Property Services Report
Prepared by:
Name: Joseph Donnelly
Position: Head of Property Services & Procurement
Date: 23rd June 2014
Telephone Number:38 339 795
Email: [email protected]
BOARD PAPER
Agenda Item:
Agenda Item:
Sponsor:
9
Property Services Report
Kieran Matthews
Draft Resolution The paper is to update the Board of Management on the Association’s
Planned/Response Maintenance Programme and provide information on ongoing Procurement activity.
DECISION SOUGHT
x
Approval
Recommendation to Board
x
Review and Comment
x
Information
Other
Executive Summary:
Information
This paper provides analysis of Measured Term Contractor performance for May 2014.
Board Members are asked to note the following for this period:
1) Overall Contractor Response times exceeded DSD targets
2) Overall Contractor Response times exceeded internal targets for Emergency and Routine works and
narrowly failed to meet Urgent response time target (82.99% against a target of 85%)
3) E-mail received on Friday 20th June from CM Construction in relation to the Contractor’s response
times (Appendix 1). The correspondence can be summarised as follows:
 Contractor did not receive works orders over the past 6 months due to an error within the
Association’s IT systems
 Monitoring of completion dates should therefore not apply
 Contractor has asked that works orders should be re-issued, along with codes, as most of the
works have been completed but not invoiced
 That the issue should be drawn to the attention of the Board of Management in order to reflect a
true picture of their performance targets
Response sent by the Association Tuesday 24th June (Appendix 2) can be summarised as follows:
 Letters issued 24th February and 25th March advising Contractor that performance for
January and February 2014 was below applicable targets
PS 2



Meeting held with the Contractor on 3rd April 2014. It was confirmed by Brian Clarke that the
reasons for poor performance was the result of an increased workload due to storm damaged
properties and significant COT works at 23 Granemore Park, Keady
Contractor’s performance for April 14 had improved significantly exceeding all response time
targets
Confirmed to Contractor that response time figures generated are only for those works where
the Contractor has provided completion dates. The contractor continues to provide
completion dates of works on submitted invoices and therefore any works which are not yet
invoiced have no impact on the contractor’s performance. The performance targets
published are therefore accurate
An update on both SUHA and Abacus Procurements is set out below and Board Members are asked to
note the salient points:
SUHA Procurements
1) 2014/15 Planned Maintenance- Approval Required
 Tender deadline was 12:00 midday 18th June 2014
 Tender Report to be forwarded separately from Board Papers (Consultant currently finalising
report)
 Recommendation to appoint Hetherington Painting & Building Contractors to carry out the
Association’s 2014/15 Planned Maintenance programme as they provided the most
economically advantageous tender
2) External Audit
 PWC have accepted offer of contract and contract signing will take place in July 2014 following
formal approval at Board AGM
Abacus Procurements
1) Surveying Service for Disabled Adaptations
 Tender Report for the appointment of AG Crawford to complete a full surveying service for
Disabled Adaptations has been approved by all member Associations
 Contract award and debrief letters issued 4th June 2014
 Oaklee have confirmed that no challenges or queries were received during ‘standstill’ period (10
calendar days from issue of contract award letter)
 Given the assurance provided SUHA CEO signed contract on 20th June 2014
 Expected contract start date July 2014
2) All Trades MTC
 Oaklee have confirmed the following errors in previous tender reports issued for All Trades
MTC
 Lot 1 – Scores adjusted in relation to Contract Services call out fee which affects the
overall scores of all Tenderers;
 Lot 2 – Scores adjusted in relation to HJ Martin and Contract Services call out fees
which affects the overall score of all Tenderers;
PS 3
 Lot 3 – Scores adjusted in relation to H&J Martins call out fee. No other Tenderer was
affected.


