TENDER EVALUATION RE PORT: PROPERTY ......2004/06/08 · FINANCE, CORPORATE SERVICES AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE REPORT COVER SHEET Agenda Item 5.3 8 June 2004 TENDER EVALUATION RE PORT:

F I N A N C E , C O R P O R A T E S E R V I C E S A N D G O V E R N A N C E C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T C O V E R S H E E T

Agenda Item 5.3

8 June 2004

TENDER EVALUATION REPORT: PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES

Division City Assets & Services

Presenter Garth Bradbury –Manager Facilities Management [Chair Tender Evaluation Panel]

Purpose

To seek Council approval to award contract for Property Maintenance Services to - Spotless P & F Pty Ltd.

Time Frame

The contract commencement date is 1 September 2004. The duration of the contract is five years, with an option for Council, at its absolute discretion, to extend the term for a period of up to another two years.

Finance

The financial implications are detailed in the committee report. In summary, the contract total $21,638,390 over five years, and estimated Year 1 expenditure can be accommodated within the existing 2004/05 budget provision

Legal

Legal advice will be provided on the terms of the proposed contract as required.

Sustainability

The new specifications place significant emphasis on the development of sustainability initiatives particularly in respect of recycling of waste, water conservation, energy management and asset planning through application of “whole of life” approach.

Connected and Accessible City

Renewal of the Property Maintenance Services Contract is required to continue to maintain disabled access in council buildings. “provide a welcome & supportive environment for all citizens” – City Plan 2010 Strategies Direction 1.1

Innovative and Vital Business City

High standard contract management of the City’s public buildings will continue to contribute to enhancing and promoting the City’s liveability and lifestyle options – City Plan 2010 Strategic Direction 2.1.

Attachments: 1. Tender Evaluation Process 2. EOI & Tender Evaluation Results 3. Example of Detailed Sheet used in Tender Evaluation Process 4. Sustainability Assessment

2

Inclusive and Engaging City

High standard contract management of the City’s public buildings will “enhance the quality of the existing public & private built form” - City Plan 2010 Strategic Direction 3.6.

Environmentally Responsible City

The new contract for property maintenance services will “promote efficient water use” and “provide recycling and increased efficiency in the use of resources in the City” – City Plan 2010 Strategic Direction 4.2. The contract will also “contribute to the stabilisation & reduction of global green house gas emissions” – City Plan 2010 Strategic Direction 4.1.

Recommendation

That the Finance, Corporate Services and Governance Committee recommends that Council:

• award the contract for Property Maintenance Services to Spotless P & F Pty Ltd in the sum of $21,638,390 for the five year contract (with an option to extend by up to a further two years) and otherwise in accordance with the negotiated terms and conditions of contract;

• by instrument of delegation sealed by the Council under section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) delegate to the Chief Executive Officer, or the persons from time to time acting in that position, the authority to enter into the contract and to do all things incidental and ancillary to the same; and

• under section 98(3) of the Act, authorise the instrument of delegation to the Chief Executive Officer, or the person from time to time acting in that position, to empower him or her to delegate any power, duty or function delegated to him or her under the paragraph above, to a member of Council staff.

3

F I N A N C E , C O R P O R A T E S E R V I C E S A N D G O V E R N A N C E C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T

Agenda Item 5.3

8 June 2004


Division City Assets and Services

Presenter Garth Bradbury –Manager Facilities Management [Chair Tender Evaluation Panel]

Purpose

1. To seek Council approval to award contract for Property Maintenance Services to Spotless P & F Pty Ltd

Background

Current Arrangements

2. Spotless P & F Pty Ltd is Council’s current service provider for the Property Maintenance Services contract which expires on 31 August 2004. To obtain the most cost effective property maintenance services a two stage tendering process was commenced in late 2003 to select a service provider for the next five years.

3. Services provided under the existing and the new contract include:

3.1 Cleaning;

3.2 Building services (lifts, air conditioning);

3.3 Building maintenance;

3.4 Furniture removals and repair; and

3.5 Grounds maintenance.

4. Over 130 properties are to be maintained under the new contract. These include town halls, office buildings, public toilets, child care centres, community facilities, street kiosks, all leased properties and City Baths.

Features of the New Contract

5. The demands for improved performance management required Council to develop a contract arrangement based on performance against defined outputs. This performance-based contract shifts more risk to the service provider to the extent that 90-95% of the contract will be fixed price. The increased risk to the service provider is offset to a certain extent by improvements in the information about cost, asset condition and standards of performance of plant, collected by Council over the previous three years. This data was provided in the tender documentation and enabled tenderers to price with greater certainty.

