Upload
cornelius-carr
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Session “Best practice for the procurement of services”
Award of construction-related services (architect-engineer services, project management, local
construction supervision, etc) – practical examples
Wolfgang Berger & Manfred EssletzbichlerEBRD-Consultants, WOLF THEISS
Kiev, November 2012
1
Agenda
Intellectual services - refresher
Table for the assessment of descriptiveness vs. non- descriptiveness
Case Studies Case study I: Local construction supervision for a hospital project Case study II: Structural planning for renovation of a motorway
bridge
Best practice examples – lessons learned
2
Intellectual services – refresher (1)
“Services […], insofar as the nature of the services to be provided is such that contract specifications cannot be established with sufficient precision to permit the award of the contract by selection of the best tender according to the rules governing open or restricted procedures” (Art 30 (1) c EU-PPD)
Characteristics of “intellectual services”
Services which do not (necessarily) result in the same outcome
Main objective is the solution to an assignment by intellectual “work”
Creative or innovative element in order to solve the problem / the task to be performed
Conceptual activity
Complete and exhaustive (prior) description is impossible (however, outcome or assignment can be described)
Clear and definite description of service would “anticipate” the solution and therefore “torpedo” the purpose of the tender
Bids are not comparable without negotiations 3
Intellectual services – refresher (2)
Indicators for “Non-descriptiveness” (1)
Bidders determine the exact scope of services and quality through their bids !
Various possible solutions !
Solution depends on bidder !
Unclear allocation of risks !
No “standardized” behaviour or process for bidder
High complexity of the scope of services
High number of different interests
Size (and complexity) of project
Number of components and parts
Number of parties involved
Number of planning stages and coordination rounds
4
(Non-) Descriptiveness (1)
5
descriptive / indescriptive
very low low average high very high
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
A Complexity of organization
B Variety of peculiarities
C Risk of realization
D Number of editing stages
very high high average low very low
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
E Repetition of project
F Repetition of organization
Total sum of assessment points
Table for assessment of descriptiveness as to design of works (1)
(Non-) Descriptiveness (2)
6
descriptive / indescriptive
very low low average high very high
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
A Complexity of organization
B Variety of peculiarities
C Risk of realization
D Number of editing stages
very high high average low very low
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
E factor of repetition of projects
F Factor of repetition of organization
Total sum of assessment points
Variety of CAs, users, planners, etc; reconstruction…
Difficult circumstances on premises; number of building parts, stages of realization…
Project execution with high level of innovativeness or risk potential; monument preservation requirements…
extensive single step works (partial works, phases of works)…
(Non-) Descriptiveness (3)
7
descriptive / indescriptive
very low low average high very high
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
A Complexity of organization 1 1
B Variety of peculiarities 2 2
C Risk of realization 1 1
D Number of editing stages 4 4
very high high average low very low
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
E Repetition of project 2 2
F Repetition of organization 2 2
Total sum of assessment points 12
Example: basement of modular home
Manufacturing costs € 5.000,-; plain premise; topographical survey is available; harmonized placing of object and test sounding; established ground water surface
(Non-) Descriptiveness (4)
8
descriptive / indescriptive
very low low average high very high
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
A Complexity of organization 4 4
B Variety of peculiarities 5 5
C Risk of realization 4 4
D Number of editing stages 7 7
very high high average low very low
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
E Repetition of project 7 7
F Repetition of organization 3 3
Total sum of assessment points 30
Example: annex to kindergarden
Manufacturing costs € 110.000-; difficulties in obtaining permits; inventory documents available; reconstruction of heating; structurally simple solution; inclusion of kindergarden in reconstruction; works during school vacation
(Non-) Descriptiveness (5)
9
descriptive / indescriptive
very low low average high very high
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
A Complexity of organization 7 7
B Variety of peculiarities 8 8
C Risk of realization 6 6
D Number of editing stages 8 8
very high high average low very low
1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Points
E Repetition of project 10 10
F Repetition of organization 8 8
Total sum of assessment points 47
Example: airport terminal
Manufacturing costs € 22 Mio,-; reconstruction during business operations; all general planning services (architecture, structural-constructive adaptation, building physics, HVAC, luggage conveyor belt)…
(Non-) Descriptiveness (6)
10
Table for assessment after evaluation
Only „supporting argument“!
Verbal reasoning is always necessary!
Descriptiveness
1 Point
2 Points
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Grey Area
15
16
17
18
Non-descriptiveness
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Case Study I - General (1)
Project: construction of a public hospital in the north of Vienna
800 beds on a total area of 120.000m²
Contracting entity
Hospital Association owned by the city of Vienna ( “classic” contracting entity)
Subject matter of the tender
Local construction supervision (LCS)
Estimated contract value
Aggregated contract value of entire project approx. EUR 300 million
Value of services
EUR 15 million (based on the Chamber of Architect and engineer consultant's fee guidelines)
11
Case Study I - General (2)
Kind of service
Priority services according to Annex II to the EU public procurement directives
Architectural services; engineering services and integrated engineering services (etc)
Tender procedure
Negotiated procedure (two stages) with prior EU-wide publication !
