Public procurement notice: Contract Notice
Published: 2020-06-26
Buyer: Ministry of Defence, Helicopters
Country: UK
Contract type: Supplies
Procedure: Restricted procedure
CPV classification: 34731700
Estimated value:  GBP
Submission deadline: 2020-07-23
Award criteria: The most economic tender

Technical requirements: Parts for helicopters. This contract will be an enabling arrangement for the provision of spares to support the Wildcat Helicopter Capability.
The authority shall place an enabling arrangement type contract with an industry supplier for a period from the date of contract award to 31 March 2022, which shall cover the provision of spares and consumables to support the Wildcat Mk1 AH and Mk2 HMA Helicopter. The statement of requirement (SOR) document that will be formally issued under the invitation to tender, is provided for information purposes only as a supporting document to the dynamic pre-qualification questionnaire (DPQQ). The list of individual items against this requirement is also provided for information purposes only as a supporting document to the dynamic pre-qualification questionnaire (DPQQ). All potential applicants should note that the authority shall expect each invited tenderer to submit a price bid against each line item identified under Appendix 1 of the SOR, by fully establishing a complete supply chain network. No business whatsoever is guaranteed under any resulting framework agreement or contract indeed there is no guarantee that any framework agreement or contract will be put in place in relation to this notice. No compensation etc will be paid if a tender or resulting framework agreement is withdrawn for any reason. Bidders should take part in this process only on the basis that they fully understand and accept this position.
The contract shall contain an option to extend the end date for up to two separate periods of 1 year's duration, i.e. from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 and from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024.
The authority reserve the right to ask for an indemnity, guarantee or bank bond if the supplier does not meet the required standard for economic and financial standing.
If a group of economic operators submits a bid, the group must nominate a lead organisation to deal with the authority. The authority shall require the group to form a legal entity before entering into the contract.
The authority reserves the right to amend any condition related to security of information to reflect any changes in national law or government policy. If any contract documents are accompanied by a Security Aspects Letter, the authority reserves the right to amend the terms of the Security Aspects Letter to reflect any changes in national law or government policy whether in respect of the applicable protective marking scheme, specific protective markings given, the aspects to which any protective marking applies or otherwise.
The authority will apply all the offences listed in Article 39(1) of Directive 2009/81/EC (implemented as Regulation 23(1) of the Defence and Security Public Contract Regulations (DSPCR) 2011 in the UK) and all of the professional misconducts listed at Article 39(2) of Directive 2009/81/EC (see also Regulation 23(2) in the DSPCR 2011) to the decision of whether a candidate is eligible to be invited to tender.
A full list of the Regulation 23(1) and 23(2) criteria are at http://www.contracts.mod.uk/delta/project/reasonsForExclusion.html#dspr
Candidates will be required to sign a declaration confirming whether they do or do not have any of the listed criteria as part of the pre-qualification process.
Candidates who have been convicted of any of the offences under Article 39(1) are ineligible and will not be selected to bid, unless there are overriding requirements in the general interest (including defence and security factors) for doing so.
Candidates who are guilty of any of the offences, circumstances or misconduct under Article 39(2) may be excluded from being selected to bid at the discretion of the authority.
A declaration of good standing will be sought by the authority in the dynamic pre-qualification questionnaire (DPQQ).
(a) Appropriate statements from the economic operator's bankers or where appropriate, evidence of relevant professional risk indemnity insurance.
(b) The presentation of balance-sheets or extracts from the balance-sheets, where publication of the balance-sheet is required under the law of the country in which the economic operator is established.
Each supplier’s financial ability to meet this requirement will be assessed on a risk basis and the financial information provided by the supplier in response to Part 1 Form D of the DPQQ will be evaluated by the authority. Factors that will be taken into consideration when evaluating financial information include turnover, profitability, liquidity and working capital, debt and cash flow. The authority will also examine the financial health of the immediate and ultimate parent of the supplier where it is part of a group. When assessing the financial health of a supplier, the authority will also take into consideration any auditor’s opinion, for example qualifications or emphasis of matter statements. The authority’s opinion may be validated using credit agencies such as Company Watch. If examination of the financial information exposes the potential for a supplier to experience financial difficulty in performing the contract, then the authority will determine the level of risk that it is willing to bear in fulfilling the requirement. Evaluation of the financial information will attract a pass or fail risk marking which will be awarded using the following criteria;

Eligibility requirements: (a) Appropriate statements from the economic operator's bankers or where appropriate, evidence of relevant professional risk indemnity insurance. (b) The presentation of balance-sheets or extracts from the balance-sheets, where publication of the balance-sheet is required under the law of the country in which the economic operator is established. Each supplier’s financial ability to meet this requirement will be assessed on a risk basis and the financial information provided by the supplier in response to Part 1 Form D of the DPQQ will be evaluated by the authority. Factors that will be taken into consideration when evaluating financial information include turnover, profitability, liquidity and working capital, debt and cash flow. The authority will also examine the financial health of the immediate and ultimate parent of the supplier where it is part of a group. When assessing the financial health of a supplier, the authority will also take into consideration any auditor’s opinion, for example qualifications or emphasis of matter statements. The authority’s opinion may be validated using credit agencies such as Company Watch. If examination of the financial information exposes the potential for a supplier to experience financial difficulty in performing the contract, then the authority will determine the level of risk that it is willing to bear in fulfilling the requirement. Evaluation of the financial information will attract a pass or fail risk marking which will be awarded using the following criteria; Pass = A low or medium financial risk assessment as evaluated by the authority. Fail = A high unacceptable level of financial risk as evaluated by the authority.
(c) A statement of the principal goods sold or services provided by the supplier or the services provider in the past 5 years or during a shorter period if necessary, and: (i) the dates on which the goods were sold or the services provided; (ii) the consideration received; (iii) the identity of the person to whom the goods were sold or the service were provided; (iv) any certificate issued or countersigned by that person confirming the details of the contract for those goods sold or services provided; and (v) where: 1) that person was not a contracting authority, and 2) the certificate referred to in sub-paragraph (c)(iv) is not available, any declaration by the economic operator attesting the details of the goods sold or services provided. (l) Certification by official quality control institutes or agencies of recognised competence, attesting that the goods to be purchased or hired under the contract conform to standards and technical specifications (within the meaning of regulation 12(1)) identified by the contracting authority. (m) In the case of contracts involving, entailing or containing classified information, evidence of the ability to process, store and transmit such information at the level of protection required by the contracting authority. (n) A certificate: (i) attesting conformity to quality management systems standards based on the relevant European standard; and (ii) from an independent accredited body established in any member state conforming to the European standards concerning accreditation and certification. (o) Any other evidence of conformity to quality management systems standards which are equivalent to the standards referred to in sub-paragraph (n)(i). All answers to questions under Part 1 Form E of the DPQQ (Technical and Professional Ability — Contract Experience/Examples) will be assessed and scored between 0 and 5 as per the following criteria: 0 = No Answer — No evidence of past experience demonstrating an ability to perform contracts that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement. 1 = Poor — Evidence of past experience demonstrates a limited ability to perform contracts (i.e. failure to meet time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement. Proposed but untried mitigation to prevent re-occurrence of problems. 2 = Satisfactory — Evidence of past experience demonstrates a limited ability to perform contracts (i.e. failure to meet time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement. Evidence provided why this was not the fault of the contractor or of proven mitigation to prevent re-occurrence of problems. 3 = Good — Evidence of past experience demonstrates an ability to perform contracts effectively (i.e. achieving time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement. 4 = Very good — Evidence of past experience demonstrates an ability to perform effectively contracts (i.e. achieving time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement and at least of similar financial value. 5 = Excellent — Evidence of past experience demonstrates an exceptional ability to perform contracts (i.e. surpassing time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement and at least of similar financial value. A score of 0 or 1 will be assessed as non-compliant and a score of 2 to 5 will be as compliant. Certification to at least AS/EN 9100 2016 standard, with the appropriate scope, as issued by a Nationally Accredited Certification body. Please note that failure to demonstrate at least AS/EN 9100:2016 accreditation, within date validity and the appropriate scope, will result in a supplier’s application being deemed non-compliant and excluded from the competition. Cyber Essentials Accreditation or demonstration of a suitable Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP). The Cyber Risk Profile is assessed as very low. Risk assessment reference (RAR) is RAR-AVJE858C.
(c) A statement of the principal goods sold or services provided by the supplier or the services provider in the past 5 years or during a shorter period if necessary, and: (i) the dates on which the goods were sold or the services provided; (ii) the consideration received; (iii) the identity of the person to whom the goods were sold or the service were provided; (iv) any certificate issued or countersigned by that person confirming the details of the contract for those goods sold or services provided; and (v) where: 1) that person was not a contracting authority, and 2) the certificate referred to in sub-paragraph (c)(iv) is not available, any declaration by the economic operator attesting the details of the goods sold or services provided. (l) Certification by official quality control institutes or agencies of recognised competence, attesting that the goods to be purchased or hired under the contract conform to standards and technical specifications (within the meaning of regulation 12(1)) identified by the contracting authority. (m) In the case of contracts involving, entailing or containing classified information, evidence of the ability to process, store and transmit such information at the level of protection required by the contracting authority. (n) A certificate: (i) attesting conformity to quality management systems standards based on the relevant European standard; and (ii) from an independent accredited body established in any member state conforming to the European standards concerning accreditation and certification. (o) Any other evidence of conformity to quality management systems standards which are equivalent to the standards referred to in sub-paragraph (n)(i). All answers to questions under Part 1 Form E of the DPQQ (Technical and Professional Ability — Contract Experience/Examples) will be assessed and scored between 0 and 5 as per the following criteria: 0 = No Answer — No evidence of past experience demonstrating an ability to perform contracts that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement. 1 = Poor — Evidence of past experience demonstrates a limited ability to perform contracts (i.e. failure to meet time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement. Proposed but untried mitigation to prevent re-occurrence of problems. 2 = Satisfactory — Evidence of past experience demonstrates a limited ability to perform contracts (i.e. failure to meet time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement. Evidence provided why this was not the fault of the contractor or of proven mitigation to prevent re-occurrence of problems. 3 = Good — Evidence of past experience demonstrates an ability to perform contracts effectively (i.e. achieving time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement. 4 = Very good — Evidence of past experience demonstrates an ability to perform effectively contracts (i.e. achieving time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement and at least of similar financial value. 5 = Excellent — Evidence of past experience demonstrates an exceptional ability to perform contracts (i.e. surpassing time, cost or performance parameters) that are technically or professionally comparable to the requirement and at least of similar financial value. A score of 0 or 1 will be assessed as non-compliant and a score of 2 to 5 will be as compliant.
Certification to at least AS/EN 9100 2016 standard, with the appropriate scope, as issued by a Nationally Accredited Certification body. Please note that failure to demonstrate at least AS/EN 9100:2016 accreditation, within date validity and the appropriate scope, will result in a supplier’s application being deemed non-compliant and excluded from the competition. Cyber Essentials Accreditation or demonstration of a suitable Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP). The Cyber Risk Profile is assessed as very low. Risk assessment reference (RAR) is RAR-AVJE858C.