4

6. To further improve Council’s management of its property assets, the company awarded the contract will be required to assist with strategic asset management. Improved life cycle costing, building performance data and customer information will be used to more accurately predict future maintenance and capital expenditure.

7. Greater self-assessment by the service provider has been specified. Facilities management providers have quality and recording systems that monitor customer satisfaction on a continuing basis. Contract administration officers will be able to improve their effectiveness by focusing to a greater extent on the application of quality systems and the audit of customer satisfaction information.

8. Several buildings notably the North Melbourne Baths, Carlton Baths, Kensington Baths, Skate Park, 2 Information Booths, City Square Car park (full maintenance) have been included in and are additions to this contract.

9. To improve environmental outcomes the new service provider will be required to undertake extended re-cycling of waste paper in Council’s Administration and Child Care facilities. These requirements were specified in accordance with the advice from the Environmentally Sustainable Development Branch.

10. Payments will be reduced by up to 10% in the new contract for under performance as measured in the Balanced Scorecard performance measuring system. There are no incentives for over servicing. A project control group will be established with the service provider to examine innovative methods to improve environmental outcomes, asset management performance and service costs. Depending on the outcomes, a percentage of any cost savings will be made available to the service provider.

Tender Evaluation Processes

11. Stage 1 of the re-tendering process called for Expressions of Interest (EOI). Respondents had to focus on their experience, capability and the IT and quality systems that supported their organisations. The scores at this stage accounted for 21% of the overall score, and were used to shortlist for Stage 2 tendering.

12. Eleven national and international companies responded to the EOI that closed on 23 January 2004. After detailed examination of the capability of the eleven submissions, a clear preference was established for the four top ranked respondents. These companies, Spotless P & F Pty Ltd, Serco Australia Pty Ltd, Haden/Resolve FM Pty Ltd and Multiplex Asset Management Pty Ltd were then invited to tender on 26 March 2004. Haden/Resolve FM Pty Ltd and Serco Australia Pty Ltd withdrew from the tender process prior to tenders closing.

13. Two companies, Spotless P & F Pty Ltd, Multiplex Asset Management Pty Ltd, responded by tender close on 20 April 2004. 79% of the total score was assessed at this stage. The focus was on price and the methodology for delivering the requirements of the contract specification. The tender evaluation panel was firm and objective in its assessment of the non-financial criteria. Both tenderers recorded scores at a level that Council would face minimum risk with the appointment of either. It was clear each tenderer understood and would be able to meet Council’s requirements. The panel considers this to be a reflection of the maturity of the facility management services industry. The assessment of both tenders revealed that Spotless had a clear advantage on both the non-financial criteria and price.

14. The details of the Expression of Interest and Tender Evaluation processes are detailed in Attachment 1, the Expression of Interest and Tender Evaluation results in Attachment 2, and a blank copy of the detailed tender evaluation sheet that was used in all tender assessments is included in Attachment 3.

5

Expected Outcomes

15. Key factors in the packaging of the business requirement was the need to achieve the following outcomes:

15.1 integrated property maintenance services for all council buildings;

15.2 value for money covering cost and quality of service;

15.3 responsive and proactive management;

15.4 adequate resources;

15.5 appropriately qualified and experienced staff;

15.6 integrated asset management reporting including data collection, data analysis and replacement planning, including an additional 100 Parks buildings;

15.7 environmental management;

15.8 risk management;

15.9 communication and customer response management;

15.10 performance management;

15.11 project management of Capital Works;

15.12 strategies to develop shared ideas, innovation, and continuous improvement through the establishment of a Project Control Group with Service Provider;

16. All of the above formed part of the Evaluation Criteria used in tender assessment .

Council Assets and Offsets

17. The tender documents offered to the service provider use of the CBD workshop in the Melbourne Town Hall garage area and details of cleaner’s storage areas in other buildings.

Finance

18. The proposed Contract will run from 1 September 2004 to 31 August 2009, and are lump sums for each of the five years.

19. The lump sum for each individual year varies and reflects the manner in which the tenderer has decided to allocate their costs to account for their risk & CPI movements. The Costs are as follows:

Year 1 = $4,182,179 Year 2 = $4,209,677 Year 3 = $4,308,068 Year 4 = $4,437,220 Year 5 = $4,570,246

Total for 5 Years = $21,788,390

6

20. The existing annual fixed price contract price is $4,164,383. The new contract fixed price in year 1 is an increase of only 0.43%, and is within the forecast budget for 2004/05.

