Clarification on 'Bringing Into Use' under the Rolling Stock and Depot Provision Agreement (RSPA).
Request ID: FOI-1254-1920
Date published: 10 September 2019
You asked
Dear Sirs,
1. Could you please advise if the term 'Bringing Into Use' is defined in the Rolling Stock and Depot Provision Agreement (RSPA) Contract between RfL and Bombardier as amended, if so:
a. when was the Depot, or any Depot Section(s) certified as ready to be Brought Into Use?
b. please provide any relevant certificate(s) in relation to the Bringing Into Use.
2. On what date was the Depot deemed usable and safe to operate?
Kind regards,
We answered
Our ref: FOI-1253/1254/1255-1920/GH & FOI-1282-1920
Thank you for your requests received by Transport for London (TfL) on 29 & 30 July 2019 asking for information about the Rolling Stock and Depot Provision Agreement (RSPA) Contract.
Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy.
I can confirm that we do hold the information you require, however we are not obliged to provide you with requested information as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to information under section 43(2). In this instance the section 43(2) exemption has been applied as disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice our commercial interests, as well as those of Bombardier. The information sought is in relation to commercial settlements, governed by confidentiality provisions. Bombardier has not consented to the release of the information, and release of this information could damage both parties – for example releasing this information could set precedents for similar contracts and therefore prevent us from getting the best value or terms, encourage contractors’ and/or sub-contractors’ claims, loss of contractor’s business, damage to reputation etc.
The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities, particularly where the expenditure of public money is concerned, but in this instance the public interest in ensuring that we are able to obtain the best value for public money outweighs the general public interest in increasing transparency of our processes.
If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Graham Hurt
FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London
Back to top
