1. New Intermediate Construction Frameworks

2. 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

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

4. Principles – 2 stage approach
Design
Construction
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
Construct to agreed lump sum
This framework approach has been tried and tested since HCC’s first framework in 2004 for the Nursing Care Programme

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. Principles of Mini Competition 1
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.

10. Outcome 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

11. Principles of Mini Competition 2
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
Sub categories not weighted – single commercial score

12. Principles of Mini Competition 2
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

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

14. Key gateways

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

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