Business profile
Keltbray welcomes Dragados win
Keltbray is a UK leader in specialist engineering, demolition and environmental services. The company worked with Dragados throughout the extensive tendering process for the Bank station upgrade, and played a key role in securing the contract through the provision of planning, logistics, temporary works and geotechnical design input during the tender stage. Keltbray built the specialist services case
on the back of its extensive experience in complex City of London and rail interface redevelopment projects. Operations director for Keltbray Demolition & Civil, Anthony Walsh, explained: 'In recent years we have completed a number of successful projects within the City of London. This includes the Blackfriars station redevelopment, where Keltbray delivered a challenging demolition and engineering project safely, on time and on budget while the railway and station remained operational.' According to Walsh,
an integral factor in Dragados’s choice of Keltbray as a partner was the synergies it offers through its in-house capabilities and health and safety track record: 'We provide value for our customers through our expert people whose experience spans years in the industry across a range of integrated disciplines. A key element to the Bank station upgrade, for instance, is the temporary works engineering and geotechnical design that will be provided by our own in-house structural engineers, Wentworth House Partnership. 'We also have a rigorous health and
safety behavioural programme and reporting system that has helped us achieve one of the lowest accident frequency rates in the industry,' he said. Keltbray is delighted about Dragados’s
win and is eager to get started: 'We are confident we have provided the Bank station upgrade project with the best overall solution for the specialist demolition works, and very much look forward to working with Dragados and their other key partners on this high profile contract,' concluded Walsh.
Without the scheme, London’s stations
will increasingly be subject to temporary closures needed for crowd control. Similarly, there would be a need to run trains non-stop through Bank at the busiest times. The knock-on effect would mean serious disruption for other parts of the LU network and eventually Bank – at the heart of London’s financial district and key to the UK economy – would be unable to cope with demand.
Social value a defining factor While Spain-based Dragados has been quick to defend the selection of a non- British firm for the project by citing its UK-centric supply chain, a more important factor in the company’s success arose out of the social value contained in its pitch. Duggan said that the bid was a first for
him in that its focus was less on providing a competitive price as proving value for money well into the future. ‘In fact, I was surprised when my commercial team urged spending more on an asset because the social benefit vastly outweighed the capital cost of the upgrade. This is a new, and in my experience unique, set of behaviours during a bid. The output and added value for London Underground speaks for itself.’ Explained Duggan: ‘We realised
very early on that the evaluation of this proposal was going to be on product value to LU, not capital cost, so we concentrated on the social value of the scheme, not the cost to build. The evaluation criteria and information in the client’s business case calculations confirmed journey time reduction and congestion relief were the key outputs that would win the bid. We used iterative 3D space proofing of potential tunnel layouts, validation of safe build methods and then pedestrian modelling, using the Legion model software that LU itself uses. This information was converted to passenger journey time saving over the whole life
of the project and then translated into a social benefit sum for the bid evaluation. We then continued to strive for better layouts to improve journey time and reduce congestion hotspots.’ What stood out to TfL officials was the
consortium’s ability to show its scheme would put more people through the station faster – specifically shaving one fifth off the time it takes to pass through. The social benefit of those faster journey times calculated over a 60-year period translated to a staggering £148,625,000. At £563,812,000, the Dragados scheme
also offered a £61,155,000 (9.8 per cent) reduction in the estimated final cost. While none of the bidders was able to eliminate the need to close the station during the project, the Dragados scheme achieved a five-week (22.7 per cent)
The next step Since the Dragados consortium provided the best overall value and a complete solution, it was not necessary to purchase innovations from the unsuccessful bidders for the project. However, LU is buying innovations from the three losing bidders for use in the upcoming Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) application planning, which should reduce the length of the approval process. Following public consultation between October 4 and November 8, TfL is due to submit a TWAO by autumn 2014. Allowing time for a possible public enquiry, an order will be made by the end 2015.
October 2013 Page 99
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140