Invitation for proposals and quotes for architectural and lead consultant services, CAER Hidden Hillfort
Project
Specification and scope
1. Instructions to Bidders
Tender documents must be received attached to an email by 12:00 (noon) 26th July 2017. Tenders
that are not submitted by this deadline will be excluded.
Tender documents to be submitted to [email protected]
List of documents attached




2.
Hidden Hillfort Project bid summary
Caerau Hillfort Project: Heritage Centre Outline Feasibility Report
Quality criterion
Cover letter
Documents to be returned for submission:
Response to Specification, Scope and
Quality Criterion
Pricing
Community Benefit Proposals
3.









SCOPE
We require the following services:
Review of stage 1 Heritage Lottery application and existing Heritage Centre Outline Feasibility Report
Development of a design brief in co-production with community partners
Appointment and management of the following works: Asbestos survey, Ecology Scoping Survey,
Ecology Emergence Survey, Ecology Protected Species Licence, Measured Survey, Applications for
Statutory Consents, Quantity Surveyor, CDM ‘Principle Designer’, Structural Engineer, Mechanical and
Electrical Consultant
Minimum of three public community consultations (half-day each) organised with the Heritage Centre
Co-production Working Group
Two phased presentations to the Heritage Centre Co-production Working Group followed by a final
design sign-off with the Heritage Centre co-production working group and the CAER Hidden Hillfort
management team
Delivery plan for development of the Hidden Hillfort Heritage Centre and landscape, and managing
health and safety requirements for the renovation/build
Principle Designer services in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management)
regulations
Initial appointment up to and including RIBA stage 3
Pricing for continuation of scheme through Stages 4, 5 and 6
4.
Activity Schedule/Price List
Please provide all-inclusive costs, itemised for each element
5.
Community Benefits
Please provide community benefits proposals for this project as part of your submission.
The successful supplier(s) will be expected to work with ACE to maximise the Community
Benefits delivered through the project. This could include, but is not limited to:







Pupil placement opportunities – in partnership with Cardiff West Community High
School
Placement/volunteer opportunities for unemployed adults
Pupil careers advice and mentoring
Support for careers days and/or school projects
Offer of sponsorship for community projects
Being a guest speaker at a local school/community event
Working with the CAER Heritage team to identify specific opportunities within existing
local partnerships to maximise community benefit
(Please note, ACE is well placed to facilitate links with local schools and other partners. We are
looking for a commitment and ability to work with ACE, during project delivery, to maximise the
opportunities afforded by these established partnerships).
6.
Award Criteria and Scoring Methodology
Criterion
Method of Assessment
Available
Marks
A
Quality/Technical
As per Invitation to Tender
50
B
Price
As per Invitation to Tender
30
C
Community
As per Invitation Tender
20
Benefits
TOTAL
100
MARKS
Methodology
1.
The scores against criteria A (Quality/Technical – see methodology below), criteria B (Price) and criteria
C (community benefits) above will be added together to produce a total score out of 100.
2.
Subject to the terms of this Framework Agreement, the Potential Employer will select the Framework
Consultant with the highest score.
3.
We reserve the right to decline to make any award, or to award to other than the lowest offer.
Each quality question will be scored using the following scoring methodology:
Criteria
No Response Provided
Very Poor: the response is significantly below what would be expected because of
one or all of the following:
The response indicates a significant lack of understanding relating to the
requirements;
The response fails to meet the requirement.
Poor (meets some of the requirement)
The response meets elements of the requirement but gives concern in a number of
significant areas. There are reservations because of one or all of the following:
There is at least one significant issue needing considerable attention;.
Proposals do not demonstrate competence or understanding;
The response is light and unconvincing.
Satisfactory (meets most of the requirement)
The response meets most of the requirement but there is at least one significant
issue of concern, or several smaller issues. These would require of some further
clarification or attention later in the procurement process, and may arise through
lack of demonstrated capability and/or appropriate evidence. The response
therefore shows:
Basic understanding of the requirements;
Sufficient competence demonstrated through relevant evidence;
Some areas of concern that require attention.
Good (meets the requirement)
The response broadly meets what is expected for the criteria. There are no
significant areas of concern, although there may be limited minor issues that need
further exploration or attention later in the procurement process. The response
therefore shows:
Good understanding of the requirements;
Sufficient competence demonstrated through relevant evidence;
Some insight demonstrated into the relevant issues.
Excellent (exceeds the requirement).
The response exceeds what is expected for the criteria. Leaves no doubt as to the
capability and commitment to deliver what is required. The response therefore
shows:
Very good understanding of the requirements;
Excellent proposals demonstrated through relevant evidence;
Considerable insight into the relevant issues.
The response is also likely to propose additional value in several respects above
that expected.