Concluding comments

21. The tender process has resulted in an excellent outcome for Council. The overall increase in cost is minimal, notwithstanding the inclusion of additional properties (including 100 Parks buildings), and the increased scope of work. It is a reflection of the maturity of the facilities management industry and its increased understanding of the requirements of organisations like City of Melbourne.

22. All members of the evaluation team concur with the recommendations in this report.

Pecuniary Interest and Probity Statement

23. No member of the evaluation panel has a pecuniary or personal interest in the tenders or contracts.

24. An independent external Probity Auditor was appointed at the commencement of the process. The auditor has affirmed that the processes have met all requisite standards.

25. The evaluation has fully complied with the Local Government Act 1989 and the Conditions of Tendering. No potential tenderer had access to the final specification prior to its release. All advice, written or verbal, provided to a respondent clarifying any aspect of the tender documentation was also provided to all other respondents. No tenderer was provided any advantage over other tenderers, and all were treated fairly and equally during the tendering process. Information provided by tenderers which would be of an advantage to competitors and/or which would place the tenderer in an unfair position in future trading, has been identified and will not be disclosed. This is limited to corporate management approach and methodology, systems details, and plans developed specifically for each contract. A consistent standard for all tenderers has been used in assessing any request for confidentiality by a tenderer(s).

26. Tenderers were provided Council’s Conditions of Tendering. These conditions state that canvassing of Councillors by any tenderer on any matter relating to the tender will result in automatic disqualification.

Relation to Council Policy

27. The tender documentation for these contracts and the evaluation processes described in detail in the Attachments to this report, have been drafted to comply with Council aims to:

27.1 deliver quality services that are responsive to business and community expectations, are demonstrably cost-effective and will satisfy public accountability; and

27.2 deliver services equitably and in a way that meets customer needs and minimises costs consistent with required service quality.

Consultation

28. In accordance with ‘Best Value’ review recommendations, all key stakeholders were consulted in developing the tender document. These being:- Community Services, Parks & Recreation, Engineering Services, Street Activity, Arts & Culture, Civic Services, Contracts Unit, Environmentally Sustainable Development & Customer Service Planning Panel.

7

Recommendation

29. That the Finance, Corporate Services and Governance Committee recommend that Council:

29.1 award the contract for Property Maintenance Services to Spotless P & F Pty Ltd in the sum of $21,638,390 for the five year contract (with an option to extend by up to a further two years) and otherwise in accordance with the negotiated terms and conditions of contract;

29.2 by instrument of delegation sealed by the Council under section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) delegate to the Chief Executive Officer, or the persons from time to time acting in that position, the authority to enter into the contract and to do all things incidental and ancillary to the same; and

29.3 under section 98(3) of the Act, authorise the instrument of delegation to the Chief Executive Officer, or the person from time to time acting in that position, to empower him or her to delegate any power, duty or function delegated to him or her under the paragraph above, to a member of Council staff.

Attachment 1 Agenda item 5.3

Finance, Corporate Services and Governance Committee 8 June 2004

1

TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS

1 TIMETABLE

The timetable for the tendering process was as follows:

23 January 2004 Closing of Expression of Interest

6 February 2004 Expressions of Interest evaluated & short-list compiled

16 February 2004 Notifications to successful & unsuccessful Registrants

26 March 2004 Tender documentation made available to successful Registrants

20 April 2004 Tenders closed

25 June 2004 Proposed Award of Contract

2 EVALUATION PANEL

The responses to the Expression of Interest (EOI) were evaluated by a Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) comprising: Garth Bradbury (Chair) – Full Member Paul Chreszczyk – Full Member Geoff Briggs – Full Member Cathryn Curtin – Full Member (EOI stage only) Peter Byrne – Full Member (Consultant – Currie & Brown) Ron Leong – Advisory Member(Financial Analyst)

All members of the TEP declared that they have no pecuniary interest or conflict of interest in relation to this contract. Confidentiality declaration was signed by all TEP members.

3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following table lists the evaluation criteria that were stated in CoM's EOI & ITT documents. The criteria is listed in order of importance, the most important being at the top of the list. The weightings for the evaluation criteria were declared to tenderers and were agreed and documented in the Procurement Plan.

