CONTRACT AWARD APPROVAL
SECTION H PROJECT INFORMATION
H1 Project title Olympic Legacy Park Infrastructure and Landscaping
H2 Procurement Strategy reference number
H3 Exception reporting from Procurement Strategy N/A – the procurement process has been followed. This Contract Award is seeking approval for appointment of a Contractor at Stage 1 to work with the Client to develop a scheme through the Stage 2 period.
SECTION I TENDER EVALUATION AND AWARD RECOMMENDATION
I1 TENDER DETAILS – received and adjusted (please add rows as required). If using an in-house provider or have only engaged a single provider, please insert the price agreed. If a tenderer withdrew or did not return, please state in ‘Comments’ column
Tenderer Price Price score (if applicable) Quality Score (if applicable) Total score (price+ quality) Rank Comments
I1a Carillion Construction Ltd £- - - - - Withdrew
I1b Colas Ltd £- - - - - Withdrew
I1c Esh Construction Ltd £5,103,492.63 35.51/40.00 40.85/60.00 76.35/100.00 2 Received
I1d Henry Boot Construction Ltd £5,041,988.02 40.00/40.00 45.74/60.00 85.74/100.00 1 Received
I1e JN Bentley Ltd £5,365,659.55 24.01/40.00 34.77/60.00 58.78/100.00 4 Received
I1f Jackson Civil Engineering Group Ltd £- - - - - Withdrew
I1g North Midland Construction PLC £5,322,757.72 25.35/40.00 46.14/60.00 71.49/100.00 3 Received
I2 ARITHMETICAL CHECK I3 TECHNICAL CHECK
Arithmetical check undertaken and all found to be correct. Technical check undertaken; no issues.
I4 TENDER QUALIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS I5 ADDENDA ISSUED DURING THE TENDER PERIOD
A number of minor clarifications during tender process. One minor addenda issued relating to non-contestable works for water supply.
I6 PRELIMINARIES I7 DAYWORKS
Henry Boot Tender Stage 2 Preliminaries: £30,823.70 n/a Henry Boot Site Preliminaries: £197,194.32 Henry Boot Bond £3,077.00 Henry Boot Design Fees: £104,800.00
I8 CONTINGENCIES I9 PROVISIONAL SUMS
Client contingency built into construction estimate – to be confirmed at second stage. n/a
I10 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS I11 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Quality questions issued/answered under following headings: Price: (lowest tender / tender) x 100 Quality: SCC 0-5 scoring system; failure to achieve 50% across a criterion disqualifies - Employment & Skills (10%) - Multiple Building Lots (15%) - Programme (15%) - Quality (15%) - Value Engineering (15%) - Pitch Delivery (15%) - Value for Money (15%) See tender document for further detail (percentages of 60% quality weighting).
I12 FINANCIAL STANDING OF PREFERRED TENDERER (do not complete if using an in-house provider)
Tenderer: Recommendation: Date of approval:
I13 AWARD RECOMMENDATION
That Henry Boot Construction Ltd be appointed to work with the Client’s team through the Stage 2 period to develop a scheme to match the available budget and to allow a letter of acceptance to be issued to Henry Boot Construction Ltd for them to commence to the stage 2 development. It should be noted that this appointment will not commit the Council to enter into contract for the construction phase of the project. Henry Boot Construction Ltd will work with the Client’s team to develop agreed designs for the scheme together with an agreed Lump Sum Price. On completion of the Stage 2 process, a full Contract Award Approval report will be submitted to CPG for approval. It is anticipated that the Contract Award will be submitted to the 26/08/2016 CPG meeting for approval. Approval for the expenditure of £31,594.29 for the development of the Stage 2 costs and £779,177.51 for enabling and pitch works. Contract award is subject to the signing of the SCRIF funding agreement.
