EIR/202600517825 Review of 202600514396 · FOI/EIR · clarification
Transport Scotland - Documentation relating to the provision of vehicle recovery services during works on the M8: EIR Review
Information requested
Original request 202600514396
Full disclosure of all documentation, contracts, agreements, and associated records relating to the provision of vehicle recovery services during the planned works on the M8 Junctions 16 to 17 (Woodside Viaduct).
This request is made on the basis of operational concerns arising from multiple incidents in which the contracted vehicle recovery service appears not to have been delivered as required.
For the avoidance of doubt, this request includes (but is not limited to) the following:
Copies of all contracts, sub-contracts, service level agreements, and any variations thereto concerning vehicle recovery operations within the roadworks section. Records, correspondence, and internal communications explaining the decision not to re-tender the vehicle recovery provision following any extension of the project duration. Documentation confirming whether a contractual requirement existed for the continuous presence of a heavy recovery vehicle on site, including any specifications, risk assessments, or operational requirements underpinning such provision. Full details of the agreed pricing structure, tender evaluation documents, cost schedules, and any financial arrangements associated with the vehicle recovery contract. Any procurement documentation, including tender notices, award criteria, and justification for contract award and/or extension without re-tendering. Any governance, compliance, audit, incident reporting, or oversight records demonstrating adherence to applicable public procurement regulations, contractual obligations, and value-formoney requirements. Records of any reported failures, delays, or non-performance relating to the recovery service during the course of the works, including any remedial actions taken.
If any part of this request is considered exempt under the Act, please clearly specify the exemption relied upon and provide a detailed explanation in accordance with your statutory obligations. Where information is withheld, I request that all reasonably segregable non-exempt material is disclosed.
I request that the information be provided in electronic format where reasonably practicable.
Response
I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) for Vehicle Recovery Contracts on the M8 Woodside Viaduct.
I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed with modifications.
I have responded to each of your points in turn as follows:
Failure to Properly Address Operational Concerns
My request raised serious operational and public safety concerns relating to the provision of vehicle recovery services during the M8 Junctions 16–17 Woodside Viaduct works.
The response fails to meaningfully address those concerns and instead relies heavily upon references to general Network Management Contract documentation already publicly available.
The central issue raised was whether the contracted recovery provision was actually delivered in accordance with contractual and operational requirements throughout the duration of the works.
This point was responded to in A7 of the original FOI request. Neither Transport Scotland (TS) nor their Operating Company, Amey, hold any records of failures reported or otherwise. In the absence of the information noted as being held by the requester we are unable to investigate these specific details further. Nevertheless, analysis of site correspondence identified evidence of an isolated incident of an "Operational Observation" relating to an alleged un-marked 3rd party recovery vehicle operating on the M8 in the vicinity of the M8 Woodside area and charging members of the public for removing broken down vehicles. This information was subsequently forwarded to Police Scotland. No response was received from Police Scotland (see Annex A).
Statement that “No Known Reported Failures” Existed
The response states:
“There have been no known reported failures of recovery service on the NMC South West Contract.”
I formally challenge this assertion.
I am aware of multiple incidents involving delayed, absent, or inadequate recovery response within the works area, including circumstances where third-party intervention was required in order to remove stranded heavy vehicles from a live motorway works environment.
I currently hold operational material relevant to these matters. However, I reserve disclosure of that evidence pending the outcome of this review process and any subsequent regulatory or legal proceedings.
In light of the above, I request clarification as to:
what investigations were undertaken before concluding that no failures had been reported; Can this info be provided under a new FOI review?
Please refer to the above further explanation on why no information is held.
This was previously responded to under A7; As there was no record of reported failures TS cannot provide information it does not hold.
As noted above, TS do not hold any information on reported failures and are applying regulation 10(4) (a) of the EIRs as we do not hold this information. Under the duty to advise and assist, the answer is in fact none. The breakdown logs were analysed together with separate records from Amey’s control room and no evidence was identified of reported failures or complaints made in relation to this recovery service.
whether incident logs, control room records, recovery attendance records, contractor communications, or traffic management escalation reports were examined;
As noted above, the Control Room logs were analysed and recovery logs were provided previously which supports the lack of any evidence of systemic recovery service failures.
whether Transport Scotland relied solely upon assurances provided by its operating company and/or subcontractors.
