Quantity Surveying Framework Agreement

Tender description

The University of Edinburgh wishes to establish a four year Framework Agreement for the provision of Quantity Surveying Services. The framework agreement shall be tendered on behalf of the University of Edinburgh and all University of Edinburgh Subsidiary Companies. All of the University of Edinburgh’s Subsidiary Companies may access and utilise the framework agreement at any time during the life of the framework period. Projects types and services will include a mixture (but not limited to) of: - Project types: Alterations and refurbishment associated with new occupation, changes of and upgrade of facilities; Adaptations and extensions of existing buildings; Maintenance works and New build works (including demolition of existing buildings). - Services: Contract administration and employer’s representative services; Peer reviews and due diligence services; Facilitation of value engineering and risk workshops and supporting in the preparation of funding bids and supplying information for rating assessors and the like. This includes the provision of infrastructure works either when associated to the main project scope or as a standalone infrastructure project. The Quantity Surveying services shall include the preparation of a Bill of Quantities or a Contract Sum Analysis, Employer’s Requirements or a Schedule of Works, as appropriate dependent on procurement approach and University’s instruction/preference. The service providers (appointed QS consultant) needs to have a thorough working knowledge of works contracts, for example but not limited to NEC, JCT and ICE and support the University in the use of a variety of procurement arrangements including collaborative working and framework arrangements i.e. mini competitions using SCAPE and CCS framework agreements. The University may utilise Design Team and Contractor Framework Agreements and the service provider will need to familiarise themselves with the ethos and operational details of these Framework Agreements. The service provider should allow for regular and frequent project team meetings throughout the project, necessary for full co-ordination of the project as well as framework performance reviews in relation to agreed key performance indicators and service level agreements. The framework will be divided into three Lots in accordance with value bands as detailed below. Bidders will be allowed to bid for one or more Lots: -Lot 1 Maintenance/Small Works Projects up to a contract value of GBP 2.5M -Lot 2 New Build/Refurbishment Projects with a value over GBP 2.5M and up to GBP 10M -Lot 3 New Build/Refurbishment Projects with a value over GBP 10M The University intends to invite the top scoring suppliers, who have met all pre-conditions, on to the framework, as per: Lot 1: 6 service providers; Lot 2: 3 service providers; Lot 3: 3 service providers. For each Lot, there will be the option to award contracts either by direct award on a rotational basis or mini competition. Lot 1: Maintenance/Small Works Projects up to a contract value of GBP 2.5M The University of Edinburgh wishes to establish a four year Framework Agreement for the provision of Quantity Surveying Services. Projects types and services will include a mixture (but not limited to) of: - Project types: Alterations and refurbishment associated with new occupation, changes of and upgrade of facilities; Adaptations and extensions of existing buildings; Maintenance works and New build works (including demolition of existing buildings). - Services: Contract administration and employer’s representative services; Peer reviews and due diligence services; Facilitation of value engineering and risk workshops and supporting in the preparation of funding bids and supplying information for rating assessors and the like. This includes the provision of infrastructure works either when associated to the main project scope or as a standalone infrastructure project. The QS services shall include the preparation of a Bill of Quantities or a Contract Sum Analysis, Employer’s Requirements or a Schedule of Works, as appropriate dependent on procurement approach and University’s instruction/preference. The appointed QS consultant needs to have a thorough working knowledge of works contracts, for example but not limited to NEC, JCT and ICE and support the University in the use of a variety of procurement arrangements including collaborative working and framework arrangements, for example mini competitions using SCAPE and CCS framework agreements. The University may utilise Design Team and Contractor Framework Agreements and the service provider will need to familiarise themselves with the ethos and operational details of these Framework Agreements. In addition, the appointed QS should allow for regular and frequent project team meetings throughout the project, necessary for full co-ordination of the project. The procurement will utilise the 2 stage Restricted Procedure. Stage 1 - Single Procurement Document SPD (Scotland). The shortlisting decision shall be based on the requirement to pass any minimum standards (pass/fail) sections of the SPD as well as on the results of the scored questions listed in the PCS-T technical envelope. In addition, each supplier will require to undergo a financial turnover test specific to each Lot and have a minimum annual turnover for the last three years (to be detailed in the PCS contract notice and tender documents). Stage 2 - Invitation to Tender (ITT). The ITT will evaluate both the technical and cost elements. The cost and quality score will be combined to calculate the overall MEAT (most economically advantageous) score for each supplier. Objective Criteria for Shortlisting - SPD Section 4C scoring method: 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. Scored SPD Section 4C question weighting: 4C.1. Experience (60%), Quality and Accuracy (30%) Workforce (10 %). Lot 2: New Build/Refurbishment Projects with a value over GBP 2.5M and up to GBP 10M The University of Edinburgh wishes to establish a four year Framework Agreement for the provision of Quantity Surveying Services. Projects types and services will include a mixture (but not limited to) of: - Project types: Alterations and refurbishment associated with new occupation, changes of and upgrade of facilities; Adaptations and extensions of existing buildings; Maintenance works and New build works (including demolition of existing buildings). - Services: Contract administration and employer’s representative services; Peer reviews and due diligence services; Facilitation of value engineering and risk workshops and supporting in the preparation of funding bids and supplying information for rating assessors and the like. This includes the provision of infrastructure works either when associated to the main project scope or as a standalone infrastructure project. The QS services shall include the preparation of a Bill of Quantities or a Contract Sum Analysis, Employer’s Requirements or a Schedule of Works, as appropriate dependent on procurement approach and University’s instruction/preference. The appointed QS consultant needs to have a thorough working knowledge of works contracts, for example but not limited to NEC, JCT and ICE and support the University in the use of a variety of procurement arrangements including collaborative working and framework arrangements, for example mini competitions using SCAPE and CCS framework agreements. The University may utilise Design Team and Contractor Framework Agreements and the service provider will need to familiarise themselves with the ethos and operational details of these Framework Agreements. In addition, the appointed QS should allow for regular and frequent project team meetings throughout the project, necessary for full co-ordination of the project. The procurement will utilise the 2 stage Restricted Procedure. Stage 1 - Single Procurement Document SPD (Scotland). The shortlisting decision shall be based on the requirement to pass any minimum standards (pass/fail) sections of the SPD as well as on the results of the scored questions listed in the PCS-T technical envelope. In addition, each supplier will require to undergo a financial turnover test specific to each Lot and have a minimum annual turnover for the last three years (to be detailed in the PCS contract notice and tender documents). Stage 2 - Invitation to Tender (ITT). The ITT will evaluate both the technical and cost elements. The cost and quality score will be combined to calculate the overall MEAT (most economically advantageous) score for each supplier. Objective Criteria for Shortlisting - SPD Section 4C scoring method: 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. Scored SPD Section 4C question weighting: 4C.1. Experience (60%), Quality and Accuracy (30%) Workforce (10 %). Lot 3: New Build/Refurbishment Projects with a value over GBP 10M The University of Edinburgh wishes to establish a four year Framework Agreement for the provision of Quantity Surveying Services. Projects types and services will include a mixture (but not limited to) of: - Project types: Alterations and refurbishment associated with new occupation, changes of and upgrade of facilities; Adaptations and extensions of existing buildings; Maintenance works and New build works (including demolition of existing buildings). - Services: Contract administration and employer’s representative services; Peer reviews and due diligence services; Facilitation of value engineering and risk workshops and supporting in the preparation of funding bids and supplying information for rating assessors and the like. This includes the provision of infrastructure works either when associated to the main project scope or as a standalone infrastructure project. The QS services shall include the preparation of a Bill of Quantities or a Contract Sum Analysis, Employer’s Requirements or a Schedule of Works, as appropriate dependent on procurement approach and University’s instruction/preference. The appointed QS consultant needs to have a thorough working knowledge of works contracts, for example but not limited to NEC, JCT and ICE and support the University in the use of a variety of procurement arrangements including collaborative working and framework arrangements, for example mini competitions using SCAPE and CCS framework agreements. The University may utilise Design Team and Contractor Framework Agreements and the service provider will need to familiarise themselves with the ethos and operational details of these Framework Agreements. In addition, the appointed QS should allow for regular and frequent project team meetings throughout the project, necessary for full co-ordination of the project. The procurement will utilise the 2 stage Restricted Procedure. Stage 1 - Single Procurement Document SPD (Scotland). The shortlisting decision shall be based on the requirement to pass any minimum standards (pass/fail) sections of the SPD as well as on the results of the scored questions listed in the PCS-T technical envelope. In addition, each supplier will require to undergo a financial turnover test specific to each Lot and have a minimum annual turnover for the last three years (to be detailed in the PCS contract notice and tender documents). Stage 2 - Invitation to Tender (ITT). The ITT will evaluate both the technical and cost elements. The cost and quality score will be combined to calculate the overall MEAT (most economically advantageous) score for each supplier. Objective Criteria for Shortlisting - SPD Section 4C scoring method: 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. Scored SPD Section 4C question weighting: 4C.1. Experience (60%), Quality and Accuracy (30%) Workforce (10 %).