sdclogo

 

 

Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of the Services and Assets Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 27 September 2017

8.30am

Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill

 

Services and Assets Committee Agenda

 

OPEN

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brian Dillon

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

Nick Perham

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager Services and Assets

Ian Marshall

 

Committee Advisor

Fiona Dunlop

 

 

 

 

Contact Telephone: 0800 732 732

Postal Address: PO Box 903, Invercargill 9840

Email: emailsdc@southlanddc.govt.nz

Website: www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

Full agendas are available on Council’s Website

www.southlanddc.govt.nz

 

 

 


Terms of Reference – Services and Assets Committee

 

The Services and Assets Committee is responsible for overseeing the following Council activities:

·                  

 

 

Transport;

·                 Property management including community facilities, acquisitions and disposals (including land dealings);

·                 Forestry;

·                 Water supply, wastewater and stormwater;

·                 Solid waste management;

·                 Flood protection;

·                 Waste management;

·                 Rural fire management;

·                 Te Anau Airport;

·                 Stewart Island Jetties and Riverton Harbour Committee;

·                 Water supply schemes.

 

The Services and Assets Committee shall have the following delegated powers and be accountable to Council for the exercising of these powers:

 

(a)       Monitoring the delivery of capital works projects and the implementation of the capital works programme.

(b)       Monitoring the delivery of operations and maintenance contracts.

(c)       To approve and/or assign all contracts for work, services or supplies where the value is in excess of $200,000 where those contracts relate to work within approved estimates.  Where the value of the work, services; supplies or business case or the value over the term of the contract is estimated to exceed $2M a prior review and recommendation of the business case by the Finance and Audit Committee is required.  The business case shall include as a minimum; risk assessment, a procurement plan and financial costings.

(d)       To monitor the return on all the Council’s investments including forestry;

(e)       To monitor and track Council contracts and compliance with contractual specifications.

 

The Services and Assets Committee is responsible for considering and making recommendations to Council regarding:

(a)          Policies relating to the scope of activities of the Services and Assets Committee;

(b)          Changes to Council’s adopted Levels of Service;

(c)          The dividend from the Forestry Business Unit.

 

The Services and Assets Committee may delegate the management and control of all Riverton harbour assets vested in the Southland District Council to the Riverton Harbour Committee.

 

The Services and Assets Committee may delegate the responsibility to oversee the development and maintenance of jetties located at Fred’s Camp, Millars Beach,  Ulva Island, Port William and Little Glory Cove to the Stewart Island Jetties Subcommittee.


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                                                                   PAGE

Procedural

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

2          Leave of absence                                                                                                           5

3          Conflict of Interest                                                                                                         5

4          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items                                                                                          5

6          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

Reports for Resolution

7.1       Southland District Council Pavement Marking Tender Award                              15

7.2       District Wide LED Replacement - Unbudgeted Expenditure and Tender Award 21

7.3       Clifden Blackmount Road Seal Widening                                                                 27

7.4       Structural Engineering Services for Transport                                                       31

7.5       Milford Crescent Minor Improvement                                                                       39

7.6       Contract 17/25 Waterford Drive Watermain Renewal                                              47

Reports

8.1       Forestry Operations - Financial Report to 30 June 2017                                        65

8.2       Services and Assets Contracts Update                                                                    73

8.3       Roading Operations August 2017                                                                             75   

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

Committee Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

4          Public Forum

Notification to speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz or phoning 0800 732 732.

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the committee to consider any further items which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded.

Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:

(i)      the reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and

(ii)     the reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a)     that item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i)      that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)      the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)     no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

6.1     Meeting minutes of Services and Assets Committee, 09 August 2017

 


sdclogo

 

 

Services and Assets Committee

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Services and Assets Committee held in the Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Wednesday, 9 August 2017 at 9am.

 

present

 

Chairperson

Brian Dillon

 

 

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Stuart Baird

 

 

John Douglas

 

 

Paul Duffy

 

 

Darren Frazer

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Chief Executive - Steve Ruru

Group Manager, Services and Assets - Ian Marshall

Group Manager, Community and Futures - Rex Capil

Communications Manager - Louise Pagan

Governance and Democracy Manager - Clare Sullivan

Committee Advisor - Kirsten Hicks

 


1          Apologies

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ford, McPherson and Perham.

 

Resolution

 

Moved Cr Baird, seconded Cr Paterson and resolved:

 

That the Services and Assets Committee accepts the apologies.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

There was no leave of absence requested.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

 

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

4          Public Forum

 

There was no public forum.

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

 

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

6          Confirmation of Minutes

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Frazer and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee confirms the minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2017.

 

Reports for Resolution

 

 

7.1

District Wide LED Streetlight Replacement

Record No:         R/17/7/16806

 

Roading Asset Management Engineer Hartley Hare, Commercial Lead Roading Dylan Rabbidge and Group Manager, Services and Assets Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

1        Officers advised that the purpose of this report was to outline the proposed procurement and installation of LED street lighting units across the Southland District Council street lighting network.

3        The Meeting noted that the upgrade is required to replace outdated street lighting units to modern LED lights with significantly improved efficiencies and safety.

4        Endorsement is sought from the Services and Assets Committee for procurement and award of a contract to suitably qualified suppliers.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “District Wide LED Streetlight Replacement” dated 2 August 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Resolve that upgrade programme for LED be accelerated to maximise NZTA funding assistance for this activity (85%).

e)         Resolve that a tender be put to market for the instillation of the LED lights.

f)          Endorse that the outstanding quantity of light units be purchased from Council’s previously approved suppliers.

g)         Approve delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer or Group Manager Services and Assets, to award contracts based on the estimated project value of $1M, subject to satisfactory tenders being received that provide value to the Southland District Council.

 

 

7.2

Professional Services Contract for Transport Core Service

Record No:         R/17/7/16980

 

Roading Asset Management Engineer Hartley Hare and Group Manager, Services and Assets Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

1        Officers advised that the purpose of this report was to advise the outcome of the procurement of the Southland District Council Transport Professional Services – Core Services tender contract 17/04.

2        The Committee was informed that the current contract with Santec (previously MWH Global) for the provision of Professional Services for Roading, Contract 12/03 expires on 30 September 2017.

7ttheThe outcome of the evaluation is that Opus is the highest ranked tenderer and the Evaluation Team recommends Contract No.17/04,  Opus International Consultants.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Douglas, seconded Cr Harpur and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee

a)         Receives the report titled “Professional Services Contract for Transport Core Service” dated 2 August 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Notes the outcome of the tender evaluation and endorses the awarding of Contract 17/04 for Professional Services for Transport Core Services to Opus.

 

 

7.3

Lumsden Railway Precinct Upgrade

Record No:         R/17/8/17783

 

Community Partnership Leader Kelly Tagg was in attendance for this item.

 

The Meeting was advised the purpose of this report was to request a recommendation to Council for unbudgeted expenditure relating to two upcoming projects in Lumsden.

 

The Lumsden CDA wish to better manage the visitor experience at the Lumsden Railway Precinct. This would be achieved by enlarging, sealing/resealing the carpark, installing kerb and channel, and providing better rubbish disposal facilities. Landscaping and screening would also be required.

 

The Committee were informed that Council approved a toilet block upgrade in the 2015 – 2025 LTP, at a cost of $220,000. This work is due to be carried out in the 2018 – 19 year. Due to increased demand it is considered appropriate to bring this project forward to 2017 – 18 financial year, in conjunction with the Railway Precinct u[grade.

 

Both projects are considered to meet the criteria for funding in round one of MBIE’s Tourism Infrastructure Fund which opened on 3 August and closes 4 September.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Mayor Tong, seconded Cr Douglas and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Lumsden Railway Precinct Upgrade ” dated 8 August 2017.

 

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Recommends to Council that unbudgeted expenditure be approved for the “Lumsden Toilet Facilities Upgrade” project at an estimated total cost of $149,226 to be brought forward from the 2018-19 financial year to the 2017-18 year. The remaining 47% ($131,226) to be funded by applying to the MBIE Tourism Infrastructure Fund.

e)         Recommends to Council that the unbudgeted expenditure for the Lumsden toilet upgrade be approved subject to the application to the Tourism Infrastructure Fund being successful.

f)          Recommends to Council that the unbudgeted expenditure for the Lumsden Visitor Management Upgrade project at an estimated cost of $74,395 be approved subject to the Lumsden CDA Subcommittee resolving to fund this amount in total from their local funds and reserves at their meeting scheduled for 14 August 2017.  The remaining 50% ($74,395) to be funded by applying to the MBIE Tourism Infrastructure Fund.

g)         Recommends to Council that the unbudgeted expenditure of $74,395 for the Lumsden Visitor Management Upgrade be approved subject to the application to the Tourism Infrastructure Fund being successful.

Councillor Baird voted against this resolution.

 

 

Reports for Recommendation

 

 

8.1

Contract 17/5 Mackinnon Loop Watermain Renewal

Record No:         R/17/7/16088

 

Operations/Project Manager, Water and Waste Matthew Keil and Group Manager, Services and Assets Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

Officers advised purpose of this report is to recommend the award of contract and commence the programmed watermain renewal in Mackinnon Loop, Te Anau.

