The McClelland Inquiry is critical of the handling of the project to bring the V&A to Dundee.
John McClelland, the former chairman of Rangers FC, who was tasked with discovering how the cost of the museum ballooned to £80.1 million, has concluded there was a mismatch between the ambition of the plan and the money set aside for it.
He argues that there was insufficient oversight and professional advice to those steering the project to fruition.
He also casts doubt on when officials knew about the spiralling cost and how they dealt with it.
According to the report, it was clear the project was significantly over budget by April 2014 nine months before that fact was made public.
He said: “Two months after the initiation of the tender process, in February 2014, the Architect’s Design Team presented a pre-tender cost estimate.
“Including inflation and adjusted for other items, this showed a cost of £41m compared to the architectural competition bid and budget of £32.5m and Cost Plan 5 of £34.1m, also including inflation.
“On 22 April 2014 only two of the four tenders originally anticipated were submitted as the other two candidate construction companies withdrew.”
Despite the ambiguities over when the overspend became apparent, Mr McClelland still believes the V&A at Dundee is being delivered for a reasonable price.
He said: “Now at a cost of £7,153 psm of gross inside area the V&A building when completed in 2017 will be, allowing for inflation, consistent with other elite buildings, including Glasgow’s Riverside Museum shown in the original benchmarking as completed in 2011 at £6,700 psm.”
Mr McClelland, who finished the report on July 27, also made a series of recommendations to help manage the V&A project and other large-scale capital plans.
He said: “Dundee City Council should appoint a full-time in-house project manager for the V&A building with full accountability and responsibility for delivering the project on schedule and within the new budget.”
Mr McClelland also called on the local authority to provide detailed cost estimates prior to signing a binding contract with developers.
He added: “Given that the budget of £4.8m for furniture, fittings and equipment was developed in 2010 there should be an urgent review to reconfirm that value or take appropriate action.”
The findings of the inquiry, which was launched in January, will now be debated by elected members on August 24.Project could have used a McClelland figure from the outsetThere were fears of a whitewash but there need not have been, writes Andrew Liddle.
John McClelland hasbeen thorough and clear inboth his reporting and hisrecommendations.
It is evident from readinghis report measured thoughit is in tone that he was more than a little taken aback bythe council’s seemingly laissez-faire approach to managing a multi-million-pound project.
Simple and basiccontingencies were not putin place managers were notappointed.
No one, it seems, reallyknew what they were doing.
Of course, it is also clearthat for such an ambitiousproject that will no doubtdeliver huge benefits forDundee, the original budgets were far too low.
That in itself is not theidentified sin and nor is the actual cost of the project now at an eye-watering£80.1 million.
No, the real failingidentified by Mr McClellandis a total lack of scrutiny, atotal lack of managementand a total lack of leadership from the council.
It was apparent fromthe get-go, according toMr McClelland, thatKuma’s ambitious designcould not be completedwithin the original budgets.
However, instead ofputting an action plan inplace, the council wrungits hands until they wereraw.
It tinkered with thedesign and moved themuseum about, but it tookno action to radically bringthe costs of the buildingdown or, crucially, re-budgetand ask for additional monies.
This was the central failing that saw costs spiral as delays hit the project and desperate, behind-the-scenes discussions went on.
There seems little doubtthat the council will learnfrom the mistakes it hasmade Mr Martin andMr Guild did not look likemen who were enjoyingthemselves as the report was released on Friday.
Yet, despite takingthe recommendationson board, they failed toproperly acknowledge thecouncil’s own culpabilityin the debacle, choosinginstead to try to positionthemselves as the project’s saviours.
Until they take on someresponsibility, there willalways be question marksover how serious they areabout taking on MrMcClelland’s importantrecommendations.