Committee: Cabinet
Date: 22 October 2012
Agenda item: 10Wards: Borough wide
Subject:
Procurement of Design ConsultantsLead officer: Yvette Stanley
Lead member: Councillor Martin Whelton, Cabinet Member for Education Forward Plan reference number: 1208
Contact officer: Tom Procter – Service Manager, Contracts and School Organisation
Recommendations:
A. To agree that London Borough of Merton should utilise the joint London Borough of Richmond, Sutton and Merton framework and continue to use the London
Construction Programme - Construction Related Consultancy Services 2012 framework for the procurement of design consultants. Use of the Richmond framework is subject to the contract being legally finalised by the LB Richmond. B. To note that the immediate procurement of design consultants for four major school
expansion projects should be through the London Framework: Hillcross, Merton Abbey, Pelham and Poplar Primary Schools, and two through the Richmond Framework: Singlegate (Jamia building) and St. Mary’s RC School. To agree that each project is a separate procurement decision in-line with standing orders.
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. This purpose of the report is to agree a new process of appointing design consultants for construction works, mainly relating to school expansion projects.
1.2. The report is being presented to Cabinet since, although six projects to be procured individually fall below the threshold for Cabinet agreement,
collectively their value is approaching £2 million, with further projects likely to be procured through these frameworks.
2 DETAILS
2.1. On 14 November 2005 Cabinet agreed to procure design consultants via a London Borough of Sutton panel of architects. This enables design
consultants to be appointed in a timely manner from a short list appointed under EU procedures.
2.2. The process provided mixed results in the early stages but as officers understood the strengths and weaknesses of the design consultants, they have been appointed on a project-by-project basis according to their
strengths and value for money. As a result the school expansion programme is currently being successfully delivered with key timescales being met, schools highly satisfied with the finished building and the construction process, and projects generally meeting budget.
2.3. However, the number and range of consultants needing to be appointed is not sufficiently wide and the contract period will shortly come to an end. Therefore the Procurement Board in November 2011 agreed to the principle of using a London Borough of Richmond Framework for Design consultants, in collaboration with LB Richmond and LB Sutton. The framework is
contracted to operate for at least three years with the option to renew for a further year.
2.4. In addition, in May 2012 the Procurement Board agreed that the council should also be able to utilise the London Framework.
2.5. Both frameworks are EU contract compliant means to procure design
consultants in a timely manner that has been competitively procured to offer maximum value for money through London Boroughs working in a
consortium.
2.6. Appendix 1 and 2 outlines the companies in the two frameworks. The
frameworks have a series of lots according to the type and value of work, to ensure the appropriate design consultant can be appointed for the type of project.
2.7. While the London Framework requires a mini tender with the companies in the Framework unless certain circumstances apply, the Richmond
Framework allows direct call-off if desired, providing flexibility for prompt procurement to the most appropriate and value for money company in the circumstances.
2.8. By using both frameworks LB Merton will have the maximum opportunity to obtain value form money, using the most appropriate design consultant for the individual project e.g. depending on its degree of complexity, need for architects-style design led approach for sensitive projects versus practical design approach for adaptation projects.
2.9. In the short term there is less risk to using more projects for the London Framework as it is more established, and has a specific category for
education projects. By also using the Richmond Framework for two projects, the council will be able to take further opportunity to use design consultants that are appropriate for these specific projects.
3 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
3.1. With regard to design consultants the council could tender at individual project level or have its own framework. However, both options would be time consuming and, in the absence of sufficient in-house resource, costly.
4 CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN OR PROPOSED
4.1. The corporate procurement board has considered reports on both design consultant frameworks, including a draft of this report at the meeting on 11 October 2012. The recommendations contained in this report have been supported.
5 TIMETABLE
5.1. The London Framework has been available for Local Authorities to use since March 2012 and operates to February 2016.
5.2. The Richmond framework will be contracted for three years with the option to extend by a further year. It is expected to commence by the end of October 2012.
5.3. Design consultants for the projects need to be procured immediately to meet school expansion timescales.
6 FINANCIAL, RESOURCE AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS
Procurement Implications
6.1 Commissions for these frameworks will be for projects agreed in the capital programme. Both frameworks are a EU contract compliant means to procure design consultants in a timely manner that has been competitively procured to offer maximum value for money through London Boroughs working in a consortium.
Financial Implications
6.2 Considerable guidance has been received from Central Government
included in this are definitions of which activities may be charged to revenue and capital budgets:
i) Options appraisals are classified as revenue expenditure ii) The activities undertaken as part of the Sutton Agreement are
classified as revenue expenditure.
iii) The Richmond Framework relates to staff time, it is currently envisaged that this expenditure would be classified as revenue. iv) The structure of the London Wide Agreement results in costs being
added to the contractors costs. As a result of this classification all costs incurred would classified as capital costs.
