Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introductions
Framework Director: Annette-Marie Ball
Framework Procurement Lead: Justin Bennetts
Framework Technical Lead: John Greaves
Framework Workstream Lead: Jon Williams
Framework Support Assistant: Eleanor Thomas
Context• Feb ’08: Devon selected to host regional initiative
• OJEU: August 2008
• PQQ: 40 responses, short listed to 25
• ITT: 23 responses, Framework award to 11
• Framework went live: 3rd August 2009
• Public sector construction works
• OJEU notice permits CFSW Authorities to procure projects with a value >£250k
• Vehicle to procure public construction works in the SW
• Procured via OJEU• Focussed on construction projects in excess of £1
million (£250k)• Regional Participatory Project Board• Nil charge for Framework use (via SW IEP)
CFSW Overview
Who can use the Framework?
Public bodies of all types throughout this geographic area.
Project Types to Date
Education Primary
Education Major / Secondary
Civic Office
GeneralFire, Police & NHS
Sports and Leisure
Education GeneralFurther Education
5 / 20
Framework Providers
Achievements to Date• Total value of projects circa £230m
• 25 signatories to Public Body User Agreement• 50 projects currently working through the framework• Numerous repeat clients and endorsements• Average just over 6 weeks to undertake CFSW ITT process
• KPI’s measured at intervals:Preconstruction, Construction and Post Handover
• Contractors KPI score for Team Performance averages 86% • Clients team average 85%
The Traditional Route
Feasibility Design Tender Construction
Design problems and risks realised too late leading to time and cost overrunConflict
Tender and appoint contractor
The Framework Route
Feasibility Design Construct
MC2 shortlist:More predictable delivery – on time, cost and quality
Buildability, Cost, De-risk & Programme reduction
Pre-Construction phase (fee based)
Agree packages of work, contract sum, risk and programme
A 'no' response will preclude
A 'no' response will preclude
A 'no' response will preclude
Provider Assessment Questions:
Provider to complete:
Commissioning Public
Body to complete:
Automatic calculation: Provider
Self Scoring Prompts:
(i) (ii) ( iii ) = (i)x(ii)
AType of construction project
Extent of Provider's preference to carry out this type of project
0.00 0.00
5 - Good fit and very strong preference for project type4 - Good fit with Provider's preferred project type3 - Provider willing to do but not typical work type2 - Limited fit with Provider's work preference1 - Little or no fit with Provider's work preference
B
Provider's team capabilityExtent to which Providers team
has capability to carry out this
project.
0.00 0.00
5 - Considerable expertise (i.e. 10+ similar projects)4 - Some expertise (i.e. 5 - 9 similar projects)3 - Little expertise (i.e. 1-4 similar projects)2 - No recent experience (within 5 years)1 - No current expertise
C
Value Management CapabilityExtent to which Provider has value engineering capability
available to support the development of the specific
project identified.
0.00 0.00
5 - Clear understanding (3+ similar projects)4 - Clear understanding (1-2 similar projects)3 - Good understanding (other project types)2 - Demonstrates understanding (no projects)1 - No evidence
D
Capacity / TimingExtent to which Provider has
capacity to support design and construction processes within
the envisaged timescales.
0.00 0.00
5 - Capacity and availability exactly in line with tasks & timings 4 - Capacity and availability largely in line with tasks & timings3 - Capacity & availability could be found2 - Capacity & availability in place but with with limitations1 - Capacity & availability not directly to hand
E
Key Performance Indicator Score
Global Framework KPI Score for Provider:
0.00 0.00
5 - 80.00+4 - 70.00 to 79.993 - 60.00 to 69.992 - 50.00 to 59.991 - Less than 49.99
Total mini competition stage one score: 0.00
Please return to:
By:
CFSW contact details:
CFSW Mini Competition Stage 1:
Provider self evaluation / self de-selection form
Project name & reference:
Anticipated construction start date:
Name of Commissioning Public Body:
Contractor (Provider) name:
Provider's contact:Is project located within Provider's
nominated geographic area?Yes / No
Does project fit within Provider's nominated project value bands?
Yes / NoDoes Provider wish to apply for this
project?Yes / No
Providers are requested to give responses to questions A to D using the scoring prompts provided, being mindful of responses provided to CFSW during the framework tender process.
