This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
This is a report on the tender process for the refurbishment of a heritage building. The report is based on a hypothetical scenario created by the reporters to help demonstrate this process. The subject building is the Bath and Disinfecting House, Point Nepean.
In this scenario the Victorian Council has issued a "request for tender", where the subject company (HS Property Developments) responded with "an expression of interest" see appendix A and B. The report will only be addressing what has been asked of it to fulfil its learning trigger, thus will not address all headings on the request for tender (appendix A).
HS Property Developments are a family owned company established for over 15 years. The company has been exclusively specializing in the refurbishment and extensions of heritage building for this time. The company's long term staffs (management and labour) are experts in this field, understanding the sensitive nature of heritage buildings. Within its staffs HS Property has a number of site mangers, project managers, directly employed full time quantity surveyor, safety officer, structural engineer, a number of carpenters and general skilled labour.
HS Property for the last year is a national company, tendering in all states as the company is growing rapidly due to their respectable reputation. The company has established an office branch based in Victoria. The company is very familiar working with Local Councils, Local Communities, and planning strategies to abide by their requirements.
What is tendering?
Tendering is a process that a company undertakes to "bid" for an upcoming contract in response to a "request for tender" (RFT) appendix A. The RFT is a list of conditions that the principle has upon rewarding the contract. The tender's principal will set a deadline to receive the bids to review. It is common that the principle will reward the contract to the lowest bidder, however this is not always the case. Depending on the nature of the contract other factors may be taken in to consideration, that may lead to a higher bidder getting rewarded the contract. IE in the case of this reports study, HS Developments may submit a higher bid than Grocon Construction would, however the fact that HS Developments has been specializing in their field for 15 years, and Grocon has been specializing in CBD commercial construction, the Council may still consider HS Developments the best value for money considering their experience. .(NSW, Small Business,12')
A Tender commonly outlines the pricing, schedules, advantages over competitors, methodology, safety methodology, companies CV, and recourses of the company. However strictly speaking a tender should only have whatever the RFT requested. The tender that the company submits then becomes the legal contract that will be referred to throughout the duration of the contract, or in case of dispute.(NSW, Small Business,12')
A. Site office
C. Car park
D. Site access
E. Project building
Figure : Site layout overview, Google earth, 12'
The cost implications associated with the refurbishment of The Quarantine Building (A and B) Bath and Disinfect house will be calculated and assessed by HS Property Developments prior to commencement of works on site.
HS Property Development will assess the cost implications along with the Scope of Works outlined by the Victorian Council. HS Property Development will endeavour to meet all requirements outlined in the scope ensuring monies are allowed for all items listed.
Projects Cost Implications
Protection plans, TMP, EMP
Fire engineers assessment, replace existing fire fighting equipment
Assess wheel chair access, Plumbing disabled toilets, Build ramps for wheel chair access
Assess windows and doors, Remove glazing, make good window frames and doors, Shop drawings for approval for any frames and doors beyond restoration
Assess grouting/ mortar on external brick walls , brick layer make good brick walls repointing
Excavation and removal existing paving, new paving
Removal temp sheds/ amenities
This section outlines the approach in which HS Property Developments will proceed with the refurbishment of The Quarantine Buildings (A and B) Bath and Disinfecting house.
The scope of works, detailed above, sets out the required works to be considered when determining the methodology of the Point Nepean Refurbishment. The works set out in the tender by the Victorian Council are as follows:
Restore all original windows/ doors
Repoint the brick cladding
All paving surrounding the building to be replaced
Make fit for public in accordance to the fire standards
Wheelchair access, according to the standards
Old first-aid fire fighting equipment to be replaced
As set out in the 'RFT', the council insists that the park be kept open at all times during construction, this therefore must be considered by HS Property Developments when determining the methodology of the refurbishment.
Our Methodology for tender
As HS Property Developments has extensive experience in the refurbishment of Heritage buildings, they have a skilful and knowledgeable approach in regards to the refurbishment process.
Prior to any works commencing on site, HS Property Development will ensure all, statutory and legal requirements will be met, in regards to the safety of workers and the public visiting the Baths. This will be achieved by implementing a site specific Traffic Management Plan (detailed below), a site safety plan, detailing emergency procedures (evacuation points, safety equipment etc.) for both workers and the public, adequate signage, hoarding/ fencing for areas works are taking place and site specific inductions for all workers on site. The construction of temporary site sheds and amenities will also be completed prior to commencement of works.
