3.21 Although the name of the Prison Service develop and manage the projects. Each project official who is responsible for administering a requires a sponsor from the Directorate of project is set out in the contract, design Services and Parole and an experienced and consultants told the National Audit Office that trained project manager from the Directorate because the roles of project manager and of Works. design team leader were unclear they had been unsure who to turn to for advice and information and did not know who was
Figure 13: Organisation of the Directorate of Works
Estates Special Projects Design Group Maintenance Professional GlOUP North Services
Acquisitions Project Managers Guidance Disposals Civil Engineers TechnicalStandards MechanicalEngineers Provisionof Consultant ElectricalEngineers Services Architects ContractLetting QuantitySurveyors
Source: Prison Service Note: ’ The functions and organisation Ofthe Directorate may be changedas a comequence of the re-organisationof the Prison Senrtce Headquarters Figure 13 shows the main functions of the Directorateof Works in the Prison Service
36 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
responsible for developing each aspect of the managers in the Group are responsible for a design. This had contributed towards the small number of large projects and their delays and extended design periods. management effort is well-focused.
3.22 The design consultants also noted that project managers accepted changes to designs Appointment of consultants requested by governors and other users without reference to the sponsor responsible 3.26 Private sector consultants invited to bid for for the project. This weakens control and work on a project are selected from a register accountability; and all requests for changes of consultants maintained by the Directorate should go through the sponsor to be properly of Works. It is common in the private sector to appraised and approved. use multi-disciplinary consultancy firms, but the Prison Service instead appoints different consultants for each discipline. The use of Workload many different firms puts a greater onus on the project manager and increases the amount 3.23 In 1988 the Property Services Agency and cost of administration needed. But the recommended that experienced project Service considers that since only a few large managers (Grade 7) should at any time be firms offer a multi-disciplinary approach, handling between three and five projects with competition would be too limited. a total spend of up to 65 million: and all projects valued over ~&25million should have 3.27 Consultants are not usually interviewed a manager individually. However, in May before appointment to help assesstheir 1993 the six project managers in the current capabilities, experience, workload and Directorate of Works in the Northern and the resources they will allocate to the project. Southern Design Groups (Figure 13) each had So there is a risk that the consultants may not responsibility for between 30 and 50 projects be of the right quality or otherwise suited to and a total annual spend of some El5 million. the task. The project manager may not in fact The managers were all London based, speak to the consultants until the first project although projects for which they were meeting. responsible were spread across the country, seriously limiting their opportunity to attend 3.28 The depressed state of the construction site meetings. Three consultants told the industry has led to reduced consultancy fees National Audit Office that project managers and cost savings for the Prison Service. But in were difficult to contact and slow to reply to such circumstances special emphasis needs to requests for information. As a result, many be placed on procedures to ensure that quality problems are dealt with by an available standards are monitored to guard against the standard response, not because it is directly risk that firms putting in very low bids may applicable to a project but because resources cut corners and, in the long run, variations are not available fully to assessor implement may add to the Prison Service’s costs. The tailor-made solutions. private sector in practice place more emphasis than the Prison Service on ensuring that the 3.24 In April 1993 the Prison Service sought to consultants selected meet minimum quality reduce the pressure on project managers by standards. The very low level of fees now providing each of them an assistant at Higher being bid for prison projects, with discounts Executive Officer grade. of up to 70 per cent on recommended fee scales, underlines the need for the Prison 3.25 A successful approach to reducing the Service to strengthen its assessment of the overload on project managers has been the comparability and quality of consultants’ establishment of a Special Projects Group proposals. within the Directorate of Works to undertake larger projects. This Group has been responsible for the refurbishment of Project execution plans Manchester Prison and the sanitation programme and the design of several 3.29 With the exception of the sanitation proposed new prisons. Individual project programme, project execution plans were not prepared for the projects examined at existing
37 CONTROL OF PRISON BUlLDING PROTECTS
establishments. Though many elements of a greater number serves only to increase the such plans are inherent in the Prison Service’s cost of tendering to contractors and provides organisational structure and the standard no significant advantage to the Prison Service. procedures in guidance and manuals, plans The smaller the chance of winning, the less tailored to individual projects would assist by time and effort a company may put into the setting out budgetary and managerial control tender; and this in turn reduces the quality of procedures and responsibilities in clear and the bid and increases the risk of delays and specific terms. In particular such plans would: claims during construction.
. clarify the roles of the project manager, design team leader and consultants, and Project reviews the programme each must work to; . assist in the selection of a contract 3.33 Independent reviews of projects are a useful strategy. The Prison Service has let smue means of identifying time and cost overruns 260 contracts a year, for nearly all of and enable remedial actions to be taken where which it used the traditional lump sum appropriate (paragraph 2.46). However, no contract based on a full design and bills of reviews or “audits” have been commissioned quantity. on projects at existing establishments, despite the substantial expenditure incurred. Periodic reviews by external consultants, an internal Contingencies audit team or possibly the Prison Building Board of compliance with the standard 3.30 Contingencies are included in the budget procedures adopted for the management of provision for a project to cover unforeseen projects would help to identify best practice, events. This allows management to appraise and identify any wider weaknesses that might and justify a project on the basis of likely exist, particularly at the detailed design stage. outturn cost and provides a target for project cost control. The amount of contingency should be flexible to reflect the nature and Sanitation programme degree of risk. 3.34 In their 42nd Report, 1988-89 (IIC 196), the 3.31 The Prison Service has applied a standard six Committee of Public Accounts noted that a per cent contingency to most projects, large proportion of the prison population did including those where more flexible not have access to night sanitation and were arrangements were required - for example, still “slopping out”; and they urged the Home wings scheduled for refurbishment which Office to find ways of bringing about a faster have had only limited site surveys during the improvement in conditions. In February 1991 design period. The Prison Service is the Prison Service gave a commitment that all introducing varying degrees of contingency prisoners should have access to sanitation at based on an assessment of the risks, available all times by the end of 1994, with a information and the procurement strategy. programme of works using DO million (over Tight controls are essential to ensure that the and above the cost of providing sanitation in contingency is drawn upon only in specified the course of general refurbishment). circumstances and with proper authority. 3.35 The National Audit Office commissioned Trench Farrow & Partners to review progress Selection and appointment of of the programme. In May 1993 they reported contractors that:
3.32 Ten companies are usually invited to tender . out of 16,100 cells requiring WC and wash for each project over fl million. On basin smne 9,200 had been installed and comparable sized projects in the private sector uver 62 per cent of prisoners had access to and other government departments only five sanitation 24 hours a day; or six contractors would be invited to bid. . the projected outturn cost of the Contractors who have worked on Prison programme was E62.2 million of which Service schemes would prefer between four f35 million had been spent; and six tenderers for every project. Requesting
38 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PRO,ECTS
l the average cost per installation . the benefits of having a dedicated project completed to date is about E3,800. The management team; average cost varies between establishment . the preparation of a project execution from about ~700 to over ~7,000. plan; 3.36 In February 1994 the Home Secretary . a clear definition of objectives, announced that by the end of 1994 more than responsibilities and roles; 95 per cent of prisoners should have access to sanitation at all times. But in the face of the . the combination of an appropriate forecast increase in the prison population, contract strategy and sane tailoring on resources are being directed to providing individual projects to suit the scope of additional places and the amount of works and local security requirements; accommodation that it was planned to take . the adoption of an enhanced contingency out of use for refurbishment during the next allowance (increased from 6 to 15 per two years has been reduced. The Prison cent] because of the risks involved at Service now aims to complete the programme many sites - for example disruption of not later than February 1996, the date contractors as a result of operational and recommended by Lord Woolf in his Report. security matters; 3.37 Trench Farrow reported that on the whole the . clear and relevant project management programme has been well managed. They saw reports, noting any reasons for delays to the following factors as important: programme or cost increases.
39 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Appendix 1 Holme House
5200 HIGH - PERIMETERWALL 5200 HIGH - PERIMETERFENCE
II SportSField ilill 1
Background In 1988 there were nine prisons in North East England, but many were overcrowded and in need of refurbishment. The Prison Service regarded a new local prison providing accommodation for some 600 inmates as a very high priority. The aim was to provide a permanent increase in certified places as quickly as possible. Four feasible sites were found, but one was too small, and the local authorities had alternative development plans on two other sites. Holme House Farm was the only site available on which planning clearance was likely to be forthcoming.
Building work The prison is a copy of the design used for the prison at Bullingdon. The accommodation is provided in four houseblocks, each divided into galleried wings. The project also includes a medical centre, kitchen, workshops and laundry, as well as a sportsfield, gymnasium and education buildings.
