Issue - meetings

Appointment of a contractor for the construction of new Multi-Use Games Area pitches at Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre

Meeting: 22/09/2016 - Cabinet (Item 39)

39 Construction of new Multi-Use Games Area pitches at Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Report of the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture on the appointment of a contractor for the construction of new Multi-Use Games Area pitches at Broadbridge Heath Leisure Centre

Additional documents:

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

(i)         That the tender received from Company A be approved and that they be awarded the contract.

 

(ii)        That the Director of Community Services be authorised to enter into the contract for the appointment of Company A for either Option A or Option B, as outlined in the report, dependent on the finalisation of terms with Countryside.

 

REASON

 

To appoint a contractor to undertake the construction of Multi Use Games Area pitches at Broadbridge Heath.

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture reminded Cabinet that, on 23rd November 2015, they had approved the redevelopment of the leisure centre at Broadbridge Heath and Council had approved the budget for the project on 9th December 2015.

 

The first phase of the project was to relocate the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) pitches onto land to the south of the Bowls Club, which was to be transferred to the Council by Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd (Countryside) in accordance with an obligation in the section106 agreement for Countryside’s housing development at

Broadbridge Heath.

 

The Council’s appointed professional team for the Broadbridge Heath leisure centre project had advised that the most suitable form of contract for this project would be a single stage design and build contract, where contractors were provided with a robust set of employer’s requirements, which were competitively tendered.  The contractors then determined the most appropriate design and construction methodology that would satisfy the employer’s requirements.

 

The procurement of the contract had been through an open local tender process, with tenderers being invited to submit two proposals, Option A and Option B.  Option A was for the construction of three MUGA pitches and Option B was for the construction of three pitches, with an option for a further two shortly thereafter.  The option choice would depend on whether the Council agreed terms to construct two MUGA pitches on behalf of Countryside under a proposed variation to the s106 agreement.

 

Following a cost and quality evaluation of the tenders received, it was recommended that Company A should be selected as contractors for the project.

 

The Cabinet Member reported that his Policy and Development Advisory Group had considered this at their meeting on 15th September and supported the proposal.

 

RESOLVED

 

(i)         That the tender received from Company A be approved and that they be awarded the contract.

 

(ii)        That the Director of Community Services be authorised to enter into the contract for the appointment of Company A for either Option A or Option B, as outlined in the report, dependent on the finalisation of terms with Countryside.

 

REASON

 

To appoint a contractor to undertake the construction of Multi Use Games Area pitches at Broadbridge Heath.


Meeting: 15/09/2016 - Leisure & Culture Policy Development Advisory Group (Item 10)

MUGA Tender Contract

Forward Plan item scheduled for Cabinet decision 22 September. Reports for Cabinet will be published on the council’s website on 14 September.

Minutes:

The group heard an update from officers on the MUGA tender contract. The decision was taken to undertake a local tender process because the construction works were simple and would appeal to suitably experienced contractors of which there were many. A local tender process was used to ensure a competitive price for the project, which was evaluated using a 70/30, price/quality split, to ensure best value. The competitive evaluation process ensured the appointment of a contractor who had the right experience and capability to deliver the project and that the tendered price was fair value. A total of 17 suppliers expressed an interest in the project and four contractors’ had submitted tenders. Officers outlined the post- decision timeline for members’ information.