2019-11-12 Services & Organisation Committee Agenda

SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA   12 NOVEMBER 2019




                                                       Page 45 of 129

SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                12 NOVEMBER 2019

 2.3.3    Detailed evaluation of respondents
 Evaluation
 Each evaluation team member undertook an independent review and analysis of the respondents
 technical submission and rated them according to establish criteria. Once completed the evaluation
 team met to review and discuss each team member's evaluation and agree scoring for each
 respondents criteria, ultimately informing the evaluation outcome.
 Commercial analysis was undertaken separate from the qualitative technical evaluation. Each
 respondent's commercial submission was reviewed, identifying costs which deviated significantly
 from the mean and any cost items added to the standard pricing response schedule.
 A summary of the scoring (technical and commercial) as agreed by the evaluation team is provided
 in the table below.

  Pentacon Pty Ltd                          93.15        93.15        186.30       93.15
  Hall Contracting Pty Ltd                  93.20        91.25        184.45       92.23
  Koppens Developments Pty Ltd              88.40        89.67        178.07       89.04
  SGQ Pty Ltd                               77.30        70.00        147.30       73.65
  Exceed Concrete Construction Pty Ltd      40.60        43.15        83.75        41.88

 Relative value evaluations (value for money)
 The pricing range was significant as represented by the top and bottom values in Figure 1. The upper
 and bottom quartile values are represented by the shaded area and the median value being the line
 that cuts the shade area. The mean (average) value is represented by the cross.
 Considering value for money; PentaCon’s submission is approximately 25% more competitive
 versus the next most competitive respondent. At the other end of the scale, PentaCon is
 approximately 97% more competitive versus the most expense respondent. PentaCon’s offer
 provides significant value for money.
 The tender price basis is a schedule of unit rates for materials and activities as developed by
 Council’s design consultant which will be used to administer a lump sum contract. With this in mind,
 the commercial evaluation looked at individual unit costs as well as any additional cost items that
 respondents had added to their submission.
 Although unit rates differed significantly, the evaluation team was satisfied that the recommended
 respondent's unit rates were sufficient for completing the works. The evaluation team took the view
 that competitive unit rates were advantageous considering the likelihood of variations.
 Referees
 Referees for the recommended respondent have been contacted and although they have highlighted
 areas for improvement, have generally been happy with their performance.
 Financial viability
 Financial information was a requirement of the tender submission and upon reviewing indicate that
 the preferred respondent has the financial capacity and resources to undertake this contract.

 Tender Evaluation Report — 1819T085                                                    Page 5

                                                                                      Page 45 of 129