TENDER EVALUATION REPORT

Project Title TENDER FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING WORKS

AND MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
JULY 2013 – MARCH 2018

Brief Description Appointment of term civil engineering

contractor.

Report Author Tim Woolridge – Project Engineer

Contract commencement date 01/07/2013

1.0 Document Control

Issue Date Of Issue Comments / Reason For Change

1. 17/06/2013 Issue for Ian Browne for approval
2.

Distribution

Name Position Organisation

Ian Browne Buildings and Projects WBC
Section Head
Sheila Makokha Building and Physical WBC
Projects Manager

2.0 Decision Required

To seek the approval of the Buildings and Projects Section Head to award the
contract to Murrill Construction Ltd, subject to pre-contract discussions to be held
on the 21st June 2013.

3.0 Introduction
The use of a call off schedule of rates contract for minor construction works
projects (to a maximum of £25k) and minor external repairs to paths, drains and
roadways etc the most cost effective and efficient means of delivering these
services and meeting targets.
The previous contract with D.R Hansard & Son Ltd expired and with no
mechanism to extend, or negotiate, it was necessary to initiate the procurement
process to let a new contract. It is intended that this contract will also be available
to Three Rivers District Council and Dacorum Borough Council.

4.0 Tender Process

Following an extensive PQQ shortlist and assessment process managed through
the Delta Procurement Portal a select list of 6 suitably qualified contractors were
invited to submit a tender.
 A total of 23 contractors downloaded the Memorandum of Information (MOI) and
14 completed PQQ submissions were uploaded. These were checked for
completeness and compliance with the requirements before being assessed in
accordance with the scoring criteria set of in the MOI. The provisional shortlist
was developed between the 25th February 2013 and the 4th April 2013 by Tim
Woolridge and Sheila Makokha. Ian Browne completed moderation and checking
on the 11th April 2013 and the tender list was finalised as below.

4.1 Tender list:

1) J BROWNE
2) MURRILL
3 EUROVIA
4) J&B
5) MILETREE
6) T LOUGHMAN
Tenders were issued on the 22nd April 2013 and 5 submissions were received by
the closing date of 12.00 on the 28th May 2013.

4.2 Communication with Tenderers

During the tender period clarifications by the Project Engineer relating to the
following were made through the Delta portal:
1) 10/5/13 – Information on the sizes of fence posts and rails in Series 300. The
process for the annual review of rates. The source of standard details drawings.
2) 20/5/13 – Clarification on the selection materials for drainage pipes and gully
pots in Series 500.
3) 21/5/13 – Confrimation of the sizes of concrete slabs in Series 1100.

5.0 Tender returns

Of the 6 contractors invited to submit tenders, the Council received 5 bids by the
deadline. Tenderer J.Browne chose not to submit a tender. Each tenderer
complied with the secrecy requirements set out in the instructions to tenderer and
each tenderer returned a compliant response fully completed as instructed with
no qualifications.

5.1 Tender Evaluation

The evaluation model comprised 70% cost and 30% quality as set out in the ITT.
The quality element comprised the assessment of sample risk assessments for
typical projects and the qualifications and resources available to the contractor.
The detailed schedules of rates and analysis is included in Appendix 1. This has
enabled evaluation to be fair and the results are summarised as set out below:

Stage 1 – Price 70% weighting

The submitted schedules of rates were evaluated by applying each of the
tenderers rates to schedules of quantities from four sample projects of the type
that could be commissioned during the life of the contract. These projects were:
Woodside Paths – The construction of tarmac paths, resurfacing, kerbing, edging
and guardrails.
Cart Path – The construction of gravel paths across open parkland including
disposal of excavated materials.
Woodside Access Road and Car Park – The construction of a new access road,
highway drainage system, manholes, cold planing and resurfacing of the car park
with ancillary works.
Miscellaneous Day Works – The use of plant, machinery and operatives for
excavation works of the type which comprises land drainage works. Constraints
also included restricted access and a reduction in the working day.

