Market interest was stimulated during the tendering period

2.11  In November 2000, the Agency generated market awareness by hosting an industry conference that attracted over 250 delegates from about 100 companies. The delegates learnt that completion of the bid documents and publication of a notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC), inviting potential bidders to express their interest in the project, were scheduled for summer 2001. The Agency also stated that it planned to award the contract in autumn 2002 (Appendix 5).

2.12  The Agency published the OJEC notice in August 2001. By October, nine consortia, representing 21 companies (contractors and investors), had responded to the Agency's pre-qualification questionnaire. The questionnaire requested the sort of standard information that clients seek about potential bidders, including financial status, technical capacity and experience. The Agency judged that six responses had passed the qualification standards, with the scores from five being, for all intents and purposes, identical (Figure 10). It, however, did not produce a short list because it was taking longer than expected to produce its bid documents.

2.13  In mid 2002, the Agency became aware that some of the potential bidders had started to doubt the Agency's commitment to the project. If the Agency had had a better understanding of the time required for preparing its bid documents, it could have delayed publication of the original OJEC notice. In so doing, it would have reduced the risk of wavering bidder interest.

9

Coverage of the Base Case and High demand scenarios

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Included work

 

 

 

 

Two year
upgrade of core
telecommunications
systems including
migrating from
analogue to digital
technology and
laying fibre
optic cables in
three locations

Operation and
maintenance
of core
telecommunications
systems, both the
upgraded and non-
upgraded systems

Committed
programme
of future
work

Uncommitted
programme
of future
work






Existing

Maintaining
local
connections


New
connections
from
committed
works






New
connections
from non-
committed
works

Demand Scenario

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Base Case

 

 

High

Payment Mechanism

 Unitary charge 

Pre-priced schedule of
additional works 

Monthly connection maintenance
charge per functioning service

Source: National Audit Office

 

 

 

10

The Agency received six satisfactory responses to its 2001 pre-qualification questionnaire

 

Consortium

Members

The Agency's scoring of
potential bidders (maximum 100)

GeneSYS

Fluor & Mott Macdonald

81.78

Highway Communications

Thales Translink, Haliburton, Mouchel, Siemens Traffic Controls Ltd

81.17

Roadside Telecommunications Group

Marconi Communications Ltd, Serco Ltd

81.07

Atkom

WS Atkins Investments Ltd, Charterhouse Project Equity Investments Ltd, Cable & Wireless UK Services Ltd

79.80

BT/AMEC

BT, AMEC

79.58

LINK

Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd, Thus, Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Morrison Construction Ltd

65.69

Balfour Beatty Power Networks

Balfour Beatty Power Networks, Thus

Submission did not
qualify for marking

Morricom Ltd

Morricom Ltd, Optic Trunks Ltd

Submission did not
qualify for marking

Jasmin

Jasmin

Submission did not
qualify for marking

Source: The Highways Agency

 

 

2.14  Concerned that some of the bidders were losing interest in the project, the Agency took the unusual step of reissuing the advert in the OJEC in August 2002. While the responses demonstrated continued market interest, with the Agency again receiving nine expressions of interest (Figure 11), two of the higher scoring potential bidders (Highway Communications and Atkom) did not respond. Only four interested potential bidders passed the Agency's qualification standards. All four were short listed to proceed further.