TS undertook a search and review of Amey site records to determine there were no service failures evident. These documents previously provided have been revisited and further analysed and our position remains that no service failures were evident. In the event of potential service failures, the TS site team would establish any cause and implement necessary improvements to operational performance, together with potential deductions of related costs. However, as noted previously, no service failures have been identified following TS independent review of the breakdown and control room logs.
Continuous Heavy Recovery Cover and Capability
The response fails to clearly confirm whether a contractual or operational requirement existed for continuous heavy recovery presence during the works.
This information was provided under A1 in the initial FOI response, however please refer specifically to Appendix 1/20 – Recovery Vehicles for Breakdown within: NMC - Schedule 5 - Specification and Drawings - South West - Rev L to see the minimum contractual requirements – (refer to previously issued Annex C).
I request that the review specifically address:
whether continuous heavy recovery cover was mandated;
A3 previously noted that heavy cover was a contractual requirement and is provided within NMC Contract specification. however please refer specifically to Appendix 1/20 – Recovery Vehicles for Breakdown within: NMC - Schedule 5 - Specification and Drawings - South West - Rev L to see the minimum contractual requirements. Previously issued Annex C includes extract from Appendix 1/20 confirming requirement for heavy recovery.
the minimum operational requirements applicable to the recovery provider;
A1 previously provided within NMC Contract specification, as above this is specifically contained within Appendix 1/20 – Recovery Vehicles for Breakdown within: NMC - Schedule 5 - Specification and Drawings - South West - Rev L (previous Annex C).
how compliance with those requirements was monitored;
Compliance is monitored through monthly review of the vehicle recovery logs together with 24-hour control room supervision of traffic flows, as well as the absence of stationary traffic incidents demonstrate active and continuous provision of the service with no gaps identified in monthly submissions that would indicate a sub-standard service.
whether any periods existed where no compliant heavy recovery resource was available within the operational area.
A7 Previously provided response stating there was no known reported failures of recovery service. TS do not hold any information on reported failures and are applying regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs as we do not hold this information. Under the duty to advise and assist, that the answer is in fact none.
Additionally, I request clarification as to whether the contracted recovery provider possessed and maintained appropriately specified heavy recovery vehicles capable of carrying out heavy vehicle recovery operations safely and competently within the operational constraints of the works area.
In particular, I request confirmation of:
what minimum heavy recovery vehicle specification was required under the contract;
This information was previously provided in A1 including details within the NMC Contract, specifically Appendix 1/20 – Recovery Vehicles for Breakdown within: NMC - Schedule 5 - Specification and Drawings - South West - Rev L (previous Annex C)
whether the contracted provider possessed suitable heavy recovery equipment throughout the contract duration;
Throughout the contract duration in accordance with the information previously provided in A1, including details within the NMC Contract, specifically Appendix 1/20 – Recovery Vehicles for Breakdown within:
NMC - Schedule 5 - Specification and Drawings - South West - Rev L (previous Annex C)
whether those vehicles complied with all relevant operational, lifting, towing, and safety standards applicable to heavy recovery operations;
The contractor has provided suitable heavy recovery equipment in accordance with our contractual requirements as previously provided in A1, including details within the NMC Contract, specifically Appendix 1/20 – Recovery Vehicles for Breakdown within: NMC - Schedule 5 - Specification and Drawings - South West - Rev L (previous Annex C)
whether Transport Scotland or its operating company undertook any inspection, verification, or compliance checks regarding the capability and suitability of the recovery fleet;
Our Operating Company, Amey, is responsible for ensuring the appropriate recovery vehicles were provided by their sub-contractors in accordance with the requirements of the NMC contract and national standards.
whether any occasions arose where suitable heavy recovery capability was unavailable, delayed, or substituted with inadequate equipment.
Given the safety-critical nature of heavy recovery operations within a live motorway works environment, this forms a significant part of the concerns giving rise to this review request.
A7 Previously provided response stating there was no known reported failures of recovery service. TS do not hold any information on reported failures, or reports of stationary vehicles within the traffic management and are applying regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs as we do not hold this information. Under the duty to advise and assist, that the answer is in fact none.
KPI Monitoring and Contract Compliance
The response does not adequately address governance, compliance monitoring, service auditing, or KPI enforcement relating to the recovery provision.