 

The Meeting noted the tenders received, the evaluation carried out and recommendations for letting the contracts.

 

 

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Paterson and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Contract 17/5 Mackinnon Loop Watermain Renewal” dated 30 July 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Approves the Mackinnon Loop Watermain Renewal project to proceed for a total district funded cost of $373,581.54.

e)         Approves the award of contract to Te Anau Earthworks Ltd for the sum of $328,581.54 including the total contingency amount of $25,000.00.

 

 

8.2

Southland District Council Resurfacing Tender Award

Record No:         R/17/7/17428

 

Roading Asset Management Engineer Hartley Hare and Group Manager, Services and Assets Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

1        Officers advised that the purpose of this report was to outline the tenders received for the 2017-2020 Southland District Council Resurfacing Programme and to seek approval from the Services and Assets Committee to award Contract 17/32 (Eastern Area) and Contract 17/33 (Western Area) to the recommended tenderers.

3        The Meeting noted the tenders received, the evaluation carried out and recommendations for letting the contracts.

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Douglas and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)      Receives the report titled “Southland District Council Resurfacing Tender Award” dated 4 August 2017.

b)      Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)      Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)      Accept the Downer tender price of $$7,378,924.40 plus GST for Contract 17/32   Eastern Area Resurfacing.

e)      Accept the Downer tender price of $7,720,175.40 plus GST for Contract 17/33 Western Area Resurfacing.

 

 

Reports

 

 

9.1

IFS Growth Forest Manager's Report of Forestry Activity for the period to 30 June 2017

Record No:         R/17/7/16864

 

Forestry Manager Reece McKenzie and Group Manager, Services and Assets Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

 

Mr McKenzie presented Forestry Reports for the end of month for May and June 2017.

 

The Committee noted the full year performance for the forestry business has been exceptional, with all budget targets easily exceeded. In part this is due to strong log prices but also increased yields (up 18%) in the Dipton Forest.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Keast, seconded Cr Harpur and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “IFS Growth Forest Manager's Report of Forestry Activity for the period to 30 June 2017” dated 2 August 2017.

 

 

9.2

Downer Water and Wastewater Maintenance Contract 10/01 - Monthly Report for June 2017

Record No:         R/17/7/15470

 

Operations/Project Manager, Water and Waste Matthew Keil and Group Manager, Services and Assets Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

 

Officers informed the Meeting that the purpose of the report was to update the Committee on the progress of the contract 10/01 for delivery of water and wastewater services to Council for the Southland District.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Harpur, seconded Cr Baird and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Downer Water and Wastewater Maintenance Contract 10/01 - Monthly Report for June 2017” dated 30 July 2017.

 

 

9.3

Roading Operations June 2017

Record No:         R/17/7/15541

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Frazer and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)       Receives the report titled “Roading Operations June 2017” dated 7 August 2017.

 

9.4

NZTA Three Year Programme Performance

Record No:         R/17/7/16188

 

Commercial Lead Roading Dylan Rabbidge and Group Manager, Services and Assets Ian Marshall were in attendance for this item.

 

The Meeting was advised that the purpose of this report was to update the progress of SDC against NLTP, and provide details of major risks to completing the proposed 2017/18 roading programme.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Douglas and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)       Receives the report titled “NZTA Three Year Programme Performance” dated 31 July 2017.

 

b)       Notes that the 2017/18 budget forecast approvals required will be reflected  in the Financial Reforecast to be presented in November 2017.

 

 

9.5

Services and Assets Contracts Update

Record No:         R/17/7/16570

 

Group Manager, Services and Assets Ian Marshall was in attendance for this item.

 

The Committee were advised on the progress of status of all contracts within Services and Assets except where the Water and Waste and Roading opex and capex contracts are reported through their respective operations reports.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Services and Assets Contracts Update” dated 26 July 2017.

 

 

 

 

9.6

Work Schemes Survey

Record No:         R/17/7/16576

 

Planning and Reporting Analyst Shannon Oliver and Works Scheme Supervisor Chris Klein was in attendance for this item.

 

The Meeting was advised that the Work Scheme and Maintenance Service Client Satisfaction Survey was undertaken in May 2017.

 

 

Resolution

Moved Mayor Tong, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Work Schemes Survey” dated 30 July 2017.

b)         Notes that the satisfaction survey shows for the measure:

·    Satisfaction; 100% of clients were either Very Satisfied or Satisfied in terms of the work completed according to specifications.

·    Costs; 13 out of 14 respondents either Strongly Agreed or Agreed the costs were fair and reasonable

·    Work undertaken; 9 of 14 respondents rated the work undertaken made it possible for small communities to complete projects where they would otherwise not be able to due to costs or lack of resources.  The other 5 said it was Not Applicable.

 

 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 10.50am.             CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Services and Assets Committee HELD ON 9 AUGUST 2017.

 

 

 

DATE:...................................................................

 

 

 

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

 

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Southland District Council Pavement Marking Tender Award

Record No:        R/17/9/21650

Author:                 Hartley Hare, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        This report outlines the tenders received for the 2017-2020 Southland District Council Pavement Marking Services and seeks approval from the Services and Assets Committee to award Contract 17/30 (Eastern Area) and Contract 17/31 (Western Area) to the recommended tenderers.

Executive Summary

2        This report covers the tendering outcome for the pavement marking of urban and rural roads across the Southland District Council network.

3        Each contract is for a period of 3 years with a possible further 2 years (1+1) extension subject to satisfactory completion and performance of the first 3 years of work. The extent of marking to be done each year will be confirmed by Southland District Council by 30 September each year but it is anticipated that all markings will be re-marked in year 1 and 3 and approximately 50% will be remarked in year 2.

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)      Receives the report titled “Southland District Council Pavement Marking Tender Award” dated 20 September 2017.

b)      Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)      Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)      Accept the Downer tender price of $972,427.84 plus GST for Contract 17/30   Eastern Area Pavement Marking.

e)      Accept the Downer tender price $1,108,314.14 plus GST for Contract 17/31 Western Area Pavement Marking.

 


 

Content

Background

4        This report covers the tendering for the pavement marking activity of urban and rural roads in the Southland District Council’s roading network for the next three years based on the NZTA P/22 method based specification.

5        The work involved in the contracts includes; remarking of existing pavement markings, reinstatement of raised pavement markers (RRPM’s), upgrading and installation of new pavement markings where instructed by SDC.

6        The two contracts were advertised on Local Government Online and in the Tenders Gazette.  Tenders were received from three companies by the closing date of 30 August 2017.

7        The tenders were set up to be let on a Price Quality Method basis, with the total non-price weighting of 30% being on relevant experience, track record, resources, relevant skills and methodology.

8        These attributes therefore had to be evaluated prior to opening the price envelopes.  To do this the Tender Evaluation Team studied the tenders and met to discuss and agree scores on 1 September 2017.

9        This team was made up of Hartley Hare, Dylan Rabbidge, Stephen Arthur and Diana Evans of Stantec. As a result of their deliberations, which reviewed the Tenderer’s information provided against that requested, the following scores were awarded:

 

Tenderer

Relevant Experience

Track Record

Resources

Relevant Skills

Methodology

Downer

90

90

90

85

85

Fulton Hogan

85

70

60

70

70

SprayMarks

85

90

85

60

75

10      All Contractors have similar relevant experience and track records, hence similar scores, with Fulton Hogan scoring slightly lower on track record due to poorer feedback from the nominated references.

11      For the resources, the evaluation team determined that the ability of Downer and Spraymarks to resource up when needed was more likely than Fulton Hogan.  Based on the information provided both Downer and Spraymarks have more resources and plant available than Fulton Hogan.

12      For the relevant skills components, the evaluation team determined that the Downer tender exhibited a team with superior skills than both Fulton Hogan and Spraymarks. In comparison, the team proposed by Fulton Hogan, have a practical experience average of four years, compared to Downer, who have a practical experience average of 13.95 years.

13      In the methodology component, Downer were overall just ahead of Fulton Hogan and Spraymarks due to their compliance with the SDC requirements.

14      The tender prices received were as follows (excluding GST):

Tenderer

Contract 17/30 - Eastern Area

Contract 17/31 - Western Area

Downer 

$972,427.84

$1,108,314.14

Fulton Hogan 

$1,051,207.40

$1,428,360.00

SprayMarks

$1,608,761.93

$2,018,500.00

Stantec Estimate

$1,130,037.00

$1,545,250.00

 

15      The Engineer’s estimate is based on the current pavement marking contract rates escalated to 2017 dollars. The estimate is 20% above the lowest tendered price for the Western Area, but only 1% above the lowest tendered price for the Eastern Area. The overestimation of rates may be due to the competitive prices and rates that Downer have submitted. It may also be attributed to Downer as the incumbent for this area now having a much better understanding of the real costs involved in running a pavement marking contract on the Southland network.