6.3 Budgetary provision is identified as each scheme is progressed.
7 LEGAL AND STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS
7.1. Both the London framework agreement and the Richmond Framework agreement do not exclude Merton from joining and calling off from other framework agreements. If Merton legally accesses these framework
agreements then it will be complying with the EU Procurement Regulations. 7.2. Officers have already commenced a mini tender under the London
Framework agreement with regards the projects mentioned in
Recommendation B. As to the Richmond Framework Agreement, this has not been finalised yet and if necessary an alternative procurement panel will be used for the design consultants for Singlegate and St Mary's RC School in the short term.
8 HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITIES AND COMMUNITY COHESION
IMPLICATIONS
8.1. No specific implications
9 CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
9.1. No specific implications
10 RISK MANAGEMENT AND HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
10.1. The use of cross council frameworks reduces the risk of low performance by using a smaller number of companies that have gone through a vigorous procurement process, and a system for monitoring on-going performance including several councils.
11 APPENDICES – THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE
PUBLISHED WITH THIS REPORT AND FORM PART OF THE REPORT
• Appendix 1 – Details of Lots and design consultants on the LB Richmond Framework
• Appendix 2 – Details of Lots and design consultants on the London Framework
12 BACKGROUND PAPERS
12.1. Procurement Board Papers are available
Appendix 1 – Design Consultants on the LB Richmond Framework
LOT DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF PROVIDERS
FOR APPOINTMENT
PROVIDER
Lot 1 Multi Disciplinary Services up to £750k in value per
project 8
• Brodie Plant Goddard
• CYD Projects
• Atkins • NPS
• Meadowcroft Griffin Architects • Clipston Construction Control Ltd • Curl La Tourelle
• DHP (UK) Ltd Lot 2 Multi Disciplinary Services between £750k and £3m in
value per project 6
• Atkins
• Faithorn Farrell Timms • ADP
• NPS • Reformat • DHP Lot 3 Multi Disciplinary Services over £3m in value per
project 4
• Atkins • NPS
• Pick Everard
• Achitype Ltd. Lot 4 Independent Project Manager 5
• Pick Everard
• Synergy Construction • Pellings
• Summers Inman
• Capita Symonds
Lot 5 Quantity Surveyor 5
• Summers Inman
• Cyril Sweet • Huntly Cartwright • Potter Raper Partnerships • Synergy Construction Lot 6 Asset Management & Condition Surveyors 5
• Property Data Solutions • Rand Associates • NPS
• Mouchel • Ridge & Partners Lot 7 Specialists and Surveyors 3 per specialism • Various
Appendix 2 – Design Consultants on the London Framework
Lot 1 - Multi Disciplinary consultants (Building Surveying led)Small Works Under £249,999
Atkins Limited
Frankham Consultancy Group Limited Keegans Ltd
Pellings LLP
Ridge and Partners LLP
Lot 2 - Multi Disciplinary consultants (Building Surveying led) £250,000 to £999,999
EC Harris LLP
Frankham Consultancy Group Limited Mouchel Limited
NPS Property Consultants Limited Ridge and Partners LLP
Lot 3 - Multi Disciplinary consultants (Building Surveying led) Over £1,000,000
Atkins Limited
Frankham Consultancy Group Limited Keegans Ltd
Mouchel Ltd Pellings LLP
Lot 4 - Architect and Associated Supply Chain (Education Projects): Up to £2,999,999
Acanthus LW architects AD Architects Ltd
Architects Design Partnership LLP Mouchel Limited
Pick Everard
Rivington Street Studio Shepheard Epstein Hunter Watkins Gray International LLP
Lot 5 - Architect and Associated Supply Chain (Education Projects): Over £3,000,000
Curl la Tourelle Architects Haverstock Associates LLP Hawkins Brown Architects LLP Mouchel Limited
NPS Property Consultants Limited Pellings LLP
Pick Everard
Pollard Thomas Edwards Limited
Lot 6 - Project Management inclusive of (but not limited to) being the Employers Agent and Partnering Advisors (PPC2000)
Baily Garner LLP Mace Limited
Mott MacDonald Limited
Northcroft Group Limited (t/a Northcroft) Sweett (UK) Limited
Lot 7 - CDM Co-ordinators
Calford Seaden (Health and Safety) Limited Frankham Consultancy Group Limited Gleeds
Stace LLP
Sweett (UK) Limited
Lot 8 - Quantity Surveyors
Keegans Ltd
Mott MacDonald Limited Playle & Partners LLP Stace LLP
Sweett (UK) Limited
Lot 9 - BREEAM Assessors
Architects Design Partnership LLP Atkins Limited
Clancy Consulting Ltd
Frankham Consultancy Group Limited Gleeds
Lot 10 - Clerk of Works
John Burke Associates
John Rowan and Partners LLP MDA Consulting Ltd
Mouchel Limited
Lot 11 - Client Design Advisors
3DReid
Curl la Tourelle Architects
Pollard Thomas Edwards Limited