Oaklee have advised that the amendments do not in any way alter the rankings of any
tenderers
Amended tender reports for Lots 1-3 are included in Appendix 3
Summary
Board Members are asked to note that the majority of SUHA owned stock currently falls within Lots 1
and 4
Lot 1 (Lurgan, Portadown, Newry, S&E Belfast) and Lot 2 (Lisburn, Antrim N&W Belfast)
 Contract Award and debrief letters issued 15th May
 During ‘standstill period’ (17th May) D Martin (unsuccessful bidder) raised a query regarding
the quality scoring
 Debrief meeting was held with D Martin on 26th May (appendix 4)
 ‘Standstill’ period expired 27th May
 Contract was subsequently signed with the preferred bidder, Contract Services, by Oaklee
 SUHA, Ark and Ulidia have not yet signed contract
 Carson McDowell Solicitors have issued legal advice in relation to this matter (appendix 5)
 Contract mobilisation meeting due to take place 30th June 2014
Lot 3 (North West)
 Contract Award and debrief letters issued 15th May
 Contract has been signed with the preferred bidder, Omega, by Oaklee
 SUHA, Ark and Ulidia have not yet signed contract
Lot 4 (Dungannon, Armagh, Omagh, Fermanagh)
 Contract Award and debrief letters issued 15th May
 As part of award all winning contractors were asked to resubmit their financial details and the
preferred bidder AMS have still not submitted these details
nd
 A meeting was held with the Contractor on 2 June to discuss the contract and the required
financial details
 Carson McDowell solicitors have suggested the following plan:
 20th June issue letter one to AMS
 27th June if not in receipt of information issue a further letter as a final demand
 Week commencing 7th of July if still not in receipt issue letter three and withdraw the
award
 Review 2nd place tenderer, issue report and seek internal approvals to award the
contract to 2nd place and commence due diligence
3) Fire Alarm/Equipment Maintenance Contract
 Tender Report for the appointment of Building Protection Services (NI) Ltd has been approved
by all Associations
 Contract award and debrief letters issued 17th June
 Expected contract award date is early July
PS 4
4) Heating MTC
 Revised procurement plan has been issued to participating Associations for approval
 It is anticipated that the process to appoint tender consultant will begin W/C 30th June
Insurance Claims
Ennis Green, Lurgan


Legal correspondence was received on 19th May in relation to an alleged tripping incident at Ennis
Green, Lurgan on/about 18th November 2011(during construction phase)
Documentation has been forwarded to our Insurers for review
Craigowen Housing Association
Board Members are asked to note the following progress in relation to CHA works:
Response
1) Response maintenance service for Mourne Grange commenced 12th May and a review meeting
took place 20th June which indicated high levels of satisfaction by Camphill staff
2) Response maintenance service for Clanabogan commenced 26th May and members of the
Maintenance Team carried out pre-inspection visits on 17th June
3) Response Maintenance Service for Glencraig is due to commence 30th June
Planned
1) Following CHA BOM approval (11th June) Moore MacDonald & Partners have been appointed as
2014/15 Planned Maintenance Consultant
2) Mobilisation meeting and contract signing took place 16th June
3) ECM and Kitchen surveys to commence 24th June
4) It is anticipated that surveys will be complete by July and a contractor procured by August 2014
5) Dell O Grace works to be treated as urgent and completed outside of CHA Planned works to ensure
more prompt completion. Works have now commenced to the property with an estimated completion
date end of July 14
Update on Action Plan (following tenant satisfaction survey)
The Property Services Department are currently addressing the performance area of improving
satisfaction levels on accommodation by implementing the 2014/15 Planned Maintenance Works
programme. External Cyclical Maintenance Works will be carried out on approximately 300 properties,
with window and heating upgrades also due to take place as part of the overall scheme of works. It is
expected that works will commence in July/August 2014.
PS 5
Signing of Board Paper
_____________________________
Chief Executive
_____________________________
Sponsor
The following people have been involved in the preparation of this board paper:
Joseph Donnelly
PS 6
Property Services Report
Up to 23rd June 2014
PS 7
Measured Term Contractor Performance Scorecard
Jobs completed (%) on time 1st-31st May 2014 (Total)
Repair
Classification
DSD Target(%)
SUHA Target
(%)
Average Total Jobs
completed on time
(%)
Emergency
85
85
92.59
Urgent
80
85
82.99
Routine
80
85
96.17
Jobs completed (%) on time 1st-31st May 2014 (by Contractor)
Contractor
Emergency
Urgent
Routine
Total Jobs
Completed
(incl ICO)
Total jobs
completed
within
target
Total jobs
completed
outside
target
CM
Construction
K Magee
Plumbing
Braham
Electrical
100
68.75
91.30
49
42
7
100
98.08
100
115
114
1
77.78
82.14
97.22
78
69
9
Analysis
We are very pleased to report that overall SUHA’s response maintenance contractors exceeded
DSD response time targets for May 2014.
The Association however narrowly failed to meet internal response time targets for Urgent
works and this is broken down as follows:
 CM Construction completed 11 out of 16 urgent works orders on time
 Braham Electrical completed 23 out of 28 urgent works orders on time
PS 8
Procurement Update
Procurement
Form of
Contract
Estimated
Value (£)
Tender
Value (£)
Paid to
Date
(£)
SUHA
Procurement Timeline
PQQ
issued
ITT
issued
26/3/14
28/5/14
n/a
12/2/14
Comments
Contract
signing
Contract
Period
15/4/14
2 years
Contract start date was 1 May 2014
20/3/14
2 years (+1
year ext)
Contract signing took place 20
March 2014
15/4/14
2 years
Contract Signing took place 15
April 2014
14/15 Planned
Maintenance
Contractor
NEC ECC
Window
Cleaning 14/15
SLA
11,600 per
annum
5,130 per
annum
Grounds
Maintenance
Contract 14/15
NEC TSC
35,000 per
annum
27,285 per
annum
14/15-15/16 QA
Consultant
NEC PSC
5,000 per
annum
3,160 per
annum
6/2/14
14/15 External
Audit Services
NEC PSC
6,960 per
annum
6,750 per
annum
20/1/14
2 years (+2
years ext)
PWC have accepted terms and
conditions of contract.
14/15 Planned
Maintenance
Consultant
NEC PSC
25,000
31,900
6/1/14
1 year
Mobilisation and contract signing
th
took place 20 February 2014
14,450
n/a
st
th
PS 9
th
Procurement Update
Procurement
Form of
Contract
Estimated
Value (£)
ABACUS
Tender
Value
Procurement Timeline
PQQ
issued
ITT
issued
Contract
signing
Comments
Contract
Period
All trades
response
measured term
contract
NEC3 TSC
with NHF
SOR
30,000,000
Aug 13
Dec 13
5 years
It is anticipated that the Contract Start Date
will be July/August 2014. SUHA will join
contract in September 2014
Fire Alarm/
Equipment
Servicing
NEC3 PSC
570,000
27/6/13
14/1/14
5 years
Expected Contract Start Date June/July 2014.
Adaptations
Consultancy
Service
NEC3 PSC
395,000
15/5/13
20/12/13
4 years
Expected Contract Start Date July 2014.
Lift Servicing
NEC3 TSC
with NHF
SOR
1,668,000
5 years
There has been no further progress on this
procurement.
PS 10
Property Services Report
Appendices
1
Appendix 1
From: CM Construction [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 19 June 2014 18:30
To: Laura
Subject: FOR THE ATTENTION OF JOE DONNELLY ONLY MANAGER
Dear Joe
Due to a fault in YOUR IT system e-mails sent by Brian Kerr, Maintenance
officer , over the last 6 months have not been received. We have already
drew this to Brian’s attention on numerous occasions when “late job” letters of
completion dates were sent to us , even though we had not received the
original e-mails for those jobs. Therefore monitoring on late completion jobs
does not apply. Can you ask Brian Kerr to re- issue these original works
orders complete with codes etc , as most of these jobs have been completed
but we cannot send in the invoices without the codes. We also would like you
to raise this issue with the SUHA committee in order to reflect the true picture
of our performance targets.
Thank you
Yours Sincerely
C.M.Construction
Nigel Magill
2
Appendix 2
Dear Nigel
th
Thank you for your e-mail received on Friday 20 June in relation CM Construction’s
performance over a 6 month period.
We have been reporting to the Board of Management the significant improvement in your
performance in recent months and I am therefore surprised at the timing of your e-mail.
In response to your comments raised I have dissected your e-mail and addressed each point
individually for ease of reference:
1) Due to a fault in YOUR IT system e-mails sent by Brian Kerr, Maintenance officer ,
over the last 6 months have not been received.
This matter has been investigated several times by the Association’s IT
specialists and no fault within our system has been found. The problem
identified by your company does not seem to be affecting other Contractors. I
will however arrange for a further investigation of our IT system to be carried
out.
2) We have already drew this to Brian’s attention on numerous occasions when “late
job” letters of completion dates were sent to us , even though we had not received the
original e-mails for those jobs. . Can you ask Brian Kerr to re- issue these original
works orders complete with codes etc , as most of these jobs have been completed
but we cannot send in the invoices without the codes
th
th
The Association issued letters to your company on 24 February and 25
March 2014 in respect of your company’s failure to meet response time
rd
deadlines. Following a meeting with Brian Clarke on 3 April 2014 the
Association was advised that the failure to meet deadlines was largely as a
result of short term increased workload i.e. works to storm damaged properties
and Change of Tenancy works at 23 Granemore Park, Keady.
If this necessitates you I will arrange for all works orders issued by Brian Kerr
over the past 6 months to be re-issued for your attention. Can you please
advise if this is what you require. Can you also please advise how you knew the
scope and location of works if you had not received a works order.
3) Therefore monitoring on late completion jobs does not apply.
Monitoring of performance times only applies to jobs where the contractor has
provided a completion date for works. Due to the fact that job completion
dates are provided on invoices by your company, (which in this case have not
yet been submitted) these jobs have no bearing on performance times.
Therefore the results generated on a monthly basis do apply.
4) We also would like you to raise this issue with the SUHA committee in order to reflect
the true picture of our performance targets.
Please note that your e-mail and this reply will be provided to the Association’s
th
Board of Management and discussed on 30 June 2014
If you require any further clarification please do not hesitate to contact me.
3
Kind Regards
Joseph Donnelly
Head of Property Services & Procurement
South Ulster Housing Association
18-22 Carleton Street, Portadown, Co. Armagh, BT62 3EN
Tel: 028 38 339 795
Fax: 028 38 350 944
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.southulsterhousing.org
4
Appendix 3
Tender Report
ABACUS DAY TO DAY RESPONSE REPAIRS
MAINTENANCE MEASURED TERM CONTRACT
LOT1
OJEU REFENCE: 2013-OJS161-280347-EN
THE DAY TO DAY RESPONSE REPAIRS MAINTENANCE MEASURED TERM CONTRACT
LOT 1, REGION 1
1. Contract Administrator:
2. Quantity Surveyor:
3. CDM Supervisor:
4. Current Estimated start date:
5. Contract Estimated completion date:
TENDERS
Oaklee Homes Group
N/A
N/A
1st June 2014
1st June 2019
Following advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Union
(2013-OJS161-280347-EN) and evaluation of 8 nr. submitted PQQP’s, 7
contractors were invited to submit a tender on a 70% Price/30% Quality
basis.
The ITT was issued on the 13th December 2013 to return (quality section
only) on the 25th of February 2014. The evaluation panel completed the
quality evaluation, including site visits on the 10th April 2014. The priced
section was returned on the 25th April 2014. Tenders were received from 7
contractors on 25th April 2014 as follows:
The first stage was to open, score and moderate the quality statements
contained within the ITT document. The moderated quality scores were
marked out of 300 as communicated in the competition document and
reported by the Evaluation Panel as follows:
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Contractor
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
Omega Mechanical Service Ltd (Londonderry)
Contract Services (Belfast)
D Martin (Newtownards)
JMC Mechanical and Construction Ltd (Warringstown)
ESE Ltd (Newtownards)
Quality Score
261
260
232
217
213
193
193
Following the successful moderation of the quality statements, the forms of
tender were opened on the 25th April 2014 at Oaklee Homes Group Head
5
Office. A representative from each Association was present except for Ark
who authorised OHG to act on their behalf. The maximum marks available for
the commercial section, as detailed within the competition documents, was
700 (see appendix A). The scores are reported as follows;
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Contractor
Contract Services (Belfast)
ESE Ltd (Newtownards)
Omega Mechanical Service Ltd (Londonderry)
JMC Mechanical and Construction Ltd
(Warringstown)
D Martin (Newtownards)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
Total Score
682.46
628.01
520.79
561.17
535.07
485.78
474.53
The quality scores and tender prices were then calculated as detailed in
the competition document based on a 70/30 quality/price ratio. The most
economically advantageous tender (see appendix A to this report) can be
summarised as follows.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Contractor
Contract Services (Belfast)
ESE Ltd (Newtownards)
JMC Mechanical and Construction Ltd
(Warringstown)
Omega Mechanical Service Ltd (Londonderry)
D Martin (Newtownards)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
Total Score
899.46
821.01
754.17
752.79
748.07
745.78
735.53
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed calculations.
It is considered that the tenders received including that of Contract
Services (NI) Ltd. demonstrates a genuinely competitive tendering
situation.
In general the rates are fair and reasonable and the pricing schedule
consistency priced.
As several prices were close and the prices submitted are approximately
equal to the current rates being paid, the Abnormally Low Tender process
is not necessary.
TENDER OF Contract Services Ltd (THE MEAT)
The form of tender was arithmetically checked and found to be correct.
6
In our opinion the Most Economically Advantageous Tender score of
899.46 marks represents value for money considering the nature and
extent of the proposed works.
PQQ1A (Financial Addendum) will be reassessed to confirm no change to
financial standing during tender period and that Contract Services (NI) Ltd
is financially capable of delivering a project of this size.
The confirmation will take place during the Alcatel Period. The tender
award is subject to approval being achieved during this period.
SCOPE OF WORKS
The contract allows for the provision of Day to Day Response Repairs
across the Region 1 area, including Disabled Adaptations and
Improvement Works.
COMPLIANCE
The procurement of the contractor is in accordance with the procurement
requirements of The Housing Association Guide and The Public Contract
Regulations 2006 as amended.
RECOMMENDATION
I can advise that Contract Services (NI) Ltd has the resources,
management structure and capability to successfully delivery this contract.
It is recommended that the tender of Contract Services (NI) Ltd of Unit 1,
Roben Business Park, Blackstaff Way, Kennedy Way Industrial Estate,
BT119DS. With a tender score 899.46 (Eight Hundred and Ninety Nine
point Four, Six) is accepted.
………………………………………..
……………………………………….
Ross McDonnell
Procurement Manager
Oaklee Homes Group
For Oaklee Homes Group &
Date
Abacus Housing Consortium
7
Tender Report
ABACUS DAY TO DAY RESPONSE REPAIRS
MAINTENANCE MEASURED TERM CONTRACT
LOT2
OJEU REFENCE: 2013-OJS161-280347-EN
THE DAY TO DAY RESPONSE REPAIRSMAINTENANCE MEASURED TERM CONTRACT
LOT 2, REGION 2
1. Contract Administrator:
2. Quantity Surveyor:
3. CDM Supervisor:
4. Current Estimated start date:
5. Contract Estimated completion date:
TENDERS
Oaklee Homes Group
N/A
N/A
1st June 2014
1st June 2019
Following advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Union
(2013-OJS161-280347-EN) and evaluation of 9 nr. submitted PQQP’s, 6
contractors were invited to submit a tender on a 70% Price/30% Quality
basis. Maurice Flynn and Sons Ltd withdrew from the competition (please
attached email)
The ITT was issued on the 13th December 2013 to return (quality section
only) on the 25th of February 2014. The evaluation panel completed the
quality evaluation, including site visits on the 10th April 2014. The priced
section was returned on the 25th April 2014. Tenders were received from 5
contractors on 25th April 2014.
The first stage was to open, score and moderate the quality statements
contained within the ITT document. The moderated quality scores were
marked out of 300 as communicated in the competition document and
reported by the Evaluation Panel as follows:
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Contractor
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
H&A Mechanical Service Ltd (Draperstown)
Contract Services (Belfast)
D Martin (Newtownards)
Maurice Flynn Ltd (Belfast)
Quality Score
261
260
228
217
213
Withdrew
Following the successful moderation of the quality statements the forms of
tender were opened on the 25th April 2014 at Oaklee Homes Group Head
8
Office. A representative from each Association was present except for Ark
who authorised OHG to act on their behalf. The maximum marks available
for the commercial section as detailed within the competition documents
was 700 (see appendix A). The score are reported as follows;
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Contractor
Contract Services (Belfast)
D Martin (Newtownards)
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
H&A Mechanical Service Ltd (Draperstown)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
MFS Ltd (Belfast)
Total Score
700.00
550.56
487.35
473.46
449.15
Withdrew
The quality scores and tender prices were then calculated as detailed in
the competition document based on a 70/30 quality/price ratio. The most
economically advantageous tender (see appendix A to this report) can be
summarised as follows.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Contractor
Contract Services (Belfast)
D Martin (Newtownards)
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
H&A Mechanical Service Ltd (Draperstown)
MFS Ltd (Belfast)
Total Score
917.00
763.56
748.35
709.15
701.46
Withdrew
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed calculations.
It is considered that the tenders received including that of Contract
Services (NI) Ltd demonstrates a genuinely competitive tendering
situation.
In general the rates are fair and reasonable and the pricing schedule
consistency priced. As several prices were close and the prices submitted
are approximately equal to the current rates being paid, the Abnormally
Low Tender process is not necessary.
TENDER OF CONTRACT SERVICES (NI) LTD (THE MEAT)
The form of tender was arithmetically checked and found to be correct.
In our opinion the Most Economically Advantageous Tender of 917.00
marks represents value for money considering the nature and extent of
the proposed works.
9
PQQ1A (Financial Addendum) will be reassessed to confirm no change to
financial standing during tender period and that Contract Services (NI) Ltd
is financially capable of delivering a project of this size.
The confirmation will take place during the Alcatel Period. The tender
award is subject to approval being achieved during this period.
SCOPE OF WORKS
The contract allows for the provision of Day to Day Response Repairs
across Lot 2, Region 2 area, including Disabled Adaptations and
Improvement Works.
COMPLIANCE
The procurement of the contractor is in accordance with the procurement
requirements of The Housing Association Guide and The Public Contract
Regulations 2006 as amended.
RECOMMENDATION
I can advise that Contract Services (NI) Ltd has the resources,
management structure and capability to successfully delivery this contract.
It is recommended that the tender of Contract Services (NI) Ltd of Unit 1,
Roben Business Park, Blackstaff Way, Kennedy Way Industrial Estate,
BT119DS, with a tender score 917.00 (Nine Hundred and Seventeen) is
accepted.
………………………………………..
……………………………………….
Ross McDonnell
Procurement Manager
Oaklee Homes Group
For and on behalf of
Oaklee Homes Group
& Abacus Housing Consortium
Date
10
Tender Report
ABACUS DAY TO DAY RESPONSE REPAIRS
MAINTENACE MEASURED TERM CONTRACT
LOT3
OJEU REFENCE: 2013-OJS161-280347-EN
THE DAY TO DAY RESPONSE REPAIRS MAINTENACE MEASURED TERM CONTRACT
LOT 3, REGION 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Contract Administrator:
Quantity Surveyor:
CDM Supervisor:
Current Estimated start date:
Contract Estimated completion date:
Oaklee Homes Group
N/A
N/A
1st June 2014
1st June 2019
TENDERS
Following advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Union
(2013-OJS161-280347-EN) and evaluation of 9 no. submitted PQQP’s, 6
contractors were invited to submit a tender on a 70% Price/30% Quality
basis. Maurice Flynn and Sons Ltd withdrew from the competition at ITT
stage (please attached email).
The ITT was issued on the 13th December 2013 to return (quality section
only) on the 25th of February 2014. The evaluation panel completed the
quality evaluation, including site visits on the 10th April 2014. The priced
section was returned on the 25th April 2014. Tenders were received from 5
contractors on 25th April 2014.
The first stage was to open, score and moderate the quality statements
contained within the ITT document. The moderated quality scores were
marked out of 300 as communicated in the competition document and
reported by the Evaluation Panel as follows:
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Contractor
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
Omega (Londonderry)
H&A Mechanical Service Ltd (Draperstown)
JMC (Warringstown)
Maurice Flynn Ltd (Belfast)
Quality Score
261
260
232
228
193
Withdrew
11
Following the successful moderation of the quality statements the forms of
tender were opened on the 25th April 2014 at Oaklee Homes Group Head
Office. A representative from each Association was present except for Ark
who authorised OHG to act on their behalf. The maximum marks available
for the commercial section as detailed within the competition documents
was 700 (see appendix A). The scores are reported as follows;
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Contractor
Omega (Londonderry)
JMC (Craigavon)
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
H&A Mechanical Service Ltd (Draperstown)
MFS Ltd (Belfast)
Total Score
696.55
625.73
598.86
583.64
507.23
Withdrew
The quality scores and commercial section were then calculated as
detailed in the competition document based on a 70/30 quality/price ratio.
The most economically advantageous tender (see appendix A to this
report) can be summarised as follows.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
Contractor
Omega (Londonderry)
PK Murphy (Pomeroy)
H&J Martin (Belfast)
JMC (Warringstown)
H&A Mechanical Service Ltd (Draperstown)
MFS Ltd (Belfast)
Total Score
928.55
859.86
843.64
818.73
735.23
Withdrew
Please refer to Appendix A for detailed calculations.
