A key component of economic sustainability is the efficient use of Bermuda's financial resources. Public funds should be spent so that the public gets the most benefit from the least expenditure. It has come to attention of the Bermuda Environmental & Sustainability Taskforce (BEST) that proposals for the Aquatic Centre at the National Sports Centre may not make the best use of public funds. In an attempt to alert the public and, hopefully, to get answers to some pressing questions, BEST undertook to examine some of the underlying issues. Here is what we have uncovered so far.

Through a recent announcement, the Bermuda public learned that final planning approval for an aquatic complex at the National Sports Centre (NSC) was imminent and that work on this project, over ten years in the making, should soon be underway. Upon further investigation, however, it appears that the Bermudian taxpayer may once again foot the bill for an overly-expensive, outdated and inefficient project, designed with limited foresight by foreign consultants and which, due to inherent design flaws, will have limited practical use, unreasonably high running costs and an unnecessarily large carbon footprint. BEST understands that the Bermuda Amateur Swimming Association (BASA), who will be the primary scheduled users of the facility, would prefer to see nothing built rather than the current proposal being pursued by the Trustees of the NSC.

Current Proposal:

The Trustees of the NSC were given $15m by the Bermuda Government in 2008 to get building of the new aquatic facility underway. The NSC Trustees sought planning permission in June of 2009 for an 8-lane, 50m concrete and tile pool with a diving well at one end and an array of "portakabins" for changing facilities, to be replaced by permanent changing facilities within 2-5 years depending on the availability of further funding. This represented phases 1 & 2 of the overall Master Plan. (Permission for the remaining two phases is not being sought at the present time due to a cited lack of funding).

Planning permission was eventually granted subject to the applicant fulfilling a pledge to provide permanent changing facilities by February 15, 2015.

As reported in The Royal Gazette (March 8, 2010), the lowest bid solicited by the NSC Trustees for the mechanical contract for this pool alone has come in at $5.3m, while the lowest bid by any Bermudian firm invited to tender stood at $6.3m.

Issues with the Current Proposal:

As the authority on swimming on the island, BASA has identified several major design flaws in the current proposal which were brought to the attention of the NSC Board of Trustees early on in the planning process. The issues raised are as follows:

1. Concrete and tile structure: Not only is the cost of concrete prohibitively expensive in Bermuda, but concrete pools are also apparently less energy efficient and correspondingly more expensive to run. Instead, many international competitive pools are now 'Myrtha' pools, comprised of a stainless steel construction with a polycarbonate coating to prevent corrosion. Due to smoother surfaces, such pools experience lower algae growth and require less electricity to circulate the water. According to BASA's research, the result is that such pools require less energy to heat/cool, fewer chemicals to clean, and are 40% cheaper to run annually with a 50% smaller carbon footprint. Myrtha Pools was confirmed as the exclusive FINA official pool partner for the period 2009 - 2010 and BASA maintains that such pools are LEED certified, meaning that the US Green Building Council has deemed them to be a sustainable design, and that there have been no cases of structural failure in stainless steel pools in the 40 years of existence of the product. (• Question: why have the NSC Trustees opted for more expensive, less efficient concrete construction with higher maintenance costs over the cheaper, more easily and cheaply maintained Myrtha-constructed pools?)

2. Diving pool located within the main pool: Locating the diving pool within the Olympic-sized lap pool creates scheduling problems, increased heating/cooling costs and a water requirement that BASA has calculated to be 10% greater than in a proposal where the diving and lap pools are separate. The pool BASA currently uses (at Saltus Grammar School) is in use year-round, 6.5 days per week, with the remaining half-day reserved for cleaning. Many scheduled swimming programmes could not be run while the diving platforms were in use, limiting the functionality of both facilities. In addition, it is unlikely that such a huge volume of water could be economically heated, thereby reducing utility in the winter months. (• Question: given the historical intense pool use and anticipated scheduling difficulties and greater heating expense associated with a combined lap/diving pool, why are the NSC Trustees opting for the greater operating costs of a combined pool versus the multi-pool design?)

3. Temporary changing facilities: This was in fact an issue raised by the Development Applications Board when the original proposal was submitted by the NSC Trustees. The current "temporary" changing facilities at the National Sports Centre have already been in use for well over a decade. Failing to include permanent changing rooms as part of the initial aquatic centre development would lead to a less pleasant experience for users and a substandard facility in the international arena until such time that these could be replaced. (• Question: why are not permanent changing rooms a priority in the NSC design?)