EVALUATION CRITERIA EOI TENDER WEIGHTING

Ø Cost N/A Yes 50%

Ø Plan for Proposed Services

• Outline of proposed plan • Detailed plan

Yes

-

-

Yes

20%

2

Ø Experience & Capability • Company resource capacity • Relevant expertise • Technical/professional & systems capability • Past performance

Yes - 10%

Ø Quality Assurance

• Commitment to quality (policy & past projects) • Quality assurance processes proposed for this project

Yes

-

-

Yes

10%

Ø Occupational Health & Safety (OHS)

• Commitment to OHS (policy & past projects) • OHS processes proposed for this project

Yes

-

-

Yes

10%

Note: Results from Stage 1 were carried through to Stage 2 for further assessment. Total = 100

4 PROBITY MANAGEMENT

The appointed Probity Auditor is PSI Consulting Pty Ltd. All members of TEP received a probity briefing on the conduct of the EOI evaluation on 28 January 2004 & on the Tender evaluation on 1 April 2004. Council's probity management plan was adhered to.

5 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI) PROCESS

5.1 EOI Advertisement

The EOI was advertised in “The Age” Newspaper on 13 December 2003

5.2 EOI Document Distribution

The EOI document was issued to 70 organisations that registered in response to the advertisement. There was one(1) Addendum issued before registrations were closed.

5.3 EOI Briefing

A briefing for Registrants was held on 13 January 2004. The session was conducted by Garth Bradbury on the 2nd floor at the Administration Building. Prospective respondents were briefed on Council’s objectives, the scope of the required services, the evaluation methodology and the requirement for the respondents to complete the schedules in the EOI document.

5.4 EOI Responses

Responses to the EOI closed on 23 January 2004.Responses were received from the organisations listed below:

• Bogdan Investments Pty Ltd • Tungsten Group Pty Ltd • Whistler’s 7 Pty Ltd • Haden/Resolve FM Pty Ltd • Serco Australia Pty Ltd • Baulderstone Services • Multiplex Asset Management • Spotless P & F Pty Ltd • Service Alliance Group

3

• United KG Pty Ltd • Menzies International(Aust) Pty Ltd

5.5 Evaluation Panel Meetings

The EOI Evaluation Panel met on 28/1/04, 29/1/04 and 2/2/04.The Panel met again on 3/2/04 to finalise the initial part of the evaluation report.

5.6 Initial Evaluation

The TEP examined all of the responses in detail before assessing the respondents’ acceptability against each criterion.

Council’s Financial Analyst (and advisory member of the Evaluation Panel) conducted an assessment of the financial viability of the short-listed respondents. This consisted of examining the financial reports provided by the respondents to ensure that they had the equity and asset base, liquidity, financial strength and corporate support to execute a contract of this size.

Referee checks were also conducted on all short-listed respondents. Referee checks generally supported the conclusions reached by the Evaluation Panel in assessing the EOI’s lodged by the respondents.

6 SHORTLISTING

A summary of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the EOI's and the scores assessed were documented by the TEP. The relative ranking of respondents, as determined from the total weighted scores, is shown on the Summary Worksheet that is provided at Attachment 2.

From the rankings, the TEP determined a short-list of the respondents who were likely to provide the most

competitive bids. The short-listed respondents all satisfied the minimum requirements of the EOI evaluation criteria:

• Spotless P & F Pty Ltd A large organisation with extensive resources, experience & capability in the Facilities Management industry. Highly credible Quality & OHS systems that minimise risk to Council in the delivery of the services.

• Serco Australia Pty Ltd A large international organisation with extensive resources, experience & capability in the Facilities Management industry. Credible & convincing Quality & OHS systems that minimise risk to Council in the delivery of the services.

• Haden FM Pty Ltd(trading as Resolve FM) A medium to large organisation with considerable resources, & proven experience & capability in the Facilities Management industry. Credible & convincing Quality & OHS systems that reduce risk to Council in the delivery of the services.

• Multiplex Asset Management A medium to large organisation with sufficient resources, experience & capability in the Facilities Management industry. Highly credible Quality & OHS systems that reduce risk to Council in the delivery of the services.

The following EOI respondents did not make the short list because they did not satisfy the evaluation

criteria to the level demonstrated by short-listed respondents or they failed to satisfy all the minimum requirements of the EOI evaluation criteria:

• Baulderstone Services

A large parent company with good Quality & OHS systems but a relatively small Facilities Management capability & resources. They did not demonstrate an understanding of performance

4

based contracts or innovation. The company was only formed in February 2003, has few contracts and only a limited track record. Their proposal was considered to be too risky.

