Consideration should be given in respect of the geographic location of the proposed grouped projects. This issue is particularly relevant under the hub programme whereby projects may span a wide and diverse geographical area. Where a proposed grouping of projects includes those which are geographically disparate, the following issues should be considered:
• Is there a genuine likelihood that, in grouping the projects together, there is a quantifiable and material improvement in value for money?
• Would hubco be able to generate savings in the construction and operation of the facilities?
• Is there potential for costs to increase due to the complexity of construction and operation over a wider geographical area?
• Would the client procurement teams for each proj ect be able to work effectively in developing the grouped project together, e.g. at a practical level how/where would meetings be held?
• There could be operational efficiencies for the public sector side in setting up a programme based DBFM client function for hub territory bundled DBFM projects. This could work closely alongside the hub PDO support team.
• In the absence of a grouped approach, would the individual projects be Viable or Deliverable as defined by Scottish Value for Money Guidance?
It should however be noted that many of the above issues may only arise where there is a single subhubco (i.e. 100% hubco-owned Special Purpose Vehicle set up to ring-fence each DBFM) delivering multiple facilities under the same project agreement (i.e. bundling). Where a batched approach is taken with a number of separate subhubcos delivering the facilities it is envisaged that the strength and depth of hubCos proposed supply chain will be able to address the challenges presented by geographically disparate projects (noting that, provided value for money is demonstrated, the same supply chain member could be responsible for the delivery of all the projects within a batch even though these are procured under different subhubcos).