PAPER B2
Purpose : For Decision
Committee : EXECUTIVE
Date : 18 JUNE 2002
Title : BUILDING MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR RESOURCES
SUMMARY/PURPOSE
The Council is at the end of a five year schedule of rates based term maintenance contract that delivers reactive property maintenance and repairs across the whole Council.
Following an extensive re-tendering process six companies were invited to submit tenders. The Executive is being invited to consider the award of building maintenance contracts. Details of the contractors are set out.
The term maintenance contracts are divided into eleven separate schedules based on service areas. Tenders, based on both price and quality were submitted in April.
The Council is now being recommended to accept the lowest tender in every case.
BACKGROUND
The schedule of rates based term contract for the delivery of reactive day to day maintenance in Council property has recently been re-tendered in accordance with Council Standing Orders.
The total value of work is estimated at ,650,000 per annum and is spread across 5,000 works orders. The length of contract has been deliberately set at three years to enable officers to explore future partnering arrangements whilst still maintaining an attractive package for prospective contractors.
The re-tendering process began in January 2002 with the advertising of invitations to tender, which appeared in the County Press and a National Building Magazine. In response, the Council received seven replies from interested contractors. One contractor subsequently withdrew their interest.
All applicants were required to complete a weighted quality assessment questionnaire from which inclusion on the final tender list would be decided. This ensured that contractors were selected for inclusion on the basis that they were capable of carrying out the work involved to a satisfactory standard. Following assessment, all six applicants achieved the minimum quality standard of 65% and were therefore invited to submit tenders.
Tender documents for each of the schedules listed in appendix A were sent to each contractor in February 2002. Tender returns were phased over a period of five weeks.
The method of tender analysis took account of both quality and price on principles agreed with the Internal Audit Manager as follows :
$ To determine the price, contractors were forwarded a copy of our priced maintenance schedule of rates containing ten trades and four reactive categories. On commercial principles, contractors calculated the amount they required to carry out the work and applied a plus or minus percentage figure to the prices contained in the schedule.
$ An average percentage figure was then calculated using the six trades and two categories mostly used.
$ To determine the successful contractor, a sum combination of quality (25%) and price (75%) is used.
$ The contractor with the lowest percentage figure was awarded 1,000 marks and the marks awarded to the remainder of the contractors decreased as their percentage figures rose.
$ The results of the successful contractors are listed in column B of Appendix A.
OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
$ The Internal Audit Manager has approved the tender process.
$ Service Managers have been consulted on the outcome of tenders.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Tender process designed to achieve best value and quality for term maintenance contracts within existing revenue budgets.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
To document contracts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council agrees to award 3 year term maintenance contracts to the successful contractors listed in column B of the tender analysis form (Appendix A).
That Officers explore partnering opportunities for Future term maintenance contracts.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Contact Point : Dick Sedgeley, F 823296
MIKE FISHER Strategic Director, Corporate and Environment Services |
REG BARRY Portfolio Holder for Resources |
DAY TO DAY MAINTENANCE (2002-2005)
TENDER ANALYSIS
Contract |
Column A |
Column B |
Approx Annual Contract Value £ |
|||||||||
Lowest Tender Price Only |
Winning Tender Quality and Price |
|||||||||||
Contractor |
+/-% of Schedule Rates |
Price Score Max 750 |
Quality Score Max 250 |
Overall Scores Quality and Price Max 1000 |
Contractor |
+/-% of Schedule Rates |
Price Score Max 750 |
Quality Score Max 250 |
Overall Scores Quality and Price Max 1000 |
|||
1 |
Primary Schools |
|
(-) 30% |
750 |
216 |
966 |
|
(-) 30% |
750 |
216 |
966 |
142,000 |
2 |
Middle Schools |
|
0% |
750 |
236 |
986 |
|
0% |
750 |
236 |
986 |
70,000 |
3 |
High Schools |
|
0% |
750 |
236 |
986 |
|
0% |
750 |
236 |
986 |
94,000 |
4 |
Special Schools, etc |
|
(-) 30% |
750 |
216 |
966 |
|
(-) 30% |
750 |
216 |
966 |
98,000 |
5 |
Administration Buildings, Industrial Estates & Farms |
|
5% |
750 |
236 |
986 |
|
5% |
750 |
236 |
986 |
53,000 |
6 |
Libraries, Museums & Roman Villa |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
23,000 |
7 |
Leisure Centres, Theatres, Cafes, Botanic Gardens & Changing Rooms |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
36,000 |
8 |
Public Conveniences & Cemeteries |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
53,000 |
9 |
Fire Stations |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
24,000 |
10 |
Old Peoples Homes & Day Centres |
|
5% |
750 |
236 |
986 |
|
5% |
750 |
236 |
986 |
52,000 |
11 |
Tourist Information Centres, Fort Victoria & Newtown |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
|
7.50% |
750 |
221 |
971 |
Appendix A 5,000 |