• United KG Pty Ltd

A large organisation with good Quality & OHS systems, experience and capability. They did not clearly demonstrate an understanding of performance based contracts or innovation and did not respond to one question in schedule 1 at all. Their submission did not address the identification of subcontractors they would use & did not provide any information on a system to manage subcontractors. Lack of systems to manage subcontractors is considered to be a high risk to council.

• Tungsten Group Pty Ltd

A medium sized organisation with good Quality & OHS systems. They have good management expertise rather than a broad service delivery track record. Their submission did not address the schedule on contingency planning or their ability to expand to meet new demands. Sufficient details on experience & resources were not provided. Their proposal was considered to be too risky.

• Service Alliance Group

An alliance of key sub-contractors under an incorporation banner with total resources being adequate. Some key sub-contractors have Quality & OHS systems but there is no integrated approach evident. They have a poor understanding of risk management and their submission did not address the schedule on contingency planning or their ability to expand to meet new demands. Overall effective co-ordination of “Service Alliance Group” membership is a concern. Their proposal was considered to be an unacceptable risk.

• Whistler’s 7 Pty Ltd

A small company with small number of staff primarily working in renovating vacant premises. Poor understanding of performance based contracts together with poor responses to all questions in schedule 1 demonstrated that this company is only suited to a small contractor role. This registrant is considered to be an unacceptable high risk as it does not have the systems, resources or capability to deliver this contract. Their proposal was considered to be an unacceptable risk. Non-compliant proposal as it does not have an acceptable level of performance in all criteria categories.

• Bogdan Investments Pty Ltd

A small company whose business is primarily cleaning. Their annual turnover is only half the annual value of this contract. Extremely poor response to all questions in all schedules and does not have the systems, resources or capability to deliver this contract. Their proposal was considered to be an unacceptable risk. Non-compliant proposal as it does not have an acceptable level of performance in all criteria categories.

• Menzies International(Australia)Pty Ltd

A large company whose core business is cleaning. Their submission was only for the delivery of cleaning is therefore a Non-compliant proposal as it does not have an acceptable level of performance in all criteria categories.

The Tender Evaluation Panel recommended to the Director City Assets & Services that the short-listed tenderers be invited to tender for the Property Maintenance Services contract . This recommendation was approved by the Director on 12 February 2004.

5

7 PROBITY AUDIT

The EOI Evaluation Report and the records of the proceedings of the evaluation have been audited by Lyn Southward from PSI Consulting Pty Ltd. Approval of EOI and tender processes was obtained.

8 INVITATION TO TENDER (ITT) PROCESS

8.1 ITT Document Distribution

The ITT document was issued to potential tenderers short-listed from the EOI process on 22 March 2004.

8.2 Tender Briefing

A briefing session for Tenderers was conducted by Garth Bradbury & Paul Chreszczyk on 26 March 2004 at the Council Meeting Room in the Administration Building. The majority of the Tender Evaluation Panel was present. Prospective Tenderers were briefed on Council’s objectives, the scope of the required services, the evaluation methodology and the requirement for the Tenderers to complete the schedules to the ITT document.

8.3 Tender Responses

Responses to the ITT closed at 2pm on 20 April 2004. Responses were received from the organisations listed below:

• Multiplex Asset Management • Spotless P & F Pty Ltd

Two short-listed tenderers, Serco Australia Pty Ltd & HadenFM Pty Ltd withdrew from the tender process during the tender period.

8.4 Evaluation Panel Meetings

The Tender Evaluation Panel met on 1 April, 21 April,23 April & 24 April. The Panel met again on 3 May to review & finalise the tenderers scoring.

Cathryn Curtin was unavailable to participate in the ITT stage .

8.5 Tender Evaluation

The TEP examined all of the Tender responses in detail before assessing the respondents’ acceptability against each criterion. Tender interviews were conducted with the following tenderers:

• Spotless P & F Pty Ltd on 27 April 2004 • Multiplex Asset Management on 28 April 2004

The TEP conducted separate interviews with each respondent and these interviews were structured identically for each respondent. The respondents had 30 minutes to present their company summary of key issues in their tender submission and a further 40 minutes to respond to questions asked by the TEP. The TEP met formally again on 3 May 2004 to review scoring and achieve consensus

8.6 Results of the Tender Evaluation

A summary of the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Tenders and the scores assessed were documented by the TEP. The relative ranking of respondents, as determined from the total weighted scores, is shown on the Tender Summary Worksheet that is provided as Attachment 2.

