Architectural design services

Tender description

The University of Edinburgh wishes to appoint a Design Team to develop design proposals for Peffermill Playing Fields. The project involves developing a Masterplan and design proposals for a new sports pavilion, indoor sports hall, construction of a flood prevention wall and new artificial 3G sports pitches complete with a new archery range centre and trim trail. This project will not be divided into lots as the University wishes to appoint a single design team service. We will apply a 2-stage Restricted Procedure. Bidders must self-certify adherence to selection and exclusion criteria via the ESPD (Scotland) on PCS-T. Suppliers may be required to submit Means of Proof at a later stage via PCS-T. When completing the ESPD, bidders must have regard for the specific selection requirements detailed in Sections III and VI of this OJEU Notice. The University of Edinburgh wishes to appoint a Design Team to develop design proposals for Peffermill Playing Fields. The project involves developing a Masterplan and design proposals for a new sports pavilion, indoor sports hall, construction of a flood prevention wall and new artificial 3G sports pitches complete with a new archery range centre and trim trail. The project will aim to provide increased playing capacity and changing facilities at Peffermill Playing Fields complete with consolidating the site for operational gains. Peffermill Playing Fields needs to remain operational during the works and therefore the project will have to be delivered in a series of phases. Objective Criteria for Shortlisting — ESPD Section 4C scoring methodology: 0 — Unacceptable. Nil or inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate previous experience/capacity/capability relevant to this criterion. 1 — Poor. Response is partially relevant but generally poor. The response shows some elements of relevance to the criterion but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate previous relevant experience/ capacity/capability. 2 — Acceptable. Response is relevant and acceptable. The response demonstrates broad previous experience, knowledge and skills/capacity/capability but may lack in some aspects of similarity e.g. previous experience, knowledge or skills may not be of a similar nature. 3 — Good. Response is relevant and good. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good amount of experience, knowledge or skills/capacity/capability relevant to providing similar services to similar clients. 4 — Excellent. Response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates thorough experience, knowledge or skills/capacity/capability relevant to providing similar services to similar clients.