PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transcription

1 Committee: Cabinet Date: 22 October 2012 Agenda item: 10 Wards: Borough wide Subject: Procurement of Design Consultants Lead officer: Yvette Stanley Lead member: Councillor Martin Whelton, Cabinet Member for Education Forward Plan reference number: 1208 Contact officer: Tom Procter Service Manager, Contracts and School Organisation Recommendations: A. To agree that London Borough of Merton should utilise the joint London Borough of Richmond, Sutton and Merton framework and continue to use the London Construction Programme - Construction Related Consultancy Services 2012 framework for the procurement of design consultants. Use of the Richmond framework is subject to the contract being legally finalised by the LB Richmond. B. To note that the immediate procurement of design consultants for four major school expansion projects should be through the London Framework: Hillcross, Merton Abbey, Pelham and Poplar Primary Schools, and two through the Richmond Framework: Singlegate (Jamia building) and St. Mary s RC School. To agree that each project is a separate procurement decision in-line with standing orders. 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. This purpose of the report is to agree a new process of appointing design consultants for construction works, mainly relating to school expansion projects The report is being presented to Cabinet since, although six projects to be procured individually fall below the threshold for Cabinet agreement, collectively their value is approaching 2 million, with further projects likely to be procured through these frameworks. 2 DETAILS 2.1. On 14 November 2005 Cabinet agreed to procure design consultants via a London Borough of Sutton panel of architects. This enables design consultants to be appointed in a timely manner from a short list appointed under EU procedures The process provided mixed results in the early stages but as officers understood the strengths and weaknesses of the design consultants, they have been appointed on a project-by-project basis according to their strengths and value for money. As a result the school expansion programme is currently being successfully delivered with key timescales being met, schools highly satisfied with the finished building and the construction process, and projects generally meeting budget. 291

2 2.3. However, the number and range of consultants needing to be appointed is not sufficiently wide and the contract period will shortly come to an end. Therefore the Procurement Board in November 2011 agreed to the principle of using a London Borough of Richmond Framework for Design consultants, in collaboration with LB Richmond and LB Sutton. The framework is contracted to operate for at least three years with the option to renew for a further year In addition, in May 2012 the Procurement Board agreed that the council should also be able to utilise the London Framework Both frameworks are EU contract compliant means to procure design consultants in a timely manner that has been competitively procured to offer maximum value for money through London Boroughs working in a consortium Appendix 1 and 2 outlines the companies in the two frameworks. The frameworks have a series of lots according to the type and value of work, to ensure the appropriate design consultant can be appointed for the type of project While the London Framework requires a mini tender with the companies in the Framework unless certain circumstances apply, the Richmond Framework allows direct call-off if desired, providing flexibility for prompt procurement to the most appropriate and value for money company in the circumstances By using both frameworks LB Merton will have the maximum opportunity to obtain value form money, using the most appropriate design consultant for the individual project e.g. depending on its degree of complexity, need for architects-style design led approach for sensitive projects versus practical design approach for adaptation projects In the short term there is less risk to using more projects for the London Framework as it is more established, and has a specific category for education projects. By also using the Richmond Framework for two projects, the council will be able to take further opportunity to use design consultants that are appropriate for these specific projects. 3 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 3.1. With regard to design consultants the council could tender at individual project level or have its own framework. However, both options would be time consuming and, in the absence of sufficient in-house resource, costly. 4 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN OR PROPOSED 4.1. The corporate procurement board has considered reports on both design consultant frameworks, including a draft of this report at the meeting on 11 October The recommendations contained in this report have been supported. 292

3 5 TIMETABLE 5.1. The London Framework has been available for Local Authorities to use since March 2012 and operates to February The Richmond framework will be contracted for three years with the option to extend by a further year. It is expected to commence by the end of October Design consultants for the projects need to be procured immediately to meet school expansion timescales. 6 FINANCIAL, RESOURCE AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS Procurement Implications 6.1 Commissions for these frameworks will be for projects agreed in the capital programme. Both frameworks are a EU contract compliant means to procure design consultants in a timely manner that has been competitively procured to offer maximum value for money through London Boroughs working in a consortium. Financial Implications 6.2 Considerable guidance has been received from Central Government included in this are definitions of which activities may be charged to revenue and capital budgets: i) Options appraisals are classified as revenue expenditure ii) iii) iv) The activities undertaken as part of the Sutton Agreement are classified as revenue expenditure. The Richmond Framework relates to staff time, it is currently envisaged that this expenditure would be classified as revenue. The structure of the London Wide Agreement results in costs being added to the contractors costs. As a result of this classification all costs incurred would classified as capital costs. 6.3 Budgetary provision is identified as each scheme is progressed. 7 LEGAL AND STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS 7.1. Both the London framework agreement and the Richmond Framework agreement do not exclude Merton from joining and calling off from other framework agreements. If Merton legally accesses these framework agreements then it will be complying with the EU Procurement Regulations Officers have already commenced a mini tender under the London Framework agreement with regards the projects mentioned in Recommendation B. As to the Richmond Framework Agreement, this has not been finalised yet and if necessary an alternative procurement panel will be used for the design consultants for Singlegate and St Mary's RC School in the short term. 8 HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITIES AND COMMUNITY COHESION IMPLICATIONS 8.1. No specific implications 293