16      Fulton Hogan supplied an alternative methodology based on them being awarded both the Eastern and Western area pavement marking contracts.  The price envelope for this alternative tender was not opened, as the methodology was non-conforming.

17      With the Price Quality Method evaluation the non-priced scores were used to evaluate the Supplier Quality Premium.  These premiums were then deducted from the tender prices to determine who had the lowest overall tender price and therefore becomes the recommended Tenderer.  For the purposes of tender evaluation the Contingency Sum and any Provisional Sums included in the tender schedule are excluded from the estimate but left in the Tenderer’s prices for the calculation.  In each of these tenders the total Contingency sum was $50,000 and the Provisional Sums allowing for upgrading of the network and cost fluctuations were $50,000, giving a combined total of $100,000. 

18      The evaluation produces the following (all scores reduced by their weighting):

     Contract 17/30 - Eastern Area

Attribute (Weighting)

Downer

Fulton Hogan

Spray Markers

Relevant Experience (5%)

90

85

85

Track Record (5%)

90

70

90

Resources (5%)

90

60

85

Relevant Skills (5%)

85

70

60

Methodology (10%)

85

70

75

Sum of Non-priced Attributes (30%)

26.3

21.3

23.5

Tender Price

$972,427.84

$1,051,207.40

$1,608,761.93

Supplier Quality Premium ($)

$  73,574.07

0

$     33,108.33

Price less supplier quality premium

$898,853.77

$1,051,207.40

$1,575,653.60

19      Based on the above Downer are the recommended Tenderer for Contract 17/30.

 

Contract 17/31 - Western Area

 

Attribute (Weighting)

Downer

Fulton Hogan

Spray Markers

Relevant Experience (5%)

90

85

85

Track Record (5%)

90

70

90

Resources (5%)

90

60

85

Relevant Skills (5%)

85

70

60

Methodology (10%)

85

70

75

Sum of Non-priced Attributes (30%)

 

 

 

Tender Price

$1,108,314.14

$1,428,360.00

$2,018,500.00

Supplier Quality Premium ($)

$   103,232.14

0

$    46,454.46

Price less supplier quality premium

$1,005,082.00

$1,428,360.00

$1,972,045.54

 

20      Based on the above Downer are the recommended Tenderer for both Contract 17/31 and Contract 17/30

Issues

21      The main issue considered by the TET team was the ability of Downer to complete both the Eastern and Western Area contracts. This is partly allayed due to Downer being the incumbent for the Western Area along with the quantum of resources outlined in the tender proposal. On this basis the TET team of no reservation in recommending Downer for both Contracts.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

22      NZTA procurement procedures.

23      Local Government Act 2002.

24      No unusual legal considerations are involved with this project.  As with all projects, but larger value projects in particular, there is the risk of a legal challenge regarding the tender results from unsuccessful Tenderers.  To reduce this risk the Tender Evaluation Team carefully follow the NZTA procurement procedures.

Community Views

25      No specific community views have been sought outside of Councils Long Term Plan or Annual Plan process due to the nature of the works primarily being standard road maintenance activities (business as usual).

26      The contract document does take account of community views by addressing issues such as patchiness and visibility by requiring a full remark of the network at the start of the contract. In addition Council has taken on a more active role in directly managing the contract with the recent appointment of Stephen Arthur to the role of Traffic Services Engineer.

Costs and Funding

27      The activity forms part of the overall roading budget with the NZTA share being apportioned appropriately.

28      The tender value for separable portion one (2017/2018) of the contract fits within the approved NZTA and SDC budget for 2017/18 financial year.

29      The value of the budget for pavement marking programme for subsequent years will not be known until the 2018-2028 LTP is adopted and NZTA have approved the 2018/21 three year programme, however, the tender outcome will be used as a basis for SDC’s funding application to NZTA for the this activity. 

30      As cost fluctuations will apply to the contracts, this will impact on the final cost being different from that tendered however this will be monitored during the contract period.

Policy Implications

31      Council’s Procurement Policy.

32      Council’s NZTA Procurement Strategy.

33      As outlined above in the report, NZTA tender evaluation process will be followed along with Council’s Procurement Policy.

Analysis

Options Considered

34      The options to consider is whether or not to award the tender.

Assessment of Significance

35      Based on the Council’s Policy on Significance and given that any decision made is in line with the Annual Plan and budget expectations, it is believed that the decision made based on this recommendation is not significant.

36      The procurement method proposed, along with this activity forming part of the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan, means that the letting of this contract is not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002

Recommended Option

37      Both Downer and Fulton Hogan have reasonably successfully completed pavement marking contracts for SDC during the past five years.  Downer’s combination of price and SQP means they are the recommended Tenderer for both contracts.

38      As this is a continuation of a core roading services and the total value of the contracts fit within the allocated roading budget for this activity it is recommended that;

•        Downer’s tender price of $972,427.84 for Contract 17/30 - Eastern Area be   accepted;   and 

•        Downer’s tender price of $1,108,314.14 for Contract 17/31 - Western Area be        accepted.

Next Steps

39      Services and Assets Committee formally award the contracts to the recommended tenderers and Council's Group Manager Services and Assets, formally notify the successful and unsuccessful tenderers of the outcome from the tendering process.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

District Wide LED Replacement - Unbudgeted Expenditure and Tender Award

Record No:        R/17/9/21792

Author:                 Hartley Hare, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        To seek approval from the Services and Assets Committee to proceed with the accelerated LED streetlighting replacement programme across the Southland District Council network, along with the award of Contract 17/45 – Southland Streetlight LED Upgrade 2017/18 for the physical installation works.

Executive Summary

2        A report was presented to Services and Assets on 9 August 2017 seeking approval to proceed with the procurement of physical works and accelerated purchase of LED streetlights.

3        This report covers the tenders received, the evaluation carried out and recommendations for awarding the contract.

4        Approval is sought for unbudgeted expenditure of $1.2 million plus GST (Southland District Council portion is $180,000) for the project.

5        Endorsement is sought from the Services and Assets Committee for the award of a contract 17/45 to Network Electrical Servicing (NES).

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “District Wide LED Replacement - Unbudgeted Expenditure and Tender Award” dated 20 September 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Approve the unbudgeted expenditure of $1.2M (SDC Portion $180k) for the accelerated upgrade programme for LED streetlights to maximise NZTA funding assistance for this activity (85% vs 52%).

e)         Accept the tender from Network Electrical Servicing for the installation of the LED lights to the value of $576,233.05 plus GST.

 

Content

Background

6        The Southland District Council’s Strategic Transport Department have investigated the benefits of moving to LED streetlights to replace Council’s current High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lights.

7        There has been a push from Central Government for Local Authorities to convert street lighting networks to LED, and to date there has been significant upgrades happening all over New Zealand.

8        On 9 August a paper was presented to the Services and Assets Committee outlining the business case covering the significant financial benefits by converting to LED street lighting, namely via reduced power consumption and reduced maintenance efficiencies that can be gained.

9        At the 9 August meeting the Services and Assets Committee;

·    Resolve that upgrade programme for LED be accelerated to maximise NZTA funding assistance for this activity (85%).

·    Resolve that a tender be put to market for the instillation of the LED lights.

·    Endorse that the outstanding quantity of light units be purchased from Council’s previously approved suppliers.

·    Approve delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer or Group Manager Services and Assets, to award contracts based on the estimated project value of $1M, subject to satisfactory tenders being received that provide value to the Southland District Council.

10      The tender was advertised on Local Government Online and the procurement methodology used was the lowest price conforming method.

11      Initial three contractors expressed an interest however only one tender was received by the closing date of 5 September 2017. This was from Network Electrical Servicing Ltd (NES).

12      NES have previously carried out work on both the Southland District Council and Invercargill City Council networks.

13      The price received from NES was $576,233.05 which is 38% higher than the estimated price of $417,935.00.

14      At the time of writing this report the Transport Team had not received a response from Powernet as to why they had not tendered.

15      It is surmised that resourcing may be a reason why no other tenders where submitted as the majority of Councils are trying to take advantage of the enhanced NZTA subsidy which in turn is putting pressure on industry resource to complete the works in the required timeframe.

16      While only one tender was received it is deemed competitive when considering the cost associated with the Trial carried out in Wallacetown.

17      Based on the above Network Electrical Servicing Ltd is the recommended tenderer.

Issues

18      While there may be some minor issues associated with retrofitting LED streetlights on the network, these issues are not deemed to be significant.

19      It is worth noting that the Council have a small number of decorative (also referred to as heritage) street lighting units across the District. There is currently no cost effective LED replacement on the market for these existing lights.

20      It is intended to let a separate procurement and installation tender in future when cost effective options are available.  There will be no decorative/heritage light fittings replaced in this contract.

21      There is always a risk that improved technology may come to fruition, however worldwide LED street lighting is being embraced on a very large scale with no apparent competition from alternative options.

22      In New Zealand, all large council areas are being converted to LED and this is now flowing down to smaller cities and districts nationwide with drive coming from NZTA.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

23      No unusual legal or statutory considerations are involved with the procurement and installation of LED lighting units.

