Minutes:
A report of the
Director of Legal and Governance Services (Monitoring Officer) was presented to
set out the draft findings from the internal audit on the project management of
Boho X and the proposed management response.
The report set out proposed actions to improve programme and project
governance across the Council in the light of the findings of the audit,
subject to further comment
from the Committee.
The Chair reminded Committee Members that the
aim of presenting the report to Committee was for Members to recommend ways to
strengthen policy and procedures. Any
questions that strayed into areas that were more appropriate for Standards
Committee would not be permitted. The
Monitoring Officer added that this was an opportunity for the Committee to
consider the findings of internal audit review and investigation, monitor the
implementation of recommendations and ensure that effective systems were in
place that would underpin and ensure high standards. The Committee was requested to note the
findings of the draft internal audit report on the project management of Boho X
and the proposed management responses and consider whether it wished to make
further comment on the issues raised by the audit and the proposed actions.
Following
discussions with the Chair and Vice Chair of Corporate Affairs and Audit
Committee, and direction from the Committee at its meeting on 15 October 2020,
the Director of Finance and Director of Legal and Governance Services
commissioned an internal audit review of project management of the Boho X
project. Group Leaders were also
consulted on the scope of the audit.
The plan for the
Boho X building had seen one significant change since the start of the
project. It was agreed by the Executive
in March 2020 that Boho X would be a 20 storey office development with 100,000
square feet of floor space (plan A). In
August 2020 the design of Boho X was reviewed and the downsizing of the
building to six storey, 60,000 square feet development was subsequently
initiated (plan B). The project was the
responsibility of the Regeneration and Culture Directorate. The original sponsor was the then Executive
Director of Growth and Place, moving to the Head of Economic Growth on the
former’s compulsory redundancy. The
Council expected to let Boho X in its entirety for ten years in the near
future.
The purpose of the audit
was to provide assurance to management that procedures and controls within the
system ensured that:
·
The project had used and
met the requirements of the established Project Management Framework in
operation at the Council.
·
Meetings and
communications directing the design and development of the project were carried
out in line with proper procedures and fully recorded.
·
Decisions relating to
the project had been taken, recorded, published and communicated in line with
the Council’s Constitution (including the Scheme of Delegation).
·
Key information relating
to the project was available and had been retained to support decisions.
·
There were appropriate
project governance arrangements in place including processes for managing
project risk.
The auditor’s key findings
were that:
·
The project was not
always managed in line with the Council’s Constitution, in that the Mayor of
Middlesbrough held meetings with third party contractors on project direction
without officers present, and without these being documented – while this
arrangement was agreed by the former Executive Director of Growth and Place via
email, it was not in their gift to do so and was contrary to the Constitution
and the Programme and Project Management Framework (PPMF).
·
As the above meetings
were not documented, there was not a clear record of discussions and there
appeared to have been a perception by the third party contractor that the Mayor
was making decisions and formal instructions for the project, while the Mayor
did not perceive that he made those formal decisions. This may have led to decisions and design
changes being made without appropriate input or transparency or being communicated
efficiently.
·
Change control notices
were not submitted, reviewed and authorised in line with the Council’s PPMF as
a result – key design changes were recorded in the (third party contractor)
BCEGI decision log following meetings as being agreed the Mayor. They were not formally referred to the
Project Sponsor and Directorate Portfolio Board as they should have been –
instead there was an agreement that these would be relayed via the former
Executive Director of Growth and Place, although no email evidence was
available to support this had occurred.
·
Changes recorded in the
BCEGI decision log included those items that BCEGI perceived as being
authorised by the Mayor, and there was no officer involvement in these
decisions, which resulted in changes to the project design and cost – as such,
notwithstanding the agreement and direction of the former Executive Director of
Growth and Place, decisions were not in line with the Council’s constitution or
PPMF.
·
Seven design changes
outlined in the BCEGI change log between June and August 2020 (in which period
there were no internal project board meetings) represented the change from plan
A to plan B, and were perceived by BCEGI as authorised by the Mayor and
recorded as such in their log – there was no evidence that these changes were
attributable to COVID-19 as identified public communications and as such the
decision-making on the change was not transparent. The Project Board minutes for September 2020
also recorded that the Mayor had instructed changes to the project.
·
Decisions relating to
securing funding for Boho X and awarding key contractors had been taken,
recorded, published and communicated appropriately, there was a clear record
available of the abortive costs as a result of the design changes and an
appropriate procurement process was followed for key contractors.
·
An appropriate project
risk register was in place that was reviewed and managed by the project
manager, but not reviewed and managed within the internal project working group
board meetings, and as such project risks might not have been overseen
appropriately and mitigated to an acceptable level.
·
There did not appear to
be an effective culture of challenge in place across the project – while the
Mayor acted outside of their expected roles and responsibilities, the process
was agreed by the Executive Director of Growth and Place at the outset.
·
There was no evidence
that the Mayor was advised that he could be perceived as exceeding his
constitutional role in relation to the BOHO X project identified during the
investigation. Standard Member training
would not have included training on governance arrangements for operational
project delivery as there was no role for Members. Induction training did include information on
the Officer/Member relationship and the split of responsibilities, which had
been provided to the Mayor.
Significant gaps, weaknesses or non-compliance were identified by the
auditor, leading to an overall opinion of the controls in place at the time of
the audit as providing only limited assurance.
It was vital that the management response to this audit addressed the
culture that allowed these arrangements to be put in place and persist, as well
as necessary procedural changes.
The Mayor had been advised by the Monitoring Officer not to meet with
third party contractors or potential tenants on this or any other project
without officers being present, and when attending with an officer, to be clear
that it was the officers that were leading the discussion and only they had the
authority to execute decisions.
The Director of Regeneration would now sponsor the Boho X project so
that leadership of the Council’s biggest project was re-established at Chief
Officer level.
The project’s controls had been reviewed by the PMO and were now
compliant with the Constitution and the PPMF.
Appendix 1 to the submitted
report summarised the additional actions proposed by management to address
these. These focused on ensuring that the issues identified in this audit were
not present in other projects within the Directorate and strengthened the PPMF
to address the issues raised, with associated training for Members and
officers.
In addition to the response
to this audit, other actions would be undertaken to strengthen governance
across the Council. These would be
outlined in the forthcoming Annual Governance Statement to be considered by the
Committee as part of the Statement of Accounts in April 2022. Relevant to this audit would be consideration
of the robustness and subsequent tracking of the implementation of delegated
authorities agreed for major projects.
Members asked questions in
relation to the rationale for the review of the Boho X project, additional
costs incurred, how costs were signed off, the lack of internal project board
meetings, promotion of, and communications in relation to the project, and the
risk register.
The internal auditor
confirmed that the senior management review was not included in the terms of
reference for the audit and therefore not considered.
The Monitoring Officer
confirmed that BCEGI and Logic Architecture were the two contractors involved
in the project.
AGREED as follows:
1. the findings of the draft
internal audit report on the project management of Boho X
and
the proposed management response were noted.
2. the internal auditor would provide further details to the Committee
in relation to the Project Board
Meeting held in September 2020 referenced at paragraph 17, bullet point 5 of the report.
3. a draft of the final Audit
Report would be shared with Members of the Committee and Group Leaders for comment once the detailed actions in
response to the findings had been
populated.
4. details of the Monitoring Officer’s formal response
to Members and the Leadership and Management Team, to reiterate guidance
on the Constitution and PPMF would be
provided to the Committee.
Supporting documents: