Download Report

Collaborative Road Resealing Project
Central Highlands Regional Procurement
Excellence Network (Vic)
Kate Herford – Procurement Officer
Golden Plains Shire
Regional Procurement Excellence
Networks (RPEN)
Key focus of RPEN’s
• Meets Quarterly
• Attended and supported by DPCD
• Attended by invited industry representatives
• Improved information sharing
• Encourage collaboration in procurement
• Raise sector understanding and profile of
procurement
Background
• State Government Initiative
– Local Government Reform Fund - $70k
available for a Procurement in Practice Project
to foster innovative procurement in the Local
Government sector.
– Preliminary analysis identified that a
combined three year contract for bituminous
road resealing works across the five
participating councils would have a value in
the vicinity of $15 – 20 Million
5 Councils agreed to participate
Procurement in Practice Project
(Tender CH001)
Bituminous Road
Resealing
Central Highlands Region
Bituminous Road Resealing
• significant spend for each Council ($4.5 mil pa
combined)
• competition in the market (more than 1 supplier was
currently providing resealing services in the region)
• 5 adjoining Councils would offer
advantages/benefits for contractors to better
manage the logistics of plant & resources
• 5 year contract (3 yrs + 2 x 1yr options) provided
security
• Collective savings of approx. $630,000 a year
• A probity auditor was engaged to have independent
oversight and ensure transparency of the process
given the size of the procurement
Process
• LGV provided resources, guidance, expertise
and assisted in the preparation of
documentation:–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Strategic Procurement Plan (signed by CEO’s)
Project Procurement Plan
Procurement Conduct Plan
Probity Plan
Conflict of Interest Declarations
Deeds of Confidentiality
Specification
Evaluation Report
• Probity Auditor was appointed to provide an
independent oversight.
Project Team
• Commitment required from all Councils and
staff involved.
• Membership on the project and evaluation
team was extended to include not only the
procurement staff of the participating councils
but also the relevant engineer.
• This led to a project and evaluation team of
10 people - two representatives from each
council.
• Regular meetings (fortnightly)
Project Team
Members of the project team
• Left to Right: Rod Leith (Ballarat City Council), Kate Edwards (Golden
Plains Shire Council), Terry Matthews (Pyrenees Shire Council), Alex
Bonner (Ararat Rural City Council), Brian Coustley (Hepburn Shire
Council), Phillip Hoare (Pyrenees Shire Council), Gary Smith (Hepburn
Shire Council).
• Absent from photo: Alison Tonkin (Ararat Rural City Council), Andrew
Miller (Ballarat City Council) and Bill Knight (Golden Plains Shire
Council).
The Tender Process
Lead Council
• Ballarat appointed to manage and control
advertising, enquiries, addenda’s and
receive and circulate submissions.
(Tenderlink was utilised)
• Ballarat City Council were able to perform
this role as the four other councils had
agreed to this process in their procurement
plans that were signed by their CEOs.
Tender Timeline
ACTION
Research and project development
Distribute draft tender documents to councils
DATE
Dec 2011 – March 2012
9-Mar-12
Councils to meet and work through the draft documents
16-Mar-12
Councils to meet to finalise tender documents
21-Mar-12
Final RFT documentation sent to councils
30-Mar-12
Release of RFT (commencing)
31-Mar-12
Market/Supplier briefing at Ballarat
11-Apr-12
Closing date for RFT responses
4-May-12
Evaluation of bids
5 April – 11 May 2012
Approval of decision and recommendation
28-May-12
Council approval
June 2012
Minister and Mayor Announcement
28-Jun-12
Contract execution
1-Jul-12
Tender Process cont…
Specification
– based on Vic Roads standard sections for road
works.
– to ensure specification met the needs of all
parties, common goals need to be established
early in the process and the specification tested
thoroughly (time pressures impacted here).
– Schedule of Rates - provide clients with
flexibility with reseal programs over the term of
the contract.
– Price Schedules – split between urban and
rural, providing for a range of reseal areas.
Tender Process cont…
Tender Briefing
• Considered essential and was well
attended.
• Raised a number of questions that
required written responses.
Submissions & Evaluation
• 3 submissions received
• Boral
• Victorian Surfacing Alliance (Primal & Inroads)
• Sprayline
• Evaluation Based on
• Level of Service/Capability (Quality)
• Capacity (Resources)
• Financial Benefit (Price)
20%
20%
60%
• Price evaluation used actual 2011/2012 road
sealing program data and costs from all Councils
involved to accurately compare prices
Submissions & Evaluation
• Clear articulation of volumes, standards and
expectations is necessary to achieve the best
outcome for all parties.
• The use of a standard set of procurement terms
and procurement categories by the group
enhanced the collaboration opportunity for the
group and in turn the outcome.
