Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Questions 77-78 (Mr Burstow): Note on
how many applications have been submitted to the Olympic Delivery
Authority's (ODA) Change Control Board, and what is the total
value of those that have been agreed.
As the NAO Report details, ODA project contingency
is the sum of individual project level contingencies, at November
2007, for each of the 50 projects within the ODA programme, and
covers project specific risks such as design and contracting uncertainties.
The project contingency figure of £973 million is within
the ODA baseline budget of £6,090 million. As David Higgins
stated in his PAC evidence, project contingency is a sum ODA expects
to spend in full which is why it is included within the ODA's
baseline budget. As he also said it has "been created in
many ways from value engineering and costs savings we have carried
out over the last year". To date, the ODA has placed 64 applications
for project contingency totalling £175 million.
Question 67 (Mr Burstow): Note on governance arrangements
about how impasses are broken.
The Master Framework Memorandum (MFM) clearly
sets out that Olympic Board should take decisions by unanimous
consensus. That is the founding principle of the MFM, and characterises
the successful approach to London's bid, and our work in preparing
for the Games since. However, the MFM does also make clear that
where a vote is necessary matters will be decided by a simple
majority of Olympic Board members.
Alongside these broad operating principles are
a number of specific consent rights. So, for example, any funding
decision requires the approval of the funder or funders' consent,
and any material change to the sporting elements of the Games
(as set out in Candidate File/ HCC) would have to be approved
by the London 2012 Organising Committee and the British Olympic
Association.
|
