Evaluation of Soft Facilities Management

5.10.1. The Project Board reviewed in detail the outcome of the evaluation for Soft Facilities Management services, including both the qualitative evaluation and the quantitative evaluation.

5.10.2. The Facilities Management sub-group agreed that a combined qualitative score for Hard Facilities Management and the relevant Soft Facilities Management score (i.e. either external bidder’s or the In House Team’s score for the soft facilities management) should be taken as a consolidated score for both Bid 1 and Bid 2, with both the Hard and Soft Facilities Management service provision being weighted at 50%. The rationale for this was that although basic services costs for Soft Facilities Management were greater, approximately a 55/45 split, there were more Hard Facilities Management services than Soft services, and Soft services may be market tested later in the contract period, thus ensuring continued best value to NHS Forth Valley. The Main Evaluation Panel and the Project Board endorsed this approach.

5.10.3. The commercial evaluation of bidder’s proposals for Soft Facilities Management services focused on the quantitative aspects. This quantitative evaluation was based on bidders’ responses to the ITN, and the Revise & Confirm (R&C) letter issued in December 2005. The In House Team was also invited to revise and confirm their specific Bids for Bidders A and C in the light of the revised payment mechanism and associated specifications. However the following evaluation results focuses on the quantitative evaluation of Bidder C and the In House Team in the light of the NHS Board’s decision to select Bidder C as

Preferred Bidder.

5.10.4. Bidder C and the In House Team both submitted strong and affordable bids. The Project Board reviewed the outcome of both the qualitative and quantitative evaluations at its meeting on 2 February 2006. It will be noted that Bidder C achieved …..% on Bid 1 and …..% on Bid 2. In terms of Bid 1 the consolidation of the In House Team’s Specific score increases the overall score for Bidder C, with the In House Team’s score for Soft Facilities Management exceeding that of Bid 2. In summary, the qualitative evaluation resulted in the following scores:

Table C5/6: Qualitative Facilities Management Scores for Bidder C’s Bid 1 and Bid 2

Bidder C

Bid 1 Bid 2

Total Scores ….. …..

Ranking 1 2

5.10.5. When assessing Value for Money against the Bid Comparator Model (BCM) the figures were also close with Bidder C’s Bid 2 i.e. £…..k (…..% over 30 years) better than the Bid 1 submission.

Table C5/7: NPV for Bidder C’s Bid 1 and Bid 2

Net Present Value – Bids 1 and 2 £’000

NPV of Combined Bid 1 per R&C submission …..…..

NPV of Bid 2 per R&C submission …..…..

NPV of the BCM (£’000) …..…..

5.10.6. In reviewing annual affordability, Bid 1 performs better than Bid 2. Table C5/8: Annual Affordability for Bidder C’s Bid 1 and Bid 2

Annual Affordability – Bids 1 and 2 Bid 1

£’000

Bid 2 £’000 Unitary Charge external Bid 2

Real (as at 1 April 2006)

….. …..

Annual Operational costs for IHT Specific Bid Real (as at 1 April 2006)

….. …..

Total cost of Bid

Real (as at 1 April 2006)

….. …..

Ranking 1 2

5.10.7. In summary the outcome of the Soft Facilities Management evaluation (on the basis that Bidder C was appointed Preferred Bidder) is that:

o the qualitative evaluation indicates a Bid 1 solution;

o NPV indicates a Bid 2 solution; and

o annual affordability indicates a Bid 1 solution.

5.10.8. All three assessments are however; close with no demonstrable gap between the In House Team and Bidder C. The Project Board considered that through a robust and competitive process the In House Team’s bids have evaluated well against established external facilities management providers.

5.10.9. The Project Board noted that from both a qualitative and an affordability perspective, the In House Team submission exceeded that of Bidder C. The Project Board also noted that on a Value for Money assessment, using NPV, the difference between the In House Team and Bidder C was marginal (…..% over 30 years).

5.10.10. The Project Board agreed to recommend that the provision of Soft Facilities Management for the Clackmannanshire Community Health Services Project be provided by the In House Team.

5.10.11. The NHS Board received a presentation and considered a paper “Clackmannanshire Community Health Services Project ITN Evaluation: Soft Facilities Management” at its meeting on the 14th February 2006.

5.10.12. It was highlighted that whilst both bid 1 and bid 2 were within the Boards affordability threshold the Project Board’s recommendation was that Bid 1, with the higher quality, outweighed the marginally better NPV of bid 2 and therefore provided better value for money for the Board. The NPV difference representing only …..% over 30 years was within the margin of error in the risk adjustment process.

5.10.13. Following detailed discussion the NHS Board accepted the recommendation of the Project Board that the provision of Soft Facilities Management for the Clackmannanshire Community Health Services Project be provided by the In House Team in conjunction with Bidder Cs proposals for the design, build, finance and maintenance (hard facilities management) of the new facilities.

5.10.14. The particular factors which Board members considered weighed in favour of the In House Team were as follows:

o The NPV differential between Bids 1 and 2 was marginal and within the bounds of the risk adjustment made;

o The In House Team service delivery proposals and staffing models were very detailed and service models and method statements were provided to a high level of detail and appeared robust. These were better developed for the operational phase of the project and gave greater comfort of a quality service delivery than the submission made by Bidder C; and

o The In House Team had confirmed that there would be no derogations from the Service Specific Specifications and had accepted the response and rectification times. This demonstrated greater compliance with the Boards requirements than the Robertsons Healthcare proposals.

5.10.15. The Board also noted that although not part of the formal evaluation process the in-house bid would ensure a high level of continuity and integration of the Soft Facilities Management staff and the clinical staff.

5.10.16. The Board noted that the decision would be subject to the approval of SEHD at Key Stage Review, and the conclusion of satisfactory terms with Bidder C on the interface between the In House Team's proposals and Bidder's C's proposals.

5.10.17. Following the Project Board and NHS Boards endorsement of the Preferred Bidder selection and the decision to award Soft Facilities Management to the In House Team, the Preferred Bidder Key Stage Review was submitted to the Scottish Executive on 16 March 2006 and received approval on 27 March 06.

5.10.18. During this period further discussion and negotiations regarding the wording of the Preferred Bidder letter were held with Robertson Capital Projects. The Preferred Bidder letter was issued by the Board on 31 March 2006 and the Board issued a press release on 28 March 2006 announcing the appointment of Robertsons Healthcare as Preferred Bidder.

5.10.19. Following further extensive negotiations with Robertson Capital Projects and the issue of a revised Preferred Bidder Letter on 18 July 2006, the Preferred Bidder letter was signed by Robertson Capital Projects and their funders on 29 August 2006.