Olympic Games 2012: Pay
Olympics
Written answers and statements, 5 November 2009
Pete Wishart (Perth & Perthshire North, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Minister for the Olympics what bonuses have been paid to (a) consultants and (b) contractors working on the Olympic Park construction project.
Tessa Jowell (Minister of State, Cabinet Office; Dulwich & West Norwood, Labour)
The information is as follows:
(a) In order for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to achieve or exceed specific time and cost-based targets, incentive payments are made to its delivery partner CLM for the achievement of key performance indicators for the delivery of programme milestones and cost targets. The amounts payable to CLM in respect of performance are disclosed at Note 19 to the ODA's Annual Report and Accounts 2008-09, a copy of which is available in the House Library:
| £ million | |
| 2007-08 | 16.133 |
| 2008-09 | 60.180 |
The ODA, working with CLM, achieved significant savings of £390 million. CLM's contract is heavily incentivised and payment to them is dependent on meeting strict performance measures tied to delivering on time, to budget and to a high standard.
(b) The ODA incentivises contractors on the Olympic Park to deliver on time and on budget. Incentive payments have therefore been included as part of the contracting process. Payments to date are as follows and are included in the figures published quarterly to Parliament. The project remains on track and on budget.
| Company | Project | Payable for | Amount (£ million) |
| Sir Robert McAlpine | Stadium | Piling and roof trusses | 1.048 |
| Balfour Beatty | Aquatics Centre | Completion of design procurement and erection of steel trusses | 1.000 |
| ISG | Velopark | Completion of piling | 0.593 |
| Carillion | IBC/MPC | Completion of foundations | 0.165 |
| Morrison | Enabling Works | Delivery of works to timetable | 9.144 |
| Nuttall | Enabling works | Delivery of works to timetable | 10.120 |
| Atkins | Enabling Works | Percentage of the incentive payment to Morrison and Nuttall | 2.189 |
Annotations
Mike E.
Posted on 6 Nov 2009 4:19 pm (Report this annotation)
That seems fairly detailesd.
I wonder why the same figures for the shooting sports are covered under "commercial confidentiality."
Something isn't right here.....
Keith Read-Duff
Posted on 9 Nov 2009 8:42 pm (Report this annotation)
I note that it is possible to publish the detailed figures for such sports as swimming & cycling. Why then are we are not to be made aware of the costs of completely building from scratch the shooting facilities at Woolwich and the comparison figures for up-grading the existing comprehensive facilities at Bisley. It must be obvious to the most complete idiot that to up-grade existing facilities will be less than a complete new build.
Yet we are told in relation to this question;
"it would not be appropriate to publish commercially sensitive budget and cost information as the procurement for the facilities required for hosting shooting events has not yet begun."
Mike E is quite right, "something isn't right here"
Keith R-D