Freedom of Information request FOI/19/01927
In reference to the above FOI can you provide clarification on the following statement:
"As confirmed at the May 2019 public engagement events held on the East of Huntly to Aberdeen scheme https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/exhibition-materials-may-2019-east-of-huntly-to-aberdeen-a96-dualling/ improvements to the existing A96 dual carriageway (from Kintore to Craibstone) and its junctions will be considered further as part of future design development work. As and when DMRB Stage 2 assessment work on the existing A96 between Kintore and Craibstone is taken forward, further public engagement events will be held as part of our rolling programme of engagement.”
1. I have followed the hyperlink contained in the above statement, and reviewed the presentation material, and can find no reference to, or explanation of, the decision to sub-divide East of Huntly to Aberdeen route section in to separate sub-sections with the consequence that “improvements to the existing A96 dual carriageway (from Kintore to Craibstone) and its junctions will be considered further as part of future design development work”. Can you please clarify where this statement is made?
2. Under what formal process has the A96 Dualling - East of Huntly to Aberdeen project been further sub-divided in to two separate route sub-sections with now separate and disconnected design development stages and timetables?
3. Please provide all documentation to substantiate this decision to sub-divide the route part way through the DMRB design development process? This should include not only the concluding appraisal or reports, but all relevant working documents, meeting minutes and correspondence.
4. And in sub-dividing the route, what is now the timetable for progressing the design development (through DMRB stages) for the new Kintore to Aberdeen route sub-section? Or
5. Can you confirm there is now no design development timetable for the new Kintore to Aberdeen route sub-section?
6. Are Amey-Arup still contracted for the design development for the entirety of the A96 Dualling East of Huntly to Aberdeen route section?
7. If there are, as it appears, no established timetable for progression of the new Kintore to Aberdeen route sub-section, what implications does this have on Amey-Arup contractual obligations with respect to time limitations?
8. If Amey-Arup workscope no longer encapsulates the Kintore to Aberdeen route sub-section then has there been a proportionate reduction in the value of the contract award?”