5.2 Pricing schedule summary

Scoring methodology
 For the sample project costs the scoring system used was 1-5 where 1 is highest
cost and 5 is the cheapest cost. The weighting score of 70% is applied to the
value score. It can be seen from Table 1 that Murrill scored consistently lowest
in 3 out of 4 of the projects. The area of work where they did not score lowest on
project 3 was cold planning and resurfacing.

5.3 Stage 2 – Quality 30% weighting

Scoring methodology
The quality score considered the suitability of stated key project personnel and
the completeness and relevance of the method statements submitted on a further
set of sample projects.
These assessments were scored on a 1-10 basis where 1 is poor and 10 is
exceptional. The weighting score of 30% is applied to the value score. It can be
seen from Table 2 that Murrill’s submission was of a very high consistent
standard. Key points were addressed throughout.
TABLE 1
TENDER ANALYSIS
PROJECT COSTS
TENDERER A B C D MURRILL
PROJECT SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE
1) WOODSIDE
PATHS 28500.82 2 28316.00 3 23670.52 4 30015.28 1 22170.51 5
2) CART PATH 24381.69 4 25126.5 3 26475.38 1 25765.71 2 24172.84 5
3) WOODSIDE 75531.58 1
CAR PARK 60459.00 4 58521.00 5 69851.65 2 69422.12 3
4) DAY
WORKS MISC 3936.94 1 2446.89 4 3446.19 2 2887.43 3 2390.21 5
TOTAL VALUE 117278.45 11 131420.97 11 112113.09 12 128520.07 8 118155.68 18
COSTS
WEIGHTED
SCORE 70%
Max =14 7.70 7.70 8.40 5.60 12.6

TABLE 2
TENDER ANALYSIS
QUALITY

A B C D 5) MURRILL
SCORE WT SCORE SCORE WT SCORE SCORE WT
/10 D NOTES /10 WTD NOTES /10 D NOTES /10 WTD NOTES /10 D NOTES
Well Well Not Well Well structured,
structured, structured, submitted structured, qualified and
qualified qualified and qualified and organised
and organised organised
10% 9 0.9 organised 9 0.9 0 0 0.8 0.8 8 0.8
20% 8 1.6 Understood 9 1.8 Very 7 1.4 A good 0 0 Did not 8 1.6 Well researched,
requirement thorough submission, submit comprehensive,
and understand based on the understands
detailed incl s issues 4 sample requirements
site visits well projects.
researched Used own
examples
QUALITY
WEIGHTED
SCORE 30%
MAX = 3 2.5 2.7 1.4 0.8 2.4
5.4 Whole Tender summary
To determine the successful tenderer, following the pricing and quality evaluation, the weighted
scores are added together to give a final score. With a total of 15 points it can be seen that
Murrill Construction Ltd are the highest scoring contractor

TABLE 3
WEIGHTED SCORES SUMMARY

TENDERER A B C D MURRILL
PROJECT SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE
COSTS WEIGHTED SCORE 70% (max 15) 7.70 7.70 8.40 5.60 12.6
QUALITY WEIGHTED SCORE 30% 2.5 2.7 1.4 0.8 2.4
10.20 10.40 9.80 6.40 15
POSITION 3 2 4 5 1

6.0 Financial implications

The funding of all works orders or packages raised under the contract will be met from individual
cost centres and codes for each project. To comply with the current procurement guidelines the
maximum value of any purchase order will be £25k. For projects of a value greater than this a
separate procurement exercise will be initiated.

7.0 Recommendations
7.1 It is proposed that a 5yr contract is entered into with Murrill Construction Ltd

8.0 Background information used

1. Tender PQQ and MOI
2. Tender select list
3. Tender return documents
4. File BP12-004
5. Shortlisting background
6. Tender Analysis Appendix 1
7. Background documents located at: G:\civil eng contract 2013 to 2018.