TRANSPORT executives considered spiking the Edinburgh trams contract altogether as late as 2010 as part of a plan called 'Project Pitchfork' following gridlock after a series of design and construction disputes.
Former Edinburgh Airport chief Richard Jeffrey, who took over Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (Tie), when it was already struggling said he would have sought to pause the project to take stock of the situation prior to his arrival at the point of tender and also before the contract was signed.
Edinburgh Tram Inquiry before Lord Hardie, pictured above
Project Pitchfork was described by Mr Jeffrey as being named as such as it had different prongs of action including mutually splitting from the Bilfinger Siemens CAF (BSC) consortium and the construction agreement called the Infraco contract, suing contractors for breach of contract or revising the contract.
However, he said the option of ending the contract "was rather a sort of nuclear type option and was therefore not something that we would want to jump to" until other routes such as contractual negotiation were exhausted.
Edinburgh Trams director: Tackling cost problems will 'open up the whole can of worms'
He told the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry before Lord Hardie into the trams fiasco he would have opted to halt and reassess the project on at least two occasions before it had reached crisis-point had he been at the helm at an earlier time.
Mr Jeffrey, who took on the role in 2009 until 2011, also said it was unhelpful Transport Scotland had disengaged from the scheme.
Both Tie and the contractors believed they were responding in the right way as stumbling blocks arose such as design and roadworks issues which pushed the £545m project up towards its final cost of £776m, the inquiry heard.
The tram system was originally due to be completed in 2011 but didn't launch until 2014.
Mr Jeffrey said: "At risk of being slightly flippant, the bit that most accords with my recollection is this concept of it being commercially absurd.
"What we had here was a contract that was capable of generating a whole range of opinions, and to a non-lawyer clearly capable of different interpretations.
"So what it left me with as the Chief Executive was a very unclear position going forward.
Edinburgh Trams director: Tackling cost problems will 'open up the whole can of worms'
"What I didn't have here was a contract which clarified roles and risks and responsibilities."
He said the contract was often described as "capricious".
One of the country's most famous shopping thoroughfares, Princes Street, and West End tourist hotspot Shandwick Place were the focuses of the dispute at that stage with the Scottish capital in “disruption”.
Mr Jeffrey said: "When I started, Princes Street was closed to traffic, and the city was disrupted."
Mr Jeffrey was asked by Mr Lake whether Project Pitchfork was "one that considered, I think, both the options of terminating the agreement - there were three possible strands: terminating the agreement, modifying it to truncate the scope of the tram to be delivered, or just continuing with assertive enforcement of the contract - is that a correct understanding?"
Mr Jeffrey responded: "Yes. I think this particular pitchfork varied sometimes between having three prongs and four.
Edinburgh Trams director: Tackling cost problems will 'open up the whole can of worms'
"The subtlety would be terminating the agreement by - the contract by mutual agreement, which later became project separation, and terminating the contract by unilateral action - well, I say unilateral - for breach of contract by the Infraco, which was project notice."
He also agreed with Mr Lake that as it could be impossible to "ever predict a final cost for this project until it was finished that is a fairly catastrophic scenario".
The inquiry continues.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel