£1,601.59 Make Safe and Restore Traffic Flow
We have written to the Authority:
It is common for attendance and make-safe to involve 2 AIW / ISU operatives in a van with minimal involvement of an NCC operator. How do the rates take into consideration:
- Circumstances where only one operative attends
- The involvement of AIW and if so, ‘full’ or ‘assistant’
- Provision of CCTV; the charge for an NCC operative indicating the incident was viewed on a monitor i.e. captured by CCTV
- Please explain how and why this charge has increased from the original rate of £1,474.00
- Why is this charge considered a valid head of claim; the operatives are employed by the contractor to perform many tasks such as grass cutting, pot-hole filling and litter-picking. They give rise to no additional cost when an incident occurs. These are emergencies, not unexpected events.
We also understand a component included within the cost is that of a sweeper and presumably the operator of this. We seldom encounter these slow-moving items of plant associated with initial attendance. Please:
- Explain the inclusion of these components
- Explain the inclusion of these components and advise:
- The type of vehicle described as a ‘sweeper’ and
- How they attend the location
Kier has, for years, charged an extra hour for each of their AIW’s i.e. 2 hours for ‘incident planning’. While the charge should have been addressed by the TPCO (Third Party Claims Overhead), a percentage, it has consistently been presented as a cost. To date, Kier has never provided evidence for this charge and we suspect it is non-existent, there is no such work undertaken.
However, noting the charge on a Highways England claim (Our Ref: X07B860), we asked:
Q. Please supply their planning report/notes etc.
Kier responded to the Authority:
A. Apologies I’m afraid I can’t find the AIW’s repair pack as it was completed so long ago.
It appears there is a ‘pack’. Or are Highways England being misled too?