Community Views

24      Although no community views have been sought on this topic, the Strategic Transport Department ran an Investment Logic Mapping (ILM) sessions in 2015 where some Councillors and community organisations were present to discuss the benefits of moving to an LED street lighting network.

25      The proposed LED street lighting replacement aligns well with key messages formed within the Long Term Plan Community Outcomes, such as:

·              Deliver our own services and activities in a sustainable manner.

·              Support initiatives which reduce impacts on the environment.

·              Ensure that infrastructure and services are provided and maintained consistent with community needs and provide value for money in a sustainable manner.

·              Look for opportunities to increase value of our services.

Costs and Funding

26      The Strategic Transport Department have revised the total project estimated cost to replace the existing HPS street lights to LED to be $1.2M. The increase in cost is as a consequence of the higher tender price received for the physical instillation costs.

27      NZTA are offering a FAR of 85% for Local Authorities to retrofit their existing networks to LED by 30 June 2018. This exposes Council to cover the remaining 15% (approximately $180,000). For the SDC share this is $30,000 above the initial estimate.

28      A business case to complete this work has been submitted and approved by NZTA to retrofit the network to LED street lights. The Strategic Transport Department are confident this allows enough time to retrofit our network of around 2000 light units.

Policy Implications

29      There are no substantive Policy or District Plan considerations relevant to this matter but this process is subject to the following:

•        Council’s Procurement Policy.

•        Council’s NZTA Procurement Strategy.

30      The NZTA tender evaluation process has been followed along with Council’s Procurement Policy.

Analysis

Options Considered

31      The tender was let as a lowest price conforming, however only one tender was received. The pricing received was within the national average of prices for similar work.

32      The options to consider are as follows:

Option 1 - Approve Unbudgeted Expenditure and award the tender to NES

Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option 3 – Install the LED Lights under Minor Improvements Category (spread cost over multiple years) at standard funding assistance rate (currently 52%).

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Approve Unbudgeted Expenditure

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Significant power consumption efficiencies gained by LED lighting.

·        Significant maintenance efficiencies gained by LED lighting, street lights last much longer and reduced inspections required.

·        Levels of service remain largely unchanged, but significant efficiencies gained.

·        As an example, less power demand on Stewart Island power scheme as street lighting network converted to LED, so there will be at a reduced consumption requirement on this power supply network.

·        Although there is an initial cost to purchase an LED unit, they typically pay themselves off over a seven year period due to maintenance and power savings, three years before the warranty expires (and with an expected remaining life of around 13 years).

·        Significantly reduced street light maintenance contract expenditure moving into the future, LEDs don’t have the labour requirements HPS lights require.

·        Up front capital cost to purchase the new lighting units.

 

Option 2 – Do Nothing

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        No initial capital cost in purchasing of LED units.

·        No maintenance efficiencies gained, as HPS lights require more frequent bulb replacement and attendance.

·        HPS lights need regular and ongoing inspections due to short bulb life.

·        No power consumption saving efficiencies gained, as LED use significantly less power to operate.

·        As LED becomes the new normal, HPS equipment will be hard to source (if at all, in future).

·        A HPS unit may use up to 6 bulbs when compared to the expected life of an LED, which equals almost double the initial cost of an LED unit (excludes the labour cost to physically change each bulb).

 

Option 3 – Install the Lights under Minor Improvements Category

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        No advantages

·        Unable to access the NZTA FAR of 85%, it will be under the standard FAR of 52% dropping to 51% in 2018/19.

 

Assessment of Significance

33      This is not considered significant.

Recommended Option

34      The Strategic Transport Department recommends that the contract for District wide installation of the LED lights be awarded to Network Electrical Servicing (NES).

35      The Strategic Transport Department recommends that Council approve the unbudgeted project expenditure of $1.2M (SDC contribution $180K).

Next Steps

36      Services and Assets Committee formally award the contracts to the recommended tenderer and Council's Group Manager Services and Assets, formally notify the successful tenderer of the outcome.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Clifden Blackmount Road Seal Widening

Record No:        R/17/9/21845

Author:                 Hartley Hare, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        The report outlines the tenders received for Contract 17/35 – Clifden Blackmount Road Seal Widening and seeks approval from the Services and Assets Committee to award Contract 17/35 to the recommended tenderer.

Executive Summary

2        The report covers the tendering outcome for the seal widening of 2,300 metres of Clifden Blackmount Road from RP 3684 to RP 5985.   

3        The report covers the tenders received, the evaluation carried out and recommendations for letting the contract.

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Clifden Blackmount Road Seal Widening” dated 20 September 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Accept The Roading Company’s tender price of $253,900.00 plus GST.

 

Content

Background

4        Clifden Blackmount Road seal width, between route position 3684m and 5985m, has been identified as being under width and would benefit from being seal widened to the recommended width for a Secondary Collector Road (7m). From a ranking point of view Clifden Blackmount Road came up as one of the highest ranked roads for seal widening when the review of narrow sealed roads was carried out.

5        Seal Widening was originally identified as being most worthwhile on Clifden Blackmount Road between CH 55 to CH 5985.  Following a further review for the Activity Management Plan it has been recommended that the first section from route position 55m to 3684m be held at its existing recorded width of 6.4 m until it is due for rehabilitation, which may possibly be within ten years (currently projected to be 2023). This timing would potentially also better match in with the priority for the guard railing of bridge one.

6        The scope of the work includes roadside and subsoil drainage works; removal and replacement of unsuitable materials; production, supply, shaping and compaction of subbase and basecourse; preparation and first coat sealing of the surface; sweeping and pavement marking; and installation of signs and marker posts.

7        No Guardrail is planned to be installed at the stock underpass (existing sight rail to remain) and no fence lines are envisaged to be moved.

8        The tender was advertised on Local Government Online and in the Tenders Gazette.  Conforming tenders were received from three tenderers by the closing date of 6 September 2017. The submitted tenders are as follows (excluding GST):

9       

Tenderer

Tender Price

The Roading Company

$253,900.00

SouthRoads 

$279,520.15

Wilson Contracting

$626,190.37

MWH Estimate

$213,770.00

10      The lowest conforming price received was 19% greater than the Engineer’s detailed tender estimate. As the tenderer was required to submit one rate (lump sum) to cover all work involved in undertaking the seal widening the prices are likely reflecting the additional risks involved in incorporating all aspects of the works in a single rate.

11      Based on the above The Roading Company is the recommended Tenderer for Contract 17/35 – Clifden Blackmount Seal Widening.

 

Issues

12      The seal widening treatment is based on establishing levels of services consistent with the road classification and function while taking into account ongoing maintenance requirement such edgebreak repair and safety risk associated with varying seal width along the route.

13      As discussed in the background timing of future renewal works also needs to be taken into account to ensure whole of life cost are taken into account.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

14      NZTA procurement procedures.

15      Local Government Act 2002.

16      No unusual legal considerations are involved with this project.  As with all projects, but larger value projects in particular, there is the risk of a legal challenge regarding the tender results from unsuccessful Tenderers.  To reduce this risk the Tender Evaluation Team carefully follow the NZTA procurement procedures.

Community Views

17      Although no specific community views have been sought feedback has been sought and received from Councils Community Engineers and the Alliance Contractors in identifying candidate sites.

18      The works also align  with the Long Term Plan Community Outcomes, such as:

·              Ensure that infrastructure and services are provided and maintained consistent with community needs and provide value for money in a sustainable manner.

·              Look for opportunities to increase value of our services.

 

Costs and Funding

19      The activity forms part of the overall roading budget with the NZTA share (52%) being apportioned appropriately.

Policy Implications

20      Council’s Procurement Policy.

21      Council’s NZTA Procurement Strategy.

22      As outlined above in the report, NZTA tender evaluation process will be followed along with Council’s Procurement Policy

Analysis

Options Considered

23      Generally two main options have been considered and outlined below.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 – Do Nothing (status quo)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·          Reduced financial input required particularly in the short to medium term.

·        Greater number of small defects can be treated in isolation over the whole SDC roading network.

·        Continued reduction in levels of service and likely increase in road user safety risk over time.

·        Increased risk of road deterioration requiring increase maintenance expenditure and in turn imposing a significant financial requirement over the longer term.

 

Option 2 – Seal Widening

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Establish levels of service on routes justified by traffic volumes and strategic value to the network.

·          Removing inconvenience to road users and providing improved road user experience.

·        Long term cost savings.

·        Reduced maintenance cost which can be redistributed elsewhere on the network.

·        Greater shorter term financial input required compared to patch and reseal option.

 

 

Assessment of Significance

24      Based on the Council’s Policy on Significance and given that any decision made is in line with the Annual Plan and budget expectations, it is believed that the decision made based on this recommendation is not significant.

