2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
-
Upload
daniel-evans -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
1/18
Evaluation ReportDESIGN CONSULTANCY SERVICES 63,000 SQ. FT. ICT BUILDING MONTEGO
BAY FREEZONE
BACK GROUND/INTRODUCTION
The Montego Bay Free Zone (MBFZ) operates within the legal framework of the Jamaica Eport
Free Zone !ct of "#$%& MBFZ a su'siiary of the ort !uthority of Jamaica (!J) operates the
Free Zone on 'ehalf the !J& The principal role an function of the MBFZ is to facilitate
investment 'y local an overseas investors engage in eports an 'usiness process outsourcing&
!s a result of its manate the MBFZ planne to construct a two storey *ata Entry Builing
(*EB)+,nformation -ommunication Builing (,-T) approimately ./$.0s&m& (10/222s&f&)& ,t is
propose that the 'uiling will have a footprint of 1$&$#m (%%13425) 6%&17m ("6234 25)& Each
floor will 'e capa'le of 'eing ivie into multi tenant spaces each with their own sanitary
facilities& The 'uiling must 'e provie with hanicappe frienly facilities on 'oth levels& ,n
aition/ provision must 'e mae for tenants to a etra sanitary facilities if they re8uire& The
purpose of this report is to show the process 'y which each firm3s technical competence an
financial proposal was evaluate an hence the recommenation for an awar&
SCOPE OF SERVICE:
The following is the scope of the assignment that the respective consultants were aske to Bi on
an which will 'e unertaken 'y the successful -onsultant9
The key elements of the work comprise the esign an contract supervision of the
'uiling in accorance to the a'ove mentione foot print&
,n the first instance/ the preliminary esigns shoul inicate+illustrate how well this
facility will meet the current an future nees of the MBFZ+ :takeholers& :econly/ the
contracte firm will manage the process of the esign an construction of the sai *ata
Entry Builing&
Normal Services
"
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
2/18
The following stages and duties comprise of the Consultants/ designers Normal
Services:
1. Preliminary Design Stage
a) The Consultant shall take the Clients instructions regarding the udget and theapplicale re!uirements necessar" for the various operations# such as those for
pro$ected space# e!uipment# operation procedures# securit" criteria#
communications# relationship and functions# and shall confirm their understandingof such re!uirements and the pro$ect %rief to the Client.
) The Consultant shall prepare preliminar" design la"outs ased on the %rief# as well
as# a list of illustrations designed items re!uested for the &ro$ect# and shall preparean implementation plan for e'ecution for the Clients approval.
c) The Consultant (with the assistance of the !uantit" surve"or# if re!uired) shall
provide the Client with an overall estimate of cost ased on the preliminar" designla"outs# and otain the Clients approval of this udgetar" estimate.
. &rovide a pro$ect schedule (*icrosoft pro$ects)# incorporating oth the proposed design
and construction period.
+. ,etermination of ideal orientation# la"out and si-e of ,% uilding and related facilities.
. ,etermination of parking location and si-e# the traffic flow to and from the e'isting
*%0 road network.
2. ,etermination of energ" conservation design# additional capacit" of power suppl"# waste
water and solid waste treatment if re!uired.
3. 4deall" the re!uirements should include provision for:
a) The space should e capale of eing partitioned into 2#555s! ft to15#555 s!. ft
modules with eas" accessiilit" to scale up to 5#555 s! ft or +5#555 s! ft should a client
wish to e'pand.
) ach module should have separate facilities for electricit" meter# air6conditioning#
athroom and kitchenette
c) There should e elevator and disailit" access to the first floor# etc
d) 7ppropriate fire protection s"stems should e installed with interconnectivit" for eachunit.
8. The uilding design should e aestheticall" pleasing with emphasis on modern energ"
saving conservation features.
%
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
3/18
2. Final Design Stage
a) The Consultants shall discuss with the Client an" changes re!uired and make suchmodifications# as agreed# to the design la"out and list electrical# fi'tures and
e!uipment.
