Tatton Procurement
To receive and consider the report of the Director of Commercial Services.
Decision:
1. To approve a 2-stage procurement route for the selection of a Principal Contractor for the Tatton Regeneration scheme.
2. To approve an evaluation criteria based on 50% cost and 50% quality.
Minutes:
Councillor Alistair Bradley, the Executive Leader, presented the confidential report of the Director (Commercial Services) which seeks approval to utilise a 2-stage tender procure route to appoint a Principal Contractor for the Tatton Regeneration scheme.
Officers have been progressing the feasibility and outline design for the proposed Tatton Development which included an assisted living facility, GP surgery and potential pharmacy (relocating the GP surgery from Eaves Lane), new community centre, private residential properties, café, hairdressers and upgrade to the Tatton recreation ground.
It has become apparent that the market impact of COVID-19 and the pressures of the programme driven by Homes England funding milestones, make it impractical to secure a robust fixed price at RIBA Stage 3 thus preventing a significant risk to the Council.
Consequently, Officers have reflected on the originally intended single stage procurement method and propose the use of a 2-stage procurement method which will identify a preferred bidder who will work with the Council and the project team, on a limited appointment, to develop a Stage 4 design and a fixed price through a strict ‘open book’ process.
Members noted the range of consultation undertaken and supported this excellent development for the people of East Chorley.
Decision:
1. To approve a 2-stage procurement route for the selection of a Principal Contractor for the Tatton Regeneration scheme.
2. To approve an evaluation criteria based on 50% cost and 50% quality.
Reasons for Recommendation(s):
1. Given the market conditions and Contractor attitude to risk, the 2-stage process provides the best route to establish a fixed price and design at Stage 4. A single stage tender approach would inevitably lead to a reduced interest in the market and an inflated price to cover the risk profile at Stage 3.
2. The 2-stage process also allows Council the opportunity to directly influence the design at Stage 4 and be informed regularly as to the development of the budget. This flexibility is not afforded to the Client in the same way with a fixed single stage appointment at Stage 3.
3. The 2-stage process allows additional time for risk to be fully identified, managed and, where possible, mitigated in order that a fixed price can be agreed.
4. The 2-stage process puts a greater weighting on the quality/implementation evaluation criteria and therefore the evaluation criteria is proposed to be revised to 50% cost and 50% quality.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
1. Continue with the procurement of a Principal Contractor using a single stage tender approach at RIBA Stage 3. Rejected as this would inflate the price and reduce the interest in the market, as a result of the risk profile at Stage 3.
2. Retain the design team directly through to RIBA Stage 4 and go to the market for a fixed price once the design has been fully developed. Rejected as this prevents the early engagement of a Contractor, who will feed positively into the development of the design and introduce efficiencies which the design team may not identify ... view the full minutes text for item 206