completed pp1 assignment

PROFFESIONAL PRACTICE 1

QSB 2615/QSB 60604

MARCH 2015 SEMESTER

SUBMISSION DATE

01 June 2015

NAME ID NG WEI LIN 0316302

CHUNG HUI PING 0310592

Tender Evaluation Report

2

TENDER EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION

REPORT

FOR

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF

FIVE STOREY CAR PARK BUILDING AND OTHER

RELATED ANCILLARY WORKS AT TAYLORS

LAKESIDE UNIVERSITY SUBANG JAYA SELANGOR

Employer Prepared by

TAYLORS LAKESIDE UNIVERSITY NG WEI LIN 0316302 CHUNG HUI PING 0310592


3

Table of Content

1.0 Introduction

1.0.1 Details of Tender

1.0.2 Employers Requirement

1.0.3 Procurement Method Used

1.0.4 Tendering Method Used

2.0 Tender Particulars

2.0.1 Tenders Received and Correction of Price

2.0.2 Tender Price in Ascending Order

3.0 Scored Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

3.1 Assessment of price

3.1.1 Mark Distribution

3.1.2 Calculation of Scoring Price

3.1.3 Price Analysis

3.2 Assessment of Quality


3.2.1.1 Technical Qualification

3.2.1.2 Performance Based

3.2.2 Evaluation on Qualification

3.3 Assessment on Resources Availability

3.3.1 Resources Availability Assessment

3.3.2 Calculation of Resources

4.0 Evaluation Criteria

4.1 The Scoring Rating


4

4.2 Summary

4.2.1 Assessment of Scoring of Prices

4.2.2 Scoring for capacity and Capability Criteria

4.2.3 Total Score

5.0 Risk Associated

5.1 Risk Factor

5.2 Overcoming Risk Factors

5.2.1 Risk Management Implication

5.2.2 Environment Implication

5.2.3 Consultant Engagement

6.0 Conclusion

7.0 Exclusion Reason

8.0 Recommendation of Tenderer

9.0 Citation

10.0 Appendix

10.1 List of Table

10.2 Appendix A


5

1.0 Introduction

1.0.1 Details of Tender

1. Employer: Taylors Lakeside University, Subang Jaya, Selangor

2. Proposed Project: 5-storey sustainable car park building

3. Tender closing date: 8th May 2015

4. Location of tender submission: Block A (office block), Taylors Lakeside University

5. Amount of tender bond: Rm10K

6. Tender Form: PAM Form

7. Tender Validity: 2 months/ 60 days

8. Consultant estimate: Rm85.00 million

9. Construction period: 24 months

1.0.2 Employers Requirement

a) 5000 car park space

b) Battery Recharge Station

c) Solar Energy System

d) High quality of workmanship and material used

e) Services and other equivalent system

f) Female Parking Area

1.0.3 Procurement Method Used

Traditional method is being used as it is time tested and contributes in high standard of quality and

better control of work. Besides, it has cheaper contract price as the employer is responsible for the

design risk.

1.0.4 Tendering Method Used

Selective tendering is used to select qualified contractor with experience to achieve better quality of

workmanship as to enhance the project success rate.


6

2.0 Tender Particulars

2.0.1 Tenders Received and Correction of Price

Rank (starts from lowest price) Tenderer Price offered Price after correction

1 Tenderer 3 RM 70.0 million RM69.85 million






Table 2.0 Tenders received and correction on price in ascending order

2.0.2 Tender Price in Ascending Order

Table 2.1 Differences between tender price and pre-tender estimate in percentage

The table above shows the differences of the tenderers tender price with the consultant estimate. The

positive value signifies the overestimation of cost while the negative value signifies the underestimation

of price. It is suggested that the percentage of differences must be within 15% compared to the

consultant estimate. If the price offered is too low, situation like abandon of job, inefficiency of work

and poor workmanship may happen. Its common that the higher price tender will be eliminate from the

list as the employer always want the construction price to be within the budget.