) %ased on the approved design la"out# the Consultant shall prepare detailed tender
ased on the 9; standard id document/construction drawings# schedules#
specifications# %ill of
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
4/18
Eight Epressions of ,nterest were receive !ugust %1/ %2"" from the following intereste
firms& The information su'mitte was assesse in accorance with the criteria state in the
invitation& See 7ppendi' 1 for assessment
!. APEC CONSULTANTS LIMITED
". #UE LYE$ C#IN ENGINEERING LIMITED
3. #AROLD MORRISON % $OODSTOCK
&. AD'B CONSULTANT LIMITED
(. T)* DESIGNS
6. C# TOMLINSON LTD. % ASSOCIATES
+. CLIFTON YAP ARC#ITECTS
. KINGSLAND SCOTT BAUER ASSOCIATES
INVITATION
The seven of the eight consultants shortliste were formally invite to su'mit proposals for
proviing consultancy services regaring the esign an supervision of the construction of
the ,nformation/ -ommunication an Technology 'uiling+evelopment&
The -onsultants shortliste were as follows9
!. APEC C-12*2 L42'5
". #' L)' C7 E8''98 L42'53. #*9-15 M-99- % $--52-;
&. AD'B C-12*2 L42'5
(. T)* D'8
6. C1 for Consultants
re!uests)
6
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
5/18
PROCUREMENT PROCESS
The 'i process was carrie out in accorance with the ?ocal -ompetitive roceures as
set out in volume % of the ;overnment of Jamaica3s @an'ook of u'lic :ector
rocurement& The ta'le 'elow sets out the steps to ate in the procurement process9
T*>1' !: P9-9'4'2 A2?2'
A2?2) D*2'
"& -opy of !vertisement for Epression of,nterest
%& Recor of the
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
6/18
T*>1' ": A55'5*
,tem *ate *escription
!enum " %2""4"%4"% Etension of the 'i su'mission ate from *ecem'er %#/ %2""to January "0/ %2"%
!enum % %2"%42"4"2 Etension of the 'i su'mission ate from January "0/ %2"% to
January %./ %2"%!enum 0 %2"%42"4"1 Revise :ite ?ocation lan (Electronic email)
Copies of the addenda are enclosed at 7ppendi' ?&OPENING OF PROPOSALS
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
7/18
T)* D'8 registere sole proprietor in association/ a group of 8ualifie
consultants+firms&
C*91 C. C7' % A-*2' C1
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
8/18
EVALUATION
-riteria/ su'4criteria/ an point system for the evaluation of Full Technical roposals were asfollows9
oints
(i) :pecific eperience of the -onsultants relevant to the assignment9 10
(ii) !e8uacy of the propose methoology an work planin responing to the Terms of Reference9
a) Technical approach an methoology %2') Cork plan "2c)
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
9/18
ursuant to -lause .&7 of the ,nstructions to -onsultants states that Kin case of H-B:#& the firm
achieving the highest com'ine technical an financial score will 'e invite for negotiations5&
:ee !ppeni 1 etaile evaluation of the technical an financial proposals&
The technical evaluation took in consieration 'ase on the criteria a'ove the consultants3
specific years of eperience as an operating entity/ ae8uacy of the propose methoology an
work plan with special consierations with respect to the propose organiGation an staffing/
work plan if consistent with propose activities/ technical approach an methoology which
shoul 'e reflective of the unerstaning of the pro>ect3s Terms of Reference& The evaluation
also aresse the propose pro>ect teams3 general 8ualification/ ae8uacy of this 8ualification to
the assignment/ years of eperience an eperience in the region&
!s a conse8uence the Technical Evaluation results an ranking of the consultants3 proposals areas inicate in the Ta'le . 'elow9
TABLE (
CONSULTANT NAME APEC ADeB Tya CARL CHENKINGSLANDSCOTT
EVALUATOR1 105 91 107 102 9
EVALUATOR2 107 93 104 101 9EVALUATOR3 9 9 104 102 9
EVALUATOR4 105 92 105 102 9
TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE 104 91 105 102 9
RANK 2 5 1 3 4
The minimum technical score re8uire to pass is $. points&
Evience 'y the results state in Ta'le " a'ove all firm technical proposals met the minimum
re8uirement an as a conse8uence were notifie in accorance to -lause .&6 of the ,nstruction to
-onsultants in the Re8uest for roposals (RF)&
#
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
10/18
The evaluation matri at !ppeni 1 sets out the evaluation criteria an scoring regime that were
use to conuct the evaluation incluing the average an iniviual scores sheet of each
evaluator& The results inicate that all firms have the technical capacity an competence to
provie the services state in the scope of work an therefore the final outcome will 'e
contingent on the 8uality an magnitue of their financial proposals&
!s previously inicate the technical scores were sent to the consultants isclosing all results 'ut
only ientifying the score of the specific recipient& See 7ppendi' > for letter of notification on
evaluation result.
