During Eddington, how did you assess contractors financial standing?
- Requested within PQQ
- Requested information relating to turnover & profit for last 3 years for applicant company and parent companies
- Requested forecast turnovers for next financial year
- Requested information regarding cash position for next 12 months
- Ability to get Performance Bond
What was the result of your findings from financial standings?
- I advised my client sought specialist advise regarding in depth account reviews
- I advised my client that the project for one of the contractors would represent a significant proportion of their anticipated turnover (£70m) which was a cause for concern
Why did you advise one of the contractors was not considered?
- The project was significantly larger than their typical size. Their maximum project value to date was £27m
- Programme was circa 40 weeks longer
- Project would be a significant proportion of their anticipated turnover (£70m)
Why did contractors withdraw from the process?
- Contractors were not in a position to tender due to workloads
Why was a two stage tender process used for Eddington?
- My client wanted input on the buildability and design from the contractor. As a flagship project they were looking for integration of unique features - sub level games court, podium etc
- Programme - wanted the project to be on construction phase as soon as possible, overlap of design and tender period
On Eddington, what was the tender opening procedure?
- Occurred during lockdown of Covid-19
- Received electronic submissions
- Client and design team were invited to the tender opening virtually
- Client attended along with 3 QS’s from Core Five
- Tenders were open and recorded in the tender opening form reflecting numbers
- Signed by present QS’s and client
- Arithmetical checks followed - Alternative 2
What were the objectives of reviewing the tenders on Eddington?
- Identify any arithmetical errors
- Assess any residual risks associated with each tender return
- Ensure compliance and remove qualifications / exclusions e.g. one tenderer did not submit construction professional fee’s
- Compare resourcing allowances to judge sufficiency - one tenderer appeared to have excessive levels of traffic marshalling however I determined through interviews the other tenderer had included this within general labour numbers and so ultimately was comparable
How did the tender returns compare to your PTE on Eddington?
- Ultimate number sat £300k above lowest and £2.5m below highest
- Based on PQQ I had anticipated higher levels of prelims due to programme though these were then increased by impact of Brexit & Covid
- I had anticipated higher risk by £500k
- OH&P’s were lower than I had anticipated as they were looking to secure work following the pandemic
What was the scoring matrix for Eddington?
Ranking from most important
- Cost was most important
- Project understanding, ethos, experience
- Supply chain capabilities
- Programme
- H&S
What was included in your tender report?
- Exec summary
- Contractor selection & tender issue
- Tendering opening record
- Evaluation of commercial
- Evaluation of legal
- Scenario analysis
- Post tender interviews (supply chain discussions)
- Conclusion & recommendation
What normalisation occurred on your projects?
On Eddington, reviewing the Stage 1 tender return, one contractor had particularly low insurance costs included compared to the other contractors
Normalised by adjusting to the highest cost tender and raised in post tender interview