From the rankings, the TEP has recommended Spotless P & F Pty Ltd as the Preferred Tenderer as they have the highest score in both price and non-price attributes.

8.7 Added Features of New Contract

Increased scope.

The new contract has an increased scope as a result of ‘Best Value’ review & subsequent client consultations during the tender preparation period. Additional features are:-

6

• All work has a $5,000 fixed price threshold across all services & sites.

• Additional sites.(Carlton Baths, Kensington Baths, North Melbourne Baths, Skate Park, two Information Kiosks)

• Electronic whiteboards maintenance

• Electrical testing of leads/appliances

• Recycling of waste paper & metals/plastics in Children’s Centres

Added Value.

Tenderers were invited to propose in their tender submissions other innovative ideas that would add value to the contract. The Preferred Tenderer has included the following added benefits within their tendered price:-

• A study tour to examine best practice initiatives adopted by local government in the areas of asset & environmental management. Estimated value is $20k.

• Participation at an early stage to understand the complexities of CH2 and to take an active role in commissioning and handover. This will assist with a seamless transition from project to operation. Estimated value is $50k.

• Sponsorship of a community services project to the value of $15k. No projects have been identified and this sponsorship would need to be worked through with the tenderer if they are appointed.

• Including energy audits of all major council properties in conjunction with annual building condition auditing. This is an extension of existing annual condition audits, and saves Council the need to perform audits that were planned to commence again in late 2005. Estimated value is $25k.

9 POINTS FOR NEGOTIATION

Suggested contract clarifications & amendments have been discussed in principle with Spotless P & F Pty Ltd & will be finalised prior to contract start date.

10 PROBITY AUDIT

The Tender Evaluation Report and the records of the proceedings of the evaluation have been audited by Lyn Southward from PSI Consulting Pty Ltd. The final consolidated probity report dated 14 May 2004, gave approval to the Expression of Interest and Request for Tender processes and stated that the principles of probity were observed.

11 FUNDING

The proposed contract will run from 1 September 2004 to 31 August 2009 and is a lump sum contract.

The lump sum for each individual year varies and reflects the manner in which the tenderer has decided to allocate their costs to account for their risk & CPI movements. The Costs are as follows:

Year 1 = $4,152,179

Year 2 = $4,179,677

Year 3 = $4,305,068

Year 4 = $4,434,220

Year 5 = $4,567,246

Total for 5 Years = $21,638,390

The existing annual fixed price contract price is $4,164,383. The new Year 1 contract price is a saving of $12,204 on the existing cost.

7

It was expected that the increased scope of the new contract would translate into a higher tender price.

This has not been the case as the new Year 1 price is $4,152,179. As a result the tender price is within the budget estimate for 2004/05.

It is proposed to incorporate annual condition audits & life cycle analysis of the additional 100 Parks & Recreation properties into this contract, as a result of the organisational restructure announced in March.

12 RELATION TO COUNCIL POLICY

The specification for this contract has been drafted to deliver services that will maintain Council’s buildings, are responsive to community needs, are cost effective and publicly accountable. Related Council policies are Syringe Management Plan, Watermark & Zero Net emission by 2020 Strategy

13 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EVALUATION PANEL

The Evaluation Panel recommended that Director City Assets & Services and Customer and Service & Planning Panel accepts that a report to Council be included in the June cycle recommending that Council enters into a contract with Spotless P & F Pty Ltd for 5 years (with a 2 year option to extend) for the provision of Property Maintenance Services.



EOI & TENDER EVALUATION RESULTS

ATTACHMENT 1

abcContract Name:

Contract Number #REF!

EVALUATION CRITERIATOTAL SCORE

Weighting 100

Scores Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted WeightedSpotless 0.00 7.80 3.90 0.00 8.29 8.29 9.00 2.70 0.00 9.00 2.70 0.00 17.59 1

Serco 0.00 8.00 4.00 0.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 2.70 0.00 8.00 2.40 0.00 17.10 2Haden/Resolve 0.00 6.60 3.30 0.00 7.14 7.14 9.00 2.70 0.00 8.00 2.40 0.00 15.54 3

Multiplex 0.00 6.00 3.00 0.00 7.00 7.00 9.00 2.70 0.00 8.50 2.55 0.00 15.25 4Baulderstone 0.00 6.80 3.40 0.00 5.57 5.57 9.00 2.70 0.00 9.00 2.70 0.00 14.37 5