Pre-qualification stage
Tender stage
12
Case Study I - Pre-qualifcation stage (1)
Deadline for submission of request to participate (RTP)
40 days
3 candidates proceed to second stage
Proof of suitability
Suitability to pursue professional activity
Proof of trade registry or “list of architects and civil engineers” enrollment
General professional reliability
Confirmation by competent fiscal authority
Excerpts from the criminal register in respect of all natural person in the candidates management
13
Case Study I - Pre-qualifcation stage (2) Financial capability
Annual turnover (2007-2009) of at least EUR 5 million per year (excl VAT)
Professional indemnity insurance with indemnity limit of at least EUR 1 million per damage
Technical capability (1) Reference projects construction cost >EUR 30 million in health
sector Categories for reference projects
(general) LCS LCS for technical building installations in the area of
plumbing LCS for technical building installations in the area of
electrical engineering LCS for technical building installations in the area of medical
technology14
Case Study I - Pre-qualifcation stage (3)
Technical capability (1)
Reference projects
Evaluation for reference projects (maximum of 8 reference projects 2 per category)
Construction costs
>EUR 30 million 3 points
>EUR 70 million 7 points
Relevance of reference project
reference project was hospital, geriatric or rehab facility points multiplied by 1,3
Additional point if project included (i) an surgery room, (ii) an ICU and/or (iii) was covered by the Austrian Public Procurement Act
15
Case Study I - Pre-qualifcation stage (4)
Key personnel
Project leader
At least 10 years of relevant work experience LCS and min 2 years with construction projects >EUR 30 million in health sector
Project manager for each of the (remaining) three categories
At least 8 years of relevant work experience and min 2 years with construction projects >EUR 30 million in health sector
At least 50 employees for the last 3 years (2007-2009) on average
16
Case Study I - Tender stage
Award criteria
Price (weighting 25%)
“Professional interview” with key personnel (weighting 75%)
(General) LCS project manager (max 30 pts)
Answers time scheduling and schedule tracking
Compliance with costs and deadlines
Project manager LCS for technical building installations in the area of plumbing (max 10 pts)
Project manager LCS for technical building installations in the area of electrical engineering (max 10 pts)
Project manager LCS for technical building installations in the area of medical technology (max 10 pts)
17
Case Study II - General (1)
Project: renovation of a motorway bridge (under traffic)
Bridge length: 237m
Contracting entity
ASFINAG ( “classic” contracting entity)
Subject matter of the tender
Structural planning for the renovation of a motorway bridge
Estimated contract value
Aggregated contract value of entire project approx. EUR 12 million
Value of services
EUR 300.000 (based on the Chamber of Architect and engineer consultant's fee guidelines for bridge constructions HOB-B)
18
Case Study II - General (2)
Kind of service
Priority services according to Annex II to the EU public procurement directives
Architectural services; engineering services and integrated engineering services (etc)
Tender procedure
Negotiated procedure (two stages) with prior EU-wide publication !
Pre-qualification stage
Tender stage
19
Case Study II - Pre-qualifcation stage (1)
Deadline for submission of request to participate (RTP)
40 days
5 candidates proceed to second stage
Proof of suitability
Suitability to pursue professional activity
Proof of trade registry or “list of architects and civil engineers” enrollment
General professional reliability
Confirmations by competent fiscal authorities (no outstanding payments for taxes or social insurance; no insolvency proceedings)
Excerpts from the criminal register in respect of all natural persons in the candidates´ management
20
Case Study II - Pre-qualifcation stage (2) Financial capability
Annual turnover (2007-2009) of at least EUR 5 million per year (excl VAT)
Professional indemnity insurance with indemnity limit of at least EUR 1,5 million per damage
Technical capability (1) Statement of the annual manpower for the last 3 years: >10 1 Reference project in the following categories
Planning for bridge construction projects: >50m Planning for road construction: >3km Planning and/or LCS for other construction projects: >EUR 20
million Creation of plans in the field of bridge construction: >50m Creation of plans in the field of road construction and guidence of
traffic: >3km
21
Case Study II - Pre-qualifcation stage (3)
Selection Criteria
Technical capability (1)
Manpower: >25 (10 points)
Reference projects (90 points; full points for 3 reference projects in all categories)
References planning and LCS (45 pts)
Bridge construction (25 pts)
Road construction (15 pts)
Other construction projects (5 pts)
References creation of plans
Bridge construction (25 pts)
Road construction (20 pts)22
Case Study II - Tender stage
Award criteria
Price (weighting 25%)
Quality criteria (75%)
Concept for the construction works incl construction phases (30%)
Economic efficiency (20%)
Operation and maintenance (20%)
Esthetik (5%)
23
Case Study II - Tender stage
Subject of negotiations
Content of the planning contract (specification of the content)
Contractual conditions (liabilities, contractual penalties)
Price
24
Lessons learned – selection of the procedure
Selection of the award procedure
Local construction supervision (standardized contract)
open procedure or
restricted procedure (in case of a hearing)
Planning services and LCS (non-standardized contract)
negotiated procedure
25
Lessons learned – provisions for conflicts of interests
In order to prevent conflict of interests, bidders should be excluded from the award procedure if they may have such a conflict.