Score (1-5)
Question weighting (0.1 - 0.4)
Weighted score
Email: [email protected] Web: www.cfsw.org.uk
Tel: 01392 382 444 Fax: 01392 382 286
Performance scores (as soon as sufficient framework performance data is available):
CFSW office, Room G03, Devon County Council, County Hall, Topsham Road, Exeter, Devon, EX2 4QD
Mini Competition Stage One :
Mini Competition Stage Two :
To shortlist:
Entails Project tender price, comparison against Case Studies and the inclusion of any non price factors
Incorporating EXOR Gold standard checks / avoids duplication of multiple ITT’s and ensures efficient route to market
10 / 20
Highlights
• Increased speed to market (MC1 & MC2 = 6 weeks)• Engage contractors quickly and early in the design process• KPI scores provide added incentive
• Predictability of construction costs and programme• Reduction in design problems realised during construction• Cost reductions and ‘buildability’ arising from collaborative design• Improved value engineering• Greater cost certainty when work commences
• Promotes initiatives such as OGC Fair Payment Practices and WRAP targets
• Potential to aggregate programmes of work & materials buying
11 / 20
Savings to Date
• £3.15m process saving (OJEU already complete)
• Early contractor involvement has contributed towards CFSW projects to be value engineered by over £6m, prior to starting on site
• All completed CFSW projects delivered to programmed date
• All completed CFSW projects delivered to within 1% of contract sum
• KPI measurement ensures performance to targets
CFSW: Setting Standards• Development workstreams
Training & Development Environment & Sustainability Risk Management Performance Management & KPIs Collaborative Working / Health and safety Project Control Processes / Supply Chain Development Value Engineering & Value Management Facilities Management & Ongoing Maintenance
• ChartersFramework Charter: Statement of intentFair Payment CharterWRAP + Environment and Sustainability Site Minimum StandardsHealth and Safety Charter
Measures Performance against targets for:• Overall team performance• Health and Safety• Sustainability• Customer satisfaction• Cost predictability• Delivery to programme• Savings generated• Waste management• Apprenticeships
Key Performance Indicators
Plus metrics which measure Client Performance
14 / 20
Apprenticeships Workstream
• BCSW (SME) employ seven apprentices on block release from Petroc College, North Devon due to framework tendered projects. “Securing two projects via the framework has given us the confidence that our apprentices will be able to complete their training”.
• James Owen Court, the first CFSW project to reach practical completion, employed seven 7 apprentices through a sub contractor as part of an intensive 9 week refurbishment. The project was awarded to Mansell Construction Services Ltd by the University of Exeter.
15 / 20
Case Study: James Owen Court• University of Exeter- 276 bed student accommodation refurbishment • Framework provided fast track solution for project with immovable deadline• Mansell Construction Services awarded the project 1st June 2010• Collaborative working between client, contractor, consultants (Mace) and sub-
contractor (MITIE Engineering) • Heavily resourced project – 100 staff on site x 12 hour days x 7 day / wk• The result: “ We are pleased with the framework process and truly delighted
with the work undertaken by Mansells, we thought the project was almost impossible to achieve but their careful management and quality control delivered the [project] on time and just below budget” Senior Building Surveyor, University of Exeter.
• Team performance scores – 95% for Mansell and 94% for the clients team.
16 / 20
Case Study – MyPlace - Parkfield• MyPlace is an innovative project to provide young people in Torbay & visitors a
range of sports, outdoor pursuits and performing arts activities.• Combines new build, external leisure facilities and refurbishment to a Grade II
listed building.• Torbay Council awarded the project to Interserve Project Services Ltd,13th April
2010, eight weeks after MC1 initiation.• Project came late to the framework – RIBA stage F/G but via close working
between contractor and client during Pre-construction the project was value engineered to align the design with the client’s budget.
• Success of the value engineering is reflected in the team performance KPIs with both contractor and client teams scoring 99%
• Project currently under construction and due to finish later this year.
17 / 20
“I am one of the audit team at South Gloucestershire Council and have recently completed a review of our operation of the CFSW. Just to give you a little bit of feedback, the staff that use the framework were very complimentary about its benefits and it is working well to date on the projects that are underway. More analysis will be undertaken as the projects are completed. Relationships with contractors are good and getting better with each contract. We are using a range of different contractors and all of them have been appointed via the mini competition process. So this has been a positive piece of work”
Group Auditor, South Gloucestershire Council, 23 Feb ’11.
South Gloucestershire Council
18 / 20
Finally:• Noting the downturn across public sector• Projects delivered to date• Target: To track and reduce £cost per m2
• Speed of OJEU to progress projects to market, through design and to site
• Repeat users / Relevance of KPI’s• Shared Workshops – industry coming together
to share cost and results19 / 20