• In order to evaluate a tender on price, there was
the need for comparable data across the councils.
• Time and expertise was required to convert data
into comparable data sets – it was only after doing
this that an evaluation on price could take place.
Submissions & Evaluation
• Victorian Surfacing Alliance was selected
by the panel
• Collective savings of approx $630,000 pa.
• Each Council considered and adopted the
recommendation of the Evaluation Panel
(confidentiality was a big issue).
• Individual contracts with VSA prepared and
executed by each Council.
• 3 year contract commencing on 1 July 2012
further two one year options.
• Ballarat and Hepburn contracts will
commence from 1 July 2013.
EXAMPLE - NEGOTIATED EVALUATION CRITERIA
A: Conformance
Statements of Conformance, Conflict of Interest and Compliance with the
Victorian Government Code of Practice for the Planning for the Building and
Construction Industry are required. The tenderer must also be incorporated
pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001. These must confirm compliance or an
absence of conflicts of interest. Failure to provide the above information or to
confirm compliance or an absence of unresolved conflicts of interest will result in
the tender being rejected
B: Mandatory Requirements (Pass/Fail)
1. Occupational Health & Safety
2. Insurance and Industrial Relations
3. Financial Viability
4. Quality Systems
EXAMPLE EVALUATION CRITERIA (Continued...)
Criterion
Description
Measure
Level of
Service/Capability
(Quality)
Ability to provide the
works which meet the
specified
requirements
Proven record of
specification
compliance in past
contracts
Quality of systems
employed
Capacity (Resources)
Ability to supply works Sufficient resources
within the timeframes to ensure reliability of
required
works.
Ability to carry out
work within the
required timeframes
Financial Benefit
(Price)
Overall value for
money of each
proposal to council
Tendered prices
Method of measure
Weighting
Demonstrated skills, including
the ability to manage labour and
plant in delivering quality
finishes to road surfaces and to
identify and manage all risks.
Proven record of timely
completion of all works based
on past contractual
performances and using referee
check
Standard Management and
Quality Systems
Resources committed to the
contract, including skills and
experience in delivering quality
finishes to road surfaces
Current intended contractual
commitments and extent of nonmunicipal operations, relative to
available resources
20%
Comparison of the price with
other submitted tender prices
Local content*
60%
20%
What we learnt from the Project
• LGV’s support, resources, guidance and
advice was critical to the success of the
project.
• Strong commitment and willingness of all in
the Project Team made it happen.
• Collaborative tendering takes time.
• Council can overcome varying end dates of
existing council contracts.
• Focus should equally be on process and
achieving the best outcome for all.
What we learnt from the Project
• Adequate time needs to be given to getting the
specification right.
• Outcomes need to be measurable using an
agreed baseline and robust methodology.
• Management of individual contracts will need a
consistent approach.
• Across council Procurement Policies there a
number of differing evaluation criteria and
weightings.
What we learnt from the Project
• To work collaboratively there is a need for
continuous communications and a
commitment to attend meetings.
• Buy in from senior management is essential
for success.
• By developing consistent, generic templates
less time is spent in the research and
development phase of the procurement and
there is clarity on the process of the
procurement.
What we learnt from the Project
• Depending on the size of the contract, a
Council resolution may be required to
endorse the recommendation to enter into a
contract with the one supplier – this must be
factored into the timeline.
• Collaboration offers cost savings to tenderers
as they save on time and costs by
responding to one standard tender - rather
than having five different tenders released to
the market and requiring potential suppliers
to submit five differing responses, attend five
different briefings, etc.
2012 Procurement Australia Procurement Excellence Awards
Winner - Collaboration and Innovation in
Procurement Award
https://vimeo.com/46530717
Outcomes for Others
• A collaborative regional procurement model
has been developed for other councils
across the state to use.
• At least 2 councils have duplicated the
process.
• Collaborating councils are believed to be
offered more competitive pricing.
• Success of the project has opened the door
for future opportunities across the group
– 3 Councils currently seeking funding for a
Feasibility Study into the conversion of Council’s
Heavy Fleet Vehicles to Biodiesel
Available Resources
Check http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/localgovernment/projects-andprograms/procurement-in-practice
•
Strategic Procurement Plan (PDF 69 KB) or (Word 52 KB)
•
Conflict of Interest (PDF 34 KB) or (Word 68 KB)
•
Deed of Confidentiality (PDF 42 KB) or (Word 52 KB)
•
Procurement Probity Plan (PDF 127 KB) or (Word 173 KB)
•
Procurement Conduct Plan (PDF 72 KB) or (Word 64 KB)
•
Tender Evaluation Plan (PDF 74 KB) or (Word 46 KB)
•
Tender Documentation (PDF 197 KB) or (Word 96 KB)
•
Tender Evaluation Report (PDF 102 KB) or (Word 65 KB)
Questions?