P Please consider the environment before printing this

Transcription

1 From: Plummer Paul To: Young David (Head of Commercial - Services); Richard de Cani (MD Planning) Cc: Parr Alison; Elsone Daiga (CPT); Curry Justine Subject: RE: Footbridge Study Assessment Sheet.xls TFL RESTRICTED Date: 08 March :50:58 David/Richard, We will issue the outcome letters this afternoon. Justine, Can you modify the terms as necessary and then let us have them so that they can following the outcome letters. Paul Plummer l Category Manager, Commercial - Premises & Office Services Team Transport for London Windsor House, Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL Tel: l Auto Mob: l Fax: P Please consider the environment before printing this From: Young David (Head of Commercial - Services) Sent: 08 March :47 To: Curry Justine; De Cani Richard (CORP); Plummer Paul Cc: Parr Alison; Elsone Daiga Subject: Re: Footbridge Study Assessment Sheet.xls TFL RESTRICTED Richard I agree. Seems like a pragmatic way forward. I have had to depart learnt. but will catch up on Monday in terms of lessons Thanks DY David Young, Head of Commercial - Services, Commercial, Group Finance Tel; or Mob: Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld From: Curry Justine Sent: Friday, March 08, :33 PM To: De Cani Richard (CORP); Plummer Paul Cc: Parr Alison; Elsone Daiga; Young David (Head of Commercial - Services) TFL RESTRICTED

2 LEGALLY PRIVILEGED ADVICE that seems a sensible solution on the IP. Paul, I m happy that we pick up the fine tuning on that point unless you d prefer to, please let me know. On the issue of fixed prices, given we have been clear that hourly rates were what wanted to see and anticipated evaluating, I think we have a good argument that those fixed prices can be disregarded for the purposes of evaluation. We do, however, need to be clear with Heatherwick that there is limit to how much we will pay and that they are not being appointed for any wider role. Justine Justine Curry Head of Commercial Law Legal Transport for London 6th Floor, Windsor House Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL Tel: (ext. Fax: (ext ) Sent: 08 March :29 To: De Cani Richard (CORP); Plummer Paul Cc: Parr Alison; Elsone Daiga; Young David (Head of Commercial - Services); Curry Justine Given we need to move this on and get the contracts sorted, I have since spoken with Heatherwick and they have agreed to concede the IP point in place of some commitments around credits etc and I have suggested that either Justine or Paul will be in touch to agree final wording for the contract. Can one of you confirm who will do this please. The contact is Kate Close Many thanks Richard Sent: 08 March :42 To: Plummer Paul Cc: Parr Alison; Elsone Daiga; Akinosho Vicki; Young David (Head of Commercial - Services); Curry Justine Paul I am sorry for the delay, I have been tied up in meetings. Lets just be very clear here about where we are 1. In terms of the best people to do the job it is Heatherwick. This is who we want to appoint because of their expertise and approach to the project. 2. We have not asked for a fixed sum so we should ignore this. We are appointing on the basis

3 of day rates and a budget ceiling. 3. We cannot nor will not give any commitments beyond this current commission. We do not know whether this project will progress further than this phase and any future phases will be subject to our normal procurement procedures. 4. The issue of IP is a contractual one and this needs to be resolved. I have copied in Justine Curry from legal to pick this up there will be a solution there. In terms of next steps I have already notified Heatherwick that it is our intention to appoint them, subject to agreeing the contract and we need to quickly progress to the next stage of formalising letters etc. This work needs to commence next week. Can we please aim to have the letters formalised today From: Plummer Paul Sent: 08 March :13 To: De Cani Richard (CORP) Cc: Parr Alison; Elsone Daiga; Akinosho Vicki; Young David (Head of Commercial - Services) Richard, I have read the documentation that supports this project. I note your comments that the brief is based on daily rates not fixed sum as clarified. However, all three submissions clearly state fixed sums and I assume the bidders have an expectation of the amount they tendered being invoiced. It should be noted that Heatherwick have not accepted the terms and conditions and whilst I accept this is a contractual matter, this does need to be resolved prior to award (given the main issue seems to be related to IP, which I think in the case of this project is critical that we own the IP going forward). The other major issue with the Heatherwick submission is their expectation that they are appointed as Lead Designer throughout the whole process should the project proceed beyond feasibility (which surely we cannot commit to). How was the Commercial Criteria scores reached as given the range of daily rates submitted? All three cannot have scored 15%. I don t agree with the summary comments that I have seen suggesting rates are consistent across all three bidders. One of the submissions quotes hourly (not daily rates). If we are to proceed to award we need to resolve the contractual issues, agree actual requirement (and overall budget) and also ensure that we are not subject to scope creep. I appreciate that there is a requirement to move this forward, but I am not comfortable that we have proceed at the moment given the issues highlighted above.

4 Paul Plummer l Category Manager, Commercial - Premises & Office Services Team Transport for London Windsor House, Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL Tel: l Auto Mob: l Fax: paulplummer@tfl.gov.uk P Please consider the environment before printing this Sent: 07 March :03 Cc: Parr Alison; Plummer Paul I have spoken to Alison and called you Paul on both numbers. You will see from the ITT we stated very quickly we will do our assessment on day rates but there was an inconsistency with Appendix 1, which we clarified as below. We did not ask for a fixed sum but in spite of that the bidders have chosen to do this without having any knowledge of the actual scope of work they are pricing! Therefore, I have ignored this and relied on the requirements in the ITT, ie, day rates, which is what we stated very quickly we would use. The issue on IP we need to resolve but this is a contractual issue. Question: Schedule 4 refers to Please provide consultant day Rates. However, Appendix 1 page 10 requests an estimated price. If you are after a lump sum please confirm how we should price this commission as there is no programme. Are we right to consider this an estimate or guide rather than a lump sum and that we shall not be held to this. An estimate or lump sum guide would have been more preferable, but we appreciate that without a programme this is rather difficult to do. Therefore if you could provide a table of your rates against roles and whether you are offering any discount ( and how much) from the framework rates. Can we now proceed to finalise and issue the letters please as we need to get going. From: Elsone Daiga Sent: 07 March :41 To: De Cani Richard (CORP) Cc: Parr Alison; Plummer Paul Richard, I have prepared everything, I have draft letters and I have a draft Transactional Award which needs to be signed off before the letters, however we have identified there is a problem with the evaluation of this tender therefore it is on hold and you need to speak to Paul Plummer, our Departmental boss about it. Kind regards

5 Daiga Sent: 07 March :37 Cc: Parr Alison Subject: Re: Footbridge Study Assessment Sheet.xls Daiga - do you have draft letters for me to review please? Sent: Tuesday, March 05, :14 PM Cc: Parr Alison Subject: Footbridge Study Assessment Sheet.xls Daiga completed assessment sheet and summary of comments attached. Based on this assessment, we would like to appoint Heatherwick, interview not required at this stage. Richard