Transport Scotland - Penalties for contracts not being delivered on time and compensation to South Lanarkshire Council: EIR release

Information requested

It seems that you immediately assigned my request as "environmental information", and perhaps this then lead you down to the response, not in my opinion, answers, which you provided? My request was based around the Financial impact, of an appointed Contractor failing to meet their obligations to meet the timetable they made public. They then subsequently took a further 7 months to complete what was originally a 5 month repair contract on the M74 Nethan Viaduct.

Not being a Civil Engineer, I would have anticipated that the 6 items you noted would have already been built in to Amey's plan that was submitted for approval?

-Revised start dates... How does that impact the end date, other than it will be 5 months after originally stated, not 7 months longer?

-Environmental constraints... Which new constraints came to light and how much did they contribute to the additional 7 months of work?

-Increased bridge defects identified during works - which were what exactly and why had Amey not identified these in advance?

-Adverse weather conditions - if they had finished on time, they may have avoided some of this, or they could have started earlier in the year, they do take into account weather forecasting before committing to a timetable of work?

-Road traffic incidents - how many unusual incidents occurred vs the average of incidents on this stretch of Motorway, and specifically how many incidents physically impacted the bridge/Bridge repairs/workers... Given the 40 and 30 mph speed restrictions, lane closures, signage etc, have Amey analysed these incidents, to make changes to their traffic management on future works?

-special events requiring road clearance - how many and what were they, and how much did they impact the original 5 month work schedule?

-How many inspections did Transport Scotland make on the Nethan Viaduct site, during the first 5 months of planned work, then during the subsequent 7 months of delays?

-If I or others took 140% longer to complete a job than quoted, in most if not all commercial fields, there would be serious financial consequences, loss of contracts, loss of employment, financial penalties, but you confirmed Amey had no financial penalties applied.

How bad do they have to be to incur any penalties at all, if ever?

-My second question was left totally unanswered. I'm aware of the block grant process, I'm aware of SLC's responsibilities in managing the local roads but I am no better informed why, after a 140% time delay by a Motorway Contractor, SLC would not be compensated due to Amey's shocking overrun here, resulting in Motorway traffic being diverted again along a B Road within the County.

You further advised “ I'll be requesting a review of your answer to my request, after I have discussed it in person with my local MSP and Cabinet Minister Mairi McAllan a week next Monday. (I've copied MSP McAllan into this email exchange above)

Please take this email as my intention to request a review”.

Response

As the information you have requested is 'environmental information' for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

With regard to your first point in which you state your request was “assigned” as "environmental information". It may be helpful to know that when providing information about the trunk road network in Scotland, some information may be environmental in nature, while other information might be more general or operational.

Sometimes, the same information could be requested under either FOI or EIR depending on the focus of the question. In addition, EIRs are generally handled more openly, with fewer exemptions than FOIs. In this case, we determined that the focus of your enquiry fell within the scope of EIR.

I will now turn to your questions.

Q1. You asked “Revised start dates... How does that impact the end date, other than it will be 5 months after originally stated, not 7 months longer”

A1. The Initial refurbishment dates were 10 October 2024 to 30 April 2025 with pre-works of crossover installation from 8 September 2024 to 10 October 2024.

The initial VMS display reflected the programmed first phase of the works from 3 October to 21 December 2024 and was thereafter to be updated to phase 2 from 6 January to 31 March 2025. However this was revised in February 2025 to state 8 August 2025 as end date.

It may have looked from the VMS that the full scheme was to be complete in December however this was signed to highlight phasing. Media releases reflected the actual duration throughout.

Q2. Environmental constraints... Which new constraints came to light and how much did they contribute to the additional 7 months of work

A2. Noise due to concrete hydrodemolition resulted in some complaints being received. As a result, the rate of hydrodemolition was reduced to avoid overnight works to alleviate noise concerns from residents. This added additional time onto the demolition phase of works.

Q3. Increased bridge defects identified during works - which were what exactly and why had Amey not identified these in advance

A3. The central reserve concrete and bridge deck was heavily delaminated which was only apparent on the full removal of kerbing and surfacing. This added significantly more work as 80% of the structural concrete within the central reserve had to be replaced. This resulted in phasing being extended.

Q4. Adverse weather conditions - if they had finished on time, they may have avoided some of this, or they could have started earlier in the year, they do take into account weather forecasting before committing to a timetable of work?

A4. The start date was chosen to commence after the summer holiday period to avoid severe delays which were forecast within a traffic impact assessment modelling which highlighted potential delays of over an hour on some occasions. Therefore the duration of the works programme meant refurbishments were inevitably going to be undertaken through the winter months, with inclement weather affecting productivity.

Q5. Road traffic incidents - how many unusual incidents occurred vs the average of incidents on this stretch of Motorway, and specifically how many incidents physically impacted the bridge/Bridge repairs/workers... Given the 40 and 30 mph speed restrictions, lane closures, signage etc, have Amey analysed these incidents, to make changes to their traffic management on future works.

A5. Amey advise no analysis on traffic incidents was undertaken however, from experience they were of an average level. There was however a number of incidents which were of a more severe nature which impacted the works programme detailed as follows:

An HGV incursion into the works zone in February 2025 resulted thereafter in additional lane openings (and partial site closures) on Friday due to traffic management alterations to keep the workforce and public safe and to ensure higher traffic flows were accommodated on Fridays (busiest day of week).

A bus struck the temporary barrier in April resulting in replacement of the crash cushion system.

There were several abnormal load movements throughout the works which necessitated traffic management alterations overnight and other unplanned abnormal load movements that damaged the traffic layout, which caused works delays.

Q6. Special events requiring road clearance - how many and what were they, and how much did they impact the original 5 month work schedule.

A6. As outlined in A5, works were temporarily scaled back on Fridays to mitigate traffic impacts.

Q7. How many inspections did Transport Scotland make on the Nethan Viaduct site, during the first 5 months of planned work, then during the subsequent 7 months of delays?

A7. Our Operating Company, Amey is responsible for managing and delivering maintenance and refurbishment projects on the SW Trunk road network. Their Site Supervisor was on site daily and the scheme was managed and overseen throughout by their Delivery Manager and Transport Scotland Area Bridge Manager.

Q8. If I or others took 140% longer to complete a job than quoted, in most if not all commercial fields, there would be serious financial consequences, loss of contracts, loss of employment, financial penalties, but you confirmed Amey had no financial penalties applied.

How bad do they have to be to incur any penalties at all, if ever?

A8. Under Amey’s contract, Payment Adjustment Factors are applied in the measurement of items in the Schedule of Rates and Prices and used to adjust the value of the Operating Company’s Operations in accordance with their performance. Where they fall below certain performance thresholds that are within their control on road maintenance schemes deductions are made.

Q9. My second question was left totally unanswered. I'm aware of the block grant process, I'm aware of SLC's responsibilities in managing the local roads but I am no better informed why, after a 140% time delay by a Motorway Contractor, SLC would not be compensated due to Amey's shocking overrun here, resulting in Motorway traffic being diverted again along a B Road within the County.

A9. There is no mechanism within the Roads Scotland Act to provide for local authorities to be compensated for using alternative public roads for traffic diversions to allow essential road and bridge maintenance works to be carried out.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.