I request disclosure or confirmation of:
any service level monitoring; KPI reporting; performance audits; breach notices; remedial actions; escalation procedures; compliance reviews conducted during the contract term.
The Answer to this query was generally provided under A6, however the NMC Contract Schedule 1 Part 5.1 specifically provides for the independent Performance Audit Group to audit the performance of the Operating Company and to undertake various related duties and obligations.
As stated above, the specification for vehicle recovery clearly establishes a requirement for immediate removal of vehicles from the live carriageway to pre-approved safe locations. However, it does not define response time targets and does not set KPIs or performance thresholds for attendance.
Procurement and Contract Extension Concerns
The response confirms that the existing provider’s contract was extended without re-tendering.
I request that the review consider whether sufficient information has been disclosed to demonstrate compliance with applicable public procurement obligations, transparency requirements, and valuefor- money duties. I can reiterate the previous response
In particular, I request clarification as to:
the legal basis relied upon for extending the arrangement without re-tendering; the duration and value of the extension; whether alternative providers were formally assessed; whether any conflicts, performance concerns, or operational deficiencies were considered prior to approval.
As previously provided under A1, A2 and A5 the vehicle recovery service is being deployed under the NMC contract and that TS approval to use the current provider of recovery services on the NMC South West Contract was given on 2 November 2020. Although the Woodside recovery vehicle services were tendered to ensure value for money was being obtained, there is no contractual obligation under the NMC contract to routinely re-procure or re-tender services already tendered for at the time the original NMC contract was tendered.
Vehicle Storage, Staging Areas, and Insurer Charging Concerns
Additionally, I request that the Internal Review consider concerns relating to the handling and storage of damaged vehicles recovered from within the Woodside Viaduct works area.
It has been alleged that vehicles recovered under the roadworks recovery provision may have been removed to an off-site storage or staging location, following which storage and/or release charges were subsequently recovered from insurers or vehicle owners.
Given the nature of the contracted recovery provision within a publicly managed motorway works environment, this raises potential concerns regarding:
whether such activity was authorised under the contractual arrangements; whether any approved vehicle storage or staging facility existed; whether Transport Scotland or its operating company approved such arrangements; whether charges levied against insurers or vehicle owners formed part of the contracted recovery model; whether any financial benefit was derived outside the scope of the contracted service provision.
I therefore request disclosure of:
the location and approval status of any designated vehicle holding, storage, or staging areas associated with the recovery operation; any contractual provisions permitting vehicle storage and release charging; any policies governing the handling, storage, release, or disposal of recovered vehicles; any financial arrangements, schedules of charges, or agreements relating to post-recovery storage; any governance or audit records relating to such practices.
Given the seriousness of these concerns, I believe this matter requires specific investigation during the Internal Review process.
The points raised in this section relate to information provided in the original request. However, for clarity I have provided more specific information where available, noting that although an investigation has been carried out into these allegations, we have no record of any such occurrences related to our operations. As there was no record of the reported concerns you note, TS cannot provide information it does not hold and are applying regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs. Under the duty to advise and assist, we have provided detail of the only known related incident, noting an alleged un-marked 3rd party recovery vehicle operating on the M8 in the vicinity of the M8 Woodside area; and reported to Police Scotland. This isolated incident has no operational link to TS, its Operating Company or its sub-contractors.
Public Interest
Given that these matters concern motorway safety, live traffic management operations, public expenditure, contractor oversight, procurement compliance, and potential operational failings affecting road users and recovery operators, there is a substantial public interest in full transparency and scrutiny.
Please therefore conduct a full Internal Review of the handling of this request, the adequacy of the searches undertaken, and the lawfulness of the exemptions relied upon.
Having thoroughly reviewed the whole response to the original request and the further queries contained within your review request, I trust the above is of assistance in providing further detail on the additional points you have raised above.
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Detected exemption language
If any part of this request is considered exempt under the Act, please clearly specify the exemption relied upon and provide a detailed explanation in accordance with your statutory obligations. As noted above, TS do not hold any information on reported failures and are applying regulation 10(4) (a) of the EIRs as we do not hold this information. TS do not hold any information on reported failures and are applying regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs as we do not hold this information. TS do not hold any information on reported failures, or reports of stationary vehicles within the traffic management and are applying regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs as we do not hold this information. As there was no record of the reported concerns you note, TS cannot provide information it does not hold and are applying regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs.