HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Tenders
Committee
Wednesday 11 March 2015
Subject: Consultant Input into
the Coastal Strategy
Reason for Report
1. HBRC is working
with Hastings District Council and Napier City Council on the development of a
Coastal Hazards Strategy for the Hawke’s Bay coast between Clifton and
Tangoio.
2. As
part of this work the technical advisory group (TAG), which is advising the
Joint Committee governing the Strategy development, has requested and received
a proposal from Tonkin and Taylor (T&T) to complete background technical
work required to inform strategy development.
3. At
its meeting to be held on 6 March 2015, the Strategy Joint Committee has been
requested to:
3.1. Accept in
principal the proposal from T&T to complete the technical work stream, and
3.2. Request HBRC
to commission T&T to undertake the work, subject to agreement from HBRC
Tenders Committee.
4. In anticipation
of the Joint Committee making these resolutions, this paper seeks agreement
from HBRC Tenders Committee to accept the T&T proposal and commission them
to undertake the work.
Background
5. No other
proposals have been sought for this work as staff involved in the TAG believe
T&T:
5.1. Is the only
NZ organisation currently holding the expertise and experience to undertake
this work and provide robust and defendable outcomes, and
5.2. Has
significant knowledge of the Hawke’s Bay coastline as a result of
involvement in providing advice to HBRC on coastal issues since the late 1990s
including the development of coastal hazard lines for the region’s coast,
and
5.3. Understands
the background of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Strategy development
initiative through involvement since the commencement of the project, and
5.4. Understands the NZ legal environment and is experienced in providing
expert evidence on behalf of NZ councils in the
Environment Court.
6. The
T&T proposal includes an estimate of $209,400 for this work. It is the view
of TAG that the cost is higher than expected, but given the scope of work required,
not unreasonable. Decisions made under the Coastal Strategy will impact on
business and personal properties, and must be supported by robust
science. It is not considered that a lesser work programme (and lower
cost approach) will be able to produce an adequately robust and defendable
technical position.
7. At
the TAG level, agreement has been reached to share the cost between the three
councils within existing budgets and staff delegations, noting that a portion
of the costs will fall in the 2015-16 financial year and be met from budget
provisions in long term plans.
8. Tonkin
and Taylor has advised that there is a possibility of reducing the cost of Risk
Assessment through the use of Council resources. This will be discussed
with the TAG members and, where possible, consultancy costs will be reduced.
9. The Terms of
Reference for the Tenders Committee include:
9.1. To consider
and accept tenders which exceed the delegated authority of the Chief Executive
9.2. To consider
and decide on exemptions to Council’s Contracts and Tenders policy as set
out in section 2.1.4.2 of Council’s policy handbook.
10. Section 2.1.4.2 of
Council’s Policy Manual requires that where the value of goods, works or
services proposed to be purchased or sold as a single commitment exceeds
$50,000, tenders or such other publicly accessible pricing process be utilised.
11. For the
reasons set out above, the Tenders Committee is requested to waive this
requirement and authorise the Chief Executive to enter into an agreement with T&T
to provide consultancy services as set out their proposal on behalf of the
Coastal Hazards Joint Committee.
Decision Making
Process
12. Council
is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local
Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements
contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have
concluded the following:
12.1. The decision
does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
12.2. The use of
the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
12.3. The decision
does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
12.4. There are no persons directly
affected by this decision.
12.5. Options that
have been considered include:
12.5.1. Tendering the work.
12.5.2. Extending the project
timeframe and only committing to specific sections of the work at any one time.
12.6. The decision
is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
12.7. Given the
nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the
persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made,
Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting
directly with the community or others having an interest in the
decision.
|
Recommendations
That the
Tenders Committee:
1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that
Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the
Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring
directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have
an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue
to be considered and decided.
2. Notwithstanding the current policy of Council as set out in
section 2.1.4.2 of Council’s Policy Handbook, delegates to the Chief
Executive authority to enter into an agreement with Tonkin and Taylor for the
provision of services estimated to cost $210,000 required to develop a
Coastal Hazards Strategy for the Hawke’s Bay coast between Clifton and
Tangoio, as set out in the proposal attached.
3. Notes that the cost of this work will be shared between HBRC,
Napier City Council and Hastings District Council from existing budgets and
budget provisions.
|
|
Mike Adye
Group Manager
Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Tenders
Committee
Wednesday 11 March 2015
Subject: Proposal for SedNet and
SMap
Reason
for Report
1. HBRC is
discussing options for scaling up the delivery of work for sediment modelling
and soil mapping for the region with Landcare Research (LCR).
2. The
proposal is to soil map the rest of the region (Tukituki is already done) using
SMap and to model the rest of the region (Tukituki is already done) using
SedNet – an LCR sediment transport model.
3. LCR
is the only provider of SMap and SedNet in New Zealand.
4. In anticipation
of successfully negotiating a contract with LCR for this work, this paper seeks
agreement in principle from HBRC Tenders Committee to continue negotiations
with LCR.
Background
5. No other
proposals have been sought for this work as staff involved believe LCR:
5.1. is the only
NZ organisation currently holding the expertise and experience to undertake
this work and provide robust and defendable outcomes
5.2. has
significant knowledge of the Hawke’s Bay as a result of their work in the
Tukituki catchment
5.3. has committed
to fund some of the work from their public good funded MBIE science programme
5.4. has the capacity to deliver the mapping and modeling in the desired
two year window.
6. The
LCR proposal includes an initial estimate of $675,000 for the SMap and $360,000
for SedNet. We are currently discussing with LCR the detail of the costs,
deliverables and scoping an appropriate contract document.
7. The
cost of the work exceeds the delegated authority of staff and would require
approval of the Tenders Committee before signing.
8. Staff
are seeking agreement in principle to not pursue a competitive tender process
for this work given the matters highlighted in section 5 above.
9. If
agreement in principle is obtained, negotiations will continue and the final
detail would come back to the committee to seek delegation for the CE to sign
the contract.
10. The cost of this work
would be capitalised and then funded through internal/external borrowings with
those costs split between Land Science, Land Management and Policy projects.
Decision
Making Process
11. Council
is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local
Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements
contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have
concluded the following:
11.1. The decision
does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
11.2. The use of
the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
11.3. The decision
does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
11.4. There are no persons directly
affected by this decision.
11.5. Options that
have been considered include:
11.5.1. Tendering the work.
11.6. The decision
is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
11.7. Given the
nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the
persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made,
Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting
directly with the community or others having an interest in the
decision.
|
Recommendations
That the
Tenders Committee:
1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that
Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the
Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring
directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have
an interest in the decision due to the nature and
significance of the issue to be considered and decided.
2. Notwithstanding the current policy of Council as set out in
section 2.1.4.2 of Council’s Policy Handbook, agree in principle to
staff continuing to negotiate with LCR for the provision of SMap and SedNet.
|
|
Iain Maxwell
Group Manager
Resource Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