UnitedKG 0.00 6.60 3.30 0.00 5.57 5.57 9.00 2.70 0.00 9.00 2.70 0.00 14.27 6Tungsten 0.00 6.60 3.30 0.00 5.29 5.29 8.00 2.40 0.00 8.00 2.40 0.00 13.39 7

SAG 0.00 5.00 2.50 0.00 6.14 6.14 7.50 2.25 0.00 7.50 2.25 0.00 13.14 8Whistlers 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 2.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 9

Bogdan 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 10Menzies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11

Shading denotes non-compliant tenderers

abcContract Name:

Contract Number 59/2/3268

EVALUATION CRITERIATOTAL SCORE

Weighting 100

Scores Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted Raw Weighted WeightedSpotless 10.0 50.00 7.80 3.90 8.70 13.05 8.29 8.29 9.00 2.70 9.0 6.30 9.00 2.70 9.00 6.30 93.24 1Multiplex 9.5 47.70 6.00 3.00 6.20 9.30 7.00 7.00 9.00 2.70 6.0 4.20 8.50 2.55 6.00 4.20 80.65 2

EOI EVALUATION SUMMARY WORKSHEET#REF!

Cost

Experience, Capability &

Past Performance

(EOI)

Plan for Proposed

Service (EOI)

Quality Assurance

(EOI) RANKING

50 15 10 7

Occupational Health & Safety

(ITT)

Plan for Proposed Service

(ITT)

7

Quality Assurance

(ITT)

5

Property Maintenance Services

Cost (ITT)

Plan for Proposed Service (EOI)

Plan for Proposed Service

(ITT)

Experience, Capability &

Past Performance

(EOI)

Quality Assurance

(EOI)


(EOI)

33

EOI & ITT TENDER EVALUATION SUMMARY WORKSHEET

Quality Assurance

(ITT)


(EOI)


(ITT) RANKING

50 5 15 10 3 7 3 7

#1378239



EXAMPLE OF DETAILED SHEETS USED IN TENDER EVALUATION PROCESS

2

TENDERER : ASSESSOR : :

Total Weighting

EOI ITT Agreed Score

Weighted Score

1 COST: Overall cost of services.

50 50

EXPERIENCE & CAPABILITY:

1.1 Company resource capacity. 1.2 Relevant expertise. 1.3 Technical/professional & systems capability.

1.3.1 Five key requirements of performance based contract

1.3.2 Demonstrated gains through innovation on other projects

1.3.3 Property maintenance, contract & customer management systems

1.4 Past performance. 1.4.1 Completed “Schedule of Past Performance &

Referee Contacts

1.4.2 Other relevant details of experience & resources

Total Score – Experience & capability 10 10 2 PLAN FOR PROPOSED SERVICES: Outline of proposed plan. 5 Detailed Plan 15

2.1 Contract organisational structure 2.2 Methodology 2.3 Innovation & technology 2.4 On-site management (labour, equipment & systems) 2.5 Sufficient resources 2.6 Contract control & management systems 2.7 Off-site management support structure, services &

systems

2.8 Relationship management 2.9 Risk management

2.10 Environmental management Total Score – Plan for proposed services 20 5 15

3 QUALITY ASSURANCE: Outline of level of QA program proposed 3 Detailed Quality Assurance Plan proposed for this

project 7

Total Score - Quality Assurance 10 3 7 4 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY: Outline of level of OHS program proposed 3 Detailed OHS Plan proposed for this project 7 Total Score – OH & S. 10 3 7 Total Score - Financial Cost 50 Total Score - Technical Criteria 2,3,4,5 50 Overall Score. 100 21 79

3

TENDER ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE : Property Maintenance Services Contract No. 59/2/3268 Tenderer :

Date : Score out of 10 :

Criteria: 2.1 Contract organisational structure Response to Schedule : 2.1 Organisation chart showing structure for each service stream & contractual relationships

Assessor :