25      The procurement method proposed, along with this activity forming part of the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan, means that the letting of this contract is not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002

Recommended Option

26      The recommended Tenderer has successfully completed similar work for the Southland District Council in the past and has submitted a reasonable price.  We therefore recommend the acceptance of the tender from The Roading Company of $253,900.00 (excluding GST)

Next Steps

27      Services and Assets Committee formally award the contracts to the recommended tenderer and Council's Group Manager Services and Assets, formally notify the successful and unsuccessful tenderers of the outcome from the tendering process

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Structural Engineering Services for Transport

Record No:        R/17/9/21859

Author:                 Hartley Hare, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        To advise Council of the outcome of the tender evaluation process for the Structural Engineering Services for Transport Tenders, Contract No. 17/29.

Executive Summary

2        The current contract for the provision of Professional Services for Roading, Contract 12/03 expires on 30 September 2017.  The incumbent is Stantec (ex MWH Global).

3        Tenders were called in July and closed on 2 August 2017 for a three-year initial term with two possible extensions of one year each subject to performance and Council’s discretion.  Three bona fide tenders were received, from Calibre Consultants, Opus and from Stantec.

4        Tender proposals have been evaluated in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy and the provisions of the Request for Tenders (RFT).  This report presents the outcome of the evaluations and seeks Council approval to award the contract to the preferred tenderer.

5        Stantec submitted a conforming tender and an alternative tender.  In consideration of all conforming tenders Stantec was the highest ranked tenderer when it’s extremely competitive price was taken in to account.

6        Stantec’s alternative tender offered a lower price for the Primary Services but was considered by the Evaluation Team as deficient in meeting the requirements of the contract and is not recommended.

7        The Evaluation Team recommends Contract No.17/29, Structural Services for Transport be awarded to Stantec for its conforming tender.

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Structural Engineering Services for Transport” dated 19 September 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Notes the outcome of the tender evaluation process

e)         Awards Contract 17/29 for Structural Engineering Services for Transport Services to Stantec for the sum of $765,000.

f)          Authorise the Group Manger Services and Assets to formally notify Tenderers of the outcome and to execute the Contract documents.

 

Content

Background

8        The current contract held by Stantec (previously MWH Global) for Professional Services for Roading, Contract 12/03. This contract expires on 30 September 2017.

 

9        The scope of the professional services contracts has been reviewed prior to going to the market.  The purpose of the review was to improve flexibility and the range and capacity of resources available to Council to enable higher outputs to fully meet Council’s programme of work and to also recognise some extended scope of the three new Maintenance Alliances which was an outcome of the “Roading Service Delivery Review” undertaken in 2015.  This has resulted in the services being divided into three packages being:

 

·    Core Services – comprising technical advice and professional support for Transport’s asset management, pavement renewals capital works and reseal programmes, management of sealing contracts, maintenance intervention strategies, network controls and network safety.  The outcome of tenders for this contract was reported to Council in July and the contract awarded to Opus International Consultants.

 

·    Structural Engineering Services – comprising specialist technical advice and asset management support regarding Council’s stock of (circa) 1000 bridges and other structures, renewals programming and design and delivery management of the bridge renewal programme.

 

·    A small panel of pre-qualified consultants to competitively undertake Pavement Renewal Projects (design and contract management).

 

10      The invitation to pre-qualify for Pavement Renewal Projects has been issued to the market.

11      The Structural Engineering Services is the subject of the tenders under consideration in this report.

12      Tenders were called in July and closed on 2 August 2017 for a three year initial term with two possible extensions of one year each subject to performance and Council’s discretion.  Three bona fide tenders were received, from Calibre Consulting, Opus and Stantec.

13      Another submission was also received from the “Survey Group”, a specialist survey firm based in Perth.  It was in the form of a capability profile pamphlet and did not address the scope of the RFT in any way.  It was put to one side as wholly irrelevant to the services required.

14      The three bona fide tenders were initially checked for compliance with the provisions of the RFT and all were assessed as being acceptable for the purposes of evaluation.  It was noted that the non-price submission by Stantec stated that they had submitted an alternative tender and the details of this were contained in the Price File.  No details of the alternative were presented in the non-price submission.

15      The RFT set out the basis on which the successful tender would be selected using a NZTA standard Price Quality Method which is well recognised within the industry.  The method requires the evaluation of non-price related attributes and determination of a Supplier Quality Premium (SQP) that the Council would be prepared to pay to secure tenders that are higher ranked based on the non-price assessment.  When this has been determined the price file for each tender is opened and the SQP deducted from the tender price of the higher ranked tenderers.  In this case there were three tenderers requiring two SQPs to be determined.

16      Evaluation of the non-price attributes was individually done by the members of the ET and then moderated through debate in a meeting to achieve a consensus score for each attribute which was then weighted as per the table below to yield a ranking of the tenders.


Attribute

Weighting

Relevant experience and track record

20%

Technical skills and management skills

20%

Methodology

40%

Health and safety

Pass/Fail

Insurance

Pass/Fail

Price

20%

 

17      The Evaluation Team (ET), formed to evaluate tenders and recommend the preferred tender to Council comprised:

Evaluation Team

Doug Low, Morrison Low (Chair)

Joe Bourque, Southland District Council

Hartley Hare, Southland District Council

Dylan Rabbidge, Southland District Council

 

18      The Non-Price evaluation was supported by referee checks using referees nominated in the tenders. 

19      It is noted that two tenderers are well established over a long period in Southland and are well known to Council.  They are both familiar with network issues and have both recently undertaken work for the Transport Team.  The tender from Calibre was well presented and provided an impressive fresh approach and this was supported by feedback from three referees.  The non-price moderated scores are set out below.  All three tenderers satisfied the Health and Safety and Insurance requirements.

20      The moderated consensus results are tabulated below.

 

 

Calibre

Opus

Stantec

 

Weight %

Consensus

Score

Weighted Score

Consensus

Score

Weighted Score

Consensus

Score

Weighted Score

Experience & Track Record

20

78.75

15.75

82.5

16.5

83.75

16.75

Technical & Management Skills

20

78.75

15.75

83.75

16.75

81.25

16.25

Methodology

40

83.75

33.5

85.5

34.2

82.5

33

Total Non-Price Weighted Score

 

 

65

 

67.45

 

66

The non-price weighted scoring established a lead over the lowest ranked tender by Opus of 2.45% and by Stantec of 1.0%.  This is known as the “Weighted Sum Margin” to be used in the formula below.

21      The budget estimate for the Primary Services of the contract is $280k per year.  The tender amounts were for the three-year initial term of the contract yielding an estimate of $840k for the term.  This estimate was used to calculate the Supplier Quality Premium (SQP) according to the formula:

SQP = Contract Estimate x weighted sum margin ÷ Price Weight

·    For Opus this was:

SQP         = $840,000 x 2.45% ÷ 20%

                             = $102,900 which is 12.25% of the estimate.

·    For Stantec this was:

SQP         = $840,000 x 1.0% ÷ 20%

                             = $42,000 which is 5% of the estimate.

 

22      The recognised formula is intended to provide a guide on the Supplier Quality Premium and can be moderated.  It was considered by the ET that the premium for Opus was excessive and should be moderated down to 10% of the estimate being $84k.  The TET agreed the Stantec premium should remain at 5% of the estimate at $42k.  In other words, these are the amounts that could be deducted from the Opus and Stantec tender prices respectively before comparing the prices of all three tenderers to determine which would be the successful tenderer.

23      At this point the price files that had been locked down and password protected were opened yielding the following results.

 

Calibre

Conforming

Opus

Conforming

Stantec

Conforming

Stantec Alternative

Total Primary Services Tender Price

$1,242,000

$1,171,800

$765,000

$540,000

Less Supplier Quality Premium

 

$84,000

$42,000

*

Adjusted Price for tender comparison

$1,242,000

$1,087,800

$723,000

540,000

*No SQP could be established for the alternative tender as no non-price submission was included.

24      From conforming tenders, Stantec emerges as the preferred tenderer with a price of $765,000.  It is noted that the application of the Supplier Quality Premium was not required to achieve this result.

25      Stantec’s tender is extremely competitive being 37% lower than the average of the other two tenders.  At nearly 10% below Council’s estimate of $840,000 (assessed as the minimum sustainable value for the Primary Services) the price is considered to be tight for the scope of work tendered upon.  Stantec can sustain this given its size nationally but attention will be required to ensure there is an ongoing focus on meeting contractual requirements. 

Alternative tender

26      Stantec’s alternative tender was considered in the context of the contract requirements.  The RFT required the undertaking of bridge inspections and develop draft rolling three year and 10-year renewal programmes according to a cyclic process designed to achieve a level work quantum each year and efficiently meet Council’s timeframes.  It also indicated a likely resource of 2FTE could achieve this based on historic performance but allows for this to be jointly reviewed after the first year and lump sums to be agreed for subsequent years. 

27      Stantec’s alternative offer assumes a lower level of input and requires that Stantec not be constrained by the time commitments contained in the RFT and in return Stantec would take the risk on maintaining its price for the full three years of the initial term of the contract.

28      The TET has considered the implications of this including the likely savings and the management input required to achieve the required outcomes.  It has also taken Stantec’s past performance on programme management for Council and referee feedback into account. 

