Contaminated Land at Creekmoor

COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT STANDING ORDER 41

Tender: OGC further competition for the provision of services relating to the detailed inspection of a site at Creekmoor, Poole under Part IIA of the EPA (1990)

Report by: Jacqui Dicker, Contaminated Land Officer, Environmental and Consumer Protection Services

Purpose of Report:

To seek Head of Financial Services approval to accepting a tender bid for Contaminated Land survey from URS Corporation Ltd up to a maximum total value of £25,062.80.

Background:

Contract Standing Order 41 states – ‘Tenders other than the lowest tender if payment is to be made by the Council or the highest tender is to be received by the Council shall not be accepted without the approval of the Head of Financial Services and, Cabinet or Portfolio Holder on submission of a report by the Senior Officer stating evaluation criteria which may involve price / quality assessment.’

A competition has been advertised for the investigation of a potentially contaminated site in Creekmoor, Poole. This site is potentially contaminated due to the former tipping of domestic refuse prior to the construction of housing on the site. Further competition was advertised on the Environmental Consultancy Framework through the OGC website. The Environmental Consultancy Framework consists of 8 pre-approved consultants who have been selected and pre-approved by the Office of Government Commerce, an invitation to quote and a specification was sent to all consultants on the list and submissions/quotes were received from 6 consultants.

When there is a need to call-off specific services within the framework, the contracting authority holds a further competition with all providers capable of meeting that in order to establish which company provides the most advantageous bid. A further competition should not be confused with tendering, the contractors have already followed an EU compliant process and the assessor is simply determining the contractor is fit for purpose and value for money by process of elimination following set evaluation criteria in the further competition document

The Borough of Poole’s procurement team have been consulted at all stages of the process to ensure that standing orders and the procurement toolkit have been complied with.

Funding for the project will be sought from DEFRA’s Contaminated Land Capital Projects Programme. If funding is not awarded consideration will be given to postponing the project until such a time that funding can be made available through the scheme.

The quality / price ratio (70/30), which is in line with the recommended levels for complex projects within the Procurement toolkit, was agreed with Financial Services / Audit prior to advertising. This assessment ratio enables evaluation of the bids based on the suitability, expertise and experience of the consultants as well as their understanding of the project and the different ways by which the work could be done. Quality has to be imperative due to the possibility that legal determinations and action could result from the findings of the report, and the information gained may need to be used in court. Furthermore it can often be the case in this type of tender that a low cost bid would be submitted which would not fully meet the brief but would lead to the requirement of further works, thus potentially delaying completion of the project and result in the addition of unanticipated costs as well as inconvenience to residents and further time requirements for Borough of Poole officers. Hence by assessing quality as well as price it will be ensured that best value is gained on the project.

The assessment has been made on consultancy costs for the project, further direct costs will be incurred due to laboratory analysis and drilling subcontractors but will only be undertaken if funding is received. Since part of the brief is to design the site investigation and analysis strategy the amount of these additional costs is currently unknown. However information submitted within the returns shows that the same laboratory was to be used by all consultants so the same rates will be charged by all so it is not considered that this would affect the “value for money” aspect of the bid assessment.

Results of tender evaluation exercise:

A score criteria for quality assessment was sent out to the consultants within the further competition package (see attached). All tenders were assessed against this criteria using further defined factors/criteria.

The quality and prices scores were combined for a total, (see attached).

As it can be seen the consultancy firm with the highest mark was URS Corporation Ltd. It is therefore requested that URS are selected as the successful consultants for the following reasons:

-Although the cost was the fourth highest, the quality mark was extremely high due to the fact that the bid met all the requirements of the brief and produced the highest confidence in the project objectives being met (besides the most expensive submission).

-The project will also involve liaison with a number of householders and residents on the site and the tender had some appropriate plans for liaison and maintaining sensitivity. The project staff allocated to the project holds appropriate experience and the company had completed many similar projects for other local authorities and the Environment Agency.

-The prices submitted were calculated primarily on a price schedule of hourly rates already posted on the OGC framework website, so in part the tender price was based on time to be spent on the project. As a further assessment the number of hours proposed to be used during the project were considered, the URS tender demonstrates that appropriate hours will be spent on all the project phases, whereas some of the lower priced tenders did not seem to allocate sufficient time on the project to deliver the quality of work required.

-A number of lower cost bids did not include sampling (stating that further works could be commissioned) in residents back gardens to confirm whether or not there is a risk to residents from the land their properties are on. So in effect lower cost bids were artificially low and would probably result in further works. The bid was constructed in 3 sub phases, with the option to stop sampling if it is deemed necessary. 600 hours will contain all 3 phases.

-This bids enable E&CPS to stop after phase 1 or 2, or reduce the scope of phase 2, etc. It is likely that at least phase 1 and part / most of 2 will be needed. This process will also avoid having to keep making new DEFRA applications (there are only two application windows a year) or have the problem with retendering, etc. and causing delays for residents.

-A comparison of hours to be spent on the project and overall cost of consultant’s time was made, and the URS bid came out with the lowest cost per hour. The URS bid included an optional extra phase (phase 3) of investigation which may be required depending on results of earlier phases (only included in this and the most expensive bid), the cost of this has been included in the comparison and the price per hour remains lowest.

-The rates provided within the URS bid are actually discounted from the advertised rates on the OGC website.

-The project will be funded by DEFRA’s Contaminated Land Capital Projects Programme, so it is also essential that the tender will meet their requirements for quality and cost benefit, it is felt that the URS tender will achieve this. The Environment Agency assess the technical aspects of the funding bids so the fact that URS have undertaken many similar projects for the Environment Agency adds another level of confidence that their project proposals are technically appropriate.

As far as I am aware this is the first time a contract will have been placed with URS by ECPS.

Approval is therefore sought for acceptance of the URS tender, in compliance to CSO 41, for the undertaking of site investigations at a site in Creekmoor, Poole.

Approved by:

______Head of ECPS

______Head of Financial Services

______Portfolio Holder

APPENDIX 3: SCORE CRITERIA FOR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Score Criteria for Quality Elements of Proposals

Proposed Score Form for Quality Elements

Assessment of Interpretation

• Consultant’s demonstration of understanding of project

• Flexibility of start date/understanding of nature of funding

Assessment of Strategy

• Outline proposals for tasks 1 – 8 and overall technical approach

• Proposed risk assessment methodology

• Satisfactory details of subcontractor relationships

• Details of QA/QC procedures

Assessment of Experience/Suitability

• Suitability of key staff, e.g. experience, knowledge, skills and disciplines offered for the project

• Demonstration of relevant experience in all requested areas (technical, legal and best practice knowledge)

• Previous working on sensitive sites/with members of the public