Underground Assets Data Transformation & Commercialisation

The West of England Mayoral Combined Authority (WECA) requires the provision of specialist support to collate, interpret and transform Local Authority‑owned underground duct, chamber and fibre route information held across Bath and North East Somerset Council, Bristol City Council and South Gloucestershire Council into a consistent, standardised geospatial format. The project also includes the development of an advisory suite of materials covering underground asset governance, stewardship, commercialisation readiness and responses to potential unauthorised third‑party occupancy. The work will be delivered on a desk‑based basis using existing datasets and legacy records. No field surveys, inspections or physical validation activities form part of this project. Local Authority Data Context: This project will be delivered across three Local Authorities: - Bristol City Council (BCC) - Bath and North East Somerset Council (BANES) - South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) There are differing levels of data maturity, record quality and governance readiness across these authorities. Based on current understanding, Bristol City Council holds the most complete and structured underground asset datasets, with a significant proportion of information held in GIS‑native formats and more established governance arrangements. While some historic or supplementary records may exist, Bristol is not expected to require extensive transformation from legacy, non‑geospatial materials when compared to the other authorities. Elements of Bristol’s existing data schema and working practices may be used as an initial reference point to support regional consistency, subject to refinement through supplier expertise and Local Authority engagement. Bath and North East Somerset Council and South Gloucestershire Council are understood to hold underground asset records that are more variable in completeness, format and structure, with a proportion of relevant information expected to exist in legacy or non‑geospatial formats such as PDFs, CAD drawings and historic project documentation. The reliability and confidence of available records may vary, particularly between newer and historic assets. The supplier will be expected to identify, collate, interpret and transform these records into a consistent geospatial structure aligned with the agreed regional model. The Authority does not hold a complete or definitive view of the volume, format or level of detail of underground asset records held by the Local Authorities, particularly in relation to legacy materials. Discovery and assessment of what records exist, their condition, confidence and limitations form a core part of the scope. Proposals must accommodate incomplete coverage, variable data quality and uncertainty, with clear documentation of assumptions, gaps and constraints. Outputs may legitimately record “unknown” or low‑confidence attributes where information cannot be reliably established through desk‑based analysis.