Download original attachment
(Excel spreadsheet)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Islington Town Hall Auditorium refurbishment'.
(Excel spreadsheet)
| Appendix C | ||||||
| Town Hall Auditorium | ||||||
| Evaluation of Contractors Tender submission for Quality compliance | ||||||
| Contractor : Diamond Build plc. | Evaluated: 09/12/2008. Panel: T Barnes/ R Stong | |||||
| When scoring the criteria the Panel used the following marking system: | ||||||
| 1 - does not meet requirements | ||||||
| 2 - Partially meets requirements | ||||||
| 3 - Meets requirements | ||||||
| 4 -Exceeds requirements | ||||||
| 5 - added value | ||||||
| The quality criteria and weightings are as set out in tender clause 6.7 of the contract documentation. | ||||||
| Quality forms 45% of the overall tender evaluation, breakdown as follows: | ||||||
| Criteria | weighting | Panel score | total score ( panel assessment x weighting | Panel comments | ||
| Experience and track record of successfully completing similar projects and working with local Authorities | 20% | 3 | 3 x 20 = 60 | The submission was good with detailed examples of work of a similar nature. The company have worked on grade 2 listed buildings and dealt with internal wooden panelling issues and cornice work. The company clearly demonstated they can undertake this size and complexity of project - the fact they had not listed any theatre work prevented a higher mark. Meets requirements. | ||
| Ability to address the specific requirements of the project | 10% | 4 | 4 x 10 = 40 | Diamond submitted a drawing showing site set up which clearly demonstrated they had thought about access/site welfare etc. They also suibmitted an ability statement and management structure for key operatives to be engaged on the project. Method statement submitted. The panel thiought this an excellent submission. | ||
| Capacity to meet the required timescales for construction and completion | 7.50% | 3 | 3 x 7.5 = 22.5 | The panel debated whether to award a 3 or 4 as the submission appeared good whithout quite exceeding requirements. The programme was detailed and accompanied a drawing detailing site storage/ fascilities. Thev programme is for 32 weeks, it appeared cohesive and carefully thought out. Meets requirements | ||
| Use of local labour | 2.50% | 3 | 3 x 2.5 = 7.5 | Whilst the submission was of a more generic nature some points worthy of note were that the head office is within 5 miles of the site, 80% of staff live in the London Borough postcode area's and Diamond have a policy of sourcing labour from local providers. The requirement was clearly met | ||
| Equality and Diversity | 2.50% | 3 | 3 x 2.5 = 7.5 | A 5 page statement was included - which again was of a generic nature, it detailed EOP statement/policy and requirements. One worthy note was that additional workshops were being planned. Requirement met | ||
| Sustainability | 2.50% | 3 | 3 x 2.5 = 7.5 | The submission adequately met requirements whilst being of a largly generic nature. | ||
| TOTAL SCORE 145 |