31.
expressed concern that all specification might not be available before contract signature which was both unusual and could create problems. Mr Codd suggested that to think in terms of contract negotiations late in 1973 would not be unrealistic.
Mr Scott and Mr Codd queried whether if two or more consortia were in the right "price bracket" Government intended to negotiate with both or all for an ultimate contract with one. Mr Hadden-Cave confirmed this as the intention but did suggest that if one consortium "stood out" in terms of price and reservations made above the others negotiations would be confined to that one. He did not consider this eventuality likely however and mentioned also that if some marriage between consortia seemed desirable Government would prompt this.
POSITION OF CONSULTANT ON CONSORTIUM APPROACH
32.
33.
34.
Mr Hadden-Cave queried where the consultant would stand if a consortium approach were adopted. Mr Kindersley stated that he would remain as Government's adviser, his role being to oversee the consortium.
Mr Newall suggested that the consultant should undertake all design for civil engineering work; there was nothing unusual about this and the consultant had been involved in the project so long that to supplant him would be a retrograde step. The civil side of the consortium might however suggest specific design development or amendment in the interests of finance or speed. Mr Scott for the E & Mech E side said it was entirely practicable for either the consultant or the consortium to undertake design and Mr Codd mentioned the great difference between design specification for costing and that for manufacturing.
Mr Hadden-Cave and Mr Robson both favoured the consultant undertaking all civil design work and the E & Mech E design and specification being a joint consultant/consortium effort to avoid duplication and time wastage.
POSITION OF LAZARDS ON CONSORTIUM APPROACH
35.
36.
37.
Question was raised by Mr Hadden-Cave whether the consortium would seek to control the arrangement and provision of all the finance necessary acting virtually as bankers and financed advisers
to MTRC.
Mr Kindersley foresaw a natural division of responsibility Lazards taking responsibility for the finance they were to arrange and other lenders taking responsibility for their finance. Particularly Lazards would be responsible for arranging and controlling finance covering 85% of the UK element and the UK loan for locals. area to be covered concerned finance for 15% of the UK element
and for the balance of locals.
The
There was inconclusive discussion on this issue between Mr Hadden- Cave, Mr Sandberg and Mr Kindersley and it was agreed further thought needed to be given to this.
7.
}