Public procurement notice: Contract Notice
Published: 2017-12-13
Buyer: Scrabster Harbour Trust
Country: UK
Contract type: Services
Procedure: Competitive procedure with negotiation
CPV classification: 71242000 | 71244000 | 71322000: Civil engineering design services | 71521000: Construction-site supervision services | 71541000: Construction project management services
Submission deadline: 2018-01-25
Award criteria: The most economic tender

Technical requirements: Ola Pier Redevelopment: Marine civil engineer (Lead consultant), project manager, supervisor and principal designer.
Negotiated procedure with a prior call for competition under the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 for the procurement of Marine civil engineer (Lead consultant), project manager, supervisor and principal designer services relating to a project for the redevelopment of the Ola Pier at Scrabster Harbour, Thurso, Scotland.
Please see the Guide to Completing the ESPD for more detailed information relating to the objective criteria and the evaluation process.
— the Bidder is unable to comply with the requirements of yearly turnover stated at question 4B.1.1 and 4B.2.1; or,
— the Bidder is unable to comply with the requirements of the financial ratios stated in question 4B.4; or,
— the Bidder is unable to comply with the requirements of the insurance provisions stated at question 4B.5,
— the Bidder is unable to comply with the requirements of quality management procedures and health and safety procedures stated in question 4D.1.
The combined score to be allocated for Technical and Professional ability of Bidders and the weighting to be applied will be evaluated on the basis of the responses to following questions:-.
In respect of question 4C.1.2, each Assessment Panel member will evaluate and allocate a score to each topic according to the following table:
0 - Unacceptable. Nil or inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate previous experience/capacity/capability relevant to this criterion.
1 – Poor. The response is partially relevant but generally poor. The response shows some elements of relevance to the criterion but contains insufficient/ limited detail or explanation to demonstrate previous relevant experience/ capacity/capability.
2 – Acceptable. The response is relevant and acceptable. The response demonstrates broad previous experience, knowledge and skills/ capacity/ adaptability but may lack in some aspects of similarity e.g. previous experience, knowledge or skills may not be of a similar nature.
3 – Good. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good amount of experience, knowledge or skills/ capacity/ capability relevant to providing similar services to similar clients.
4 – Excellent. The response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates thorough experience, knowledge or skills/capacity/capability relevant to providing similar services to similar clients.
The scores allocated to each topic will be summed and then multiplied by 2.5 to arrive at the total overall score for this question. The overall weighting of this total score will be 80 %.

Eligibility requirements: 4A.1 - if required by the member state, bidders are required to be enrolled in the relevant professional or trade registers within the country in which they are established; 4A.2 - where it is required within a bidder’s country of establishment they must confirm which authorisation or memberships of the relevant organisation(s) are required in order to perform this service. Bidders must confirm if they hold the particular authorisation or memberships.