29      The compelling reason for disaggregating the total professional services into three specialist areas of Core Services, Structural Services and Rehabilitation Projects is to ensure that each of these areas can be adequately resourced to avoid historic difficulties in meeting work programmes and when needed to provide a level of flexibility that will be required in day to day service performance. 

30      It is the view of the TET that at the alternative tendered price and lower resource level offered, the overall service level in terms of timeliness and quality is expected to be materially lower than that required resulting in much higher management input by Council’s already fully committed Transport staff.

31      While the TET is very conscious of the need to obtain best value for the available tight budgets, in this case, supported by historical performance, the indicated monetary advantage of the alternative is likely to be seriously offset by the additional internal resources required to achieve the required outcomes.  With present Council resource levels, this would not be sustainable.  Accordingly, acceptance of the Stantec alternative tender is not recommended.

Hourly Rates

32      It is noted that tenderers were also invited to provide hourly rates to be used as the basis for pricing of any work that was allied to but outside of the prescribed scope of the Primary Services.  This was to provide for flexibility in the contract for (say) emergency events or other unforeseen circumstances or as a basis for pricing the delivery of renewal projects.  The Stantec rates submitted are highly competitive and circa 25% lower than those tendered by the other two submitters. 

33      Having completed its assessment, the Evaluation Team recommends the award of Contract 17/29 – Structural Engineering Services for Transport to Stantec for its conforming tender for the sum of $765,000 for the Primary Services.

Issues

34      There are no specific or unusual issues to note beyond those discussed elsewhere in the report.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

35      No significantly unusual legal considerations are involved with this tender.  As with all contracts projects, there is the risk of a legal challenge regarding the tender results from unsuccessful tenderers. To reduce this risk the Tender Evaluation Team diligently followed the NZ Transport Agency methodology and Council’s procurement policy.

Community Views

36      No specific community views have been sought outside of Councils Long Term Plan or Annual Plan process due to the nature of the works being business as usual transport activities.

37      This activity forms part of Councils on going roading activity and is covered in Councils Transport Activity Management Plan.

38      This style of contract aims to enhance the service provided to the community and boost responsiveness to their issues.

Costs and Funding

39      The costs will continue to be part of the overall roading management budgets with the NZTA share being apportioned to the relevant NZTA funding categories.

Policy Implications

40      As outlined above in the report NZTA tender evaluation process has been followed along with Council’s procurement policy. Consideration was also given to the outcome of the ‘Roading Service Delivery’ review undertaken in 2015.

Analysis

Options Considered

41      The options considered for the tendering of this contract where discussed in the report presented on 21 June 2017.

42      The only mater for considering is whether to award the contract or not.

Assessment of Significance

43      Roading professional services is provided for within the 2015 LTP and representatives a ‘business as usual’ matter. As such a decision in accordance with the recommendation is not considered significant.

Recommended Option

44      The Evaluation Team recommends the award of Contract 17/29 – Structural Engineering Services for Transport to Stantec for its conforming tender for the sum of $765,000.

Next Steps

45      Council's Group Manager Services and Assets, formally notify the successful and unsuccessful tenderers of the outcome from the tendering process.

46      Formalise the contract.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Milford Crescent Minor Improvement

Record No:        R/17/9/22406

Author:                 Hartley Hare, Strategic Manager Transport

Approved by:       Steve Ruru, Chief Executive

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1        The report outlines the outcome of the proposed improvement works at Milford Crescent in Te Anau including the outcome from the Te Anau Community Board consultation.

Executive Summary

2        Southland District Council (SDC) are proposing to carry out some minor improvements on Milford Crescent in Te Anau to improve the safety and performance of this road.  These improvements also tie-in with the Wong Way development.

3        The report outlines the issues along with the proposed interventions along with a recommendation from the Te Anau Community Board

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Milford Crescent Minor Improvement” dated 21 September 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Notes that the original staff recommendation was to relocate the pedestrian crossing on Milford Crescent at The Lane so that it was in the area of the existing entry/exit from the supermarket.

e)         Endorse the recommendation from the Te Anau Community Board meeting to carry out the minor safety works but not to relocate the pedestrian crossing on Milford Crescent at The Lane.

f)          Endorse that a review of the Pedestrian crossing on Milford Crescent at The Lane be carried out within the next 12 months and the outcome of that assessment be reported back the Committee including usage.   

 


 

Content

Background

4        This report has been prepared following a review of various safety concerns raised regarding Milford Crescent in Te Anau and following the outcome of the Te Anau Community Board meeting held on 13 September 2017.

 

Issues

5        The following issues had been raised with the Southland District Council numerous times over the past few years:

·    Speed on Milford Crescent (>30kmh); particularly westbound vehicles.

·    The environment and aesthetics of the area is not consistent with the rest of Te Anau township centre.

·    The pedestrian crossing adjacent to the lane is not collecting the majority of pedestrian movements crossing Milford Crescent.

·    Width of Milford Crescent is very tight in places for large vehicle tracking.  Also the provided car parks on the north side of the road are narrow which in turn makes the lanes even tighter with vehicles parked here.

·    Pedestrian conflict at the super market entrance way.

·    The bulb kerbs either side of ‘The Lane’ have caused issues for cyclists.

 

Proposal

6        A number of low cost interventions are proposed to best resolve all of the issues addressed above.  These include:

·    Upgrade the existing pedestrian crossing by the school so that it is raised similar to the courtesy crossing at the other end of Milford Crescent.  This will result in traffic calming and reduce the speed of vehicles westbound on Milford Crescent.

·    A painted median (wide centreline) in the centre of the Milford Crescent will take up redundant space and give a ‘feel’ of being narrow which will also be a good traffic calming intervention.  This will also provide the safety benefit of additional lane separation and provide more tracking space for larger vehicles.

·    Relocate the existing pedestrian crossing outside the ‘The Lane’ down to the supermarket entrance.  This ties in nicely with the Wong Way development and will hopefully mitigate the majority of Jay-Walkers on Milford Crescent.  The Supermarket entrance will be relocated up to where the existing crossing point is to improve conflict points in the car park (this however is not a council project).

·    The kerbs either side of the lane will be removed to provide more space for wider lanes, median separation and wider carparks on the north side.  This will also allow cyclists to safely traverse westbound without encroaching live traffic lanes.

·    A number of plantings will be installed that both improve safety aspects as well as improving the general aesthetics of the area.

7        See attachment A for drawing of the proposed works.

 

Pedestrian Crossing Relocation

8        The most contentious proposal is the relocation of the existing pedestrian crossing.  The current location is not the best location for it due to being immediately adjacent to ‘The Lane’. 

9        It is accepted that the current location ties in nicely with the walkway between the supermarket and Mitre 10 carpark, however from a safety perspective this conflicting location between left turning vehicles from ‘The Lane’ and pedestrian movements is less than desirable.

10      The most desirable location given some infrastructural obstructions is at the proposed new location in front of the supermarket.  Previously, Council could not relocate to this location due to the existing supermarket entrance, however with the supermarket wanting to move the location to address the safety issues it provides the opportunity to relocate the pedestrian crossing. 

 

Survey Results

11      To confirm our observations that the existing crossing point is not best utilised due to location; a survey was completed.  Results from the survey found:

·    44.35% of people using the existing pedestrian crossing are supermarket customers.  Because of the relatively small dataset; it would be safe to assume a 50/50 split of supermarket vs other users for the existing crossing.

·    272.37% more people Jay-walk on average than use the existing pedestrian crossing.  This is evident throughout all datasets recorded but statistics are even higher during the 5-6pm survey.  I assume this is people walking to the supermarket after work prior to heading home. For simple numbers; for every person who uses the existing pedestrian crossing, 3 people jay-walk.

12      The above supports that the pedestrian crossing would be better relocated to the proposed location.

13      Additional advantages of relocating the crossing includes being in line with the new Wong Way development.  Also during peak times, traffic will not be queued back out to Milford Crescent due to vehicles having to Giveway to pedestrian movements.

14      It is acknowledged that people are now going to jay-walk at the existing pedestrian crossing location; but with the statistics above we believe the net numbers of jay-walkers will be less and hence a safety improvement overall.

 

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

15      No unusual legal or statutory considerations are involved with the proposed works.

Community Views

16      Multiple meetings where held with members of the Community Board as well as the owners and operators of the Fresh Choice Supermarket.

17      A formal paper was presented to the Te Anau Community Board on 13 September seeking support for the proposed works.

18      In general the Community Board supported the proposed works with the exception of relocating of the pedestrian crossing.

19      The Community Boards concern related to the existing users of the pedestrian crossing and the perceived inconvenience for users coming from or going to Moana Crescent.

20      Another concern is that current users of the pedestrian crossing would now be inclined to jay-walk at the existing location should the crossing be removed.

Costs and Funding

21      The costs associated with relocating the access way is to be funded by the supermarket with the remainder of the works being funded from the Roading Minor Improvement Budget (NZTA Work Category 341).