Once all requirements are met, refurbishment works will commence. HS Property Development will ensure the building complies with fire standards, through consulting a fire engineer. Any works that must be undertaken to ensure the building is in accordance with Building Codes and Standards will be done systematically to ensure public access is still available to the majority of the Baths and their safety is still maintained. The fire engineer will also be consulted in regards to replacing on site fire fighting equipment as outlined in the 'RFT'.
The council has also requested for wheelchair access in accordance with relevant codes and standards. An assessment will be undertaken to determine the access and egress for wheelchairs in regards to locations, as well as ensuring there are facilities to accommodate those in wheelchairs complying with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Works that may need to be undertaken could include the construction of ramps and a disabled bathroom. To complete these works HS Property Development will need to consult a concreter to construct the ramps in accordance with Codes and Standard with respect to such things as the rise and run of the ramps. These ramps must also be completed in a way that still allows public access to the Baths and does not jeopardise their safety.
HS Property Development, with the council will do an assessment of the windows and doors to determine the extent of restoration require for each individual window and door. Once determined, a glazier will remove the glass panels systematically from the window to ensure public access is still granted. A carpenter working in with the glazier will then begin restoring all window frames and doors back to their original. These works will need to be competed in accordance with the relevant codes and standards.
As outlined in the 'RFT' the external walls are in very bad condition and need repointing. An evaluation will be undertaken with the council to determine the areas requiring repointing. A brick layer will then be consulted to replace the mortar in the sections identified. As outlined in the previous works this will be done systematically, fencing the areas off they are working to ensure public can still gain safe access.
In addition the council has requested all paving surrounding the building be replaced. HS Property Developments acknowledge these works as being difficult with respect to still granting the public access. As the existing paving needs to be excavated and removed from site and replaced with new paving. The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will accommodate these works as a number of trucks will be coming to and from site, delivering new paving and removing existing paving. The excavation works and removal of existing paving will be programmed in with the laying of the new paving as to allow public access to the baths. Works being done in certain areas will be adequately fenced off as outlined in the site safety plan to ensure the public's safety is adhered to.
Start on site - implement TMP etc.
Build temp site sheds/ amenities (2 days)
Fire engineers assessment (1 day)
Replace existing fire fighting equipment (2 days)
Assess wheel chair access (1 day)
Plumbing disabled toilets (2 days)
Build ramps for wheel chair access(3 days)
Assess windows and doors (1 day)
Remove glazing (3 days)
Make good window frames and doors (3 days)
Shop drawings for approval for any frames and doors beyond restoration (1 day)
Assess grouting/ mortar on external brick walls (1 day)
Brick layer make good brick walls repointing (4 days)
Excavation and removal existing paving (5 days)
New paving (5 days)
Removal temp sheds/ amenities (2 days)
Non Price attributes
Past related projects
Our Companies Approach
Wildlife/ Sea Protection
The maintenance of a building could be argued as just as important as any other element in construction. Without proper maintenance buildings can start to deteriorate, become weather worn, or in the case of plant not preform to its full capacity or even brake down all together. To ensure that buildings are maintained correctly, principals can take a number of approaches, however it is common place that a principal may rely on the builder to suggest or carry out the maintenance of a building as the builder would be considered an expert.
There are a number of things to take into consideration when designing a maintenance strategy for the Disinfection and Bath House. The building its self has no plant, and due to the nature of the building being a walk though tourist attraction, there will be no need for any. The RFT only requires the paint work, fire equipment and the window frames to be maintained. This report will outline four possible routes that the principle should consider, and offer its recommendations.
There is however an exception to the rule when it comes to the fire services. The following suggestions exclude fire service as these inspections and maintenances must comply with "part 11, Building Regulations 1994" and "The Essential Safety Measures" building regulations. (Australian Essential, 2012)
The legal requirements restrict the freedom of choice to the principal. Recommendations for fire service maintenance will be offered under "Company Recommendations"
Request for tender
Once the refurbishment has been completed, the principal can consider a request for tender for the maintenance contract. Normally a maintenance contract spans over five years, however in the case of toll roads, the maintenance contract may be offered for the duration of the toll itself 20 to 40 years.
There is a level of control that the principal will lose undergoing this method however, once the contract is offered, all the responsibly go's with the contract from the principal to the contractor, thus the control of methodology. Considering the nature of this building, this approach may not be ideal.
