\\Server\nzrab\2011\Registration 2011\Exemplars for website\Single document for
case study written commentary examples FINAL PM 2 FEB 2011.doc
Once the client had approved the list, the contractors were contacted and invited to tender. Tender
packages of full architectural and engineering drawings, specifications and SCC 2007 schedules
(appendix 22) along with a formal invitation letter, were couriered out on 5/10/09 and were due to be
submitted by 4.00pm on 28/10/09. Each tenderer received two full document sets in hard copy format
and a CD set of drawings. Our director wrote to the client confirming the call for tenders and they also
received a full set of tender documents for their records (appendix 23). I called tenderers the
following day to ensure they had received the documents.
During the tender period, I was the principal contact for tender enquiries. I also issued Notices to
Tenderers when required (which our director signed as a registered architect). An example where a
Notice was needed was an amendment to the project documentation regarding the amount of LPG
cylinders on site (appendix 24). To avoid delaying the processing of the Building Consent, the
number of gas cylinders on site had to be reduced from four to two, meaning that a small electric
water cylinder would be required to provide additional hot water to the nappy change room while the
rest of the building’s hot water would be from a Rinnai unit. In total, there were two Notices to
Tenderers couriered out and these were required to be acknowledged by all the tenderers in their
submissions, as proof of receipt.
Tender Evaluation
I called each tenderer a few days prior to tenders closing, to confirm they were on target to submit a
price on time. All four tenders were received by fax within the specified tender validly period, with
originals delivered to our office the next day.
I entered the tender information into an Excel spreadsheet that followed the layout of the trade
summary included in the tender package. None of the tenderers followed the trade summary
perfectly and there were some items that were included as part of other trades. However, the
spreadsheet allowed for easy comparison of prices and highlighted potential omissions or mistakes in
the tenders. Day rates, tags, margins and variation processing rates were also listed and compared.
Once the contingency sum and a sum for street services connections were included, three of the
tenders were below the latest QS estimate of $665,856.00 excluding GST. This meant that the
funding obtained by the client would be adequate. However, only two tenderers made reference to
programme – LMN Construction confirmed they could start construction 5 working days after Building
Consent was uplifted and DEF Construction noted that the contract period would need to be
discussed.
HIJ Interiors tender was the lowest. However, we noted the low amount in HIJ’s price for site works
(which also included drainage and excavation) compared to other prices received and were
concerned that this might be an error. When an architect spots a possible error in a tender, the
tenderer must be given the opportunity to review their price. They can either stand by it or
acknowledge a mistake and withdraw from the tendering process.
HIJ was given the chance to review their price for a possible mistake – a Tender Clarification asked
them to confirm their site works price and clarify several other points in their tender. HIJ stood by their
original site works price. Tender Clarifications were also sent to LMN and DEF (appendix 25). Once
we had received replies to the Clarifications, I was able to update the figures in the comparison
spreadsheet (appendix 26) and better compare the tenders.
I was still very concerned about HIJ’s comparatively low price for site works, excavation and drainage,
and what it could mean for the quality of the work if it were accepted. I also wondered whether this
price could cause problems during construction – if a mistake had indeed been made in the pricing,
the contractor may seek to recover losses through pricing variations in a less efficient manner and
cutting corners on site.
On the other hand, LMN’s tender was free of tags, they had the advantage of being based very close
to the project site and they had confirmed they could start on site promptly and commit to the
proposed programme. We were impressed with the quality and thoroughness of their tender, which
included a preliminary programme and information on company quality assurance procedures and
health and safety. We therefore decided that LMN were the best choice for the project.