SECTION J FINANCIAL / BUDGETARY PROVISION
J1 ACTUAL TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (see definitions at section C of the Procurement Strategy above)
Procurement Strategy Contract Award Reasons for any differences
J1a Total project budget £6,025,500 £6,025,500 No variance at this point; two-stage tender process ongoing & contract sum to be confirmed. This figure will be updated following completion of Stage 2 and will be included at full Contract Award stage. No variance at this point; two-stage tender process ongoing & contract sum to be confirmed. J1b Construction cost £5,500,000 Costs notional at this point; include pitch installation.
No variance at this point; two-stage tender process ongoing & contract sum to be confirmed. J1c Fees £251,000 Stage 2 professional fees circa £130,000 (excluding contactor fees) Construction professional fees circa £121,000 (excluding contractor fees)
J1d Client costs capital N/A
J1e Allowances for contingency £0 £0
J1f Revenue cost implications N/A N/A
J1g Estimated contract value for each contract (see section D8 above)
J2 COMPARISON WITH PRE-TENDER ESTIMATE
All prices submitted above notional, with the exception of preliminaries as these are now fixed. Final price to be confirmed once design developed and price agreed at end of second tender stage.
J3 RECONCILLIATION TO BUDGET
Is the tender price greater than:
J3a Total project budget (see C1a above) No J3b Construction cost (see C1b above) No J3c Approved Q-tier / CAF (if different to C1a above) No
J3d If so, how will you reconcile this? This could include altering scope or using contingency monies. If scope change, does it still fall within OJEU notice (if applicable) and is it covered by previous delegated authority?
J4 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW
J4a Date of contract start 06/06/16 J4b Date of contract end 31/03/17 J4c End dates of any contract extensions n/a
ANTICIPATED CASH FLOW PROFILE
2015/16 £ 2016/17 £ 2017/18 £ 2018 / 19 £ 2019 / 20 £ Total £
Contract delivery £125,000 £5,735,000 £0 £0 £0 £0
Retention £0 £82,500 £82,500 £0 £0 £0
Total £125,000 £5,817,500 £82,500 £0 £0 £0
J5 ACTUAL CONTRACT SAVINGS
Summation of actual contract construction cost at contract award stage, versus anticipated costs at procurement strategy stage (annual breakdown of figures provided at J1b above)
2015/16 £ 2016 / 17 £ 2017 / 18 £ 2018 / 19 £ 2019 / 20 £ Total £
Savings
J6 DETAILS OF ANY OTHER SAVINGS OR BENEFITS
SECTION K PROJECT IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS
K1 Are there any TUPE implications which have not previously been identified or addressed? If yes, how are these now being addressed? No
K2 Are there any legal implications which have not previously been identified or addressed? If yes, how are these now being addressed? Yes
Signing of SCRIF funding agreement, this is being reviewed and is expected to be completed prior to awarding contract. PLT: • notes the indicative conditions of the SCRIF funding and the Council’s funding position. • Agrees to issue the letter of acceptance in advance of the formal SCRIF Funding agreement being accepted in order to maintain the programme: and • agrees to fund any abortive costs from its 16/17 Budget
K3 Are there any lessons learned to inform future procurement strategies?
SECTION L RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVALS
L1 PROJECT APPROVALS
L1a Client lead Signed: Sean McClean Date: 3/6/2016
L1b Project manager Signed: T & T Date: 17/06/2016
L1c Contract manager Signed: Sean McClean Date: 3/6/2016
L1d Procurement professional Signed: Tim Sharp Date: 6/6/2016
L1e Project sponsor Signed: Paul Billington Date: 17/06/2016
L1f Head of Capital Delivery Service Signed: Sean McClean Date: 3/6/2016 L1g Capital Programme Group Signed: Paul Schofield Date: 3/6/2016
L1h Director of Commercial Services (or delegated officer) Signed: Kerry Bollington Date: 29/6/2016
L2 COMMERCIAL SERVICES’ APPROVAL DETAILS
L2a Procurement Strategy reference number
L2b For any contract extension, please include the original Procurement Strategy reference number