House of Commons - Public Accounts

Select Committee on Public Accounts Forty-Fourth Report

2 Constructing temporary accommodation

7. The Service used two different types of temporary accommodation built in the grounds of existing prisons to help alleviate the increase in prison population in 2002 at a cost of around £76.7 million. Under the Emergency Accommodation Programme it built 29 modular temporary units at 21 prisons, providing a total of 1,160 temporary places and 18 brick clad steel framed units at 14 prisons, providing a total of 720 places. There had been a number of problems with the modular units. They could not be secured because the risk of fire was such that prisoners had to be able to leave the unit in an emergency. Other problems included leaks in the units and shower trays, and problems with condensation. The modular temporary units cost three times as much per prisoner place per year than the more robust brick clad steel framed units (Figure 2). They also took almost three times longer to construct than predicted, taking a similar time to construct therefore as the brick clad units. The Service would not use modular temporary units again in the future. The brick clad units had been delivered closer to budget and time and the few problems which were encountered were rectified and avoided in later units.[8]

Figure2: The modular temporary units were more expensive per prisoner place per year and took almost as long to construct as the brick clad steel framed units

Type of temporary unit Modular temporary unit Brick clad steel framed unit

Budget Actual Budget Actual

Total costs of units constructed £31 million £46 million

Number of units constructed 29 18

Total capital cost per unit (average) £1 million £1.07 million £2.5 million £2.54 million

Range of costs per unit £0.7 - 2 million £1.7 - 3 million

Time taken to construct (average) 49 days 134 days 178 days 183 days

Number of places per unit 40 40

Capital cost per place £25,000 £26,700 £62,500 £63,400

Expected lifespan 5 years Possibly up to 7-10 years with regular corrective works 40 years 40 years

Cost per place per year £5,000 £5,400 £1,600 £1,600

Source: National Offender Management Service data

8. The Service had not tested the modular temporary units or the brick clad steel framed units prior to using them in a live setting. The modular units had not been used previously for accommodation whereas the brick clad steel framed units were based on a design used to provide on shore accommodation for oil workers, and hence were more easily adaptable to secure prison accommodation. A number of difficulties arose in adapting modular units for prisoner accommodation which testing and piloting would have identified earlier, enabling the Service to correct the faults before rolling out the accommodation across a number of prisons.[9]

9. Some private sector companies have erected pre-fabricated fully functional buildings in a matter of days, which are robust structures designed to last and with low maintenance costs. Notwithstanding the security aspects, developments in modern construction would suggest that prefabricated buildings could be erected in a few weeks rather than four to six months. The Service was exploring options with companies which have developed ready-to-use units, through strategic alliances with eight new build constructors. The Service was, however, looking for buildings robust enough to last forty years with prisoners inside. It was exploring buildings which were more robust than modular temporary units but not quite as robust as brick clad units.[10]

10. Contractors require full specifications of any project at the tendering stage to estimate and quote for the time and cost of a project. The Service prepared and tendered for generic accommodation designs before deciding where the units would be sited. Comprehensive site plans were only drawn up once project managers had been appointed after the tenders had been let. These uncertainties at the tender stage may have increased delays in construction of the accommodation and therefore the cost of the units. Contractors had, for example, underestimated the extent of the site preparation work required because sites had not been selected when the contractors placed their tenders.[11]

11. The Service awarded three contracts for the accommodation units, which all included site preparation, unit construction and erection. Two of the contractors were manufacturers of prefabricated buildings, rather than construction companies accustomed to working on building sites. They did not, therefore, have the necessary experience to provide full site preparation, even though they had been contracted to carry out such work. The Service had expected the companies to sub-contract the site preparation work to other contractors. The difficulties in preparing the sites had added to the delays in construction of the units.[12]

12. Project managers were only employed after the Service had let construction contracts and finalised where the new accommodation would be situated. Earlier appointment of project managers might have been beneficial in enabling more detailed specifications to be provided to contractors and in helping to assess whether contractors had the right experience to carry out the work required.[13]

13. Security vetting delayed companies gaining access to sites by up to 21 days. Each prison governor was responsible for the security and safety of their prison and had autonomy over to whom they allowed access. Each prison governor had carried out security vetting for construction companies working at their prison even when such companies had been cleared to work at another prison. This bureaucratic approach introduced further delays to the construction of the accommodation units.[14]

14. The Service had originally planned for all additional accommodation units to be constructed in open prisons. It decided at a later stage, however, to construct some accommodation in higher security prisons. At these prisons, construction workers and equipment had to go through security procedures each day to gain access and to leave the site, causing considerable delays which in one case reduced a seven hour working day to four hours.[15]



© Parliamentary copyright 2006	Prepared 6 June 2006