OJEU Best Practice Guidance Note

OJEU Best Practice Guidance Note John Rowan and Partners www.jrp.co.uk

OJEU Best Practice Guidance Note Our experience and improvement ideas 1.

General

1.1

Clear instructions are needed from the beginning (from the OJEU published notice until the very end).

1.2 Make sure that the tender is required and can deliver reasonable expectations for those applying.

Cancellation or delay of a tender is frustrating, time consuming and expensive (50 companies x

approx. £10,000 = £500,000), especially if they have turned down another opportunity to prioritise one.

1.3

E-tendering is in theory the best option due to environmental and ease factors, however, can fall down on the following points:

Asking for hard copies anyway.

Using a system that is bulky and difficult to use.

Experiencing technical issues. Not receiving a confirmation email after uploading or the portal server being down can create challenges.

1.4

An e-tendering portal will reduce the number of non-compliant tenders or tender responses missing information, using required/compulsory fields that need to be completed before submission. Text boxes, dropdown menus, etc. will also reduce the variance of information you receive for standard or pass/fail questions and can be used as a quick way to evaluate or disqualify tenderers who do not meet the criteria.

1.5

Provide tender documents in usable formats - sending a PQQ or ITT in PDF means tenderers will come back and ask for it in Word to be able to complete it.

1.6

Ensure the tender documents don’t contain spelling mistakes, inconsistent formatting, contradictions, doubling of requests for information, non-applicable information etc. This will increase the number of queries received from tenderers.

1.7

Ensure that the scope of services for each procurement type is clear for each RIBA stage to ensure robustly priced returns.

1.8

A realistic timescale should be set for returning the documents (4 weeks from the date the notice is published, is the minimum).

1.9 Set an appropriate return deadline - for example, Wednesday before 12pm. A deadline such as

‘Monday before 9am’ is pointless as what you are really saying is close of play the Friday before, which

then raises the question ‘when does the office close on the Friday’? This can lead to confusion and ambiguity.

1.10

Clarifications should be clear, concise and not contradictory. Where the same question is asked on more than one occasion, refer to the previous response provided in the clarification log instead of answering again to avoid confusion. The log can be posted on the portal with a notification sent to all those who have registered their interest or have reached the next stage.

www.jrp.co.uk

2

jrp@jrp.co.uk

OJEU Best Practice Guidance Note Our experience and improvement ideas 1.11

A tender checklist will ensure tenderers are clear of the requirements of a ‘compliant’ tender at each stage and reduce the need for clarifications.

1.12 Keep the PQQ short and simple. It will save the tenderers time but more importantly, save you time in assessing.

1.13

Consider the use of lots, to group services (frequently procured together), geographical location or scheme size/value. This will ensure that you can pinpoint the tenderers interested in and available to provide within certain project parameters when the need for a tender arises and will likely increase the number and quality of responses received.

1.14

Within the tender documents, outline the processes that will be used for allocating/appointing projects under the framework by direct award and mini competition. This will ensure tenderers are aware from the outset that they are not guaranteed any work if appointed under the framework and avoid queries/challenges or confusion later. You should still retain the ability to direct appoint where it is appropriate.

1.15

When allocating scores against the price/quality weighting – if the lowest priced tenderer is awarded 100% of the marks available for price, the tender deemed to be of the highest quality should also be awarded 100% of the quality marks available, with all other submissions marked in proportion.

Alternatively, assess the pricing as quality e.g. marks out of x for each band/project type.

1.16

Expect more submissions than you think (50 – 60 seem to be the average at present) and allow yourself enough time to mark them. Publishing an ITT date 2 weeks after the return of the PQQ, will probably lead to this date being delayed. If dates do change, make sure to inform the tenderers as soon as possible to avoid them chasing you for updates.

1.17

From a step back, you could take a completely different approach (one currently being used by another G15 member). Stage 1 (PQQ) is based solely on company information – financials, clients, project types, locations and sizes. You then select who deserves a place on your framework (making sure you have control of this where appropriate). Then “most” projects are through a mini competition which provides a focused response on the approach to deliver a specific project, management of the risks and requests a project specific resource plan.

2.

Quality

2.1

Be detailed in what you are requesting (word limits, page limits, return format), but not too restrictive.

Not allowing appendices may result in a reduction in the quality of the responses returned.

2.2

Be careful not to overcomplicate a question by including too many sub-questions and allocating page restrictions that are unrealistic.

2.3

Stipulate that responses, if permitted to be completed in the tenderers own in-house format or layout, should mirror the order of the PQQ/ITT document for your ease of reference when reviewing and evaluation.

www.jrp.co.uk

3

jrp@jrp.co.uk

OJEU Best Practice Guidance Note Our experience and improvement ideas 2.4

Questions should be relevant to the specific scope/discipline/project, to ensure that tenderers are clear of the role required.

2.5

Ensure that marks available for a question are relative to the page/word limits set. And that the limits are appropriate for the level of information required to be given.

2.6

Specify a naming convention to be used by tenderers when uploading responses, to assist you to easily identify important information. You can request for quality and commercial aspects of the tender return to be uploaded and submitted separately, for ease of distribution if being reviewed and evaluation by different individuals.

2.7

If undertaking interviews to form part of the overall quality score, do not invite tenderers to interview who have already lost the opportunity based on their price score alone.

3.

Price

3.1 At ITT stage, for a better idea of tenderers understanding of the contract, provide an example/

scenario case study and request they price against it, resource it and explain how they would deliver it.

3.2

ALWAYS provide a pricing schedule with the tender pack. This ensures returns are comparable and reduces ambiguity/queries/evaluation time. Stipulate schedules should be returned in an excel format specifically, to assist you at the evaluation stage.

3.3 Consider the reality of project types (e.g. land-led, S106, regeneration, refurbishment) and pricing

bands (based on your likely minimum project size). Allow tenderers to price that band – minimum and

maximum fee levels within a band (e.g. x% for a £10m project and x% for a £15m project). You then

have a sliding scale to avoid, for example, a higher fee on a £9.995m scheme than on a £10.005m scheme.

3.4

Each project is different, so standard fee percentages may not always apply. For example, on an abnormal programme or where the land/build split is unusual. Therefore, ask for a resource breakdown, based on programme build cost, etc. so you can see if its realistic and you will receive a quality service. If the fee is too low, service may suffer at some point.

3.5

When asking for a price at your highest band for any project type e.g. £20m+, set a maximum number that allow you to more fairly assess – some may price this on a £25m project, others a £50m project and fee % may vary substantially.

Please note: The above should be checked with your legal team to ensure compliance with all relevant regulations.

www.jrp.co.uk

4

jrp@jrp.co.uk

SOLVING PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION CHALLENGES WORLDWIDE CONTACT US Head office Craven House 40 Uxbridge Road Ealing London W5 2BS

T: +44 (0)20 8567 6995 E: jrp@jrp.co.uk W: www.jrp.co.uk