4. The overall project would reportedly involve about 12 separate contracts. We understand that the foreign consultant being paid $1.2m to develop the centre is also earmarked to be the construction manager. If this is correct, it means that there will be few if any of the customary checks in place to ensure that the work is carried out both effectively and economically. (• Question: is not having concept manager/designer and the construction manager be the same person/outfit an obvious conflict of interest and invitation to exploitation of the absence of checks?)

BASA's Proposal:

BASA has been involved in the planning of the aquatic centre for approximately ten years and, as the ultimate primary user of the facility, is eager to see it succeed. In March 2008, the organisation was invited by Minister El James to discuss the proposed centre and to present a preferred layout for the facility based on their considerable experience operating aquatic programmes in Bermuda and running the BASA pool.

A Conceptual Master Plan along with preliminary costings was presented to the NSC Board of Trustees by BASA in April of that year. The plans include a 10-lane 50m pool to FINA Standard, 8-lane 25m pool for diving/water aerobics/water polo/swimming to FINA Standard, diving platform arrangement also to FINA Standard, hot tub, shallow water pool for swimming lessons/rehabilitation/handicap access/recreation, permanent changing rooms, seating for spectators, cafeteria, media area to be shared with the cricket pitch and other ancillary facilities. The layout is designed to create optimum value and to allow maximum flexibility in programming the use of the pool based on accommodating a wide range of core activities, including international competitive swimming and diving. In addition, the separate 50m pool and diving facility was to provide a basis to further enhance Bermuda as a destination for sports tourism as BASA reportedly receives two to three enquiries regarding the availability of such training facilities each week. In future, this could provide an important revenue stream.

In terms of building cost, a 'Myrtha' package including the supply and installation of a 10-lane 50m pool, 8-lane 25m diving pool, and freeform recreation pool, inclusive of all electrical and mechanical systems, is costed at just $4.88m (a price that was verified by BASA in mid-April of this year). This represents significantly better value than the equivalent concrete construction, as evidenced by the minimum bid of $5.3m for the NSC single pool mechanical contract alone. In addition, according to correspondence from BASA to Senator Walton Brown dated December 8, 2009, 'Myrtha' offers a 30-year warranty on its pools compared with 6 to 12 months for pools of concrete construction. (• Question: how does NSC justify rejecting an arguably superior pool material with a 30-year warranty in favour of concrete with a maximum 12-month warranty?)

In fact, the estimated cost for the development and construction of the entire BASA Master Plan has been quoted at just under $17.4m, inclusive of consultant fees, using local contractors in addition to the 'Myrtha' pool package. In addition, the architect anticipates that costs could easily be reduced to within the $15m budgeted while still providing a useful and effective aquatic facility. It is expected that the aquatic centre in the proposal could be delivered within 18 months from the date that an instruction is given to proceed. (• Question: why are the NSC Trustees opting for a only a portion (Phase 1 & 2) of a scheme costing far beyond their budget when a complete turnkey facility could be had within their budgeted funds and within an advantageous timeframe?)

With the exception of the 'Myrtha' component, BASA asserts that its proposal would use entirely local expertise and ticks all the necessary boxes including price, facilities, structural warrantee and even permanent changing facilities. Despite this, the NSC Trustees have never given a satisfactory explanation for turning down this proposal and opting instead for a more limited yet more costly alternative. In response to a letter by Tab Froud (the former head of BASA) enquiring why the NSC had opted not to use the 'Myrtha' method, Sean Tucker (Chairman of the NSC Board of Trustees) stated simply that "in the end, and for a number of reasons, we have decided to proceed with a traditional concrete and tile pool." The reasons of which he speaks remain unclear.

Some in our community may remember when Nelson Bascome (now deceased) asserted in 1998 that the NSC's Trustees could have saved backers of the National Stadium millions of dollars by ensuring that the initial building work was done correctly, and that expert Bermudian consultants should have been used years before in order to prevent the costly teething problems experienced with the track at the National Stadium. These assertions now must be applied to the proposed Aquatic Centre.

The Bermuda Environmental & Sustainability Taskforce (BEST) strongly urges the NSC Board of Trustees to reconsider their stance before creating an under-utilised aquatic centre that neither Bermuda's sporting bodies nor the Bermudian taxpayer could afford to run.

At very least, the Bermuda public is entitled to answers to the questions raised prior to the commencement of any construction.