Introductions
Framework Director:
Annette-Marie Ball
Framework Procurement Lead:
Justin Bennetts
Framework Technical Lead:
John Greaves
Framework Workstream Lead:
Jon Williams
Framework Support Assistant:
Eleanor Thomas
Context
• Feb ’08: Devon selected to host regional initiative
• OJEU: August 2008
• PQQ: 40 responses, short listed to 25
• ITT: 23 responses, Framework award to 11
• Framework went live: 3rd August 2009
• Public sector construction works
• OJEU notice permits CFSW Authorities to procure projects
with a value >£250k
CFSW Overview
• Vehicle to procure public construction works in
the SW
• Procured via OJEU
• Focussed on construction projects in excess of £1
million (£250k)
• Regional Participatory Project Board
• Nil charge for Framework use (via SW IEP)
Who can use the Framework?
Public bodies of all types throughout this geographic area.
Project Types to Date
Further Education
Education Primary
Education Major /
Secondary
Education General
Sports and Leisure
Civic Office
Fire, Police & NHS
5 / 20
General
Framework Providers
Achievements to Date
• Total value of projects circa £230m
•
•
•
•
25 signatories to Public Body User Agreement
50 projects currently working through the framework
Numerous repeat clients and endorsements
Average just over 6 weeks to undertake CFSW ITT process
• KPI’s measured at intervals:
Preconstruction, Construction and Post Handover
• Contractors KPI score for Team Performance averages 86%
• Clients team average 85%
The Traditional Route
Feasibility
Design
Tender and
appoint
contractor
Tender
Construction
Design problems and risks
realised too late leading to
time and cost overrun
Conflict
The Framework Route
Feasibility
Design
Construct
Pre-Construction phase (fee based)
Buildability, Cost, Derisk & Programme
reduction
Agree packages of work, contract
sum, risk and programme
MC2 shortlist:
More predictable delivery –
on time, cost and quality
Mini Competition Stage One :
CFSW M ini Competition Stage 1:
P rovider self evaluation / self de-selection form
P roject name & reference:
Anticipated construction start date:
Name of Commissioning P ublic Body:
Contractor (P rovider) name:
P rovider's contact:
Is project located within P rovider's
nominated
geographic
area?
Does
project fit
within P rovider's
Yes /
No
A 'no' response will preclude
nominated project value bands?
Does P rovider wish to apply for this
project?
Yes /
No
A 'no' response will preclude
Yes /
No
A 'no' response will preclude
P roviders are requested to give responses to questions A to D using the scoring prompts provided,
being mindful of responses provided to CFSW during the framework tender process.
Score
(1-5)
Question
weighting
(0.1 - 0.4)
To shortlist:
Weighted
score
Commissio
P rovider to ning P ublic Automatic
complete:
Body to
calculation:
complete:
P rovider Assessment
Questions:
(i)
(ii)
P rovider
Self Scoring P rompts:
( iii ) = (i)x(ii)
5 - Good fit and very strong preference for
project type
4 - Good fit with P rovider's preferred project
type
3 - P rovider willing to do but not typical work
type
2 - Limited fit with P rovider's work preference
1 - Little or no fit with P rovider's work
preference
5 - Considerable expertise (i.e. 10+ similar
projects)
4 - Some expertise (i.e. 5 - 9 similar projects)
3 - Little expertise (i.e. 1-4 similar projects)
2 - No recent experience (within 5 years)
1 - No current expertise
A
Type of construction project
Extent of P rovider's preference
to carry out this type of project
0.00
0.00
B
P rovider's team capability
Extent to which P roviders team
has
capability to carry out this
project.
0.00
0.00
C
Value M anagement Capability
Extent to which P rovider has
value engineering capability
available to support the
development of the specific
project identified.
0.00
0.00
5 - Clear understanding (3+ similar projects)
4 - Clear understanding (1-2 similar projects)
3 - Good understanding (other project types)
2 - Demonstrates understanding (no projects)
1 - No evidence
D
Capacity / Timing
Extent to which P rovider has
capacity to support design and
construction processes within
the envisaged timescales.
