What features are to be constructed during the redevelopment of McLachlan Park remains unresolved.
Modifications to the Vee Design master for McLachlan Park, used during negotiations, included: constructing the northern and southern decks at a future stage; constructing two of the four flood gates at a future stage; deleting bollards from the proposed car park and replacing them with kerb; deleting concrete pavement in the car park and replacing it with asphalt; constructing furniture and art at a future stage; and, constructing internal terrace walls at a future stage.
However, the council is yet to make any headway in commissioning the redevelopment of the park. Pic: Geoff Helisma
What features are to be constructed during the redevelopment of McLachlan Park remains unresolved. Modifications to the Vee Design master for McLachlan Park, used during negotiations, included: constructing the northern and southern decks at a future stage; constructing two of the four flood gates at a future stage; deleting bollards from the proposed car park and replacing them with kerb; deleting concrete pavement in the car park and replacing it with asphalt; constructing furniture and art at a future stage; and, constructing internal terrace walls at a future stage. However, the council is yet to make any headway in commissioning the redevelopment of the park. Pic: Geoff Helisma
Decisions regarding the redevelopment of McLachlan Park in Maclean will have to wait at least one more month.
At next week’s council meeting a report will be tabled stating that “due to some difficulties in quantifying scope and pricing … this matter will not be reported until March 2016”.
“…Due to [the] Christmas close down of both Council and relevant industries, difficulty has been experienced in obtaining valuable input and associated cost estimating with regard to a modified scope of works.”
At the September 2015 meeting, councillors voted to not accept the “current tenders as [they] do not represent best value for money”.
As a result, council staff were authorised to commence negotiations with the companies that tendered for the project to “negotiate scope, price, project delivery methodology and project risk”.
Councillors Baker and Toms (Cr Lysaught was absent) did not support this decision.
At the December meeting, staff advised that the negotiations had failed because “the revised prices are higher than the available budget [within the] negotiated scope; and construction methodology has not realised the expected time or cost savings; and that significant exclusions, clarifications, and price sensitive risks remain”.
Councillors, apart from Crs Baker and Toms, resolved that: “Alternate methodologies be investigated (including but not limited to scope of work) to deliver the Construction of the Redevelopment of McLachlan Park and reported to Council in February 2016”.