Principal can "walk away"
Cost implications passed on to contractor
Public liability reduced (while work is being carried out)
Ability to appoint experts
Loss of control
Risk that contractor go's to liquidation
Contacts need to be renewed regularly
The over whelming factor given the above is that the principal will lose control of the methodology. The fact that the subject building is located within a protected national park, and the building itself is listed, the principle may want to "have a say" during the works. The contractor in a tender can consider suggestions the Council may make, however has the right to reject the suggestions under the tender contract, as long as the objecives of the tender are being carried out.
The principal could have included in the RFT that the maintenance be included in the price for a given time. Contractors often have their own maintenance divisions and handymen, and can include a price for this service in their cost plan. HS Developments have their own maintenance division.
It should be noted though that the contactor is not obliged to use their own maintenance division, or even have one. The contractor can indeed opt to RFT, or hire a company and untimely present the same problems as suggestion 1.
Principal can "walk away"
Contractor will know the building more than anyone
Can work out cheaper for principal
Public liability reduced (while works is carried out)
Loss of control
Risk of contactor going to liquation
Not the contractor area of expertise
Contract will run out and need to be renewed, original contactor may not be interested in renewal.
This suggestion presents more or less the same problems as "suggestion 1". The principle should be aware that typical building contactors do not like to undertake the maintenance contact, because strictly speaking, it is not their business. However companies will undertake the maintenance to win the overall tender by fulfilling the RFT objectives, with the intent to RFT themselves. If the builder were to do this, it would defeat the purpose of "suggestion 2".
In the state of Victoria there are a number maintenance companies. These companies specialises in the maintenance of buildings and may even offer an "an expression of interest" to a RFT. However this suggestion is exploring hiring a company for their services.
This is a very common method used across the industry to fulfil building requirements for maintenance. Maintenance companies are ideal for principals and contactors that don't want to get involved with the process as a whole but still want to "have a say". (Australian Building & Maintenance, 2012)
Principal can "walk away"
Principal keeps control
Available on request
Public liability on service company (while work is being carried out)
Can change service companies with no explanation
Industry maintenance experts
Low risk of dispute
Can be very expensive
"Work Safe" responsibilities on principle
Someone will be required to manage and organise process.
This suggestion would appear to suit the situation more than "suggestion 1 and 2". The main reason is that the principal can keep total control of what's being done, and also change its mind at any time on who, when, or what should be done. The fact that the National Park itself is managed by a government body, a privet contactor may upset the system already in place, where a hire company would get its instructions directly from the parks manager. However this process is the most expensive approach within the 4 suggestions.
The national park has already has a number of fulltime grounds keepers directly employed by the Council to maintain the buildings and grounds in Point Nepean. Some of the staffs have been working in the park for over 10 years, and have become very familiar with the area and buildings.
The grounds keepers currently cut the grass, clean the guttering's, pick up rubbish, and other light grounds keeping jobs. This reporter had personally interviewed one of the grounds keepers (James), and there is also a real sense of genuine care for the park and buildings from this grounds keeper, which is welcome with such significantly important buildings that Point Nepean hold.
Principle keeps control
No disputes (only internal)
Available on request/need
Grounds keepers know the buildings/ and park more than anyone
One man, one plan (less confusion)
Extra training required for staff
Public liability is on principle
Principle must comply with OH&S
This suggestion does have its problems however, mainly with the training. The scope of works in the RFT requires window frame treatment (reduce corrosion) and repainting the doors. The grounds keepers would need to be sent on course and trained to carry out this work.
This report has analysed four possible maintenance strategies for the principal to consider, and now the report will draw from the advantages and disadvantages of each suggestion to recommend the best solution. The recommendation is taken into consideration
Level of control
This report recommends that the principle explores "suggestion 4". This report has found that the National Park has the recourses, and management system already in place to include the Disinfecting and Bath House in the parks overall maintenance plan.
The level of control will be given exclusively to the park manger, and therefore will reduce the chance of confusion. Maintenance work being carried out will not conflict with other works in the park (assuming the manger is competent).
The cost savings is probably the most significant advantage. Considering there are already grounds keepers employed at the park no extra staff will be required for this relatively small maintenance requirements.
Fire Services Maintenance
As already outlined in the introduction to this section, the suggestions exclude fire service as these inspections and maintenances must comply with "part 11, Building Regulations 1994" and "The Essential Safety Measures" building regulations. (Australian Essential, 2012)
The principle therefore has very little choice in how to maintain fire services. The only option that the principle has is to hire a fire engineer and inspection company. An engineer must "sign off" that the services are in working order (to fulfil the regulations)
HS Developments recommends that the principle shops around when seeking such companies services as there are many companies in Victoria offering this service and the best value for money can be observed by shopping around.