their guests. These innovations do not happen by accident. They are the direct result of a competitive dialogue process that has challenged and refined the design and forced Operators to raise their game.
Leeds Arena: Public Procurement Process
Most of all the Council was keen to generate interest and excitement for the project, to create a buzz. By every measure they succeeded in that they managed to attract 6 of the top international players in the promotions industry and the standards of all the bids was extremely high. The Council was looking for innovation and design as well as keen pricing to minimise the level of public subsidy.
Leeds intends to provide an Arena that is radically different, as it has been designed precisely to accommodate the features needed to support the Operator’s business plan. Another good example of this priority will be the entrance and exit flows. These have been designed to ensure rapid entrance and exit for the audience from the front of the Arena but at the same time to deliver at the rear of the Arena rapid turnaround for the performers and their entourage. The idea is simple but rarely executed well. An Operator needs to be able to close one performance and open another as quickly as possible with the minimum of down time to maximise revenue. This is not easy when you think of the enormous plant, sound and lighting equipment that the world’s biggest superstars take with them. However the Leeds Arena has been designed so that for example you could close a performance by say the Rolling Stones (I am sure they will still be touring in 3 year’s time despite the fact that Charlie Watts will then be 73) and open another performance by say Prince the next night.
Leeds Arena: Public Procurement Process, Decisions Made
The procurement process began in a buoyant market and the clever bit of the process, or so it seemed at the time, was to twin track the two competitive dialogues one being the selection of the Operator running just ahead and the second being the appointment of the Developer. The novel feature is not just the parallel approach but mainly that the interests of the Operator were given priority so that, for once, the Operator would not have to be bound by the physical characteristics of a building or site foisted upon it. Instead the Operator was given a free hand to develop a model that would deliver those features optimum to support its business plan. In turn this enabled the Operator to predict with greater confidence than usual the higher profits and to commit to the higher income payments that would attract greater private sector investment and thus minimise the level of public subsidy required. The only restrictions were those specified in the tender process and this had to be carefully drafted to achieve fairness, transparency and absolute clarity.
Sufficient details from the Operator competition were fed into the Developer process so that the Developer could understand what the Operator required and what income streams might be available to source the funding of the scheme. Undoubtedly the complexity and pressure of the dual timetable created tensions for the team particularly when those processes were operating at full tilt often with back to back meetings with a number of different Operators and Developers but the process nevertheless moved relatively smoothly onwards and upwards, which, unfortunately, is more than can be said for the economy.
Leeds Arena: Competitive Dialogue
As a final example if you have ever been fortunate enough to enjoy corporate hospitality in a box in a traditional Arena you will probably have shared my usual experience of disappointment. Unfortunately the position of the boxes seems almost to be an afterthought and will have been driven by the shape of “sports” Arena. This will not be the case in Leeds where the Operator has identified the precise height and position for the boxes to ensure that they provide the optimum visual and acoustic experience for the hosts and
36 Tiffany Cloynes
Key Successes ● Integrated Project team, regular MDT briefings ● Successful project management of overlapping strands ● Schedule met, for award to Operator
Key Drivers ● Importance of Operator Business Plan upon design
ASSET - Liverpool-10
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