Consultant Estimate: Rm85 million

No Tenderers

code Tender Price (RM-million)

Differences with Consultant

Estimate (RM- million)

Percentages of Differences

1 3/6 RM 70.0 million (RM 15 million) (17.65%)

2 4/6 RM 77.5 million (RM7.5 million) (8.82%)

3 2/6 RM 78.2 million (RM6.8 million) (8%)

4 1/6 RM 81.1 million (RM3.9 million) (4.59%)

5 5/6 RM 92.5 million RM7.5 million 8.82%

6 6/6 RM 98.5 million RM13.5 million 15.88%


7

3.0 Scored Evaluation Criteria and weighting

3.1 Assessment of Price

Criterion Description Measure Method of measured Scoring

Financial Benefits (Price)

Overall financial value of each

proposal

Tender prices

Comparison of price with other submitted tender prices. Local content and employment/ ongoing project

40% +20%

Table 3.0 Standard of price assessment


Criterion Calculation of points Mark Distribution (60%)

Comparison of tender sum

Relative percentages= Lowest bid price received Bid price under evaluation 40%

40%

Scoring of ongoing project

Employment Percentages= (Total- current ongoing project) Total ongoing project 20%

20%

Table 3.1 Mark distribution on tender price and employment rate


8

3.1.2 Calculation of Scoring Price

Total Amount of all ongoing projects = RM 150 million +RM 60 million+ RM 25 million

+ RM 9 million + RM 130 million

= RM 374 million

3.1.3 Price Analysis

Table 3.2 Scoring of tender prices and employment rate according to ratio

Tenderer Scoring of tender price (40%) Scoring of employment (20%)

(RM-million)

1/6 RM70 million / RM 81.1 million x 40% = 34.53%

(374-150)/374 x 20% = 11.98%

2/6 RM 70 million / RM 78.2 million x 40% = 35.81 %

(374 -60)/374 x 20% = 16.79%

3/6 RM 70 million / RM 70 million x 40% = 40%

(374-0)/374 x 20% = 20%

4/6 RM 70 million / RM 77.5 million x 40% = 36.13%

(374-25)/374 x 20% = 18.66%

5/6 RM 70 million / RM92.5 million x 40% = 30.27%

(374-9)/374 x 20% = 19.52%

6/6 RM 70 million/ RM 98.5 million x 40% = 28.42%

(374- 130)/374 x 20% = 13.05%


9

3.2 Assessment of Quality


Level of Service / Capability (Quality)

Ability to provide the works which

meet the specified

requirements.

Proven record of specification

compliance in past contracts

Demonstrated skills, including the ability to manage labour and plant in delivering quality finishes and to identify and manage all risks. Proven record of timely completion of all works based on past contractual performances and using referee checks. Standard of Management.

20%

Table 3.3 Standard of quality assessment


3.2.1.1 Technical Qualification

Criterion Point score 0-1 1.1-2 2.1-3 Mark

Distribution (%)

Proposed managerial staff Number of

Managerial staff 1-5 6-10 11-15 0-3

Proposed technical staff Number of

technical staff 1-10 11-20 21-30 0 -3

Proposed plant and machinery Availability of plant

and machinery No - Yes 0 or 3

Table 3.4 Mark distribution on technical qualification


10

3.2.1.2 Performance Based

Criterion Point Score 0-1 1.1-2 2.1-3 3.1-4 4.1-5 Mark

Distribution (%)

