Guideline 2.13
- Guideline 2.1 Tendering Authority Procedures
- Guideline 2.2 Invitation to tender
- Guideline 2.3 Expedited Tender Procedures
- Guideline 2.4 Tender Evaluation Specification
- Guideline 2.5 Tender Evaluation Process
- Guideline 2.6 Tender Evaluation - Lowest Price Conforming Tender Method
- Guideline 2.7 Tender Evaluation - Weighted Attribute Method
- Guideline 2.8 Analysis of Alternative Tenders
- Guideline 2.9 Tender Negotiation
- Guideline 2.10 Notification Procedures
- Guideline 2.11 Conformity with RFT
- Guideline 2.12 Use of Particular Inputs
- Guideline 2.13
Guideline 2.13
Guideline 2.13 Other Guidelines
(1) Registers
A tendering authority can choose to operate a register of contractors in order to generally reduce administration costs for both themselves and contractors.
A register should provide for contractors to submit their non-price attribute information. This means that contractors who repeatedly perform contracts of a similar nature do not need to submit their non-price attribute information each time and can instead refer to the information held in the tendering authority's register. However tendering authorities may choose to specify that a contractor provide new information on some particular attributes (eg methodology, personnel) for each contract and similarly a contractor can supply new or additional information.
Where a tendering authority maintains a register of contractors, it should advertise no less than annually in appropriate newspapers inviting contractors to register or revise their information on the register. Contractors should be permitted to submit a new entry to the register, or update their existing entry, at any time.
(1a) Pre-Qualification Register
Tendering authorities can also choose to establish a pre-qualification register for physical works contracts that are to be evaluated using the Lowest Price Conforming tender evaluation method. The difference between a pre-qualification register and a general register is that for a pre-qualification register the non-price attributes are evaluated before the contractor is placed on the register.
There can be advantages in operating a pre-qualification register and, where it is practical to do so, tendering authorities are encouraged to consider its use.
The register evaluation team shall comprise a minimum of two people, if the register is used by only one tendering authority and a minimum of three people if used collectively by more than one tendering authority.
Inclusion of contractors on a pre-qualification register is on the basis of a pass/fail evaluation of the following non-price attributes:
- Relevant Experience
- Track Record
- Technical Skills
- Management Skills
- Resources
- Methodology (generic)
Contractors on the pre-qualification register are then able to tender for physical works projects without having to re-submit their non-price attributes.
If a contractor is failed for inclusion on the pre-qualification register, they would be entitled to seek information from the tendering authority(s) as to why they have failed and what they need to do in order to be included on the register. A contractor not on the pre-qualification register is still able to bid for work that is tendered using the lowest price conforming tender method, however, they will have to submit their non-price attribute information with their bid.
Performance Reporting
Reporting of contractor performance should be undertaken based on an Engineer’s Report which should be prepared at the practical completion of a contract. The reporting system should offer the contractor the opportunity to comment on any adverse performance that is recorded.
Poor performance by a contractor is to be fed back to the contractor and the register evaluation team and could result in a contractor being removed from the pre-qualification register. Such a contractor is not prevented from tendering for projects but would be excluded from the pre-qualification register.
The pre-qualification register of contractors can be held jointly by a group of tendering authorities. A group of authorities would need to agree on who would manage the register, keep it up to date, provide access etc. Tendering authorities may choose to use an agent to manage the register.
Pre-qualification registers should be segmented – contractors should be registered only for their areas of expertise and only for contracts up to a specified size. Areas of expertise for which separate sub-registers might be kept include:
- Road Maintenance
- Earthworks
- Drainage
- Pavement Construction
- Signs
- Street lighting
- Resurfacing
- Major Structures (bridges)
- Line marking
A pre qualification register should not be used for projects which have features that make use of the lowest price conforming tender method inappropriate.
When requesting tenders for a contract (of a size and type covered by the pre-qualification register) registered tenderers would only need to supply the tendering authority with limited information for evaluation.
That information may (for example) be limited to:
- supplementary resources required for the contract
- job specific methodology
- confirmation of ability to secure a bond if the bond is unique to the tender in question and its requirement is specified in the RFT
- price.
Tenders would be evaluated in accordance with section 2.6. Assuming price had not been requested in a separate envelope (refer 2.6.1 (3)) and assuming the lowest price tenderer was pre-qualified then the evaluation process would be limited to establishing that the lowest price tender “passed” – that is supplementary resources and methodology were acceptable etc. If it “passed” then evaluation would cease at that point and the contract would be awarded to the lowest priced tenderer.
(2) Short-Listing Procedures
Any tendering authority which usually receives a large number of responses in respect of any individual RFT advertisement may adopt a two-part selection process, involving a short-listing procedure.
The purpose of this procedure would be to limit the need for the tendering authority to evaluate more than the four or five most likely successful tenders.
Tendering authorities wishing to use this procedure in respect of physical works are referred to Section 4.4 of this Manual. However, the procedure described in Section 4.4 is not mandatory for physical works. Tendering authorities should choose a short-listing method that is appropriate, fair and efficient.
It would be unreasonable to fail a tenderer who had been short-listed.
(3) Design and Build Projects
Procedures for selecting consultants that focus on the price of the professional services are criticised for not recognising that savings in price at this stage might result in designs that are more costly to build. The end result would then be a less satisfactory completed work and a total cost that is higher than it would have been if a little more had been invested in the design phase.
Design and build projects are seen as a way to overcome this problem. The tendered price includes the design and construction, so each tenderer determines the optimum balance of design effort and construction cost to minimise total cost.
However at the tendering stage many details of the final design are obviously not yet known so the tendering authority may not be able to determine precisely the likely serviceability and durability of the finished work. From the client's point of view a successful design and build is also particularly reliant on the contractor being responsible and co-operative. For these reasons it is recommended that the weighted attribute method be used for evaluating design and build tenders.
These two aspects are captured in the methodology and track record attributes and it is considered that these should comprise a substantial weighting of the non-price attributes. Track record in this instance should take account of client satisfaction with any previous design and build efforts by each contractor. Methodology should attempt to determine the extent to which, and efficiency with which the completed work will perform the required function. It should also differentiate between proposals that will result in completed works having different service lives.
It is also important to give a significant weighting to the management attribute. This is to reflect both the importance of a good relationship between the consultant and the contractor, and the need for the tendering authority to be satisfied that the person(s) nominated to manage this relationship has the necessary competence to ensure smooth progress of the contract.
A minimum weighting of 70% for price is considered appropriate for most design and build tender evaluations. However, combined with this there is a need for stringent assessment of the quality attributes. Tendering authorities that are doubtful on any contractor's attributes should grade them at 35 or less. The risks associated with unproven or sub-standard contractors are greater with design and build projects than with conventional contracts.
Consideration should be given to requiring the successful tenderer for a design and build contract to put in place a bond that lasts beyond the completion of the project and gradually diminishes to zero over a period of up to, say, 5 years. This gives the client some security in the event of deficiencies in the design and/or construction which only become evident sometime after the contractor has completed the work.
