The Courier & Advertiser (Angus and Dundee)
Firm considering legal action over hall design contest
Company that lost out taking ‘further advice’
Architects who lost out in the Perth City Hall design contest despite being given the highest score by the selection panel are now considering legal action against council chiefs.
Dutch firm Mecanoo was picked to take the lead on the long-awaited £20 million regeneration project, which will see the historic venue transformed into a major visitor attraction.
Now the company which was awarded the top score by the selection panel is considering a challenge to the local authority.
Today, the Courier can reveal the highest scorer was Edinburgh-based LDN Architects, who achieved a quality/ fee score of 86.5 compared to Mecanoo’s 84.6.
Perth and Kinross Council held a contest to find an architect for the project and a shortlist of five finalists went to public consultation earlier this year.
Although Mecanoo was named the favourite among local residents and businesses – and was cheapest in terms of construction costs – it ranked only third in a scoring system previously agreed by council officials and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS).
Mark Hopton, a partner at LDN responsible for the city hall project, described the council’s actions as “unprecedented” and believes his company should have been put forward for the contract.
“Having won the RIAS selection process on behalf of the council in terms of the selection criteria set, we consider LDN should have been appointed preferred bidder, as per the tender procedures,” he said.
“We have expressed our concerns to the RIAS and through them, to the council.
“We are now taking further advice and awaiting further developments.”
RIAS secretary Neil Baxter said the association would be prepared to back any legal challenge.
“This is in no way an attack on Mecanoo, which is a fine company with an impressive track record,” he said. “It is about getting a council to play fair.”
RIAS claims the council deviated from the selection process set out in bid documents.
Mecanoo’s construction costs, at £11.4m, were significantly cheaper than the others, which were estimated at between £14.7m and £16.9m.
However, its fee was the highest, resulting in a fee score of 4.6, compared to LDN’s 20.
A council spokeswoman insisted Mecanoo met the three core requirements of the project brief, namely: a building which delivers the “operational needs of a major museum attraction”, responds sensitively to the surrounding public area, and is affordable and deliverable within the £20m budget.
She said: “Mecanoo’s design also attracted the greatest support from local residents and businesses.”
Mecanoo was also Historic Environment Scotland’s favourite.
The revamped hall, along with a transformation of the Perth Museum and Art Gallery, could attract an extra 272,000 visitors to the city by 2023.
This is in no way an attack on Mecanoo, which is a fine company. It is about getting a council to play fair
When a government body is dealing with bidders for a multi-millon-pound contract, it’s advisable to be clear on guidelines and procedures from the outset. Surely it’s Policy 101.
The potential row brewing over Perth and Kinross Council’s awarding of the £20 million contract to redesign the city hall is unfortunate, and casts a shadow over an otherwise exciting project.
There was considerable public interest and engagement in the shortlist process and choice of the winning bidder in the design contest.
But for the waters to get muddied by what appears to be a confusing selection process is unfortunate.
The architectural firm that won on points, as it were, from the official selection panel is considering its options after the contract was awarded to a firm with the most popular design, and most attractive budget, but not on the top of the ‘official’ scorecard agreed on by council and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS).
Now there are accusations the council did not play fair, and the inevitable to-and-fro, with the possibility of legal action being alluded to.
This could result in costly legal fees and even a delay to a long-awaited project.
Hopefully there is a swift resolution to this, but it does beg the question as to why the procedure was not crystal clear at the outset.