CEW produced the "No Turning Back Report in October 2010. The Minister for Finance subsequently endorsed its recommendations and set-up the Construction Strategy Steering Group under Value Wales to take the report forward. The first of the recommendations is to improve the visibility of the Forward Capital Programme in Wales.

The following survey is aimed at addressing areas of concern regarding the programme and for respondents to offer feedback on they feel the programme is progressing. Your responses will be kept confidential within CEW & Value Wales and your opinions will help to formulate how we develop the capital programme in the future.

Thank you taking the time to complete this survey & we kindly await your responses & feedback

Question Title

* 1. Concern has been raised in the past by the industry about the lack of forward visibility of the Welsh public sector forward programme. Over the past two years advances have been made in this respect, such as with the bi-annual updating of the WIIP pipeline. CEW has been working with Value Wales and the WLGA to improve visibility of the local authority forward programme, which is now planned to be produced annually.


How useful is the all-Wales local authority programme?

Question Title

* 2. Each of the twenty-two local authorities produces their capital programmes in their own format with different layouts and ‘departmental’ headings. CEW has coded all the individual project data entries in each LA programme to one of nine sectors to simplify the searching activity for particular types of work which may be of interest.


Are the sectors helpful as a means of aggregation?

Question Title

* 3. Some LAs include very small projects. Currently the individual project is shown in the composite Wales programme no matter how small, as it is thought that such detail may be of interest to certain members of the industry.


Should smaller projects be aggregated for each local authority?

Question Title

* 4. If you answered "yes" to question 3, please specify a value along with any additional comments that you feel are relevant.

Question Title

* 5. Most LAs produce at least a 3-year forward programme, with some producing programmes over an even longer timeframe. However, with uncertainty about future funding of various projects and programmes, many do not currently produce a programme beyond three years.


Is a 3 year programme sufficient?

Question Title

* 6. The programme is currently produced once a year based on programmes published in Quarter 4 of the previous financial year. CEW intends to work closely with the WLGA in improving the LA forward pipeline.


Are annual updates sufficient?

Question Title

* 7. The sector classification currently being used leads to buildings and civils projects sitting together in sectors such as Regeneration and Parks/Leisure. As a means of further assisting the industry to search the database, we are wondering if it would be helpful to have sectors grouped into Buildings and Civils.


Would sorting into sectors based on Buildings and Civils be more useful?

Question Title

* 8. CEW has been working with other partners to produce an inventory of construction frameworks. This is still under development; a draft inventory is available on the CEW Website. It was considered that alongside the forward programme it would be useful for the industry to know whether there is an existing framework and, for potential lower tier suppliers, which companies are on the framework.


How helpful is an inventory of construction frameworks to sit alongside the programme?

Question Title

* 9. The above are just some specific questions which we seek feedback on before rolling the programme forward into future years. However, there are probably other aspects of the forward programme, which members of the industry may wish to comment on.


What else would the industry like to see in a forward programme?

Question Title

* 10. Please provide any additional comments regarding the capital programme and/or your thoughts on the usefulness of this survey.

T