Letting a Term Maintenance Contract Martin Carnaffin.
-
Upload
bryan-tennant -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
0
Transcript of Letting a Term Maintenance Contract Martin Carnaffin.
Letting a Term Maintenance Contract
Martin Carnaffin
County Council Meeting June 2011
Required us to review selected highway services for competitive tender
Commitment to retain in-house provision of highway services
What in the new contract - £11.5M
• Resurfacing £6M• Road Markings and Studs £0.5M• Surface Dressing and Pre-Patching £2M• Street Lighting Planned Column Replacement
£1.5M• Gully Emptying £1M• Earthworks, fencing, land reclamation £0.5M
Collaborative Nature of the MHA Contract
• NEC 3 TSC - Options C (+ E) • Length 5 + potential 5 year extension• Open Book Cost Management & Target
Costing• A requirement to actively participate in the
TCB including its groups
Best Practice Review
C365 - 12
Nottinghamshire County CouncilHighway Term Maintenance Contract
Restricted procedure flowchart
PIN / OJEU Notice
OJEU Prior Information Notice (PIN)
26th January 2012
OJEU Publication of Notice (Restricted Procedure)
27th February 2012
SECTION II: OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT
II.1.6) COMMON PROCUREMENT VOCABULARY (CPV)
45.23.31.41 - - -. . . - - -. . . - - -. . . - - -. . . - - -
First Industry Day
Procurement Process for Highways Term Maintenance
16th February 2012
Name Organisation
Gary Wood NCC
Andy Warrington NCC
Cllr Richard Jackson NCC
Catherine Haywood NCC
Kevin Heathcote NCC
Clive Wood NCC
Martin Carnaffin NCC
Dave Tebbett NCC
Chris Charnley NCC
Suzanne Heydon NCC
John Nilan NCC
Kenny Stewart NCC
Steve MckeownJo Ewart
Whitehouse Construction Co. Ltd
Steve Giles SPG Construction Ltd
Derek HardyRick GreenMark Goslin
Tarmac Limited
Matthew StubbingsJohn Upcott
Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd
Paul RussellJonathan Whitehouse
Carillion Local Government Services
Chris Betts Breedon Aggregates
Helen TaylorAndy HipwellNigel Dyer
May Gurney Limited
Keith MartinMike CafferkySimon Lloyd
Enterprise
Jenny Neville JPCS Limited
Tristram TaylorGraham Pack
Bardon Contracting
Mukhtar Mohsin Kelly Integrated Transport Services
Andy Bedford Lafarge Aggregates
Jamie Smith A J Beaman Construction Ltd
Jonathan Fletcher Fitzgerald Civil Engineering
Mike WilliamsMichelle Eames
Costain
Andrea BennettChris EdwardsSteve Addison
BAM Nuttall Limited
Brendan O’Connor J Murphy & Sons Limited
Grant Russell Tennants UK
Roger Atkinson Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd
Stewart Corbett Derby City Council
Glen West Mann Jones Ltd
Emma HuntKeedy Warriner
Lawson Road Planning Ltd
Name OrganisationBarry Turner WrekinPeter BarclayClare Randall
Midlands Highway Alliance
Karl Smith Thomas Bow City AsphaltSimon LeggettStuart Theabould
Jointline Limited
Shaun Thornley Triple S Fabrications LtdJim Carew Galliford TryDave Warren Quantum Construction Services LtdDean Petters Arbus LimitedSean Conway Nationwide Distribution Services LtdPaul Jackson Henry Kemp (Road Maintenance) LtdKevin BurdettDavid Sykes
Midlands Quarry Products
Rob Bale Atkins LimitedRoger Palmer Parkway Pipelines & Civils LimitedEd VarleyJohn Cole
URS
Richard Pammenter FW Pammenter & SonSteve MarsdonGary MiddletonAndy Houldsworth
C P Berry Groundworks Ltd
Mick Fowler SSE ContractingColin Bates Danaher & Walsh (Civil Engineering) LtdIan Stuart CWCMike Todd Colas LimitedMarcus Jones Mann Jones LimitedIan McDonald Sapa Pole ProductsBob Skevington Sanmet LimitedNick Radford Balfour Beatty Living PlacesJimmy Kitchen CR Reynolds LimitedDave Swanwick East Midlands Diamond DrillingMike DriscollMike Thornett
North Midland Construction
Shaun Thornley Triple S FabricationJez Wright Road Planning Ltd
Q1 2013Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012
OJEU PIN (√)Industry Day (√)OJEU PQQ Issue (Feb)
Mobilisation & contract take-on preparation
NCC Business CaseContract Award Decision & OJEU Notice
Maximum 5 shortlistedITT Issue (May)Bidder NCC Visit (Jun)
Service Start1st April 2013
Proposed Sourcing Timeline -Indicative
Q4 2012
PQQ Return (Apr)PQQ Evaluation (May)References (May)
ITT Return (Jul)Bid Clarification (Aug)ITT Evaluation (Aug)
Pre-Qualification Questionnaire
Issue Pre-Qualification Questionnaire
2 March 2012
PQQ Applicant Response Date
09 April 2012
PQQ Shortlist Announcement
11 May 2012
Contents
Glossary……………………………………………………………………………………
Executive summary…………………………………………………….........................
