Our lady of the Missions Primary School Parent Council
Minutes for the OLM Parent Council Meeting – 13th March 2014
Present
Gillian Boyle, Anne Forsyth, Michelle Hynes, Charlie Jamieson, Gerry Devenney, Marie-Claire Darroch, Mary O’Reilly, Callum Houston, Karen Kelly, Clare Bowes, Cllr Waters, Cllr Robertson, Cllr McCaskill, J. Taggart, C. James, J. Heraghty, A. Friel, R. Spooner, M, McAlpine
Apologies
Cllr Wallace, N. Salim, M. Moore, Cllr Fletcher, G. Bhatti, L. Garety, J. McLachlan
It was noted that P. Rogers had tendered her resignation from the Parent Council
Approval of the Minutes for the January PC Meeting
Proposed- C. Bowes
Seconded- J. Heraghty
Update on Transition
C. Jamieson explained that D. Leask had informed him that the tenders for the building work were in and were being scrutinised. He said that he did not yet know who the contractor would be and did not yet have a start date but that he had been advised that the start of the work would be imminent and that a perimeter fence for security was already being erected in the Robslee campus. He added that there would be two ways to access routes from OLM to Glenwood without having to cut through Robslee.
Cllr Waters said that a winning bid had been chosen and that the details were being finalised.
C. Jamieson said that he had brought up with D. Leask the issue of the masonry bees at Robslee. He added that he hoped to visit the Robslee building again after Easter, when he would know what money was still available.
A. Forsyth drew attention to the reduced time for the building work to be completed.
C. Houston asked whether the school had been consulted about awarding the contract. Cllr Waters replied that procurement laws prevented that and that three officers judged the contracts. C. Houston went on to note that the school , had not therefore seen what was in the contract since it was a Design and Build contract that went out to tender. Cllr Waters said that although it was a Design and Build contract, it had a very detailed specification.
K. Kelly asked whether the contract had been awarded to the lowest bidder. Cllr Waters replied that there was a price/ quality balance. Cllr Robertson added that each bid would be marked on certain criteria which would have been included in the specification.
C. Houston emphasised the need for good quality and said that the building material would be important. Cllr Waters said that samples of the proposed building materials were often included with the tender. The contractor is picked from a council list. He expected that the tenders would be less than the budget.
K. Kelly noted the two different aesthetics of the OLM and Robslee buildings and queried how a building material would be chosen to blend the two together. Cllr Waters replied that that was the role of D. Leask, who has responsibility for all of the school buildings.
Cllr Robertson said that the bids would be checked to ensure that they meet the specifications. C. Houston noted that contractors could find a way round this in the way they write their tenders. C. Jamieson said that the drawings of the architect had been available and so the tender should be in line with what was asked for.
Cllr Waters explained that he had not seen the winning contract or the full specification but he envisaged that the clerking of the work would have to be a daily or weekly exercise. He also stated that agency staff could be used to prevent slippage.
R. Spooner asked about the clerking of the work. Cllr Waters replied that the clerk would check in with C. Jamieson. R. Spooner also asked whether the text of the winning bid would be available to view. He was told that it would not.
G. Devenney asked whether, in the system of the preferred list, a contractor could be removed if they failed to provide work of a suitable standard. Cllr Waters replied that they could.
A. Friel asked whether the new building would be given a new name. C. Jamieson replied that it would not be given a separate name as such but that it would need to be identified in some way so that the 2 areas of the campus could be distinguished from one another.
A. Forsyth asked about how the project would be delivered on time. C. Houston asked if there was a contingency plan if the work was not finished in time for August. He noted that there were still building procedures that would have to completed before work can begin. Cllr Waters replied that the time scale would be finalised after the award of the contract has been completed but that there might still be snagging work that will need to be completed after August. G. Boyle asked for more specific detail about what the snagging period might entail. Cllr Waters said that he anticipated only small jobs needing to be completed and that the school would need to function round this work being finished. He added that if there is a delay and the tender is under budget, then there might be the finance available to get the project back on track.
C. Houston asked whether paying for acceleration would come out of the budget and whether that would be to the detriment of paying for other things. Cllr Waters explained that the way the capital budget works, any money not spent on the link corridor will go back into the pot and does not automatically refer to the school. However, a further decision at a political level could be made to allocate further funds if this was felt necessary / appropriate.
K. Kelly asked whether the contractor would be obliged to reinstate the landscaping as it is. Cllr Waters replied that some landscaping would probably be included. Cllr Robertson stated that if it was not included, the council would be able to do some landscaping work. He added that by the time of the last Parent Council meeting of the session in June, there would be a better idea of whether the project was on track.
