PhD Final Thesis April 2013.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

Thesis Keith Gale 2013Table 8.7: results of submitted tenders for action research projectTenderer Tender Sum Percentageabove lowesttenderFramework supplier (Mi) £439,880.80 -Framework supplier (Ta) £494,236.58 12.4Framework supplier (D and B) £494,709.00 12.5Framework supplier (Co) £513,303.00 16.7External supplier (Na) £566,935.78 28.9Framework supplier (Os) £575,657.92 30.9Mean tender price £514,120.53 16.9Table 8.7 shows submitted tenders ranked in order lowest to highest in terms oftender sum. Bracketed figures contain tenderers abbreviated supplier names forreference verification.Results from the report show that framework suppliers gained the first four places inrank, with the external selected supplier coming fifth followed closely by theremaining framework supplier. The tender submitted by the external supplier was16.9% above the mean of all tenders and 28.9% above the lowest. A detailedexamination of individual rates and prices contained in bills of quantities by thequantity surveyor did not reveal any significant variations between the frameworktenders and the external supplier, only an overall lower value priced by the formergroup. One conclusion made from this by the quantity surveyor is that all tendererspriced the action research project on a comparable basis and that all tenders weresubmitted on a bona fide basis. The relative narrow spread of tender prices indicatesa comprehensive understanding of scope and extent of work by tenderers.Following debriefs with unsuccessful tenderers, including the external supplier,feedback received was that although the successful tender was competitive, no tenderwas unrealistic or under priced. A particular comment from the external supplier ishowever noteworthy – ‘although we have known Hampshire County Council for anumber of years, clearly the framework suppliers understand what Hampshirerequires and have priced accordingly’ (Estimator of Na supplier). As a postscript to190