Ta'le 1 'elow provie the results of the weighte technical scores for all five proposals&
TABLE 6
Te!"#$!a% &'(a%$)y* +e$,")e-
C.#/(%)a#)Te!" S!.e +e$,")e- '(a%$)y S!.e
Tya De/$,#105 105 x 60
110573
APEC C.#/(%)a#)/104 104 x 60
11057
Ca% C"e# A//.!$a)e/102 102 x 60
110554
K$#,/%a#- S!.)) Ba(e A//.!/9 98 x 60
110534
ADeB C.#/(%)a#)/ 91 91 x 60110497
Each firm was sent invitation letter avising them of the score aware for technical
competence/ the ate/ time an place for opening of the financial proposals& The financial
proposals which were in the possession of the ;roup ,nternal !uit for safe keeping were
retrieve an presente to all present at the opening for inspection in orer to verify the integrity
of the seale envelopes prior to opening&
T*>1'+ F**1 P9-=-*1 O='8 C-4422''
N*4' D'=*924'2
"2
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
11/18
!insworth @aughton ;roup ,nternal !uit/ !ssurance = Risk Management:ervices
Ra8uel For'es ?egal/ Regulatory = -orporate !ffairs
imara :imms Finance = ,nformation :ervices
*aniel Evans Engineering = ort *evelopment?eonar Bailey Engineering = ort *evelopment
T*>1' L2 -< C-12*2 R'=9''2*2?'
R'=9''2*2?' N*4' -< C-12*2
-hristopher ?ue Tya De/$,#
-hristopher :haw APEC C.#/(%)a#)/
hilmore APEC C.#/(%)a#)/
-arl -& -henCa% C"e# A//.!$a)e/
Aone K$#,/%a#- S!.)) Ba(e A//.!/
Aone ADeB C.#/(%)a#)/
The following financial proposal were opene an rea out from the respective firms+consultantsincluing the announcement of the !J3s engineer3s estimate9
1. Tya Design$88,526,250.00
2. APEC Consultants $46,000,000.00
3. Cal C!en Asso"iates$51,350,000.00
4. #ingslan %"ott &aue Asso"s. '%$4(1,(5(.00 o )$40,939,0(2.46
5. ADe& Consultants$49,909,016.00
T"e P.) A()".$)y'%$550,000.00 o )$48,950,000.00
*ex"!ange ate '%$1+)$89.00
The !J3s estimate was later revise using the B
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
12/18
TABLE
C./) S!.e +e$,")$#,
$#a#!$a% S!.e
$#a#!$a% Oe +e$,")e-$#a#!$a%
S!.e
Tya De/$,#88,526,250.00 40,939,0(2.46x40
88526250150
APEC C.#/(%)a#)/
46,000,000.00 40,939,0(2.46x40
46000000
350
Ca% C"e# A//.!$a)e/51,350,000.00 40,939,0(2.46x40
51530000319
K$#,/%a#- S!.)) Ba(eA//.!/
'%$4(1,(5(.00o
)$40,939,0(2.46
40,939,0(2.46x4040,939,0(2
4000
ADeB C.#/(%)a#)/49,909,016.00 40,939,0(2.46x40
49,909,016321
Ta'le $ 'elow provie the results of the weighte com'ine technical an financial scores for
all five proposals&
TABLE !0
CONSULTANT NAME+e$,")e-
'(a%$)y S!.e+e$,")e-
$#a#!$a% S!.eT.)a% S!.e
Tya De/$,# 573 150 75
APEC C.#/(%)a#)/ 57 350 923
Ca% C"e# A//.!$a)e/ 554 319 73
K$#,/%a#- S!.)) Ba(e A//.!/ 534 4000 934
ADeB C.#/(%)a#)/ 497 321 25
AD'B CONSULTANT LTD
"%
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
13/18
The firm is a registere Jamaican engineering firm whose history 'egan in January "#16 with a
staff compliment of thirty persons& The firm specialiGe in the area of civil/ structural/ electrical/
mechanical an other technical activities such as construction supervision/ pro>ect planning etc&
!fter careful assessment of the roposals :u'mitte 'y !*eB -onsultants they were aware a
com'ine weighte score of $%&. points& The firm was aware an average score of #" points out
of maimum of ""2 points an was ranke .th for their technical proposal out of the five
proposals receive&
The roposal from !*eB -onsultants faile to supply specific information as follows9
The organiGational chart presente i not inicate a civil+structural engineer for
the pro>ect& Aotwithstaning an assumption was mae 'ase on the Tech . Form
presente& (See 7ppendi' 8)
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
14/18
! registere sole proprietor in association with Future -ities ,nternational/ a registere -anaian
multiisciplinary firm of ur'an planners/ architects an interior esigners/ A&< Chyte an !ssociates
with epertise in -ivil Engineering/ :tructural Engineering an ro>ect Management& !ll cost associate
