I am writing to you under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the following information from Transport for London (TfL), as these are not readily available online or from other sources. 1. In accordance with London Bridge Engineering Group’s (LoBEG) website, LoBEG has a commission from Transport for London (TfL), to manage and advise on the allocation of funding for TfL’s Bridge Assessment and Strengthening Programme *(BASP), and TfL provides a grant to LoBEG to carry out these responsibilities. a. Please provide details of this commission, including commencement dates, scope of work assigned to LoBEG, deliverables, roles and responsibilities of both parties, and how they are measured and monitored to ensure VfM for tax payer? b. Please provide a signed copy of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the management and delivery of this commission. c. TfL and LoBEG has employed external consultants to manage and deliver key elements of the BASP, which are funded by TfL grants. Please provide evidence of VfM in the procurement of these external consultancy services, and they are in line with all other government procurement processes. d. Explain the specific relationship between TfL, LoBEG and LOTAG board. 2. According to the minutes of the LoBEG package programme review meeting, held on 14th March 2019 at Canterbury Court, and attended by both LoBEG executive committee and TfL fund holder, TfL has (a) confirmed that it has received complaints about the package coordinator role, and (b) TfL is not content for the package coordinator role to be undertaken by an external consultant. Given that LoBEG has employed several consultants from its inception and that TfL has continued to fund these costs in the past through grants, please provide the following details: a. Please identify the complainer, and the nature of the complaint. b. Please provide evidence to substantiate the notion, that consultants employed by any member (any one of the 33 London Borough’s) cannot be nominated for the role of package coordinator at LoBEG. c. What provision or clause of the commissioning agreement did TfL apply to discontinue the package coordinator role undertaken by a consultant, nominated by a member council. d. The rational for upholding the complaint. I would be grateful if you will please let me have a response as soon as possible.

---

TfL Ref: 0163-1920

Thank you for your email received by us on 15 April 2019 asking for information about Transport for London (TfL) and the Bridge Engineering Group (LoBEG).

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold the information you require. You asked for the following information:

1. In accordance with London Bridge Engineering Group’s (LoBEG) website, LoBEG has a commission from Transport for London (TfL), to manage and advise on the allocation of funding for TfL’s Bridge Assessment and Strengthening Programme *(BASP), and TfL provides a grant to LoBEG to carry out these responsibilities.

a. Please provide details of this commission, including commencement dates, scope of work assigned to LoBEG, deliverables, roles and responsibilities of both parties, and how they are measured and monitored to ensure VfM for tax payer?

The commission aims to advise, monitor and manage the allocation of funding for TfL’s Bridge Assessment and Strengthening Programme for the London Boroughs. This process employs LoBEG’s Prioritisation System.

This task is carried out by the LoBEG Package Steering Committee who are directly employed and elected local government officers representing the London Boroughs. The Committee makes funding recommendations to TfL for their endorsement and approval funding allocations after the progress of the programme is monitored bi-monthly and reported to TfL for allocation re-adjustment to ensure good value for money for Londoners. Services provided by the LoBEG Package Steering Committee and associated costs are reviewed and scrutinised annually in order to ensure value for money for tax payers.

The key objective of the London Package Approach is “to ensure that optimum use is made of available funding”.

The Terms of Reference for the LoBEG Package Steering Committee are:
“To co-ordinate the works of assessing, strengthening and maintaining road-carrying structures in London by highway authorities to achieve a programme of optimum priority and to ensure minimum disruption to London’s highway network and other transportation systems and Assets.”

b. Please provide a signed copy of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for the management and delivery of this commission.

The service is delivered in accordance with the rules and guidance set out in the TfL Local Implementation Plan (LIP).

The LIP Guidance Document is published via the following link to our website: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/18-19-lip-ass-guidance.pdf

In accordance with section 21 of the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply you with a copy of the requested information as it is already accessible to you elsewhere.

c. TfL and LoBEG has employed external consultants to manage and deliver key elements of the BASP, which are funded by TfL grants. Please provide evidence of VfM in the procurement of these external consultancy services, and they are in line with all other government procurement processes.

The role of Package Coordinator was provided by Westminster City Council through their term Contractor. To the best of our knowledge, it has been procured in accordance with all applicable law.

c. Explain the specific relationship between TfL, LoBEG and LOTAG board.

TfL, like the 33 London Boroughs, is a member of LoTAG, the London Technical Advisory Group, and its sub-groups - LoHEG, LoBEG, LoLEG and LoDEG (London Highways Engineering Group, London Bridge Engineering Group, London Lighting Engineers Group, London Drainage Engineers Group).

Through this network TfL and the boroughs share good practice and work on joint initiatives for the mutual benefit of all London highway authorities. TfL also works with LoTAG, and its subgroups, to support the delivery of specific work packages, such as road condition surveys and bridge strengthening works. In these cases the specific working relationship is agreed between TfL and the respective group.

2. According to the minutes of the LoBEG package programme review meeting, held on 14th March 2019 at Canterbury Court, and attended by both LoBEG executive committee and TfL fund holder, TfL has (a) confirmed that it has received complaints about the package coordinator role, and (b) TfL is not content for the package coordinator role to be undertaken by an external consultant. Given that LoBEG has employed several consultants from its inception and that TfL has continued to fund these costs in the past through grants, please provide the following details:

a. Please identify the complainer, and the nature of the complaint.

Please see the attached email between Camden Council’s Gana Natkunan and Nigel Threadgold of Bexley Council.

Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under Data Protection legislation some personal data has been removed, as required by section 40(2) of the FOI Act. This is because disclosure of this personal data would be a breach of the legislation, specifically the first principle which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions which would make the processing ‘fair’.

b. Please provide evidence to substantiate the notion, that consultants employed by any member (any one of the 33 London Borough’s) cannot be nominated for the role of package coordinator at LoBEG.

Please see our responses to Questions 1a and 2a.

c. What provision or clause of the commissioning agreement did TfL apply to discontinue the package coordinator role undertaken by a consultant, nominated by a member council.

Services provided by the LoBEG Package Steering Committee and associated costs are reviewed and scrutinised annually. As part of the last annual review for 2019/20, the Financial Yearly budgets and associated tasks are drastically reduced and resources required to perform the required tasks have been reduced in order to ensure value for money for the tax payer.

d. The rational for upholding the complaint.

Please see the attached draft meeting minutes of the LoBEG Package Programme Review explaining further.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Jasmine Howard
FOI Case Officer
Information Governance
Transport For London

 

Attachments

Back to top

---