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