Experience in civil engineering work

Civil work participation

No - Yes - - 0 or 3

Experience in building work

Building work participation

No - Yes - - 0 or 3

Value of largest project completed

Amount of previous largest project

involved

RM24m

RM36m

Rm48m

Rm60m

Rm72m

0-5

Table 3.5 Mark Distribution on company performance

3.2.2 Evaluation on Qualification

Tenderer 1/6 2/6 3/6 4/6 5/6 6/6

Managerial staff 2 3 0.8 1.2 1 1.5

Technical staff 2 3 0.8 1.2 1 1.5

Plants and machinery 3 3 0 0 0 3

Experience in civil work

3 3 3 0 0 3

Experience in building work

3 3 0 3 3 3

Value for largest project completed

3.47 4.86 1.74 2.78 4.51 4.51

Total (20%) 16.47 19.86 6.34 8.18 9.51 16.51

Table 3.6 Evaluation on company performance and technical qualification


11

3.3 Assessment on Resources Availability


Capacity (Resources)

Ability to supply works within the

timeframes required

Sufficient resources to ensure reliability of works. Ability to carry out work within the required timeframes

Resources committed to the contract, including skills and experience in delivering quality finishes to road surfaces. Current and intended contractual commitments and extent of non municipal operations, relative to available resources.

20%

Table 3.7 Standard of resources assessment

3.3.1 Resources Availability Assessment

Criterion Point Score 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 Mark

Distributed (10%)

Construction period Completion

Time (months)

30-32 27-29 24-26 21-23 18-20 1-10

Criterion Point Score 1 2 3 4 5 Marks (10%)

Performance of current project

Quality of work

Project delayed

Fair Satisfactory Good Excellent 0-5

Availability of credit facilities

Credit facilities

ability (RM million)

RM3m

RM6m

RM9m

RM12m

RM15m

0-5

Table 3.8 Mark distribution of resources availability


12

3.3.2 Calculation of Resources

Tenderer 1 2 3 4 5 6

Construction period

9% 6% 5% 2% 2% 3.5%

Performance on current

project 3% 4% 3% 1% 3% 3%

Availability of credit

facilities

RM 8 million / RM 15 million x 5% = 2.67%

RM 15 million/ RM 15 million x

5% =5%

RM 2million/ RM 15 million x 5% = 0.67%

RM 3 million/ RM 15 million

x 5% = 1%

RM 5 million/ RM 15 million x 5% = 1.67%

RM 5 million/ RM 15 million x 5% = 1.67%

Total score (20%)

14.67% 15% 8.67% 4% 6.67% 8.17%

Table 3.9 Computation of resources


13

4.0 Evaluation Criteria

The weighting ratio for price: non-price is 60:40.

Those tenders that passed all the mandatory criteria were assessed against the following scored and

weighted criteria.

4.1 The Scoring Rating

Grade Category Marks (100%)

Excellent 80-100

Good 60-80

Satisfactory 40-60

Fair 20-40

Poor 0-20

Unacceptable 0

Table 4.0 Scoring rate of total marks

4.2 Summary

4.2.1 Assessment of Scoring of Prices:

Tenderer Tender Price Employment Marks Scored (60%)

Tenderer 1 34.53 11.98 46.51

Tenderer 2 35.81 16.79 52.60

Tenderer 3 40 20 60.00

Tenderer 4 36.13 18.66 54.79

Tenderer 5 30.27 19.52 49.79

Tenderer 6 28.42 13.05 41.47

Table 4.1 Price summary

4.2.2 Scoring for capacity and Capability Criteria

Tenderer Evaluation on

qualification (20%) Evaluation on resources

(20%) Total Marks (40%)

Tenderer 1 16.47 14.67 31.14

Tenderer 2 19.86 15 34.86

Tenderer 3 6.34 8.67 15.01

Tenderer 4 8.18 4 12.18

Tenderer 5 9.51 6.67 16.18

Tenderer 6 16.51 8.17 24.68

Table 4.2 Capacity and capability summary


14

4.2.3 Total Score

Tenderer Total Marks (100%) Scoring Rate

Tenderer 1 77.65 Good

Tenderer 2 87.46 Excellent





Table 4.3 Total computation of price, capacity and capability sum


15

5.0 Risk associated

Risk is a dominant consideration in a construction project. However, planning on risk factor is not

commonly adopted in the industry. Usually when problems arise, it will be too late for the contractor to

solve the trouble resulting in the delayed of the project and exceeding the project budget. Hence, risk

management is critical to carry out in order to add value to project delivery and to improve efficiency

during practice.

