BANES prepares for Bath Spa legal action

Bath & North East Somerset Council allocates £1.45m for court action against its former contractor Mowlem.

Bath & North East Somerset Council (BANES) is setting up a £1.45m fighting fund for its anticipated legal case against Mowlem over the beleaguered £45m Bath Spa project - now running nearly three years behind schedule and £27m over budget.

The news comes at the same time as the council's external auditor, Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, backed BANES' decision to reject Mowlem's offer to complete the project for £26m in April last year after being booted off the contract.

It has also been revealed that the building, due to be run by operator TDC, won't open until 9 August - more than two months later than planned.

Mowlem was removed from the project following problems with leaking floors in the steam room and flaking paint in the pools. The contractor blames the problems on the specifications made by the client and the project's architect.

BANES finally decided to take control of the project itself and commissioned Capita Symonds to project manage the contract.

In its comments, Pricewater-houseCoopers backed BANES' decision stating: "The problems and defects that have been identified since April 2005 provide additional support for the decision to reject the offer."

A recent council report revealed that an additional £2.6m will be injected into the project.

This includes £800,000 to complete the works on the project, £340,000 for final account work and £1.45m as a fighting fund up to March next year.

The report also highlights that it has cost BANES more than £9m to get the project up to scratch since Mowlem's departure. It puts the range between the council being wholly successful in all disputes, or wholly unsuccessful, as much as plus or minus £10m to £15m.

It adds that claim letters will now be compiled by its claims team, set up to fight the case, and that assessments of liability are currently being conducted.

Mowlem, which is now under the control of Carillion, was unable to comment on any future legal action and whether the company would offer a settlement on the project, similar to the one tabled on Mowlem's Spinnaker Tower project in Portsmouth.

[Contract Journal, 26 July 2006, p. 4]