Case 1: Contractor has a supervisory role (LCS) and an executive role (planning services or contraction works) in the same project.
Case 2: Contractor has a supervisory role (LCS) and a (sub)contract with a contractor who has an executive role (planning services or contraction works) in the same project.
Case 3: Contractor for planning services is the subcontractor of the construction company.
All these constellations should be forbidden in the contract.
In case of a breach:
contractual penalty and
right to withdraw from the contract.
26
Lessons learned – principles financial and technical capability – award criteria
The references for the financial and the technical capability should be appropriate for the provided services (-> impact on the number of bidders, competition and prices).
The required references and award criteria shall not discriminate economic operators.
ASFINAG uses for its projects standardized tender documents, that outline or in special cases even specify perimeters for the references and the award criteria:
27
Lessons learned – financial and technical capability (1)
References for financial capability:
Annual turnover: max 2-3 times of the annual agreement price (excl VAT)
Professional indemnity insurance limit: depends on the project volume: liability range: EUR 750.000 to 3 million
Minimum < project volume 3 million
Maximum > project 60 million
28
Lessons learned – financial and technical capability (3)
References for technical capability:
Number of the average annual manpower for the last 3 years: max 1 or 2 times the manpower required.
Reference projects:
One reference project with half the size of the tender project should be sufficient
Projects completed before (up to) 10 years have to be accepted
Personal references rather than company references (exception: large projects)
The project reference hast to be completed or assigned at least since one year (most of the project has to be completed).
29
Lessons learned – award criteria (1)
Relation price/quality:
Planning services (intellectual service): 30/70
LCS-services or project management: 50/50
Quality criteria:
Education and experience of the key personal
Personnel development
Reference projects
Hearing (LCS): Competence of the key personal
Quality of concepts (planning services)
30
Evaluation by a Jury
Lessons learned – award criteria (2)
Reference projects:
Principle: With two projects half the size of the tender project the bidder should be able to reach the full points
Examples: Specific perimeters for reference projects:
Length of a motorway: max 10km
Length of a tunnel: max 1000m
Length of bridge: max 80m
-> no technical reason for projects with more length.
31
Lessons learned – award criteria (3)
Example evaluation table:
32
Criteria max. points weighting in %
Qua
lity R
efe
renc
es
LCS-Project Leader (PL)
Reference Project A 100 7 14
50
100
Reference Project B 100 7
Subst. PL Reference Project A 100 6
12 Reference Project B 100 6
Technicien Reference Project A 100 5
10 Reference Project B 100 5
Education and experience
LCS PL 100 4
9 Subst. PL 100 2,5
Technicien 100 2,5
Personnel development
LCS PL 100 2
5 Subst. PL 100 1,5
Technicien 100 1,5
Pric
e Price Modul: (relevant price: 100% of the awarded contract + 50% of the option)
100 50
Lessons learned – award criteria for LCS (1)
Hearings:
will only be used for large projects (increased time and evaluation effort)
Restricted procedure (max 5 hearings)
Purpose: evaluation of the competence of the key personal
the project leader of the contracting authority organizes the preparation of the questions and answers for the hearing. The members of jury and the tenderers get the questions during the hearing.
33
Lessons learned – award criteria for LCS (2)
The hearing is structured in 3 topics
a) Structure of the procurement procedure of the construction works and the tasks of the LCS-contractor
b) Structure of the construction contract, anti-claiming, the tasks of the LCS-contractor
c) Specific technical details of the project
34
Lessons learned – award criteria for LCS (3)
Combination hearing and multiple choice test:
Multiple choice test for questions about topic a) and b).
All the questions and answers, that could be asked, are available on an electronic platform.
The questions for each tenderer are randomly chosen by a computer program.
Questions about topic c) will be asked and answered orally.
35
Lessons learned – award criteria
All the quality criteria (e.g. key personal, reduction of the delivery time etc) have to be a part of the contract and enforceable
Worst case:
70% weighting of the references of the key personal and
this personal gets changed after the award of the contract
-> contractual penalties for changing the key personal
Penaltie cap: 50% of the agreement price
36
Contact
37
Dr. Wolfgang BergerTel: + 43 / 050 / 10810686
Fax: +43 / 050 / 10810682
E-Mail: [email protected]
ASFINAGRotenturmstraße 5-91011 ViennaAustria
Contact
38
Mag. Manfred EssletzbichlerTel: + 43 / 1 / 51510 – 5350
Fax: +43 / 1 / 51510 – 665350
E-Mail: [email protected]
WOLF THEISS Attorneys-at-LawSchubertring 61010 ViennaAustria