5.1 Risk Factor

Table 5.0 Risk factors

5.2 Overcoming Risk Factors

5.2.1 Risk Management Implication

To achieve better control of the project, project manager can be hired by the employer to supervise

every party consistently and improve the work efficiency of each party with better coordination of


16

works. Moreover, a planned risk management for this project can help in reducing the overall cost of the

project as well as shorter construction period.

5.2.2 Environment Implication

Depletion of resources is one of the major global issued concerned by everyone. With a better control of

the material used, not only can reduce the costs efficiently, it can as well conserve the energy for

building the 5 storey building.

5.2.3 Consultant Engagement

It is essential to engage a full team of consultants for this project to manage and handle various parts of

specialized works to achieve a well-managed work done at every stage of the project. The consultants

involve are Architects, Quantity Surveyors, Project Manager, Mechanical and Electrical Engineer, Civil

and Structural Engineering, Sustainable Engineer and etc.

6.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, the tenderer 2 fulfilled most of the employers requirement as it meets all the mandatory

criteria, best meets the criteria for capability and capacity and offers optimum value of money in

undertaking the traditional method.

7.0 Exclusion Reason

After a series of computation, we found out that result of tenderer 1 is closely to tenderer 2. However,

we chose tenderer 2 is because tenderer 2 has more stability in many factors such as has good

performance of current project as well as offered a lower tender price.

As the result, the lowest tender price RM70 million offered by Tenderer 3 is disqualified because tender

form is unsigned. Tenderer 4 has the second lowest tender price. However, he is disqualified as tender

bond was not sent during submission of tender.

Moreover, Tenderer 6 with highest tender price which has over the 15% of consultant estimate is not

favorable. Besides, its high capacity of workload (5 ongoing projects) is not taken into consideration. Too

many works may lead to delay of the project and lack of labors to perform the job as planned in the

schedule. While tenderer 5 is not suggested because construction period is 30 months which is far

exceed the 24 months requirement and the tender is 8.82% higher than the consultant estimate.


17

8.0 Recommendation of Tenderer

In conclusion, we hereby recommend tender 2 over 6 offered RM78.20 million to construct the 5 storey

car park building at Taylors Lakeside with the following reasons:

I. Scored 87.46% over 100% after the evaluation of its price, quality and resources, it as well falls

under the excellent category compared to other tenderers.

II. Tender price submitted by Tenderer 2 is Rm78.20 million which is 8% lower than the consultant

estimate

III. Construction period is within the time frame of employers requirement

IV. Tender form is completed and verified by signature. Hence, it is a legal offer to the employer

V. Tender bond is submitted

VI. Minor arithmetical error found

VII. Only one number of ongoing project which allow the contractor to perform well and minimizing

the probability of delaying the project.

VIII. Good performance of current project which reflects the good reputation of the contractor

IX. Skilled and experienced in building and civil engineering works which had built RM70million

project previously

X. Medium sized company, financially capable of hiring 30 technical staff for the project

XI. Excellent financial record, availability to loan up to 15 million of credit facilities

XII. Cheaper operational cost, owned plant and machinery


18

9.0 Citation

Abdul Karim. N.A., Aftab Hameed Memmon.I. A. R., Jamil. N, Abd. Azis. A. A., Significant Risk Factors in Construction Projects: Contractors Perception, academia.edu,

Available at: http://www.academia.edu/2238735/Significant_Risk_Factors_in_Construction_Projects_Contractor_s_Perception

[Accessed 26 May 2015]

ICAC 2011, Integrity and Quality Building Management, ICAC,

Available at: http://www.bm.icac.hk/bm_wcms/UserFiles/File/en/CMS/sample_documents_do/Annex%2020.pdf