22      The expected cost for the work has been estimated at $20,000 with 52% being co-funded by NZTA.

Policy Implications

23      There are no substantive Policy or District Plan considerations relevant to this matter.

Analysis

Options Considered

24      The options around the physical works proposal have been discussed above in the report.

25      The options for the Committee to consider are:

26      Options 1 – Endorse the modified recommendation from the Te Anau Community Board not to shift the pedestrian crossing at this point in time, but to review the outcome off all the other works before a final decision is made on the location of the pedestrian crossing.

27      Options 2 – Acknowledge the Community Boards recommendation but endorse the original staff proposal which includes relocating the pedestrian crossing.

Assessment of Significance

28      Based on the Council’s Policy on Significance and given that any decision made is in line with budget expectations, it is believed that the decision made based on this recommendation is not significant.

Recommended Option

29      The Services and Assets Committee support the recommendation from the Te Anau Community Board meeting to retain the existing pedestrian crossing at the current location despite the preferred location being opposite the current supermarket entrance.

30      That a review of the of the Pedestrian crossing be carried out within the next 12 months of the remainder interventions being completed to assess the impacts of not relocating the pedestrian crossing, including usage.

31      That a report be presented back to the Services and Assets Committee on the findings of the review including usage.

Next Steps

32      Carry out the improvement works and review the impact these have on traffic and pedestrian usage with particular focus on the current pedestrian crossing.

33      Report back the Services and Assets Committee on the outcome of the review.

 

Attachments

a         Milford Crescent Safety Design Drawings    

 



Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator



Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Contract 17/25 Waterford Drive Watermain Renewal

Record No:        R/17/9/21135

Author:                 Matthew Keil, Operations/Project Engineer-Water and Waste Services

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Purpose

1       The purpose of this report is to recommend the award of contract and commence the programmed watermain renewal within Waterford Drive and the surrounding area in Winton, as programmed to occur within the current 2017/2018 Annual Plan. 

Executive Summary

2       This report outlines the proposal to undertake a watermain renewal within the Waterford Drive reticulation catchment, Winton, including the renewal of all associated service laterals, rider mains and fixtures, and the installation of a new distribution main between the Winton Water Treatment Plant and 274 Great North Road.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Contract 17/25 Waterford Drive Watermain Renewal” dated 20 September 2017.

b)         Determines that this matter or decision be recognised not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c)         Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d)         Approves the Waterford Drive and Railway Street Watermain Renewal projects to proceed for a total amount of $1,323,226.60 ex GST.

e)         Approves the award of Contract 17/25 ‘Waterford Drive Watermain Renewal’ to Fulton Hogan for the tendered sum of $818,746.60, including a total contingency of $80,000.00.

f)          Approves the expenditure for the proposed ‘Railway Street Watermain Installation’ consisting of 358 lineal/metres of a renewed new potable distribution main/s between the Winton Water Treatment Plant, 274 Great North Road and 252 Great North Road to 20 Wemyss Street.

g)         Delegates authority to Council’s ‘Group Manager-Services and Assets’ to award a variation to Contract 17/25 for ‘Railway Street Watermain Installation’ subject to recommendations d) and f). 

 

Content

Background

3       The proposed watermain renewal for Contract 17/25 is to occur within the following locations:

·          Waterford Drive

·          Russell Street/Great North Road

·          Airth Street

·          Elgin Rise

·          Niddry Crescent

·          Hamilton Avenue

·          McWilliam Avenue

·          Welsh Road.

4       This is a large project that incorporates the renewal of all existing Class B asbestos
cement-fibrolite pipe (AC).  All existing AC pipe had been installed in 1956 giving it a current residual age of 61 years.

5       Similar to previous potable pipeline renewals that have occurred in Winton over the recent years, this project will rectify and eliminate current failures occurring and associated with the current potable AC reticulation within this area of Winton.

6       The project incorporates 2.07 kilometres of pipeline renewals, including all associated fixtures and the renewal of 127 existing service connections to private properties. 

7       It is proposed all existing AC watermains are replaced with High Density Polyethelene (HDPE) PE 100, which provides a current life expectancy of 80 years (minimum). 

8       Water and Waste asset management records confirm 64 reactive failures within the project areas which were repaired by Council’s Operations and Maintenance Contractor since 2000 alone. 

9       The proposed HDPE pipeline alignment will be positioned 1.0 metres of the existing AC alignment, meaning the handling of AC will be minimal during construction, this mitigates health and safety risks around asbestos pipe which also results in reduced contractual risk and financial cost during the construction phase of the project. 

10     Council’s Water and Waste department has consulted with Council’s Roading department regarding this project.  Areas within the project have been programmed for a full road reseal during the 2018-2019 sealing season.

11     Contract 17/25 was advertised for tender for a four week period and had a tender closure date of 1 September 2017.

12     Council’s Water and Waste department advise an additional DN250 HDPE pipeline installation between the Winton water treatment plant situated at 190 Florence Road and 274 Great North Road totalling 218 lineal/metres approximately is important to renew. 

Issues

13     The proposed watermain renewals within Contract 17/25 supplies water to residents from Hillary Street and Great North Road.  The existing asbestos cement (AC) watermains are of a fibrolite Class B material, which has caused numerous costly reactive repairs across the Winton water network over the years. 

14     Condition assessments indicate the existing AC watermains are in poor condition.

15     The undertaking of Contract 17/25 and also the Railway Street Watermain Renewal will see the completion of Council’s 16 year renewal programme within the Winton township.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

16     All work is to be undertaken within Council’s roading corridor only.

Community Views

17     Contract 17/25 is programmed to occur in Council’s current 2017/2018 Annual Plan which was approved by Council on 7 June 2017 and formally adopted on 1 July 2017. 

Costs and Funding

18     Contract 17/25 is to be funded via loan within the district water rate for the total amount of $1.67M, this budget is configured as follows:

·          WAT 1617_5      $1,103,352

·          WAT 1617_55    $572,791 (a carry forward from Contract 15/33 - a previously completed watermain renewal within 2016/2017).

19     The contract was formally advertised for tender for a period of four weeks.  Tender prices received are as outlined below within Table 1:

Contract 17/25 Waterford Drive Watermain Renewal

Tenderer

Fulton Hogan

Downers

UAML

Section A

 $805,303.70

 $921,604.80

 $1,138,787.00

Section B

 $13,442.90

 $12,648.47

 $12,335.00

Total

 $818,746.60

 $934,253.27

 $1,151,122.00

Table 1

1           

20     Total project costs for Contract 17/25 are as outlined below in Table 2:

Contract 17/25 Total Project Costs

Fulton Hogan - Conforming Tender Total

 $818,746.60

SDC Water and Waste Project/Supervision Fees

 $120,000.00

Railway Street Watermain Installation Total Provisional Costs, including contingency and SDC Water and Waste Fees

 $384,480.00

Total Project Price- ex GST (Including Contingencies

 $1,323,226.60

Table 2

 

21     Council’s Water and Waste department has estimated the Railway Street watermain renewal to be $384.4K approximately, this includes all associated contingency, water and waste fees and construction.  The Railway Street watermain renewal shall only occur with the delegated authority of Council’s Group Manager Services and Assets to approve.

22     Water and Waste staff would like to highlight that Fulton Hogan has now successfully open tendered the previous renewals project that has recently been completed in Winton.  The previous tendered work that was undertaken by Fulton Hogan was completed on time and with a high element of quality, and most importantly without any health and safety incidents.

23     Fulton Hogan has supplied Council with cost competitive tendered rates to undertake the Waterford Drive project.

24      By also completing the proposed ‘Railway Street watermain renewal’ this will complete all watermain/s renewals within the Winton township where current risk is carried by Council regarding existing asbestos pipelines that have been problematic and expensive to repair. 

Policy Implications

25     Contract 17/25 has been programmed to occur within the current 2017/2018 financial year and through consultation to the public with the adoption of Council’s current 2017/2018 Annual Plan.

26     Given the criticality of the Railway Street watermain it is also proposed this renewal occurs as outlined within Table 2 of this report.

Analysis

Options Considered

27     The following options have been considered and are as outlined below in Options 1-3.

Analysis of Options

Option 1 - A full pipeline renewal as outlined (preferred option)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        A significant reduction in future pipeline failure and potential risk to Council.

·        Lower maintenance and operational costs of the renewed pipeline.

·        A reliable and durable pipeline.

·        The future ability of operating the Winton reticulation directly from main/s pressure, off the water treatment plant secondary pumps.

·        The ability to supply Winton township with water without using the current water tower to obtain head pressure.

·        Reduced long term disruption to the public.

·        Responsible asset management of Council’s infrastructure.

·        A robust engineering design to service potable consumers supplied off the reticulated water supply within Winton.

·        The Railway Street watermain renewal can also be completed within Contract 17/25 and within budget.

·        Nil.

Option 2 - Complete a partial pipeline renewal

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Nil.

·        Intermittent disruption to the public during the construction phase of the project.

·        The expensive costly reactive repairs to rectify the failed pipelines.

·        Supply disruptions to the Winton water consumer during failures.

·        Potential non-compliance from the Ministry of Health should a failure occur on one of the affected pipelines.

