Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the supply of. Catering Contract at Avenue Junior School, Norwich, NR2 3HP

Transcription

1 Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the supply of Catering Contract at Avenue Junior School, Norwich, NR2 3HP

2 Contents 1 Introduction ITT document Contract Requirement Timetable Evaluation ITT Price / Quality Split ITT Price Evaluation Quality Evaluation Quality Submission Scoring guidance

3 1 Introduction The following documents need to be read as part of the tender: AJS School Meal Tender Introduction AJS School Meal Tender PQQ AJS School Meal Tender ITT 1.1 ITT document Contract Requirement Our school will be an innovative, creative and ethically-driven school. This is an opportunity for a supplier to work with us to find new approaches to school meals, engaging children in the pleasure of eating and in learning about their food. We are inviting tenders for the supply of school meals for the school year 16-17, starting from 31 March 17. This will be a three-year contract with an option to extend on an annual basis up to a maximum of 5 years. Currently the school has an existing contract with Norse expiring Tenderers should set out how suppliers will meet the specification given, and how they will add value with innovative and interesting approaches and ideas Timetable 1. PQQ Issued 10/11/16 2. PQQ deadline 25/11/16 3. PQQ Evaluation 26/11/16 4. Notification of ITT shortlist 26/11/16 5. ITT deadline 11/12/16 6. Contract Award Confirmation 16/12/ day alcatel period 26/12/16 8. Contract start Date 01/04/ Evaluation All bidders are expected to complete the ITT by 11/12/16. The questions for the PQQ are standard questions and follow the latest government guidelines as stated by The Public Contracts Regulations 15 using the Restricted Accelerated procedure. This document has been prepared to provide bidders with the information that will be required in making qualitative and price evaluation for tender bids. 3

4 Please note that Bidders must not complete this section until invited to do so. Applicants who have been shortlisted after evaluation of the pre-qualification, suitability assessment questionnaire are invited to submit tenders on: Pricing Schedule the document where you enter all your prices. Specification sets out what needs to be achieved and includes policies, procedures and guidelines that need to be followed. Applicants are expected to tender on the basis of this specification, which will include performance targets or criteria to be met in delivering the supplies, services or works. Qualitative Assessment This invitation will be made to organisations that have successful passed the pre-qualification process. It is envisaged that invitations will be issued up to a maximum of three bidders.. 2 ITT Price / Quality Split A Price Quality Evaluation will be utilised for the tender evaluation to conclude final organisation selection and award. To arrive at the most appropriate ratio of Price Quality, the key technical and social objectives have been reviewed according to the main drivers underpinning their achievement, i.e. Price, Quality, or a combination of Price and Quality. On the basis of this review a Price Quality ratio of: 70% price: 30% quality will be applied to the tender evaluation. 3 ITT Price Evaluation The tender priced submissions will be separately evaluated as part of the tender evaluation. It is intended that Tenderers are invited to submit offers based on the information provided in the Introduction in sections 1 and 2 for: A three year contract Yearly fee breakdowns Monthly fee breakdowns Unit cost breakdowns Exclusions 4 Quality Evaluation The weightings for the outline criteria are set to reflect their respective levels of importance. This series of questions has been set to further test the organisation s quality credentials in specific areas. Weightings for the detailed sub-criteria are shown in the table below 4

5 Qualitative subject Experience of Catering Contracts People Health & Safety Customer Care Environment and Sustainability Marks available 4.1 Quality Submission Please note that for all questions there is a two A4 page limit, font size 11 excluding CVs and appendices. Please ensure that your quality submission section remains entirely separate from your pricing section. Please see the scoring criteria for this section on page 11. Question 1. Experience of Catering Contracts a. Provide an overview of your current and previous catering contract experience. Question 2. People a. Please provide details of your management resources and managerial structure TUPE relevant staff b. Where is your local office; who works from there? c. Names of key personnel involved, length of time in post, qualifications/experience. Details of your teams experience. d. Details of staff turnover (in this work area) per annum for last three years. Question 3. Health & Safety and DBS Describe how you ensure the consistent, practical application of your health and safety and DBS policies and culture during the contract 5

6 Question 4. Customer Care Describe how you will ensure the different type of end users (the school and pupils) experience excellent service from your organisation during the contract. Question 5. Environment and Sustainability Describe how you ensure the consistent, practical application of your environmental and sustainability policies and culture during the contract. 5 Scoring guidance Each answer will be scored out of 5 in line with the scoring grid in Evaluation Data. The score for each question will be divided by the maximum possible score for that question and then multiplied by the individual weighting to give a weighted score. For example, if a score of 3 out of 5 is given and the question is worth 10% of total marks (3/5*10), then the weighted score will be 6. We will sum the weighted scores to give an Overall Score. Mark scheme for the allocation of quality scores Descriptor Applicant fails to provide a response or Applicant provides a response of such a poor standard as to provide no confidence that the Applicant meets the requirements. Mark awarded 0 If any question receives a score of 0, the entire submission will be rejected. Applicant provides a response of such a poor standard as to provide little confidence that the Applicant meets the requirements. The response shows many or all of the issues listed at mark

7 Descriptor Mark awarded A response with some clear strengths but giving some concern, because some of the following apply: The question is only answered in part; and/or The approach described appears to only partially meet the requirement; and/or The approach described appears not to deliver expected levels of (as appropriate) functionality, performance, environmental performance, outcome, ease of use or other relevant characteristics; and/or The approach does not reflect accepted good practice; and/or The response is insufficiently specific; and/or The supporting documents (where requested) are of insufficient quality, depth or relevance. 2 An acceptable response, with some degree of weakness but where the weakness does not cause fundamental concerns and is outweighed by the strengths. 3 A good response where the strengths clearly outweigh any minor weakness(es), and the majority of aspects below apply: All aspects of the question are fully answered; The approach described fully meets the requirement; The approach reflects accepted good practice; The response is tailored to the requirement and, where relevant, to specific circumstances; The approach offers good levels of (as appropriate) functionality, performance, environmental performance, outcomes, ease of use and other relevant characteristics; and The supporting documents (where requested) are of good quality, relevant and of sufficient depth. 4 An excellent response with all relevant bullet points from a mark of 4 applying. 5 7