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 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