PART 1
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
ITEM NO.
REPORT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD
TO THE LEAD MEMBER FOR PLANNING ON MONDAY 23RD OCTOBER 2006
AND
THE LEAD MEMBER FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES ON FRIDAY 13TH OCTOBER 2006
TITLE:
RETHINKING CONSTRUCTION - APPOINTMENT OF CONSTRUCTON
PARTNERS FOR MAJOR NEW BUILD AND REFURBISHMENT WORKS
(BUILDING CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE VALUES OF £5,000,000 AND
£30,000,000).
RECOMMENDATIONS: Lead Member for Planning
1.
That in respect of new build and refurbishment projects with values from £5,000,000
to £30,000,000, and for a period of 4 years:
(a) Cruden Construction and G&J Seddon be appointed as partner constructors for
individual projects procured by the City Council in the lower to medium range of
contract values;
(b) Laing O’Rourke be appointed as partner constructor for all individual new build
projects in the medium to high range of contract values (with the opportunity also to
appoint the constructor to carry out projects in the lower to medium range contract
values); and
(c) Wates Construction be appointed as a reserve constructor in the medium to high
range of contract values.
Lead Member for Children’s Services
2.
That the report be noted.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report provides the lead member with details of the process of selecting up to four
construction partners to deliver building projects in accordance with the principles of
Rethinking Construction as set down by Sir John Egan. The scope of the appointment is to
cover major new build and refurbishment contracts between the values of £5,000,000 and
£30,000,000 for a period of four years in accordance with the advertisement placed in the
O.J.E.U. in February 2006. It is proposed that a framework of 3 companies be appointed,
two appointed to undertake projects in the lower / middle cost range and one to undertake
projects in the middle / higher cost end. It is also proposed that a further company be
appointed as a reserve in the middle / high cost range.
Page 1 of 6
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
The relevant documents contain exempt or confidential information and are not available for
public inspection.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK: Medium
THE SOURCE OF FUNDING IS: Not Applicable.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: None. Pauline Lewis has been consulted.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None. David McAllister has checked the financial backgrounds of
all short listed contractors.
COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS: N/A
VALUE FOR MONEY IMPLICATIONS: The partnering of Construction Contracts will ensure
improved value for money in the provision of buildings
and throughout their lifespan.
CLIENT IMPLICATIONS: Partnering with constructor partners increases client involvement in
the design and procurement of construction projects.
PROPERTY: N/A
HUMAN RESOURCES: There are no Human Resources implications at this stage.
CONTACT OFFICER:
Stuart Boott
Tel. 0161 779 6031
(Urban Vision’s Architectural and Landscape Design Service)
stuart.boott@urbanvision.org.uk
WARDS TO WHICH REPORT RELATES: All Wards
KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: Best Value Review of Construction and Design
Rethinking Construction Implementation Strategy.
Modernising Local Government.
Securing Local Employment
E Government
Page 2 of 6
_____________________________________________________________________________
DETAILS
1.0
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
The purpose of this report is to explain the process involved in selecting the three
(plus reserve) partner constructors and to seek approval for their appointment.
2.0
BACKGROUND
In February 2006 expressions of interest were invited from construction organisations
interested in partnering with the Council to deliver its Major New Building Projects,
i.e. Projects valued between £5,000,000 and £30,000,000 over a four-year period.
Twenty-Five expressions of interest were received.
In view of the wide range in the potential contract values and as set out in the PreQualification Questionnaire two shortlists of six potential constructors were drawn up
covering contracts in the lower/medium value and medium/high value ranges. The
matter of which contractor was suited to which particular value range was resolved
by reference to company capacity/regional turnover and Constructionline. This was
completed by early May 2006.
Although the constructors were split into two groups for selection it is the intention
that the selected constructors in the medium / high range could also be offered
projects in the lower / medium value range. This is to maintain flexibility related to
the appointment of contractors in a contract value range where most projects are
perceived to rise in the future.
3.0
THE SELECTION PROCESS
3.1
The 6 short listed constructors in the lower/medium value contracts were:Cruden Construction.
Kier North West
Bluestone PLC
G&J Seddon.
Bullock Construction.
David Mclean Contractors
The 6 short listed constructors in the medium/high value contracts were.
Wates Construction
Bovis Lend Lease
Norwest Holst
Taylor Woodrow
Laing O’Rourke
HBG Construction
3.2.
Each of the twelve short listed constructors was informed by letter on 10 th May 2006
of our intention to include them in the selection and tender process. In this letter
further information relating to their company’s Financial Status, Synergy with the
Council’s aims and their Health and Safety Record and Policies was requested. This
information was used to reduce the two lists of six to two lists of four constructors.
Page 3 of 6
3.3.
The reduced list of constructors in the lower/medium value contracts were:Cruden Construction.
Kier North West
Bluestone PLC
G&J Seddon.
The reduced list of constructors in the medium/High value contracts were:Wates Construction
Bovis Lend Lease
Norwest Holst
Laing O’Rourke
(Taylor Woodrow were originally short-listed but withdrew after selection to be
replaced by Laing O’Rourke)
3.4.
The final eight constructors were informed by letter on the 29th June 2006 when they
were also invited to attend the introductory pre-tender workshop on the 19th July
2006.
3.5.
The selection process was split into five elements. These comprised:i. The Pre-qualification Questionnaire.
ii. Tender submissions.
iii. Visits to constructor's offices and sites.
iv. A final interview.
v. The checking of references
3.4.
Each of the above elements, other than the tender, was marked against three of the
criteria, which were set out in the Tender Document. These three criteria when
scored and added together comprised 80% of the overall score for each constructor,
the tender comprising the remaining 20%.
3.5.
The final split of the 80% and the three criteria are set out below.
i
Partnering Potential
35%
ii
Quality of product
35%
iii
Social inclusion
10%
Did the panel feel the constructors would
make good long-term partners?
Was the quality of their work of a high
standard?
How strongly did the constructor identify with
the aims of the Council for Job creation and
equality?
3.6.
The tenders were graded in ascending order with the lowest tender scoring 100%. A
pro-rata calculation was applied to each of the other tender figures to show their
percentage score relative to the lowest tender.
3.7.
The purpose of the workshop on the 19th July 2006 at the Novotel Worsley was to
allow an opportunity for the potential partners, clients and consultants to discuss the
expectations of each of the parties from the long term partnering process. Tender
documents in draft form were sent out prior to the workshop to enable modifications
to be incorporated into the final document in the light of any comments made by
constructors.
3.9
Following the workshop the tender and pricing document were finalised and were
issued on the 3rd July 2006. The completed tenders were returned on the 7th
September 2006
Page 4 of 6
3.10
Between the 1st and the 23rd of August 2006 the selection panel: Stuart Boott
Steve Gogarty
Dave Holland
(Senior Architect, Urban Vision)
(Quantity Surveying Manager, Urban Vision)
(Team Leader, Regeneration, Architectural Design,
Urban Vision)
visited the offices and 2 or more sites of each of the eight constructors. This was an
opportunity to meet the management and staff of the organisations and to judge the
built quality and organisation on site of each constructor.
3.11
The three referees provided by each constructor in the pre-qualification questionnaire
were contacted in August 2006 in order to provide feedback from independent
sources relating to the quality of their work and organisation. The marking by the
referees was included as part of the quality component of the final score.
3.12
The Children’s Services Directorate, where the majority of projects in this value range
is expected to arise, was involved in the selection process and the interview panel
comprised:
Mike Collier
Stuart Boott
Steve Gogarty
David Holland
Mike Hall
Greg Durkin
David Timperley
3.13
Associate Director - Architectural Services (Chair)
Senior Architect - Architectural Design
Quantity Surveying Manager
Team Leader, Regeneration
Assistant Director, Children’s Services
Planning and Development Manager, Children’s Services
Economic Development Officer - Employment Charter
At the end of the process when the marking was complete the Eight constructors
were ranked as follows: -
Summary of Final Scores
Partnering
Contractor
Score
35%
Quality
Score
35%
Social Inclusion
Score
10%
Price
Score
20%
TOTAL
Constructors Medium / High Range Contract Values
Laing
O'Rourke
643.63
33.41
677.52
35.00
617.60
9.51
100.00
20.00
97.92
Wates
Bovis Lend
Lease
638.74
33.15
630.93
32.59
566.05
8.71
99.49
19.90
94.36
617.77
32.07
652.29
33.70
585.88
9.02
96.48
19.30
94.08
Norwest Holst
594.47
30.86
629.60
32.52
499.34
7.69
99.95
19.99
91.06
Constructors Lower / Medium Range Contract Values
Cruden
Construction
674.29
35.00
647.25
33.44
612.23
9.42
96.16
19.23
97.09
G&J Seddon
633.75
32.90
605.67
31.29
649.64
10.00
94.97
18.99
93.18
Kier
595.90
30.93
603.10
31.16
470.87
7.25
99.35
19.87
89.20
Bluestone
579.28
30.07
584.62
30.20
536.45
8.26
98.46
19.69
88.22
Page 5 of 6
4.0
Conclusion
4.1
Due to the uncertainty of the construction workload created by the Building Schools
for the Future bidding process it is considered that only one constructor should be
appointed at this stage in the medium to high range of contract values, with one
constructor maintained as reserve.
4.2
It is therefore proposed that in respect of all new build and refurbishment projects
with values from £5,000,000 to £30,000,000, and for a period of 4 years:
(a) Cruden Construction and G&J Seddon be appointed as partner constructors
for individual projects procured by the City Council in the lower to medium range
of contract values;
(b) Laing O’Rourke be appointed as partner constructor for all individual new build
projects in the medium to high range of contract values. (With the opportunity
also to appoint the constructor to carry out projects in the lower to medium range
contract values) ; and
(c) Wates Construction be appointed as a reserve constructor in the medium to
high range of contract values.
Bill Taylor
Managing Director of Urban Vision Partnership Ltd
_________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 6