Relevant information and guidance for completing this questionnaire…………………………………………….
Instructions ……………………………………………………………………………….
Contract scope……………………………………………….................................
District boundaries within Nottinghamshire……………………………………….
Evaluation criteria………………………………………………….........................
Part 1 – Pass / fail questions
Section A – Organisation identity………………………………………………….
Section B – Financial information & insurances………………………………….
Section C – Health & safety, equal opportunities and environmental improvement notices……………………………
Part 2 – Scored questions
Section D – Ability, technical & resources………………………………………..
Section E – Collaborative assessment……………………………………………
Section F – Environmental information……………………………………………
Section G – Quality assurance…………………………………………………….
Section H – References…………………………………………………………….
Part 3 – Declarations
Section I – Certification……………………………………………………………..
Section J – Declarations as to collusion and canvassing……………………....
Section K – Statement of good standing………………………………………....
Section L – Statement of pro-active involvement in the MHA Term Community…………………………………………………………………………...
Appendices
Appendix A – Bidders check list……………………………………………………
Appendix B – Reference sheet for question H1……………………………….....
Score Band
Rationale General
Description Outcome
0 Response contains insufficient
information to make a judgement Wholly
unsatisfactory Fail
1 Response contains significant
omissions, weaknesses or concerns
Unsatisfactory Fail
2 Response contains some omissions, weaknesses or
concerns
Cause for concern
Pass
3 Response indicates acceptable
confirmation, experience or credibility
Acceptable Pass
4
Response indicates significant and appropriate experience or credibility
Very Good Pass
5 Response indicates significant and appropriate experience or credibility
and excellent past performance Outstanding Pass
Score Band Rationale General Description
0Response contains insufficient information to
make a judgementWholly unsatisfactory
1Response contains significant omissions,
weaknesses or concerns Unsatisfactory
2Response contains some omissions,
weaknesses or concernsCause for concern
3Response indicates acceptable confirmation,
experience or credibility Acceptable
4Response indicates significant and appropriate
experience or credibility Very Good
5Response indicates significant and appropriate
experience or credibility and excellent past performance
Outstanding
Part 2 – Scored Questions
Part
weighting Question
no(s). Question weighting
Minimum unadjuste
d Score
Maximum unadjusted
score
Section D – Ability, technical and resources
40%
D1(a) 20 0 5
D1(b) 20 0 5
D2 20 0 5
D3 15 0 5
D4 15 0 5
D5 10 0 5
Section E – Collaborative assessment 40%
E1(a) 25 0 5
E1(b) 25 0 5
E2 25 0 5
E3 25 0 5
Section F – Environmental information 5%
F1 20 0 5
F2 20 0 5
F3 20 0 5
F4 20 0 5
Section G – Quality assurance
10%
G1 35 0 5
G2 35 0 5
G3 30 0 5
Section H – References 5%
H1(a) 33 0 5
H1(b) 33 0 5
H1(c) 34 0 5
F1. Environmental policy and management system
Score Criteria
0 No systematic environmental management system in place
1 The Contractor’s environmental management system does not comply with any of the requirements specified in Section 4 of EN 14001 (attached):
and / or
The Contractor’s arrangements do not comply with the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Regulations 2006 or equivalent.
2 The Contractor’s environmental management system includes some of the procedures described above.
and / or
The Contractors arrangements do not comply with the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Regulations 2006 or equivalent.
3 The Contractor’s environmental management system includes all of the procedures described above.
and
The Contractors arrangements comply with the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Regulations 2006 or equivalent.
4 As 3
and
The evidence of internal audits validating the Contractor’s environmental management system are provided.
5 As 3
and
Evidence of external audits validating the Contractor’s environmental management system are provided.
P.Q.Q. Training
Recording P.Q.Q. Scores
Question X Y ZScoring Notes Score Scoring Notes Score Scoring Notes
F1 5 2
[enter scoring notes] ISO 14001 certificate issued by BM Trada seen, statement that arrangements comply with WEEE is included.