4 9 CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS 9.1. No specific implications 10 RISK MANAGEMENT AND HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS The use of cross council frameworks reduces the risk of low performance by using a smaller number of companies that have gone through a vigorous procurement process, and a system for monitoring on-going performance including several councils. 11 APPENDICES THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THIS REPORT AND FORM PART OF THE REPORT Appendix 1 Details of Lots and design consultants on the LB Richmond Framework Appendix 2 Details of Lots and design consultants on the London Framework 12 BACKGROUND PAPERS Procurement Board Papers are available 294

5 Appendix 1 Design Consultants on the LB Richmond Framework LOT DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF PROVIDERS FOR APPOINTMENT Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Multi Disciplinary Services up to 750k in value per project Multi Disciplinary Services between 750k and 3m in value per project Multi Disciplinary Services over 3m in value per project Independent Project Manager Lot 5 Quantity Surveyor 5 Lot 6 Asset Management & Condition Surveyors PROVIDER Brodie Plant Goddard CYD Projects Atkins Meadowcroft Griffin Architects Clipston Construction Control Ltd Curl La Tourelle DHP (UK) Ltd Atkins Faithorn Farrell Timms ADP Reformat DHP Atkins Pick Everard Achitype Ltd. Pick Everard Synergy Construction Pellings Summers Inman Capita Symonds Summers Inman Cyril Sweet Huntly Cartwright Potter Raper Partnerships Synergy Construction Property Data Solutions Rand Associates Mouchel Ridge & Partners Lot 7 Specialists and Surveyors 3 per specialism Various Appendix 2 Design Consultants on the London Framework Lot 1 - Multi Disciplinary consultants (Building Surveying led) Small Works Under 249,999 Atkins Limited Keegans Ltd Pellings LLP Ridge and Partners LLP Lot 2 - Multi Disciplinary consultants (Building Surveying led) 250,000 to 999,999 EC Harris LLP 295

6 NPS Property Consultants Limited Ridge and Partners LLP Lot 3 - Multi Disciplinary consultants (Building Surveying led) Over 1,000,000 Atkins Limited Keegans Ltd Mouchel Ltd Pellings LLP Lot 4 - Architect and Associated Supply Chain (Education Projects): Up to 2,999,999 Acanthus LW architects AD Architects Ltd Architects Design Partnership LLP Pick Everard Rivington Street Studio Shepheard Epstein Hunter Watkins Gray International LLP Lot 5 - Architect and Associated Supply Chain (Education Projects): Over 3,000,000 Curl la Tourelle Architects Haverstock Associates LLP Hawkins Brown Architects LLP NPS Property Consultants Limited Pellings LLP Pick Everard Pollard Thomas Edwards Limited Lot 6 - Project Management inclusive of (but not limited to) being the Employers Agent and Partnering Advisors (PPC2000) Baily Garner LLP Mace Limited Mott MacDonald Limited Northcroft Group Limited (t/a Northcroft) Sweett (UK) Limited Lot 7 - CDM Co-ordinators Calford Seaden (Health and Safety) Limited Gleeds Stace LLP Sweett (UK) Limited 296

7 Lot 8 - Quantity Surveyors Keegans Ltd Mott MacDonald Limited Playle & Partners LLP Stace LLP Sweett (UK) Limited Lot 9 - BREEAM Assessors Architects Design Partnership LLP Atkins Limited Clancy Consulting Ltd Gleeds Lot 10 - Clerk of Works John Burke Associates John Rowan and Partners LLP MDA Consulting Ltd Lot 11 - Client Design Advisors 3DReid Curl la Tourelle Architects Pollard Thomas Edwards Limited 297