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES Points for Clarification

Clarification Obtained / Action Taken

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

4

1



Sustainability Assessment Tender Evaluation Report: Property Maintenance Services Theme: Corporate Themes Question 1: Well managed, leading and financially responsible city Does this report assist the committee to manage corporate responsibilites? If yes, insert your comments below. Note: if the following questions are not directly relevant please select 'not applicable' from the Impact list. Comments: The service maintains a broad range of council facilities that include public conveniences, libraries, child care centres, town halls & administration buildings. Management of this contract by council ensures compliance with OH&S Act & Building regulations in addition to providing clean & safe facilities for public use. Theme: Inclusiveness and engagement Question 2: Community Services What effect will the proposal have on the quality, quantity and accessibility of education, leisure, cultural, health and other community services? Impact: positive Likelihood: medium Magnitude: moderate Comments: Management of this contract by council ensures compliance with OH&S Act & Building regulations in addition to providing clean & safe facilities for public use. Question 3: Active and Engaged Community What effect will this proposal have on the development of a culturally diverse, healthy, equitable, active and involved community in Melbourne? Impact: no impact Likelihood: low Magnitude: maximum Question 4: Cultural and Heritage Value of Built Form What effect will this proposal have on the cultural heritage of Melbourne's neighbourhoods and buildings? Impact: positive Likelihood: medium Magnitude: moderate Comments: Council's heritage buildings will be maintained to a high standard. Question 5: Transport and Accessibility What effect will the proposal have on the level of public transport and number of transport

2

options/connections with the City of Melbourne? Impact: no impact Likelihood: low Magnitude: minimum Question 6: Welcoming and Safe Public Space What effect will the proposal have on the safety and amenity of the public environment eg streets, laneways, parks and gardens? Impact: positive Likelihood: medium Magnitude: maximum Comments: Cleaning, repairs & syringe removal in council's public toilets will provide a safer environment for the public. Theme: Environmental responsibility Question 7: Energy Use and Greenhouse Emissions What effect will the proposal have on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with Council and/or community activities? Impact: positive Likelihood: low Magnitude: maximum Question 8: Resource Use and Waste Generation What effect will the proposal have on the total quantity and type of waste, including prescribed waste, generated by Council and/or community activities? Impact: positive Likelihood: medium Magnitude: moderate Comments: Paper & co-mingled waste is collected for recycling form council's administration buildings & child care centres. Question 9: Pollution What effects will the proposal have on the use of hazardous materials and levels of pollution (air, noise, soil, and water) in the region? Impact: positive Likelihood: low Magnitude: maximum Question 10: Water Consumption What effect will the proposal have on the quantity of water consumed and disposed of by the Council and/or in the municipality? Impact: positive Likelihood: low Magnitude: maximum Question 11: Flora and Fauna What effect will this proposal have on flora and fauna in the City of Melbourne on private and public land and in the aquatic environment? Impact: positive Likelihood: low Magnitude: maximum

3

Theme: Innovation and Business Vitality Question 12: Development of Key Business Sectors What effect will the proposal have on the number and type of businesses and level of business investment in the City of Melbourne? Impact: no impact Likelihood: low Magnitude: moderate Theme: Connection and accessibility Question 13: Transport Infrastructure What effect will the proposal have on Melbourne's transport infrastructure? Impact: no impact Likelihood: low Magnitude: minimum Question 14: Communications Infrastructure What effect will the proposal have on Melbourne's information technology and telecommunications infrastructure? Impact: no impact Likelihood: low Magnitude: minimum Theme: Innovation and Business Vitality Question 15: Business Innovation What effect will the proposal have on research and development in Melbourne? Impact: no impact Likelihood: low Magnitude: minimum Question 16: Job Creation What effect will the proposal have on the number and types of jobs available in the City of Melbourne? Impact: no impact Likelihood: low Magnitude: minimum

Agenda Item 5.3 Finance, Corporate Services and Governance Committee

8 June 2004

FINANCE ATTACHMENT


The financial implications are detailed in the committee report. In summary, the contract total $21,638,390 over five years, and estimated Year 1 expenditure can be accommodated within the existing 2004/05 budget provision.

Future funding requirements will be subject to the normal budget processes.

Kerrie Jordan Acting Manager Financial Services

Agenda Item 5.3 Finance, Corporate Services and Governance Committee

8 June 2004

LEGAL ATTACHMENT


When Council intends to enter into a contract for the purchase of goods and services valued at $100,000 or more, section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989, (“the Act”) imposes a duty on the Council by public notice either to invite tenders or to invite expressions of interest.

Where a Council seeks expressions of interest, the Council must, when ready to enter into the contract, invite tenders from some or all of those who registered their interest in undertaking the contract.

The Act does not require Council to accept the lowest tender.

Kim Wood Acting Manager Governance Services

Documents

TENDER EVALUATION RE PORT: PROPERTY ......2004/06/08 · FINANCE, CORPORATE SERVICES AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE REPORT COVER SHEET Agenda Item 5.3 8 June 2004 TENDER EVALUATION RE PORT: