Current status: Answered by Fiona Hyslop on 7 August 2024
To ask the Scottish Government what the sum was of the tender by the sole bidder for the contract for the dualling of the A9 Tomatin to Moy under the original tender process, in light of the recent award of the re-tendered contract for £184.7 million.
Following the conclusion of the procurement process and contract award for the A9 Dualling Tomatin to Moy project, I recently wrote to the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee to disclose this information which I am aware is of great interest. An extract of this letter containing this information is provided below:
'Having considered carefully our obligations around confidentiality and transparency, and following consultation with the contractor involved, I can advise that the contract value for the single bid received in October 2022 in relation to the previous procurement for the A9 Dualling: Tomatin to Moy project was £169,986,287.00 at October 2022 prices.
At the time of receipt of this tender, which was the first procurement of a major roads project undertaken by Transport Scotland following the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scottish Ministers were unable to conclude that the tender submission represented best value for the taxpayer. As only a single tender was received on that procurement, no direct market comparator cost was available at that time. The cost of the tender received was significantly higher than both the original £115 million cost estimate for this project, even after allowing for significant inflationary effects, and a cost comparator bid of £136,945,150 compiled by Transport Scotland’s technical advisors.
I am delighted that the recent procurement process has led to a successful contract award and I am pleased to see progress with the delivery of the dualling. I am strongly of the view that the conclusion reached in respect of the previous procurement was appropriate based on the information available at that time. It is imperative that the Government ensures appropriate use of public funds and as best value for the taxpayer could not be demonstrated as outlined above, it was clearly not appropriate for the Government to proceed with a contract award at that time.'