[enter scoring notes] ISO 14001 certificate issues by BSI seen, scope of accreditation is acceptable. No evidence of WEEE compliance.
[enter scoring notes] ISO 14001 certificate issued by BSI seen, statement that arrangements comply with WEEE is included.
Outcomes of the P.Q.Q.
• 8 Completed P.Q.Q.s were returned
• 3 Applicants knocked out on Pass/Fail
• 1 Applicant failed the Quality Threshold
• 1 Applicant withdrew from the process
Invitation To Tender
Quality
Questions
PART TWO – QUALITY QUESTIONS
No. Statement
R1
Customer Results: “Excellent organisations comprehensively measure and achieve outstanding results with respect to their customers.” Copyright European Quality Management Foundation. Question
How will your approach assure that members of the public do not need to complain about your service delivery?
Answer (Maximum word total 1200 words)
.
AUTHORITY USE ONLY
Evaluator Comments Evaluator Score No evidence or anecdotal
0 Some evidence 3 Evidence 5 Clear
evidence 8 Comprehensive evidence 10
Question In the context of the services provided under the contract Specification, with regard to the KPI(s) listed in Section 3 Schedule 8 what key performance indicator(s) do you propose the Employer should adopt to assess and review “Value for Money” and “Added Value” for the delivery of highway works whilst demonstrating improvements? Explain how these indicators would be meaningful, practical and contribute to supporting the Employer’s strategic objectives.
For each KPI, provide the following information:
1. KPI description provided,2. Achievement Criteria provided for year 1,3. Method of measurement (is it practical to measure?), and4. Is it relevant to the service and why?
Answer (Maximum word total 1200 words)
‘Section 2C – Financial Submission’ includes the following risks which are associated with the works :
Non-productive time
Availability of materials
Weather delays
Travel to and from site
Non-availability of road space
Utilisation of plant
For each of the risks described above a technically strong answer will address the following:
1. State whether the potential level of the risk is high, medium or low.
2. Identify how the impact of the risk has been assessed.
3. State what (if any) mitigation measures are proposed.
4. Describe how the cost of the risk has been calculated
Tenderer’s will be required to provide supporting evidence to demonstrate their answers are credible.
In essence the bidders’ productivity assumption will equate to their margin assumption. The response should identify for each element of the contract service scope what the likely risk to their optimum productivity would be and how they would best mitigate this impact.
An important theme expected is the Flexibility of the organisation to adapt to circumstance e.g. quick response to move gangs from maintenance (surface dressing) to larger schemes or visa-versa. The demonstrated ability to mitigate and manage productivity of labour and plant will be related to the credibility of the response .
The deployment used by the Tenderer will be implementable and systematic. This means an comprehensive response will be awarded the highest marks if it take account of the following:
• implemented vertically and horizontally in all relevant areas, processes, products and services. This may relate to different levels within an organisation’s hierarchy; different locations; the number of processes; the number of employees or the various products or services being offered. The overview of the ‘submission’ document is useful here, as it often contains relevant information about such issues.
• deployed in a systematic way. The Evaluator looks for evidence of structure, robustness and sustainability in the way in which deployment is planned and implemented. Perhaps an implementation plan could be developed, with clear ownership, involving extensive communication, piloting and training. The plan includes a logical process that had been followed and examples are used to support each of the features just described.
Tenderer’s Presentation
No. Question for Presenting
P1
How does your organisation propose to approach a collaborative relationship with the Partners to the Contract?
