Electronic security lock

Tender description

Accommodation, catering and events at The University of Edinburgh will be entering into procurement for the full replacement of an electronic door access system in the Chancellor’s Court student residential building at Pollock Halls of Residence. This will include the provision and installation of approximately 528 battery operated bedroom door locks and approximately 95 controller operated access locks. Integration into lift and fire systems will be required. Existing system is Miwa hardware and software installed when the building was constructed in 2003-2004 which is now end of life. Door access hardware and software proposed at tender should be appropriate for campus residential/hospitality use. Satisfactory completion of the European single procurement document (ESPD) located in the Qualification Questionnaire of PCS-T: Insurance: minimum level of insurance cover required: public liability insurance for 10 000 000 GBP and employers liability insurance for 10 000 000 GBP. Financial turnover test: bidders will be required to have a minimum “general” yearly turnover of 340 000 GBP for the last 3 years. Standards compliance with statement of Requirements Schedule 3. Within the ESPD selection criteria section there will be scored questions and a requirement for bidders to achieve a minimum 50 percentage threshold mark. Each bidder passing the minimum standards and achieving a score greater or equal to 50 % shall only then progress through to the award criteria and be subject to a technical and commercial evaluation. It is proposed the ITT award criteria and evaluation process will be split into 2 stages. Stage 1 written technical submission (allocated 50 % of the total available technical score) will be combined with the commercial score and total scores calculated. Bidders who are arithmetically capable of winning the tender shall be invited to participate in Stage 2. Stage 2 will be the presentation/interview (allocated the remaining 50 % of the total available technical score). Technical Award Criteria Stage 1 (30 %): — approach taken to working within a “live” accommodation environment (6 %), — installation — method statement and fire safety standards (6 %), — technical specifications and product resources (4,5 %), — suitability of solution proposed (4,5 %), — project management (6 %), — service support (1,5 %), — fair work practices (1,5 %). Technical award criteria Stage 2 (30 %): — demonstration of software in relation to functional capabilities most important to the project (12 %), — demonstration of hardware in relation to functional capabilities most important to the project (12 %), — added value — electronic key formats (6 %). Commercial scores shall be allocated on a comparative basis with the lowest overall price receiving full marks and others a percentage of that mark according to the difference between their bid and the lowest offer. Technical scores shall be allocated based on the total percentage achieved by the response out of the maximum possible percentage. This takes into account the score out of 4 and the weighting allocated to individual questions. For example if a question is weighted 10 % and your submission scores 3 points out of 4 for that question then you will receive 7,5 % out of a possible 10 %. Methodology used for scoring ESPD and ITT Technical criteria questions: 0 Unacceptable: nil or inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate an ability to meet the requirement. 1 Poor: response is partially relevant but generally poor. The response addresses some elements of the requirement but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate how the requirement will be fulfilled. 2 Acceptable: response is relevant and acceptable. The response addresses a broad understanding of the requirement but may lack details on how the requirement will be fulfilled in certain areas. 3 Good: response is relevant and good. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good understanding and provides details on how the requirements will be fulfilled. 4 Excellent: response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirement and provides details of how the requirement will be met in full. Both technical and commercial scores are added together at the end of the evaluation to calculate a winning bidder.