Decision Maker: Head of Resources
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Reason(s) for the Decision:
Information: This project was an inherited project using a repairs
fund allowance.
The total contract value estimated by the project lead was
£35,000. The current surveyor compared this with a recent
project of similar scope of work, in a building of similar age with
similar usage (Queens Theatre, Barnstable). The estimates and bills
of works were found to be broadly comparable.
The estimate for the value of the contract led to a procurement
decision to award by means of gaining a minimum of 3 quotes as it
was under the £39,999 threshold for a tender exercise.
When quotes for the works were returned they were £46,847,
£48,241 and £52,479.
Elements that increased the price between the estimated value and
prices quoted by bidders.
• Additional works were specified mid project and post
estimate. This was partly due to the poor condition of 6 chimneys
in this historical Grade 2 listed build current value which
required remediation work. This was not known at the time of the
estimate.
• Material costs increased substantially post December
2020.
• Lead times for suppliers and changes of suppliers post
December 2020
Additional information and conclusion.
The three quotes received for this project were all within a close
range which represents the current market.
The officer making the estimate made an ‘evidentially sound
estimate’ at a time when there were major shifts within the
building trade and associated sectors and unexpected amendments to
the specification post estimate and mid project.
There were some clarifications to be made and with these
alterations to the specification the lowest bid stands.
During the procurement process clarifications were made of the
lowest bidder which did not bring the works or quoted price up to
the quoted price by the second lowest bidder, had the second lowest
bidders price been altered to reflect the changes during the
procurement process the lowest bid would have remained the lowest
bid throughout the process.
We wish to award the contract to the lowest bidder without further
competition.
Record of Decision Taken: to award the
contract to the lowest bidder without further
competition.
Alternative Options considered and rejected at
the time of the decision:
To re-run the procurement exercise accounting for the increased
costs is felt to be an unnecessary use of limited resources.
Legal advice from Simon Fuller suggested this route was not
necessary to comply with the Public Procurement Regulations and
Council’s Contract Procedure Rules.
Declaration of any Conflict of Interest made by any Councillor
consulted by the officer or declared when granting the specific
authorisation to take the decision (including details of any
dispensations granted by the Ethics Committee)
N/A
List Of Background Papers that were relied on in making the
decision or the decision is based (but not including published
works or those which disclose exempt or confidential information
(as defined in rule 10 of appendix 15 (Access to Information
Procedural Rules) and the advice of a political advisor)
N/A
Publication date: 30/03/2021
Date of decision: 29/03/2021