Kier Lose Area 9
Dear Highways England Company Limited,
Area 9 contract for July
The tender documentation sent to companies
Who tendered
What were the KPI
How did the tenders score
Why Kier was rejected
Yours faithfully,
Steve Taylor
Gadawodd Mr P Swift anodiad ()
Whilst I am following, please let me know the outcome of this. I have it 'from the horse's mouth' why Kier lost Area 9. I will be interested to see what you are advised.
Dear Steve Taylor
Thank you for your request relating to Freedom of Information request -
Kier Lose Area 9 dated 2 February 2022.
The due date for issuing a response is 2 March 2022.
Please feel free to contact our team if you have any queries quoting
FOI/3182 in any future communications
Kind regards
Amanda Speight
FOI Advice
You can make new FOI requests and review published responses by
visiting [1]https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
References
Visible links
1. https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
Dear Steve Taylor
Kier Lose Area 9
Thank you for your information request dated 02/02/2022 regarding Kier
Lose Area 9. We have dealt with your request under the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Information held
I can confirm that we hold some of the information you have requested.
You requested:
Dear Highways England Company Limited,
Area 9 contract for July
The tender documentation sent to companies
Who tendered
What were the KPI
How did the tenders score
Why Kier was rejected
Yours faithfully,
Steve Taylor
I can confirm that we hold some of the information requested.
The tender documentation sent to companies
Under Section 21 of the Act, we are not required to provide information,
which is already reasonably accessible to you. The information you
requested is provided below.
In accordance with the regulations, a contract award notice has been
published on both Find a Tender Service and Contracts Finder that details
the tender itself and a copy of the contract so that interested parties
may identify the scoring criteria used to assess the bids. Please see
links provided below for where this information can be found.
Who tendered
Tenders were submitted by Amey OW Ltd, Colas Limited and Kier Highways
Limited and were assessed in accordance with the Public Contracts
Regulations 2015.
What were the KPI?
Please see below
How did the tenders score
With regard to the above 2 questions under Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000, we can confirm that this information is not held
by National Highways. The reason for this is that KPI's are not measured
at the Tender stage.
For further information, in accordance with the regulations, a contract
award notice has been published on both Find a Tender Service and
Contracts Finder that details the tender itself and a copy of the contract
so that interested parties may identify the scoring criteria used to
assess the bids. Please see links provided below.
Why was Kier rejected
The successful tender was identified using the tender assessment and
contract award criteria published on Contracts Finder. Please see link
below and the document titled Area 9 Asset Delivery Maintenance & Response
(M&R) Contract Instructions for Tenders within this link. The link is
titled Area 9 M&R IfT_Redacted.pdf. On this basis Colas Limited submitted
the most economically advantageous Tender and were awarded the contract.
Links to documents
Find a Tender
Service: [1]https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/N...
Contracts
Finder: [2]https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov....
If you are not satisfied with your response you may ask for an internal
review within 40 working days of receiving the response, by replying to
this email. You can learn more about the internal review process [3]here.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
[4][email address]
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Please remember to quote reference number FOI/3182 in any future
communications about this response.
Kind regards
Commercial Delivery Services
Highways England | The Cube | 199 Wharfside Street | Birmingham | B1 1RN
Web: [5]http://www.highways.gov.uk
You can make new FOI requests and review published responses by
visiting [6]https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
References
Visible links
1. https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/N...
2. https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov....
3. https://highwaysengland.co.uk/media/a14h...
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.highways.gov.uk/
6. https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
Gadawodd Mr P Swift anodiad ()
Seems pretty non-descript. For some information please see:
https://www.englandhighways.co.uk/ico-tr...
Kier has been kicked off of the Area 9 contract by Highways England, when asked why, the same manager responded “Our quality submission was not as good as Colas” adding “and our price'”
The Kier manager made no mention of the corruption investigation reported shortly after the 11/01/20222 hearing:
Separate papers also show that workers employed by the main contractor, Kier, for another scheme ‘manipulated’ tender processes, awarded a subcontract worth £1.4 million in breach of rules and that this was ‘influenced by bribery’. The claims were in relation to a stretch of the M6, junctions 13 to 15, also being converted. The internal National Highways papers state: ‘Evidence found during this investigation supports the allegations made but is insufficient to identify individuals.’ Read more here.