Details of construction Lead Consultants: - Percy Thomas Partnership Contract Type: - Lump sum contract based on a full design and Bills of Quantities as per GC Works 1 Edition 2 Contractor: - Robert McAlpine Plc Tender: - E55.0 million Final Construction Cost: - f59.0 million Date Contract Let: - June1989 Date Completed: - February 1992 Extensions of Time Granted: - 78 days
40 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROIECTS
Appendix 2 Woodhill Prison
Background Woodhill is a new prison near Milton Keynes, opened in 1991 and certified to hold 544 inmates. It is a local prison, relieving scrne pressure on the existing overcrowded establishments at Bedford and Wellingborough. It accommodates category B and category A prisoners in six houseblocks. The central building contains units which provide for reception and discharge, education, visits, and physical education along with the administration unit, chapel and kitchen. Further facilities include workshops and a health care centre.
Building work The design of the prison is based on the concept of ‘new generation’ prisons. It has been built on a green field site, and the work has included:
. advanced works to level the site and use excavated materials to form landscaped moulds around the site perimeter; . construction of 13 buildings -complete with mechanical and electrical services, external works and the perimeter wall. Details of construction Lead Consultants: - RMJM (London) Contract Type: - Traditional lump sum contract based on Bills of Approximate Quantities as per GC Works 1 Edition 2 Contractor: - Higgs and Hill Limited Tender: - E77.9 million Final Construction Cost: - f102.3 million Date Contracted: - November 1988 Date Completed: - December 1991 Extensions of Time Granted: - 15 weeks
41 CONTROLOF PRISONBUILDING PROJECTS
Appendix 3 Lancaster F‘arms
Background In the early 1980s the Prison Service foresaw a significant shortage of places for young offenders in the North of England. Unless additional accommodation was found, more juveniles would have to be held in local prisons. Lancaster Farms was built on land already owned by the Prison Service and previously used as a farm. It is a new prison near Lancaster, certified to hold 372 male inmates aged between 15 and 21 years old.
Building work The design of the prison is based on the concept of ‘new generation’ prisons. The project included construction of three houseblocks, an entry building, a kitchen, hospital, recreational facilities and workshops.
Details of construction Lead Consultants: - Alex Gordan Partnership Contract Type: - Lump sum contract based on a full design and Bills of Quantities as per GC Works 1 Edition 2 Contractor: - AMEC [previously Fairclough Building Ltd) Tender: - E46.8 million Final Construction Cost: - f64.5 million Date Contract Let: - October 1989 Date Completed: - January 1993 Extensions of Time Granted: - 22 weeks
42 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Appendix 4 Doncaster
Background The demolition of the Central Electricity Generating Board’s power station in Doncaster offered the Prison Service an opportunity to build a local prison within a town. There was a severe shortage of accommodation in the North East of England. The prison is still under construction, but it is planned to hold 779 inmates.
Building work The advantage of the site is that it is close to Doncaster town centre, but it is a small site on an island between two rivers. Early construction work involved building a bridge onto the island for access, diverting electricity cables and clearing the site. The houseblocks are four storeys high to make maximum use of available space.
Details of construction Lead Consultants: - Seifert Contract Type: - Lump sum contract based on a full design and Bills of Quantities as per GC Works 1 Edition 2 Contractor: - Shepherd Construction Ltd Tender: - f68.2 million Final Construction Cost: - E79.9 million Date Contract Let: - August 1990 Date Due to be Completed: - June 1994 Extensions of Time Granted: - 7 months
43 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Appendix 5 Wormwood Scrubs - Spine link
Background Wormwood Scrubs prison is a local prison for adult male prisoners in West London. It was designed by Sir Edmund Du Cane, and built by convict labour between 1874 and 1891. There are four independent and parallel 4 storey accommodation wings within the perimeter wall. Over the years, a number of different structures, such as workshops, kitchen, laundry and hospital have been built between the wings. A comprehensive maintenance survey in 1989 identified major problems associated with the deterioration of the prison’s fabric and services.
Building work Under the advance works contract, the construction site was separated from the remainder of the prison by building walls across the galleries in each wing and fencing off the site. The north end of the perimeter wall was demolished, and the size of the site extended by building a temporary wall further out into the common. The main contract is to build a four storey structure connecting each of the wings. The new building includes a secure corridor, kitchen, sports hall, hospital, reception and discharge facilities, workshops and education rooms, and additional accommodation.
Details of construction Lead Consultants: - Architects Co-Partnership Ltd Contract Type: - Lump sum contract based on a full design and Bills of Quantities as per GC Works 1 Edition 2 Contractor: - John Laings Ltd Tender Estimate: - E29.65 million Final Construction Cost: - f34.55 million Date Contract Let: - March 1991 Date Completed: - Due to finish 1994 Extensions of Time Granted - 26 weeks
44 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Appendix 6 Manchester Prison - Site 1
Background Manchester prison is divided into two areas. The main area contains the main and remand wings and most of the facilities, including the kitchen, gym, education, chaplaincy, visits and administration. The second area - known as the Croft site - contained the works department, workshops and laundry and is linked to the main site by an enclosed footbridge across a public road. Phase I of the redevelopment was to refurbish the remand wings and bring them back into operation by separating them from the rest of the prison. Phase II divided the remainder of the two areas into three sites:
. site 1: refurbishment of the existing wings; . site 2: construction of a new entry complex, administration and visits block: . site 3: redevelopment of the Croft site-including a new gymnasium, bridge and kitchen. Site 1 building work The existing wings are Grade II listed buildings. Each wing was repaired, the security upgraded and integral sanitation provided whilst making sure that any alterations were in keeping with the existing fabric. The work was divided into 59 work packages, and each package was put out to tender by the management contractor.
45 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Details of construction Lead Consultants: - John R Harris Partnership Contract Type: - Management Contract based on GC Works 1 Edition 2 Contractor: - Trafalgar House Construction Management Ltd. Tender: - ~1.45 million plus 1.5 per cent of the outturn Final Construction Cost: - f33.3 million Date Contract Let: - December 1990 Date Completed: - May 1993 Extensions of Time Granted: - none
46 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Appendix 7 Parkhurst - A & D wing refurbishment
Background Parkhurst is a high security dispersal prison, predominantly of Victorian design, housing category A prisoners (including those inmates considered to be a very high risk] and category B prisoners. Many of the prison buildings were built 150 years ago by inmates and were identified as being in need of major maintenance work.
Building work A and D wing is a Victorian galleried houseblock which was severely damaged during a prison disturbance in 1979. Although the houseblock was subsequently re-roofed and rewired, it was not brought back into operation because of the damage to the interior. The aim of the project was to redevelop and refurbish the accommodation and maintain the existing structure. The work has included:
l putting new mechanical and electrical services in the roof void, and m-roofing the building . improved security-including strengthening the walls to each cell, new doors and windows, new alarms, dividing the wing into two separate houseblocks with extra gates, and adding a control and restraint stair case;
l providing new lighting and integral sanitation to each cell, and new laundry, cooking, washing and recreation facilities.
Details of construction Lead Consultants - Pell Frischman, replaced by Stanley Peach & Partners in 1989 Contract Type: - Traditional lump sum contracts based on full design and Bills of Quantities as per GC Works 1 Edition 2 Contractor: - Kier (Southern) Construction Ltd - formerly Beazer Construction Ltd
47 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PROJECTS
Appendix 8 Dartmoor redevelopment
Plan of prison
Background The establishment was built in 1806-08 to house French prisoners of war. In 1960 ministerial approval was given to close the prison, but because of the increases in the inmate population and the pressure on accommodation, a closure notice was never issued. Following a programme of limited maintenance and refurbishment, the Prison Service decided in 1976 to retain Dartmoor. A maintenance survey was carried out on its buildings, and a major programme, identifying major items of maintenance and upgrading was formulated.
Building work The building work involves:
. the refurbishment (including the addition of sanitation) of A, B and D wings; . a new kitchen and victualing store; . conversion of the old works block into a main administration unit;
l the construction of linked corridors between wings and the kitchen.
48 CONTROL OF PRISON BUILDING PRO,ECTS
Details of construction Lead Consultants: - Stanley Peach and Partners Contract Type: - Lump sum contract based on a full design and Bills of Quantities as per GC Works 1 Edition 2 Contractor: - Tilbury Douglas Construction Ltd Tender: - KZ2.3 million Estimated Final Construction Cost:- EZ3.5 million Date Contract Let: - August 1990 Date Completed: - due to finish July 1994 Extensions of Time Granted: - 13 weeks
49