A new Intermediate construction frameworks Edward Currie and Mark Thomas Framework Managers

Complementary frameworks for capacity Issues with SEaL framework with interest in smaller projects (especially D&B) Analysis showed problem most acute for projects £1m to £4m Hence two complementary frameworks  SCF (SE) for projects > £4m  8 contractors  ICF (Hampshire) for projects £0.5m to £4m  10 contractors Exactly the same operating model Details of the new Major Works

Tier 3 (LCF) 3 Lots (18 contractors) £1 to £1.5m Tier 2 (ICF) 1 Lot (10 contractors) £0.5m to £4m Tier 2 £750k to £5m (8 contractors) Tier 3 £50k to £750k (8 contractors) Tier 4 £1 to £50k (6 contractors) Tier 2 £750k to £6.5m (11 contractors) Tier 3 £1 to £750k (11 contractors) SE SUB REGIONAL FRAMEWORKS Tier 3 (Minor Works) Work in progress

Principles – 2 stage approach DesignConstruction Construct to agreed lump sum Contractor selected from framework on OHP, PC fee, construction staff cost, design & ability to meet client brief and project budget Integrated team develop designs and costs, maximise efficiency within budget whilst finalising package procurement with tier 2 and 3 This framework approach has been tried and tested since HCC’s first framework in 2004 for the Nursing Care Programme

Learning – Feedback from previous users Frustration with the template approach to the Framework Tender Complications with Preliminary pricing tied to templates Preconstruction time based, not output based Lack of transparency in preconstruction No market intelligence Contractor performance variable Lack of enforcement of framework requirements

New Framework Features Specified Contractor duties  Framework Director  Framework Account Manager Not to exceed rates for OHP, Preconstruction, construction and design Faster contractor selection process Minimum standards of contractor performance across a range of project, performance and social value KPI’s Designed to help authorities implement key initiatives such as BIM and Project Bank Accounts through signed charters

What was included in The Framework Tender Specified Roles Duties Deliverables 10 Contractors: Amiri, Beard, Interserve, Kier, Lakehouse, Midas Longcross, Osborne, Raymond Brown, Stirland

The Mini Competition Process Opportunity pipeline published – M2i Project details published on procurement portal (sets not to exceed price) MC 1 run through procurement portal Framework manager / project officer short list to 3 Project Officer issues and runs MC2

Confirmation of ( Questions may be weighted ): Preference for type of project Ability to deliver (capability) Capacity of contractor and supply chain Ability to add value Self scored responses to pre-set criteria, supported by word limited written evidence. Evaluated by framework manager, who agrees outcome with project officer. Principles of Mini Competition 1

Preferred outcome is for three contractors to proceed to MC2. Sensitive to contractor right to appeal Sensitive to officer view on self scoring May be more than three in MC2 Framework Manager to feed back to unsuccessful contractors Outcome of Mini Competition 1

Cost – 30% weighting OHP % Pre construction fee% Construction fee % Design fee % If applicable and appropriate, may include Preliminary items Rates may not exceed the tender percentages from the price point, but may be less, and will be converted to lump sums based on the construction value Principles of Mini Competition 2 Sub categories not weighted – single commercial score

Technical – 70% weighting, with the following question areas: QA and performance (Continuous Improvement) Design Management & Development Supply Chain Management Handover and Aftercare Social Responsibility – Mandatory question Financial Control – Mandatory question on cost plan Framework delivery – Project delivery Programmes of Work Questions may be weighted Principles of Mini Competition 2

Award and feed back Project Officer to award  Agreed costs  Agreed programme  Pre construction agreement Project Officer to feed back to unsuccessful contractors

Key gateways

Managing performance Minimum standards of performance  Cost predictability  Time predictability  Team performance scores  Defects at handover  SME spend  Health and safety

Who we are Keith Heard Senior Programme Manager Edward Currie Regional Programme Manager L. Howell N. MidmerC. Henderson Vacancy T. Moss K Larrive Framework Team M. Thomas Contact Details T: E: