CONFIDENTIAL·
MANAGEMENT IN CONFIDENCE
met by the judicious positioning of separate entrances to the three different activities within the building. Although the architectural result could be separate buildings on the site, we are satisfied that security considerations do not demand that we specify separate buildings (although internal arrangements would be specified to limit passage between the activities). The demographics of the student body make it unlikely that they would engage in political protests (the age range is wide, all are part-time students and are either in work, in school or housewives seeking to re-enter work). Legal Advisers confirm that the Council's section of the building would not have diplomatic status, so there should be no question of attempts to seek asylum in their space.
10. For all these reasons, I recommend that we proceed with colocation. Funding for a co-located project is already included in the FCO's PES capital baseline. The Council will not therefore be required to contribute a capital sum (nor pay rent) except to any extent that the total cost of the project exceeded that funding (in which case the Council might be required to contribute their pro-rata "share" of the excess). The Council would, obviously, pay their share of running costs (including ground rent).
Project Managers
11.
On
We interviewed four major firms as prospective Project Managers: the in-house project managerial teams of HK Land and Swire Properties and Highpoint Rendel Projects and Maunsell/ C-Fin, both predominantly professional civil engineering consultancies with extensive project management capabilities. All four firms would be thoroughly capable of doing the job that we would require of them, and selection is difficult. balance, we preferred the more managerially "hands on" approach of the property development teams to the slightly more dispassionate approach of the consultancies, and we thought that their experience of managing buildings after construction would pay dividends during it. We then looked at two considerations in particular: the quality, and likelihood of continuity, of their key personnel and their fee offers. HK Land were less promising than Swire Properties on the former, but offered a 1% fee to Swire's 1.75% (both are competitive against the going rate). The difference in their fees is worth about £150,000. Fee apart, we also preferred Swire because of their greater commitment to our project, fuelled by our site being adjacent to Pacific Plaza, their flagship development. We believe that the qualitative edge of their project management and the advantages to us of enjoying their full co-operation as powerful neighbours upon whom we shall to an extent depend through the next 50 years, is worth more than the £150,000 fee difference. I therefore recommend that we appoint Swire Properties as our executive Project Managers forthwith.
CONFIDENTIAL
MANAGEMENT IN CONFIDENCE
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.