Unsuccessful Tenderers Debriefing Proforma

UNSUCCESSFUL TENDERERS DEBRIEFING PROFORMA

Project Title: geophysical Survey and Stage 2 Environmental Investigation RAAF Base Amberley SQ.

Date: 17-September-2008

Company Name: GHD

Company Representative: Fouad Abo

Attendees: Mark Bowman – chair Defence Katherine Berryman - Defence Fouad Abo - GHD Peter Nadabaum - GHD Damian Murray – GHD Steve Johnson - GHD Debriefing Agenda 1. Introduce the members of ID who are present.

2. Detail very briefly the evaluation process used by the Tender Board Committee ensuring that the below are included so that the unsuccessful tenderer can understand how a decision was reached.  Pre tender process in terms of the evaluation criteria being set before tenderers are identified and released. Detail how this reduces the risk of an evaluation outcome being engineering to a specified company as apposed to a process which is fair and equitable.  Evaluation process in terms of the proposed methodology being assessed on its own merit with price then considered to make a value for money determination.

3. Go through the debriefing issues including both positive and negative elements of the tenderer proposal. It is recommended that these be listed within this area of the proforma. Details relating to another tenderers proposal is not to be discussed nor is a comparison to be used against another tenderer methodology.

4. Detail any comments received back from the tenderer – including comments which be provided on the tendering process.

5. Members of the debriefing team should sign the proforma and ensure that it accurately reflects the issues discussed during the debriefing. A copy is placed on the Tendering file – a copy is not provided to the tenderer.

Debriefing Team

…………………………………………………………………………………………. Name Signature

Debriefing Proforma – Procurement Guide – v1 September 2005 …………………………………………………………………………………………. Name Signature

RAAF Base Amberley Tender Debrief – Geophysical Survey – Stage 2. Wednesday 17 September 2008 1000 MINUTES

Mark Bowman - chair Katherine Berryman - Defence Fouad Abo - GHD Peter Nadabaum - GHD Damian Murray – GHD Steve Johnson - GHD

Mark Bowman provided feedback: Thank you for proposal and effort. RAAF Base Amberley – awarded to ENSR and is underway

Process for debrief outlined Criteria of proposal listed

* eam had relevant experience and clearly demonstrated expertise to be bale to role out project within time and budget.

* Incorporation of the CSM was good

* Non compliant proposal – Fugro use as it does not meet SOR specs

* Part 2 & 3 were not overly detailed showing a lack of understanding for the project. The intrusive investigation were based on previous stages not from a follow on of Part 1 as requested in SOR.

* Whole of base concept moving towards however there were preconceived ideas within Part 2 and 3 of GHD proposals.

* We were looking for evidence of though to role out the storm water survey and infrastructure identification through Part 1 for exampled was not overly detailed.

* The technical specifications for the work were high for Part 1 and GHD did not quit meet this.

* Too many assumptions – there were approximately 30 in total – no preparation of ECC. No time delay or disruptions included which is not ideal for an active base sich as Amberley. Some assumptions ok such as 3 revision of SAP.

Part 1 Geophysical Survey: The geophysics not up to specification using Fugro

Part 2 & 3 * Recommendations out of the Earth Tech Stage 2 incorporated which is good however Part 2 and 3 were based on this and not whole of base approach. Part 2 and 3 should have been based on Part 1

Debriefing Proforma – Procurement Guide – v1 September 2005 and identifying any planning constraints on the base for example – not follow on form the 2005 stage 2.

* Development pressures on Base – large projects planned thus this requirement not investigating a list of CSR sites. This was in SOR.

*Fouad asked to be repeated and Mark did

* Peter mentioned the workshop to talk about the contamination issues – obviously a little off the ball as they believe it was a contamination based not infrastructure based.

* There was no incorporation of pesticides, solvents etc in the contamination sweet.

* Mark noted there is s assize limitation on proposal thus we understand the lack of detail however maybe like to see some distinguishing in method i.e. depth of screening well.

* Not enough detail in hydrogeological assessment.

* NEPM heavy metal sweet required. Service locators required or not?

* MNA inclusion was good and well detailed.

* Surface water and groundwater receptors – receptor and pathways investigation – needed to clarify with GHD.

* Prefer to see NEPM terminology in there.

* The CSM highlighted general conditions which is good.

* Investigate sources of contamination of site on the CSR sites however we already have – we require whole of base

* Local and regional hydrogeology and geology noted showing a good understanding of the site

* Relevant std. noted. VIC EPA noted.

* Residential criteria used at sensitive areas – demonstrated GHD had thought about the consideration of the project.

* Would have preferred to see contaminates against the guidelines for example.

* No heritage issues noted in accordance w with the EPBC Act.

* Fugro – their general capabilities were not noted. There was no personnel for Part 1 at all – so unsure of how Fugro will be rolled out? Key personnel, hours and experience could not be assessed effectively for the Fugro Part 1.

* Project Director and project Manager could not delineate between them – so who was doing what and when as they had similar hours.

* The project team had less Defence experience – the key personnel had relevant industry experience… the industry experience noted was not overly related to Amberley work so maybe

Debriefing Proforma – Procurement Guide – v1 September 2005 choosing more relevant examples would have been beneficial. Additionally the Fugro Part 1 personnel should have been noted….

* Fouad asked: Contractor and GHD personnel noted or just contractor?? Mark replied that Fugro had no personnel so would have needed to see that?

* Part 2 and 3 proposal were the same could not tell the difference between them – so unsure how GHD meant to roll out the different stages. A cut and paste was evident in areas of Part 2 and 3. so need to be careful in the future with proposals about this.

Discussion round the Batelle applications and the future of geophysical studies using Amberley as a pilot trial. Tendering to all companies via EOI and then 3 companies SKM, ENSR and GHD submitted proposal….. in future usual contam projects will be to 3 companies and unsure of how future geophysical studies will be tendered if any more…

New project using Battelle hopefully get to the 0.2m like specification. Hopefully we make it and it works.

Fouad and Peter thanked.

Debriefing Proforma – Procurement Guide – v1 September 2005