It is considered that the tenders received including that of Omega
Mechanical Ltd demonstrates a genuinely competitive tendering situation.
In general the rates are fair and reasonable and the pricing schedule
consistency priced. As several prices were close and the prices submitted
are approximately equal to the current rates being paid, the Abnormally
Low Tender process is not necessary.
TENDER OF OMEGA MECHANICAL LTD (THE MEAT)
The form of tender was arithmetically checked and found to be correct.
In our opinion the Most Economically Advantageous Tender of 928.55
marks represents value for money considering the nature and extent of
the proposed works.
12
PQQ1A (Financial Addendum) will be reassessed to confirm no change to
financial standing during tender period and that Omega is financially
capable of delivering a project of this size.
The confirmation will take place during the Alcatel Period. The tender
award is subject to approval being achieved during this period.
SCOPE OF WORKS
The contract allows for the provision of Day to Day Response Repairs
across the Lot 3, Region 3 area, including Disabled Adaptations and
Improvement Works.
COMPLIANCE
The procurement of the contractor is in accordance with the procurement
requirements of The Housing Association Guide and The Public Contract
Regulations 2006 as amended.
RECOMMENDATION
I can advise that Omega Mechanical Ltd has the resources, management
structure and capability to successfully delivery this contract.
It is recommended that the tender of Omega Mechanical Ltd of 14
Springtown Road, Springtown Industrial Estate, BT48 0LY with a
tender score 928.55 (Nine Hundred and Twenty Eight point Five, Five)
is accepted.
………………………………………..
……………………………………….
Ross McDonnell
Procurement Manager
Oaklee Homes Group
For and on behalf of
Oaklee Homes Group
& Abacus Housing Consortium
Date
13
Appendix 4
Verbal debrief meeting held in Leslie Morrell House @ 11am Monday 26 th
May 2014.
Present:
Ross McDonnell (RMcD) – Procurement Manager
OHG
Diarmuid Gilmore (DG) – Property Services
Surveyor OHG
Gerard McFadden (GF) – Procurement
Administrator OHG
Mark Martin (MM) - D Martin Building
Caroline (C) - D Martin Building
RMcD – Meeting called in order to address issues raised within email from D
Martin Building dated Saturday 17th May 2014 and to ensure all parties were
satisfied with the outcome of these issues.
RMcD – Advised D Martin that information contained within debrief letter was
a snapshot of the evaluation process, the debrief provided contains the
relative advantages and disadvantages of D Martins tender submission
compared with that of the winning tenderer. Only key areas of the response
are highlighted i.e how each tenderer gained or lost marks.
RMcD highlighted the issues raised by D Martin in relation to their evaluated
scores & comments, in their email dated Saturday 17th May 2014. RMcD
explained the panel Chair was asked to review the scores and confirm they
were satisfied with the score awarded. The Panel Chair confirmed to RMcD
that they were content with the scores given and RMcD stated that as
Procurement Manager of OHG he cannot question their professional opinion.
MM explained that he understood that each comment provided by the
evaluation panel was a brief synopsis of the whole response but felt that when
D Martins tender comments were compared with that of Contract Services he
felt that the winning bid was subject to harsher criticism than his but yet
Contract Services still scored higher.
DG advised that the weightings may have skewed the overall scores eg. in
question 5.1 (weighting 20), where Contract Services scored 4 and D Martin
scored 3. In general D Martin may have scored more 4s but the weightings for
each score were not such that the overall score of D Martin was greater than
Contract Services. Very few tenderers scored 5 in any questions.
MM advised that he felt a 4 meant a very good response while a 3 meant a
not so good response due to the lack of scores of 0, 1 & 2. MM felt that the
comment given for Contract Services in question 2.5 did not reflect the score
that was given which was 3, considering the space that was provided to give
an answer. MM felt that Contract Services, in this instance, should have been
given a 0 and therefore excluded/disqualified from the tender.
DG explained that the comment from the evaluation panel that Contract
Services ‘failed to adequately address the question’ was based on one
particular part of the response for that question and not the whole question
14
overall. Panel starts to mark each question giving each contractor a score of 4
and work back from that, deducting marks for failings found in not addressing
the question properly or adding a mark where the response was deemed to
have exceeded the expectation of the evaluation panel member. The Panel
then agree a combined score. This explains why so few responses scored 5’s.