0.00
5 - Capacity and availability exactly in line with
tasks & timings
4 - Capacity and availability largely in line with
tasks & timings
3 - Capacity & availability could be found
2 - Capacity & availability in place but with with
limitations
1 - Capacity & availability not directly to hand
E
0.00
P erformance scores (as soon as sufficient framework performance data is available):
5 - 80.00+
Key P erformance Indicator
4 - 70.00 to 79.99
Score
3 - 60.00 to 69.99
0.00
0.00
Global Framework KP I Score
2 - 50.00 to 59.99
for P rovider:
1 - Less than 49.99
Total mini competition stage one score:
0.00
P lease return to:
By:
CFSW contact details :
CFSW office, Room G03, Devon County Council, County Hall, Topsham Road, Exeter, Devon, EX2 4QD
Email: admin@cfsw.org.uk Web: www.cfsw.org.uk
Tel: 01392 382 444 Fax: 01392 382 286
10 / 20
Mini Competition Stage
Two :
Entails Project tender price,
comparison against Case
Studies and the inclusion of
any non price factors
Incorporating EXOR Gold
standard checks / avoids
duplication of multiple ITT’s
and ensures efficient route
to market
Highlights
• Increased speed to market (MC1 & MC2 = 6 weeks)
• Engage contractors quickly and early in the design process
• KPI scores provide added incentive
•
•
•
•
•
Predictability of construction costs and programme
Reduction in design problems realised during construction
Cost reductions and ‘buildability’ arising from collaborative design
Improved value engineering
Greater cost certainty when work commences
• Promotes initiatives such as OGC Fair Payment Practices and WRAP targets
• Potential to aggregate programmes of work & materials buying
11 / 20
Savings to Date
• £3.15m process saving (OJEU already complete)
• Early contractor involvement has contributed towards CFSW projects to be
value engineered by over £6m, prior to starting on site
• All completed CFSW projects delivered to programmed date
• All completed CFSW projects delivered to within 1% of contract sum
• KPI measurement ensures performance to targets
CFSW: Setting Standards
• Development workstreams
Training & Development
Environment & Sustainability Risk Management
Performance Management & KPIs
Collaborative Working / Health and safety
Project Control Processes / Supply Chain Development
Value Engineering & Value Management
Facilities Management & Ongoing Maintenance
• Charters
Framework Charter: Statement of intent
Fair Payment Charter
WRAP + Environment and Sustainability Site Minimum Standards
Health and Safety Charter
Key Performance Indicators
Measures Performance against targets for:
• Overall team performance
• Health and Safety
• Sustainability
Plus metrics which measure
• Customer satisfaction
Client Performance
• Cost predictability
• Delivery to programme
• Savings generated
• Waste management
• Apprenticeships
14 / 20
Apprenticeships Workstream
• BCSW (SME) employ seven apprentices on block release from
Petroc College, North Devon due to framework tendered
projects. “Securing two projects via the framework has given
us the confidence that our apprentices will be able to
complete their training”.
• James Owen Court, the first CFSW project to reach practical
completion, employed seven 7 apprentices through a sub
contractor as part of an intensive 9 week refurbishment. The
project was awarded to Mansell Construction Services Ltd by
the University of Exeter.
15 / 20
Case Study: James Owen Court
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Exeter- 276 bed student accommodation refurbishment
Framework provided fast track solution for project with immovable deadline
Mansell Construction Services awarded the project 1st June 2010
Collaborative working between client, contractor, consultants (Mace) and subcontractor (MITIE Engineering)
Heavily resourced project – 100 staff on site x 12 hour days x 7 day / wk
The result: “ We are pleased with the framework process and truly delighted
with the work undertaken by Mansells, we thought the project was almost
impossible to achieve but their careful management and quality control
delivered the [project] on time and just below budget” Senior Building Surveyor,
University of Exeter.
Team performance scores – 95% for Mansell and 94% for the clients team.
16 / 20
Case Study – MyPlace - Parkfield
•
•
•
•
•
•
MyPlace is an innovative project to provide young people in Torbay & visitors a
range of sports, outdoor pursuits and performing arts activities.
Combines new build, external leisure facilities and refurbishment to a Grade II
listed building.
Torbay Council awarded the project to Interserve Project Services Ltd,13th April
2010, eight weeks after MC1 initiation.
Project came late to the framework – RIBA stage F/G but via close working
between contractor and client during Pre-construction the project was value
engineered to align the design with the client’s budget.
Success of the value engineering is reflected in the team performance KPIs with
both contractor and client teams scoring 99%
Project currently under construction and due to finish later this year.
17 / 20
South Gloucestershire Council
“I am one of the audit team at South Gloucestershire Council
and have recently completed a review of our operation of the
CFSW. Just to give you a little bit of feedback, the staff that
use the framework were very complimentary about its
benefits and it is working well to date on the projects that are
underway. More analysis will be undertaken as the projects
are completed. Relationships with contractors are good and
getting better with each contract. We are using a range of
different contractors and all of them have been appointed via
the mini competition process. So this has been a positive
piece of work”
Group Auditor, South Gloucestershire Council, 23 Feb ’11.
18 / 20
Finally:
•
•
•
•
Noting the downturn across public sector
Projects delivered to date
Target: To track and reduce £cost per m2
Speed of OJEU to progress projects to market,
through design and to site
• Repeat users / Relevance of KPI’s
• Shared Workshops – industry coming together
to share cost and  results
19 / 20
Questions / Comments
Justin Bennetts:
Justin.bennetts@devon.gov.uk
John Greaves:
John.greaves@nps.co.uk