Agenda item

Any other business which the Chair considers urgent under the  Local Government Act 1972.

The Chair has agreed to consider under this item a report which seeks approval for the appointment of design and construction partners for the Administrative Accommodation Project, in accordance with the requirement in Financial Regulations to obtain Member approval in cases where the preferred bidder has not submitted the lowest priced bid.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the appointment of Shepherd Construction as Constructor for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 1) be acknowledged.

                        (ii)        That the appointment of RMJM Ltd. as the Architect, Structural Engineer, Space Planner and Planning Supervisor for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 2) be approved.

                        (iii)       That the appointment of Gifford as the Mechanical and Electrical Engineer for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 3) be approved.

                        (iv)       That the appointment of WT Partnership as the Quantity Surveyor for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 4) be approved.

                        (v)        That the appointment of Turner and Townsend as Project Manager for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 5) be acknowledged.

REASON:      In order to achieve the best quality of service for the project within the available budget and to avoid unnecessary delay.

                        (vi)       That the above appointments be subject to the Chief Executive arranging for another department of the Council to carry out an independent check on the reasoning behind the decisions of the Corporate Landlord in those cases where he has not recommended acceptance of the lowest tender.

REASON:      So that Members can be absolutely certain that the additional expenditure occasioned by not accepting the lowest tenders is justified.

Members considered a report of the Corporate Landlord which sought approval for the appointment of design and construction partners for the Administrative Accommodation Project. 

The Chair had agreed to accept this item as Urgent Business under the Local Government Act 1974, on the basis that a decision on letting the contracts was required by 20 February, in order to meet EU regulations.  The decision could have been taken by the Executive Member for Corporate Services and Advisory Panel (EMAP), but the next scheduled EMAP meeting was not until 20 March, so the matter had been brought to the Executive.  Because a key decision was required, urgency procedures had been followed and a Notice issued under Regulation 15 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000.

Following a comprehensive procurement process, conducted on the basis of Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT), preferred bidders had been selected for each of five categories (or ‘Lots’) within the integrated partnering team that would design and construct the new office building.  Three of these had not submitted the lowest price bid for the respective Lot, so under Financial Regulations their appointment would require Member approval.  Two had submitted lowest price bids; of these, one had already been appointed and the other would be appointed in due course.  Members had the option either to approve the proposed appointments with regard to Lots 2, 3 and 4 or to refer the matter back to the Corporate Landlord for further assessment.

The press and public were excluded from the meeting for part of this item (Minute 153 refers), during which time Members questioned Officers on the financial details of the tenders, as set out in Annexes 1-5 of the report.  It was confirmed that, although the preferred bidders for Lots 2, 3 and 4 were not the lowest bidders, their fees in each case were within the range that could be afforded by the project.  Officers were confident that they would be the right appointments in terms of quality of service.  Correct procedures had been followed throughout the tendering process.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the appointment of Shepherd Construction as Constructor for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 1) be acknowledged.

                        (ii)        That the appointment of RMJM Ltd. as the Architect, Structural Engineer, Space Planner and Planning Supervisor for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 2) be approved.

                        (iii)       That the appointment of Gifford as the Mechanical and Electrical Engineer for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 3) be approved.

                        (iv)       That the appointment of WT Partnership as the Quantity Surveyor for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 4) be approved.

                        (v)        That the appointment of Turner and Townsend as Project Manager for the Administrative Accommodation project (Lot 5) be acknowledged.

REASON:      In order to achieve the best quality of service for the project within the available budget and to avoid unnecessary delay.

(vi)That the above appointments be subject to the Chief Executive arranging for another department of the Council to carry out an independent review of the reasoning behind the decisions of the Corporate Landlord in those cases where he has not recommended acceptance of the lowest tender.

REASON:      So that Members can be absolutely certain that, whilst the appointments are all within budget for the project, the additional expenditure occasioned by not accepting the lowest tenders is justified on the grounds of mitigating risk and adding value and quality to the scheme.