South West Consultants Framework 2016-2020
Bidder Events – Summary Key Points Raised
The key points raised have been considered and discussed within the project team. The response column clarifies the way forward following
the consultation events.
Core Disciplines
Core Disciplines - Response
Would like the following additional disciplines to be included:
 Planning
 Ground Investigation
 Civil & Structural Engineer
 Environmental/Ecology Surveys
 Landscaping
 Building Surveyor
 BREEAM
The Core List of Disciplines has to be limited to the basic team. If all
Disciplines were included, the Framework would be unmanageable
to evaluate and manage ongoing. The Framework is going to be
structured so that any non core discipline can be called off by using a
multi disciplinary team through the further competition option.

Lead designer role is captured by another discipline. However still
need it to be separate for pricing purposes
Lot A will be a Lead Consultant who can as a minimum provide the
following roles, either as individual call offs or more than one
grouped together:
-Project Manager
-Architect
-Cost Consultant
-Lead Designer
-Principal Designer
-Building Services Engineer
-Civil & Structural Engineer
-Contract Administrator
-plus any other non core discipline which can be called off through a
further competition
Lot B will be: (For each Geographical Region)
- Lead Consultant who can as a minimum provide the following roles,
either as individual call offs or more than one grouped together:
-Project Manager
-Architect
-Cost Consultant
-Lead Designer
-Principal Designer
-Building Services Engineer
-Civil & Structural Engineer
-Contract Administrator
-plus any other non core discipline which can be called off through a
further competition
And
-Consultants who can individually provide the following disciplines
-Project Manager/Contract Administrator
-Architect/Lead Designer/Principal Designer
-Cost Consultant
-Building Services Engineer
-Civil & Structural Engineer
Lot B Strategy














Lot A, minimum value is too low. Set at OJEU or £4m
Some views that 8 is too many for Lot A, could set at 6
Is there a need for a Cornwall Geographical region when Cornwall
Council already have their own Framework
Is there a need for a Wiltshire Geographical region when Wiltshire
Council already have their own Framework
Would prefer 6 consultants per discipline rather than 4
Could the number of consultants per disciplines be dependent on
how often they have been requested from the current Framework
Agree with proposal to change what you can apply for to being
able to apply for an unlimited number of Lots, but can only be
successful up to a maximum
Remove Neighbouring regions from the requirements of which sub
lots you can apply for
Would like the multi disciplinary team taken out for Lot B and
allowing the SMEs on the individual disciplines to formulate the
team.
Need clarification of organisations only being allowed to bid for Lot
A or Lot B, in terms of subsidiaries
Would like option of having a sliding scale between users choosing
Lot A and Lot B so they can select the most appropriate option
Some do not like the financial limits on Lot A, propose to remove
them
Limiting consultants to 4 can reduce SME participation
Remove geographical areas and use localism questions in the
procurement process as an alternative option
Lot B Strategy Response



Lot A minimum estimated construction value to be increased
to the OJEU limit from £2m
Keeping the number of Lead consultants to 8. The market is
picking up and there is a concern regarding capacity of the
life of the Framework. 12 will be taken through following
PQQ
For Lot B - the Geographical regions for the sub Lots have
now been amended to
a.
b.
c.
d.



Bristol/Gloucestershire & North Somerset
Devon and S Somerset
Cornwall
Dorset and Wiltshire – however majority of the work
will come from the Dorset Region
For Lot B, the number of Consultants per region and then per
discipline will be 6. 9 will be taken through following PQQ
An Applicant is defined as an Economic Operator as per the
definition of the Procurement Regulations 2015. An Economic
Operator can apply for either Lot A, or Lot B, but not both.
Multi Disciplinary Team will be kept for Lot B
Scope of Services




Complexity of project more important than the construction value
Difference between scope of services for a few hundred thousand
construction value and a multi million construction value
Needs to be clear about who procures and manages site
investigations
Need to incorporate BIM requirements
Scope of Services Response