·        Increased maintenance costs to maintain these pipelines.

·        Poor management of Council’s infrastructure. 

·        Poor/limited engineering design.

 


 

Option 3 - Do nothing

Advantages

Disadvantages

·        Nil.

·        Intermittent disruption to the public during the construction phase of the project.

·        The expensive costly reactive repairs to rectify the failed pipelines.

·        Supply disruptions to the Winton water consumer during failures.

·        Potential non-compliance from the Ministry of Health should a failure occur on one of the affected pipelines.

·        Increased maintenance costs to maintain these pipelines.

·        Poor management of Council’s infrastructure.

·        Poor engineering design.

 

Assessment of Significance

28     Contract 17/25 is not of significance as per Council’s Significance Policy. 

Recommended Option

29     Council’s Water and Waste department recommend a full pipeline renewal as outlined within Option 1 of paragraph 27.

30     Council’s Water and Waste department also recommends that the Railway Street watermain renewal is undertaken as outlined within Table 2 of this report and with the approval of Council’s Group Manager of Services and Assets under delegated authority from the Services and Assets Committee.

Next Steps

31     Services and Assets Committee award the contract to Fulton Hogan for a tendered amount of $818,746.60 excluding GST and a total project cost of $1,323,226.60 excluding GST. 

 

Attachments

a         Contract 17/25 - Winton Water Main Renewal Key Map

b         Contract 17/25 - Railway Street Watermain - Map Attachment 2

c         Contract 17/25 - Waterford Drive Watermain Renewal - SDC Formal Clarifications - Email Attachment

d         Contract 17/25 - Fulton Hogan Formal Responses - September 2017    

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

 

 



Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

 

 



Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 


 

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Forestry Operations - Financial Report to 30 June 2017

Record No:        R/17/9/21955

Author:                 Ben du Mez, Graduate Accountant

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Management Commentary

1        The forestry business has had another high performing year, with a consolidated net surplus, before forest revaluation, of $3.1M. This result is $2.3M favourable to budget. Additional to this is a gain in forest estate valuation of $0.8M and a loss on ETUs of $0.08M, which brings the net surplus after revaluation to $3.8M.

2        $5.7M of timber sales revenue was generated from the Dipton, Waikaia and Ohai forests, from a volume of 50,010 tonnes. This result has been achieved off 10% less area was budgeted; with continued strong and stable log prices (up $35/t), and improved yield and timber recovery across the program (up 7,800 tonnes).

3        Expenditure of $2.6M largely reflects harvesting costs, road access, land preparation and establishment in Dipton, silviculture operations at Ohai and Gowan Hills, and general maintenance and property security operations across all of the forests.

4        The activity also benefited from a gain in asset value, as a result of the 30 June 2017 forest valuation. The estates timber valuation is now $13.7M, compared to $13.0M in 2016, up $773K. In addition, the 30 June 2017 valuation includes the forestry land assets at a value of $2.5M, these assets are recognised at cost ($840K) consistent with Councils accounting policy for Land. 

5        The price of Emissions Trading Units decreased from $17.85 per unit (at 30 June 2016) to $17.20 at 30 June 2017. This decrease in price resulted in a total loss in value across all 116,805 units of $76K. No new Emissions Trading Units were received during the year.

 

Reece McKenzie

FOREST MANAGER

IFS GROWTH LIMITED


 

Financial Report


 

 

 


 


 

 


 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Forestry Operations - Financial Report to 30 June 2017” dated 20 September 2017.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report. 

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Services and Assets Contracts Update

Record No:        R/17/9/21747

Author:                 Trudy Saunders, Contracts Adminstrator

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Background

1       The Services and Assets Contract Management tracks Roading, Water and Waste and Property Divisions operations and capex contracts.  This report just lists the status of the Community Services contracts.

2       The Water and Waste and Roading opex and capex contracts are reported through their respective operations reports.

Purpose

3       The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the progress of status of all Contracts within Services and Assets.

Summary

4       Property:  As of 11 September 2017 the following Property related contracts are in progress

Department

Current

Due soon

Work In Progress

Overdue

Total

Community Engineers

30

0

2

7

39

Property

18

0

0

18

Property  - Land Related

2

 

7

 

9

 

50

0

9

7

66

Overview

5       Property Department contracts cover hall custodians and cleaning of buildings owned by SDC, such as offices and libraries.

Type of Service (CE’s)

Number

Type of Service (Property’s)

Number

Beautification

20

Land related

10

Beautification / cleaning (townships)

3

Major projects

1

Cleaning (public toilets)

13

Hall Custodians

5

Project

1

Compliance

1

Lease

1

Cleaning (offices and libraries)

11

SUB TOTAL

38

 

28

 

6       Community Engineers contracts cover township Maintenance, mowing, gardening and cleaning of public toilets.

7       Some cleaning of toilets and mowing areas are covered within the Roading Alliance Contracts.

Analysis

8       The seven contracts that are overdue are currently with Community Engineers to discuss scope and price with the contractors.

9       Of the nine that are Work In Progress:

·              Seven are land related regarding land tenders or grazing and with the Property Officer.  

·              Two are in the tender phase for Regional Tree maintenance and Wyndham Footpaths.

Risk and Strategy:

10     None.

Financial

11      It is difficult to get an accurate summary of costs of all Property related contracts due to the majority of these being maintenance contracts and paid out per clean or mow. 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Services and Assets Contracts Update” dated 15 September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.  

 


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

sdclogo

 

Roading Operations August 2017

Record No:        R/17/9/21794

Author:                 Dylan Rabbidge, Commercial Lead Roading

Approved by:       Ian Marshall, Group Manager Services and Assets

 

  Decision                              Recommendation                         Information

 

  

 

Background

1       SouthRoads currently have the Waimea and Central Alliance maintenance contracts with Fulton Hogan having the Foveaux Alliance.  These contracts began in July 2017 with all three currently on an Interim Project Alliance Agreement.  It is expected that they will move to a Project Alliance Agreement in early October.

Purpose

2       The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the progress of the major roading maintenance contracts.  A representative of Strategic Transport will be in attendance to speak to the report.

Summary

3       Customer Satisfaction; 129 Requests for Service (RFS), across the three Alliance contracts were received in August with five not completed on time, 2016/17 95 RFS’ were received in August.  Of the five RFS’s not completed on time all were due to an administration error on the contractors behalf (not closed off in time), however the work was completed on time. 

4       Health and Safety; 6 near missis were reported for August with no Lost Time Injuries reported.  16 Site Safety Audits were completed in August.

5        Activity Performance:

·              Metalling, 5,960 m3 or 11% is completed Year to Date.

·              Grading, 2,306 km have been graded Year to Date.

·              2017/18 Pre-Reseal Repairs, 116 of 153 sites have been released for inspection.  The length completed is 108.55 km of 156.71 km or 69% the Alliances are required to release 75% of sites by the 1st October.  We are on track to achieve this with September remaining.

·              Stabilisations, 10,135 m2 (100%) have been completed (of programmed) with only some post winter minor works required (400 m2).

·              Edge Break, 23,958 m (84%) of a programmed 28,513 m.

The 2018/19 proposed reseal programme has been provided to the contractors who will begin marking up the sites for repairs in the near future.

6        Risk and Strategy;

·              Slips, Ohai Clifden Highway has been passed onto MWH to look at a longer term solutions.  Bluebottle Slip has had some options discussed with potentially a culvert to be replaced as the solution.  Roading has had RST Environmental Solutions complete an assessment of Brydone Glencoe and have proposed a Brushwall System treatment along with conventional drainage and road reinstatement. 

·              Roads, Granity and Pourakino Roads have blown out due to the construction of forestry roads (carting of rock etc) this has resulted in 57% of the 2017/18 budget being utilised as of August 2017.

·              Bridges, Mataura Island, Titiroa Bridge has been reassessed due to some movement of the bridge.  This is now restricted to 10% of class 1.  This is still a safety risk if trucks ignore the posting.  Roading are currently looking at options around replacing the bridge.  

Financial

7        There were no outstanding or variations to the contract.  All claims and invoices for completed work were certified and accepted.

Capital Projects

8        The Alternative Coastal Route Seal Extension is progressing well with The Roading Company currently on schedule.  The Project Status Report is attached.

9        Currently Roading has $1.7M in Minor Improvement projects tendered and at various stages of construction.  The LED renewal project is waiting for final approval from NZTA with the procurement of the installation and total project expenditure waiting for approval from Services and Assets.  The first of three drainage packages is currently underway with the project due for completion by the end October.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Services and Assets Committee:

a)         Receives the report titled “Roading Operations August 2017” dated 20 September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

a         Aug_Southroads H&S Report

b         Aug_Combined A3 Reporting

c         Aug_Fulton Hogan H&S Report

d         Aug_Waimea

e         Aug_Central

f          Aug_Foveaux

g         Aug_Project Status Report - Alternative Coastal Route Seal Extension    

 



Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator


Services and Assets Committee

27 September 2017

 

PDF Creator