Kilncraigs, Greenside Street, Alloa FK10 1EB
Telephone: 01259 450000
Contact: / John Quigley
Direct Tel: / 01259 452648
Mr. Martin Dunn
Pyramid Joinery & Construction Limited
Block 1, Chapelhall Industrial Estate
Airdrie, ML6 8QH
By Email and First Class Post / Email: /
Our Ref: / 2/6/992 - Contract No 412000
Your Ref:
Date: / 22 September 2011
Dear Martin
2011-2015 Bathroom Replacements Framework Contract
I refer to your email of 15 September 2011, requesting that the Council review the decision not to select your company to participate in the tender stage of this procurement process. Having reviewed the content of your submission, it would appear that there are two issues that require to be addressed. I have dealt with these in turn below.
(1) Constructionline Notational Value
I reviewed the your submission and the accompanying documentation. At the time of your submission, the notational value for the relevant works categories of your organisation was £6,997,905. As stated in the contract notice, the Council has the right (and as a matter of practice does so) to check that the information submitted by contractors is correct.
Your submission was assessed on 9 June 2011, and as part of the assessment, a check was made with Constructionline to confirm your organisation's notational value. As a result of this check, it was discovered that your organisations was £4,581301.
As made clear within the pre-qualification questionnaire, any organisation with a lower notational value than the estimated tender value of the works (£6m-£8m) would not be invited to tender. As your organisation fell within this category, your request to participate was not considered as it failed to comply with the submission requirements. This process was applied to all other candidates who did not meet the submission criteria in respect of the notational value.
(2) Contract Value
I note that you consider that the appropriate notational value for this project should be £1.5m to £2m and not the level stipulated on the contract notice and pre-qualification questionnaire.
The contract is let on a framework arrangement whereby the Council is under no obligation to award the successful contractor any work, however it could feasibly instruct the entire works in one financial year through the underlying contract. As this could potentially amount to an instruction of up to a minimum of £6m within one financial year, it was viewed by the Council at the time of publication of the contract notice that the successful contractor must have the demonstrable capacity to carry out this level of works, and the notational value requirement was set at £6m.
As stated above, as your notational value is less than the £6m, the Council has assessed you as not being able to carry out the works to the estimated tender value. All candidates whose notational value was less than the estimated contract value were assessed on this basis and have been informed of the Council's decision.
I trust that this explains the reasons as to why your submission was marked as non compliant and consequently why you were not invited to tender for this project. Should you have any further queries, please contact me on the telephone number above.
Yours sincerely
John Quigley
Quantity Surveyor
Facilities Management
cc - Stephen Crawford - Head of Facilities Management
cc - Mark Easton - Solicitor, Governance Service