The Cabinet Member for Environment introduced the report which sought to advise Cabinet of the outcome of the recently undertaken tender process for the Minster Leas modular toilet block.  He advised that the tender required companies to price up locations A and B, as shown on page 68 of the report.  The Cabinet Member for Environment explained that the location of option B below the level of sewerage pipes in the road would result in higher build and maintenance costs whilst option A might be considered to have a more negative visual amenity.  The Cabinet Member for Environment advised that 5 companies had submitted tenders.

In the debate that followed, a Member asked questions and made points which included:

·        Should company A have been disqualified for not pricing for both locations A and B?;

·        clarification required on the type of modular building to be built;

·        why had the proposed company not been named in the report?;

·        what public consultation had taken place?;

·        there was too little detail in the design and built schedule resulting in too much variation and poor return in equal competition;

·        did all bidders comply in providing the design details?;

·        would there be additional costs required by variation?; and

·        questioned the quality of the tender specification which had errors.

In response, the Cabinet Member for Environment said that there was no requirement to tender for both locations and one company were excluded as their tender was incomplete elsewhere in their submission.

The Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure confirmed that the drawings did show a brick built building, but the schedule correctly outlined that the building should be modular and the images were for illustrative purposes only.  He advised that as the building would be built under Permitted Development, a public consultation was not required however, a number of Members had been involved in the discussions and he had presented the scheme to a Minster Parish Council meeting.  The Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure said that not all design drawings were included in the report, as there were so many, but that due diligence had been carried out by officers.  He explained that a new process of more detail in the pricing structure in a tender was used for the first time on this project and therefore some elements were not considered, but bidders raised this in their submissions so were factored into the pricing.    The Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure said that additional price variations were allowed and governed by UK law but it was rare to increase in price as the process required companies to hold their prices.  He apologised for the omission of the winning company name which was an oversight.

Another Member referred to 3.6 on page 69 on the report, highlighted the price difference in the tender submission and asked what work had been carried out to ensure the quality of the product? He also asked whether the facilities would be coin-operated as shown in the plans on Appendix I.  In response, the Cabinet Member for Environment explained that the Most Economically Advantageous Tender process used was designed to show that companies could match quality and all items had been considered.  He confirmed that the facilities would be free for customers and not coin- operated. 

A Member sought clarification on paragraph 3.8 on page 69 of the report. The Cabinet Member for Environment advised that the information was checked with the company who confirmed the price of both options.  The Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure added that there was a legal procurement process to follow and if going back to a company with a question, all companies were then asked the same question, the responses to which had to be taken at face value.  

A Cabinet Member suggested changing the configuration of the toilet facilities from 2 unisex and a disabled toilet to separate male and female, and a disabled toilet.  She suggested wooden cladding and painting to blend in with the beach huts. A Cabinet Member highlighted the lack of public consultation.  Another Cabinet Member had sympathy for the objectors to location A which might obscure the view.

Other points raised included:

·        Clarification on number of toilets;

·        misleading drawings;

·        concerns the scheme would be delayed;

·        must take account for visitors as well as residents;

·        more complications if facilities needed maintenance in location B;

·        concerns over additional build costs for location B;

·        clarification and concerns over costs and reliability of maintenance required for location B;

·        local knowledge and input were vital; and

·        suggestion of a deferral to look at locations again

The Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure advised that the costs of the maintenance contract for location B was estimated at £1500 more per year than location A.  He added that the Tender price was held for 3 months and any deferral and delay would require confirmation of the price again or a request to all companies to hold their prices. 

The Monitoring Officer clarified that should the recommendations be refused, a further report with alternative recommendations should be considered at a future Cabinet meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed that the configuration of toilets could be altered to individual male and female toilets rather than unisex and supported the suggestion of wooden cladding and painting the building to blend in with the beach huts. He added that other locations had been considered but rejected in the journey to get to the final two locations.

The Head of Commissioning, Environment and Leisure advised that the radar key system would be operated for the disabled toilet.

Resolved:

(1)  That location A be agreed.

(2)  That the contract to construct the modular toilet block be awarded to Company A.