AUTHORITY USE ONLY
Evaluator Comments Evaluator Score No evidence or anecdotal
0 Some evidence 3 Evidence 5 Clear
evidence 8 Comprehensive evidence 10
Question Question Title Marks Weighting Maximum
Score
R1 Customer Results / 10 1 10
R2.1 Key Performance Results / 10 0.333 3.33
R2.2 Performance Results / 10 1 10
R2.3 Risk Identification / 10 1 10
R3 Supply Chain / 10 1 10
R4 Supply Chain / 10 1 10
R5 Leadership / 10 0.5 5
R6 Policy and Strategy / 10 0.5 5
R7 People / 10 0.5 5
R8 Early Contractor Involvement / 10 0.5 5
R9.1 Process / 10 0.333 3.33
R9.2 Process / 10 0.5 5
R9.3 Environmental / 10 0.334 3.34
R9.4 Cost Management / 10 0.5 5
Total Score / 2
P1 Collaboration / 10 1.5 15
Question Evaluators
MCa Atos EH CC KH PB GC MCo IC BG MP HS JM AB
R1 YES YES YES YES YES
R2.1 YES YES YES YES YES YES
R2.2 YES YES YES YES YES
R2.3 YES YES YES YES YES
R3 YES YES YES
R4 YES YES YES
R5 YES YES YES YES YES YES
R6 YES YES YES YES
R7 YES YES YES YES YES
R8 YES YES YES YES YES
R9.1 YES YES YES YES
R9.2 YES YES YES YES YES
R9.3 YES YES YES YES YES
R9.4 YES YES YES YES YES YES
P1 YES YES YES YES YES YES
I.T.T. Evaluator training
Question Number Time
Overview / Introduction 9.30 -10.00
R 2.2 10.00 – 10.40
R 2.3 10.40 – 11.20
R 9.1 11.20 – 12.00
Lunch
R 5 13.00 – 13.40
R 8 13.40 – 14.20
R 9.2 14.20 – 15.00
R 9.3 15.00 – 15.40
Cost
Models
Item Description
Number Units Carriageway Resurfacing
A60 Mansfield Road / Nottingham Road, Ravenshead
RWA1 HAND LAY - NON PAVER OPERATION - 60mm thick SMA 10 Surf as surface course in carriageway (PSV
55)
40.00 m²RWA2 SMA 10 Surf as surface course in carriageway (PSV 55) 40mm thick
3750.00 m²RWA3 Extra Over for PSV 60 aggregate
372.00 tonneRWA4
Applied sealing grit to new SMA surfacing 3750.00 sq. m.RWA5 Regulating with SMA 10/14 Surf
15.00 tonneRWA6 Polymer modified Bond coat, K1-50, or K1-65 sprayed at 0.4 to 0.6ltrs/m2
3750.00 sq. m.RWA7 Cold Milling pavement, areas over 500 sq.m and up to 2,000 sq.m up to 40mm thick
3750.00 sq. m.RWA8
Road Markings - in accordance with Specification for Highway Works, clause 1276AR
RWA9 Intermittent Lane and Edge Markings 100mm wide 512.00 lin.mRWA10
Transverse, Hatching, Zig-zag, H and associated terminal markings - Width 100mm
395.00 lin.mRWA11
Transverse, Hatching, Zig-zag, H and associated terminal markings - E.O. for addition of each 50mm width or part thereof.
395.00 lin.m
Plant Labour Materials Plant Labour Materials Production Rate / day Total Cost
£0.00
£0.00£0.00£0.00£0.00£0.00£0.00
£0.00
£0.00£0.00
£0.00
Breakdown of CostsContractor Sub -Contractor
Cost Model Summary
MultiplierItem Description Plant Labour Materials Plant Labour Materials Risk Sub Total by
Service Area
Service AreaTraffic Management 1.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Carriageway Resurfacing & High Friction Surfacing 12.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Carriageway Surface Dressing 1.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Pre-Surface Dressing Patching 1.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Road Markings and Road studs 4.90 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00Gulley Cleansing 1.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Planned Street Lighting Column Replacement 1.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 Earthworks, Boundary Works, Land Reclamation & Vehicle Safety Fencing 1.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Sub Total £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Profit %agePercentage Profit ( Direct Fee percentage In Section 5 Part 3 Contract Data Part 2) charged on works undertaken by the Tenderer
0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Percentage Profit ( Subcontracted Fee percentage In Section 5 Part 3 Contract Data Part 2) charged on works undertaken by the sub-contractor
0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Sub Total £0.00
Mobilisation and Demobilisation 1.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00 £0.00
Central Overhead Charges£0.00
Local Office Overhead Charges£0.00
Final Tender Sum £0.00NOTE - This table will self populate from other worksheets. No input from Tenderers is required to the table.
Contractor Sub -ContractorBreakdown of Costs
Cost for Central Overhead Charges per annum
Cost for Local Overhead Charges per annum
Key Dates
• ITT Released -19th September 2012
• 2nd Industry Day – 20th of September 2012
• ITT Returned – 9th of November 2012
• Marking quality questions – 14th until the 23rd November 2012
• Moderation – 28th of November 2012
Key Dates Continued
• Notification to preferred Bidder – 16th of January 2013
• End of Alcatel Period -28th of January 2013
Not there yet!!• Briefing note providing summary of quality
questions.• Briefing Note providing summary and complete
answers for winning Contractor in relation to support for the local supply chain
• Procurement team report on the Tender assessment
• Draft Policy Committee Report with public / exempt sections
NEC3 Training
Two day training sessions for Designers
21st and 22nd February 2013
27th and 28th February 2013
One day Executive Training
25th of February
Any vacant places were offered to MHA members
Key Dates Continued
• Mobilisation 1st February to 31st March 2013
• Service Delivery from 1st April 2013
Mobilisation
I’ll let you Know at the 3rd Annual MHA Event
Questions