I read with great interest the rather desperate attempt by Mr [Michael] Hundleby in the ODT (5.10.24) to justify his position and advice to the Crown in 2017 that the existing Dunedin Hospital could not be efficiently refurbished.
Of course, if it is found that the "urgent" report he commissioned from fellow former Canterbury District Health Board staff members (Proj-X) on the state of Dunedin Hospital was either hasty, ill-considered or even engineered to conform to a predetermined view then Mr Hundleby’s own consulting career and reputation is also ruined.
He will be responsible for the bonfire of hundreds of millions of tax dollars.
Mr Hundleby makes the following claims, which are very questionable:
■"Experts" have determined refurbishment will be more expensive than a re-build. Tellingly, he refuses to state this as his opinion. Undoubtedly he had quantity surveyors prepare cost estimates, but the fact is that the quantity surveying profession is notorious for being "amenable" to the wishes and preferences of those that employ it. A report produced by the national quantity surveying institute (NZIQS) in 2015 even acknowledged this was a significant problem.
A second look from competent international consultants who have actually refurbished existing hospital facilities is what is needed. As a general rule, large building costs generally break down as a third structure, a third services and a third finishes, although with the project team involved, it’s highly likely the structure will be more than a third and refurbishment means only minimal structure costs.
■ "Existing structure of the hospital would mean the end result a second-rate hospital." This is complete rubbish. There is no change of use, and the essential function of the hospital has not changed since it was completed in 1980. The main issue is that an additional plant room is needed for extra mechanical plant to comply with modern requirements, which can be easily done.
■ "Keeping active clinical services going at the old building ... create unacceptable clinical risk due to the distance." The obvious answer here is to keep all the clinical activities in the existing ward block building and move all the Southern District Health Board admin functions, university Medical School offices and other non-clinical activities in the existing ward block into other buildings. A glance at the signboard in the ward block confirms there is a significant amount of non-clinical space there.
■ "Inevitable contamination." The air is thick with sawdust as the facts are cut and hacked to fit Mr Hundleby’s particular perspective here: the project team has stated for years that one of the major problems with the ward block was the presence of asbestos, and this caused the delay in commissioning the new ICU ward. Can Mr Hundleby and Proj-X explain why, right now, all ceiling areas of the ward block are open for contractor access and maintenance when previously there was no access ? Will they acknowledge the earlier assertions about extensive contamination were incorrect and that asbestos in the ward block is limited to (very easily removed) pipework insulation and other small areas?
■ "CPB may currently be the only contractor in the New Zealand market capable of building the new Dunedin Hospital." It is reckless to the point of incompetence to design the country’s largest public building project in the knowledge that only one Australian contractor known for extremely aggressive contractual behaviour is likely to accept the iniquitous contract terms offered. What did you think was going to happen, Mr Hundleby?
Competent project teams would have broken the project up into several building packages by which competition could be created. A staged refurbishment with far less risk and equitable terms will attract a wider pool of contractors and can be staged over a number of years with multiple contracts, which will make refurbishment a far more attractive proposition to a budget-constrained government.
Mr Hundleby’s dismissive attitude of the capability of the domestic construction sector is on full display when he states that domestic contractors are only capable of building hospital projects up to $150million. Examples being built by domestic contractors as I write this include the $250m outpatients project across the road from the inpatients building by Southbase; the $300m-$400m Taranaki hospital project in New Plymouth by Leigh’s, who are also building a $200m medical school building for the University of Otago in Christchurch.
It is Mr Hundleby’s and Proj-X’s extremely one-sided and frankly stupid contractual terms that caused the lack of interest from domestic contractors and meant they only received one bid each for the outpatients building and the inpatients building. They ignored warnings by the industry.
Mr Hundleby employs the well-worn tactic of bureaucrats and politicians of all persuasions of "there is no alternative" and time is ticking down, as is the money.
I, and many others, do not believe Mr Hundleby’s assertions and want a closer second look by the government.
A number of us in the industry are very sure there is a full programme refurbishment alternative within the $1.88billion budget cap.
If the government and the Otago public have been misled (with years of delay) by the project team and consultants, then a complete new project team is needed.
■ Russell Lund is a Dunedin developer.