MM felt that since most tenderers were scoring 4 or 3 for each question then
the tender was more price sensitive and at 30% on Quality a bigger range of
scores should be given.
RMcD advised that scores are all given and totalled up, weighted and added
to the weighted price score. Advised that if Abacus Housing Consortium were
more focussed on the price then the tender would have been Price Only.
RMcD advised that there was a wide variation on scores awarded on Quality
for each tenderer for each lot. Advised D Martin were mid-table on Quality.
M Martin advised that he was disappointed in the score received, especially
on Activation/Mobilisation for which they scored a 3 and the weighting was 20.
Felt that the weighting was excessive for something that would take 3 months
at the start of a 5 year contract.
RMcD advised that this aspect of the contract was important to AHC and was
weighted accordingly. RMcD advised that the tenderer would have seen this
question and its weighting when they received the documentation but raised
no issue on it until recently.
MM reiterated that his issue with the Contract Services tender was that it was
not scored correctly, he felt that going by comments by the evaluation panel,
they clearly did not understand the question and they should have been
marked 0 in at least one of the elements and disqualified from the
competition. Acknowledged that he should have raised an issue re
weightings, sooner but main issue is with Contract Services score and
advised it seemed very generous.
RMcD acknowledges the complaint, has noted it but AHC disagrees with the
complaint and that he is not prepared to question the independence or the
professional opinion of the evaluation panel. Ross stated again that
comments are a snapshot of the overall evaluation for that question, a
contractor may be deducted one mark for not adequately addressing the
question but it will not lead to a contractor being awarded a 0 and therefore
will not lead a contractor to be disqualified from the competition.
DG advised that to score a tenderer 0 or 1 on a question and to disqualify
them from the competition, a contractor would have to provide no response or
provide a very poor response to the question as a whole. The evaluation
panel evaluated each response as a whole. Scores were deducted where
panel members felt an element or elements of a question where not fully
addressed. No contractors provided such poor responses for any question
that they would score 0 or 1 and would be disqualified.
RMcD offered to come back in writing to D Martin explaining the outcome of
the meeting but MM turned down the offer.
MEETING END
15
Appendix 5
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE
Carson McDowell
Dated: 12 June 2014
OAKLEE HOUSING ASSOCIATION
ADVICE ON MTC RESPONSE REPAIRS AWARD LOT 1 & 2
1. Introduction and Background
1.1 We understand that you have awarded a Works contract for Response
Repairs.
1.2 We understand that you wish to clarify if signing was legally compliant
and if industry best practice was followed.
1.3 We understand that you wish to clarify if the courts may view entering
into the contract quickly as a tactic to limit a challenge.
1.4 We understand the following process was followed:
 Debrief letters issued 15.05.14;
 Email received querying marks awarded within the Alcatel Period on
17.05.14;
 A further verbal Debrief meeting was held within the Alcatel period
with the contractor in question to address issues raised on the
26.05.14;
 The Alcatel completed on the 27.05.14;
 OHG instructed members that we are now entitled to sign the contract
and this should be done immediately.
1.5 We understand that the contract will be a contract above the current
financial threshold and that no formal legal challenge has been received. We
have based our advice on this assumption.
2. The Regulations
2.1 Regulation 30 and 32 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as
amended, (Regulations) sets out the circumstances in which a contracting
authority can award a contract and how the “Standstill period” is dealt with.
2.2 Based on the information we have, the Regulations have been applied
correctly to the current circumstances.
16
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE
3. Conclusion
3.1 In accordance with the Regulations and with the principles derived from
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which include
transparency and equal treatment, (the Treaty Principles), the Contracting
Authority has entered into the contract by following a Legally compliant
process.
3.2 It is both sensible and common practice to enter into a contract as soon
after the standstill period has expired as possible assuming there are no
grounds for ineffectiveness which there does not appear to be.
3.3 As the contractor query was proactively addressed within the Standstill
period, there is no requirement to extend the Standstill period by 3 days.
3.4 As the contract has been entered into having followed the appropriate
due process, the only remedy available to unsuccessful tenderers is damages.
3.5 However, if a contractor wished to challenge they have 30 days from they
should or ought to have known to issue such challenge and a further 60 days
at the courts discretion, should they feel the Contracting Authority delayed or
employed tactics to delay beyond the 30 day initial period. The 30 days would
complete on 13.06.14 at midnight, the 30 day rule does not apply in this
instance.
17