Dear [email address],
Can you send me to the specific documents in the list and the quality submissions and prices
Yours sincerely,
Steve Taylor
Dear Steve Taylor
Thank you for your request relating to Kier Lose Area 9 - documents in the
list and the quality submissions and prices dated 07/03/2022.
The due date for issuing a response is 04/04/2022.
Please feel free to contact our team if you have any queries quoting
FOI/3360 in any future communications
Kind regards
Andrea Bartlett
You can make new FOI requests and review published responses by
visiting [1]https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
References
Visible links
1. https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
Dear Steve Taylor
Kier lose Area 9- documents in the list and the quality submissions and prices
I am writing to advise you that the time-limit for responding to your
request for information which we received on 8 March 2022 needs to be
extended.
In the case of your request, I must extend the time limit by
approximately 10 working days because the information requested must be
considered under one or more of the exemptions to which the public
interest test applies. This extra time is needed to make a determination
as to the public interest.
The specific exemption which applies in relation to your request is FOI
Exemption Section 43- Commercial Interests and we consider these to apply
because providing specific documents and the quality submissions and
prices indicating the comparative merits for any successful or
unsuccessful bids could influence future tender competitions, and
consequently would be likely to prejudice commercial interests.
I hope to let you have a response by 19 April 2022.
Please remember to quote reference number 3360 in any future
communications about this response.
Kind regards
Commercial and Procurement
Dear Steve Taylor
Kier Lose Area 9 - documents in the list and the quality submissions and
prices
Thank you for your information request dated 7 March 2022 regarding Kier
Lose Area 9 - documents in the list and the quality submissions and
prices. We have dealt with your request under the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You asked –
Can you send me to the specific documents in the list and the quality
submissions and prices
Information withheld
This information has been withheld under the exemption in [1]Section 43 –
Commercial Interests of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 because
providing the quality submissions and prices for any successful or
unsuccessful bids could influence future tender competitions, and
consequently would prejudice commercial interests.
In applying this exemption, we have had to balance the public interest in
withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure. The
key public interest factors for and against disclosure are attached.
If you are not satisfied with your response you may ask for an internal
review within 40 working days of receiving the response, by replying to
this email. You can learn more about the internal review process [2]here.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted [3]here or via
the address below -
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Please remember to quote reference number FOI/3360 in any future
communications about this response.
Kind regards
Commercial Delivery Services
Highways England | The Cube | 199 Wharfside Street | Birmingham | B1 1RN
Web: [4]http://www.highways.gov.uk
You can make new FOI requests and review published responses by
visiting [5]https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
References
Visible links
1. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200...
2. https://highwaysengland.co.uk/media/a14h...
3. https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/
4. http://www.highways.gov.uk/
5. https://foiform.highwaysengland.co.uk/
Gadawodd Mr P Swift anodiad ()
Dear Sir
Should you wish to challenge this and need more info', please pm me.
But, fyi:
2014 to 12/2018, the Authority cited 'sensitive' to Kier rates that were HELD.
12/2018 they lost an Information Tribunal appeal 2018/0088
01/2019, rather than provide the rates, they stated 'not held'
08/2020, they disclosed the rates
The disclosed rates are for ASC )pre-planned / scheme works) and DCP (Damage to Crown Property) ergo it appears neither are sensitive. Indeed, the rates appear on the WDTK site.
You likely need to ask whether rates for schemes and DCP works differ - they did not with Kier.
As the DCP rates will appear on all claim correspondence sent to a Third Party (driver, fleet, haulier or their insurer) why owuld there be any secrecy? Possiblly Colas' price (see below) was not cheaper but that other factors were at play - aside of 'quality submission' - a littl eodd given that Kier had bene working the Area since 2014 and only now is their quality seemingly of concern.
As for the loss of the contract, a Kier manager explained:
"I can tell you our quality submission was not as good as Colas’s, so it has got nothing to do with costs or price of anything, it is a closed procurement process, we submit our tender and then a judgment is made on a few things based on quality and pricing. We were not successful".
But whilst the above statement is clear; it has got nothing to do with price, in their next breath their quality submission was not as good as Colas "or price."
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Gadawodd Peter Anderson anodiad ()
I will follow