The scope of services is the specification to enable the fees to
be set for Direct Award. If a project is more complex, then a
different scope of services can be used or the current one
adapted and this is used in a further competition process to
price against
BIM will be incorporated for Lot A, it will not be for Lot B. If
BIM is needed for Lot B then this can be added to the scope
of services and a further competition process used in order to
price against the adapted scope.
Call Off Methodology









Would like the structured approach to the sub criteria and the
guidance provided to users re number of questions and being
appropriate and proportionate to what is being procured.
Want a reduction in the cost of tendering in relation to number of
questions asked which are disproportionate to the contract value.
Support for two criteria of methodology and team selected to
deliver the project
Need user guides to be used as a tool to support SMEs in relation
to clear guidance to users about call off approach
Would like price only for low value call offs
Would like the option of direct award to any consultant on the
relevant lot for low value call offs
How can you incorporate the number of hours put into the project
in relation to the fee
How will feasibility studies be managed
Want more rigidity into what questions that can be asked and





User guides will be written to assist with managing the issue
of appropriate and proportionate criteria and questions.
Call Off Quality Criteria will be restricted to:
a. Team being proposed for the Project Delivery
b. Project Methodology
The Quality/Price Split is 70% Quality, 30% Price
Direct Award will be available by Discipline and project Type.
Direct Award will be available when using hourly rates, where
it can be demonstrated that the Consultant being used will be
the cheapest. E.g for feasibility studies
them being appropriate and proportionate to the contract being
let.
Fees











Option of using minimum fee for lowest value band
Hourly rate for up to £100k, but the fee must be less than
minimum fee on the band above
Have the option of a fixed fee as well as a % fee for the lowest
value band
Time based charging – include ranges for the charging being
dependent on experience. For example, Senior, Junior,
Assistant/Trainee
Time based charging – have an ‘other’ option for the consultant to
fill in
Estimated Construction values can be widely out resulting in the
consultant being underpaid. Propose to allow a change in the fee
when the construction value deviates by more than 10% from the
estimate. Need to ensure there is a mechanism to include %
variation of fees within the Contract
Would like different fees for different types of project. Fee for a
school would be different to the fee for an operating theatre
Users need to have confidence on having an upper limit on fees,
which have been evaluated at Framework stage
Have trainee/Graduate in time based charging
Need associate after partner in the list
Include definitions for the time based charging categories MOD
have list of definitions





Minimum fee will be used for the lowest fee band, but the
fee must be less than minimum fee on the band above
Time based charging table adapted to include ranges for the
charging being dependent on experience. For example,
Senior, Junior, Assistant/Trainee. An ‘other’ option will also
be included
Definitions will be included in the time based charging table
Estimated Construction Value - including definition about
allowing the fee to be changed if estimated construction
value is more than 10% different to the approved
construction cost.
Not expanding to include fees foor different project types as
the fee table will be too onerous. If a project is complex, a
further competition can be used to capture the correct fees
as it is likely the standard scope of services would not be
sufficient
Contract



Need a mechanism in the NEC contract to allow the fee to be
increased when the final construction value variation is greater
than 10%
Happy with a table of z clauses
Like the proposal for a table of liability and insurance levels related
to the construction value
Framework Management






Do not want a % rebate charged to the consultant
Happy with the light touch Framework Management option if this
means no % rebates are charged
% rebates are not SME friendly
% rebates are time consuming and costly to administer. Others
have regretted going for this option
Would like procurement pipeline from participating public bodies
Will there be KPIs to ensure lead consultants use the SMEs in their
supply chain
Procurement Timetable
 Would like the PQQ submission deadline to be extended to 6
weeks
Contract Response



Will be using NEC Professional Services and NEC Short Form
Estimated Construction Value - including definition about
allowing the fee to be changed if estimated construction
value is more than 10% different to the approved
construction cost.
Including the insurance/Liability Table that are related to the
construction value
Framework Management Response



Rebate will not be used, Users of the Framework will have to
be a one off charge to fund the procurement and
management
Will request procurement pipeline from users
Framework management will be light touch with no KPI
gathering.
Procurement Timetable Response
 Still planning to publish start of February 2016
 Will allow 6 weeks for the PQQ submission deadline
 May need to consider extending the current Framework if
timetable overuns