LGRF 2012, Procurement Evaluation Report, LGRF,

Available at: http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/224712/Procurement-Evaluation-Report-Template-PDF.pdf


New Zealand Ministry of Education 2014, Specification for the tender document, New Zealand Ministry of Education,

Available at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/PropertyToolBox/StateSchools/ProjectManagement/Procurement/AnalysisSpecEval/SpecTenderDoc.aspx


Public Procurement Authority (n.d.), Standard Tender Evaluation Report Format for Procurement of Works, Public Procurement Authority,

Available at: http://www.ppaghana.org/documents/NewSTD/Works/EVALUATION%20REPORT%20FOR%20MAJOR%20WORKS_Final%20Draft.pdf?story_id=160



19

Staffordshire County Council, (n.d.), Tender Evaluation Methodology, Staffordshire County Council,

Available at: http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/business/procurement/procurerules/TenderEvaluationv2.pdf


The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 2014, Tender Evaluation Methods for Works Contracts, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,

Available at: http://www.devb.gov.hk/filemanager/technicalcirculars/en/upload/332/1/c-2014-04-01.pdf



20

10.0 Appendix

10.1 List of Table

Table 2.0 Tenders received and correction on price in ascending order

Table 2.1 Differences between tender price and pre-tender estimate in

percentage

Table 3.0 Standard of price assessment

Table 3.1 Mark distribution on tender price and employment rate

Table 3.2 Scoring of tender prices and employment rate according to ratio

Table 3.3 Standard of quality assessment

Table 3.4 Mark distribution on technical qualification

Table 3.5 Mark Distribution on company performance

Table 3.4 Evaluation on company performance and technical qualification

Table 3.7 Standard of resources assessment

Table 3.8 Mark distribution of resources availability

Table 3.9 Computation of resources

Table 4.0 Scoring rate of total marks

Table 4.1 Price summary

Table 4.2 Capacity and capability summary

Table 4.3 Total computation of price, capacity and capability sum

Table 5.0 Risk factors


21

10.2 Appendix A

Project: Construction and completion of five storey car park building and other related ancillary works

at Taylors Lakeside University, Subang Jaya, Selangor.

No Tenderer's Code

Tenderer

1/6

Tenderer

2/6

Tenderer

3/6

Tenderer

4/6

Tenderer

5/6

Tenderer

6/6

1 Tender price submitted

RM 81.10

million

RM 78.20

million

RM 70.0

million

RM 77.5

million

RM 92.5

million

RM 98.50

million

2 Construction period offered 20 months 24 months 26months 30 months 30 months 28 months

3

Completeness of Tender

Form

Filled and

signed

Filled and

signed

Filled and

unsigned

Filled and

signed

Filled and

signed

Filled and

signed

4 Tender Bond submitted Submitted Submitted Submitted

Not

submitted Submitted Submitted

5 Arithmetical error

Yes (RM 50

000.00)

Yes - RM

74 000.00

Yes - RM 150

000.00

Yes - 25

000.00

Yes - (RM 89

900.00)

Yes- RM 950

000.00

6 Number of ongoing projects 4 1 None 2 3 5

7 Value of ongoing projects

RM 150.0

million

RM 60.0

million None

RM 25.0

million

RM 9.0

million

RM 130.0

million

8

Performance of current

projects Satisfactory Good Satisfactory

Project

delayed Satisfactory Satisfactory

9

Value of single largest

project completed

RM 50.0

million

RM 70.0

million

RM 25.0

million

RM 40.0

million

RM 65.0

million

RM 65.0

million

10 Experience in building works Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

11

Experience in civil

engineering works Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

12

Number of technical staff

employed 20 30 8 12 10 15

13

Availability of credit

facilities

RM 8.0

million

RM 15.0

million

RM 2.0

million

RM 3.0

million

RM 5.0

million

RM 5.0

million

14

Availability of plant and

machinery yes yes no no no yes


22

completed pp1 assignment

Documents