activities will 'e overseen 'y *avison an @anna a chartere 8uantity surveying consulting firm&
!nalysis of the roposals :u'mitte 'y Tya *esigns earne them a com'ine
weighte score of 7.&$ points which is ue su'stantially to the price offere to
eecute the services& The firm was aware an average score of "2. points out of
maimum of ""2 points& The roposal su'mitte 'y Tya *esigns was very
etaile/ comprehensive an compliant to the RF& The firm was ranke " th for
their technical proposal out of the five proposals receive& The offer su'mitte 'y
Tya *esigns was the highest an ecee the !J3s engineering estimate 'y $.&6I&
For further etail on the technical evaluationsee 7ppendi' 3.
CARL C. C#EN % ASSOCIATES CLIFTON YAP ARC#ITECTSH
-lifton ap !rchitects was initially shortliste as a result of meeting the criteria outline in a call for
Epression of ,nterest& The firm su'se8uently re8ueste permission to withraw from the team ofconsultants shortliste an >oint with another shortliste firm& The re8uest was consiere 'y the !J an
permission grante& The remaining consultants from that group le 'y -arl -& -hen = !ssociates were
eeme 8ualifie an were allowe to su'mit roposals for the eecution of the assignment&
The proposal was su'mitte in association with the following times9
-orner :tone/ *esign ?t (Registere !rchitect)
Michael Ro'inson an !ssociates (-hartere H:)
:M!*! -onsultants (-onsulting Engineering)
"6
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
15/18
,nformation gleane from the proposal inicate that -arl -& -hen an !ssociates is a registere
architectural firm practicing in Jamaica since "#1. with a wie range of eperience working in
Jamaica an oversea&
-arl -hen = !ssociates was aware a weighte com'ine score of $7&0I an as result was ranke 0 r
among the list of consultants which su'mitte proposals& !lso this firm was aware an average score
of "2% points out of maimum of ""2 points following etail assessment+ evaluation of the
information furnishe in their proposal& The proposal emonstrate that the firm has clear an
comprehensive unerstaning of the terms of reference an that the team mem'ers have
significant eperiences in the esign an supervision of pro>ect of this magnitue an
compleity& The offer su'mitte 'y this firm was the secon highest an ecee the !J3s
engineering estimate 'y 7&1 I& For further etail on the technical evaluation see 7ppendi' 3.
Aotwithstaning the ranking of this firm proposal they faile to su'mit other cost 'reakown as
re8uire in the RF that woul 'e etremely critical for negotiation an forme the 'asis on
which aitional services coul 'e re8ueste 'y the !J& There the proposal su'mitte 'y -arl
-hen = !ssociates will not 'e consiere for negotiation&
APEC CONSULTANTS LIMITED
!E- -onsultants ?imite is a registere multiisciplinary firm offering professional services in
the fiels of planning/ architecture/ engineering/ 8uantity surveying/ interior esign an property
management& The firm propose to unertake the assignment in association with @ue ?yew
-hin Engineering -onsultant a registere civil an structural engineers which was previously
shortliste an was grante permission to >oin with another shortliste firm/ :toppi -aimey
Bloomfiel -hartere Huantity :urveying an
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
16/18
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
17/18
-
7/25/2019 2012-07-24 Evaluation Report 63000SQ ICT Building
18/18
RECOMMENDATION
Base on the foregoing/ it is recommene that the ort !uthority of Jamaica invite K81*5
S-22 B*'9 A-*2' for negotiation to provie consultancy services in keeping with the
terms of reference as outline in the Re8uest for roposal incluing any other arrive positions
resulting from those talks for the 'i amount of D:L67"/7.7&22 or its e8uivalent of
JL62/#0#/27%&61&
"$