Presentation given to QinetiQ Commerce Decisions User Group October 2009 on the use of Award in the procurement of HMP Featherstone 2

1. The Capacity Programme
e-Procurement
Keith Fraser
Head of Procurement
Estates Capacity Directorate

2. The Capacity Problem
• A capacity ceiling was set at 80,000 prisoners after the first Carter
Report. In late 2006 the media were reporting that this figure had
been exceeded and prisons were “bursting at the seams”
• Then Home Secretary John Reid authorised the purchase of the
former secure mental health facility in Ashfield to be converted into
HMP Kennett providing 500 extra places
• Projections were showing a demand for an additional 4,000 places
by 2012 with the introduction of Indeterminate Public Protection
(IPP) sentences and this led to the “Capacity Programme”
• Lord Carter produced a second report to review the estate more
strategically which will increase capacity by a further 20,000 places
and replace some of the older estate as new facilities come online

3. First Tranche Capacity Programme
• 1,500 places delivered through a combination of Rapid Build
modular technologies as either prison expansions or “drop-in units”
• Procurement was via the “Strategic Alliance” frameworks awarded
on a cost basis with a variety of supply chains in order to meet the
capacity demands
• Construction of 2 x 350 place prison expansions and a further 800
places through single 60 cell units took an average of 32 weeks
from start on site to completion
• Service life expected to be 60 years

4. HMP Wayland expansion

5. Second Tranche Capacity Programme
• 2000 places delivered through a programme of 180 and 240 place
traditional “Houseblocks” in strategic locations in both the higher
security Category B and lower security Category C prisons
• Includes an expansion to the east of the HMP Belmarsh site to
create a second prison named HMP Isis and conversion of RAF
Coltishall into HMP Bure
• Utilised modular construction using concrete modules from smaller
supply chain
• Planning applications led to longer lead times that allowed for more
detailed supplier selection from the Strategic Alliance that focussed
on design innovations and improved Whole Life Cost
• Service life expected to be 75 years and beyond

6. Modular Houseblock Construction

7. Third Tranche Capacity Programme
• Consists of 3 new establishments, 2 PFI sites at Belmarsh West
and Maghull (Liverpool)
• The third site at Featherstone started as a PFI project but moved
into the “public sector” for design and build with operation to be
put to competition
• Maghull will provide 600 places, but has the capacity for 800 if its
role changes
• Belmarsh will provide 900 places
• Featherstone 2 will provide 1620 places

8. The “New Prison Programme”
• 7,500 extra places to be delivered through 5 new prisons
• 5,000 places will go from the closure of older, inefficient
prisons, giving a 2,500 place surplus
• This programme replaces the “Titan” prison concept of
2,500 place “super prisons”
• The procurement process will involve setting up Framework
Agreements for PFI providers followed by mini-
competitions

9. Public Sector Prisons – Procurement of Construction
• The “Strategic Alliance” is a series of 3 frameworks for
Consultancy, New Build, and Refurbishment contractors
• 12 major contractors and 20 consultancies operating in 6
regions
• Delivers all major capital projects valued over £500,000
• £2.25bn spent since 2005
• 32 Capacity Programme projects delivered since 2007
• Over 100 capital projects delivered per year to maintain the
existing estate
• 135 projects to procure in the FYr 2010-2011

10. Case Study: HMP Featherstone 2

11. Featherstone 2: Overview
• Part of the Capacity Programme and initially intended to be a PFI
project
• Changed direction in Dec 2007 to a publicly built establishment with
the operation of the prison to go to competition
• Initially to have a capacity of 1140 prisoners, later increased to 1650
with the decision to build a 3rd Houseblock
• Designated a Category C prison, but built to the higher Category B
standard so that costs can be reduced if the prison is re-roled at a
later date
• Construction costs £277m
• Construction programme 27 months, due to be operational April 2012

12. Featherstone 2: Challenges
• Procuring the Design & Construction from the Strategic Alliance
framework, with 3 constructors eventually bidding
• Devised a procurement strategy that was interested in 3 key areas:
1. Ability to Deliver – the constructor’s methodology and
management
2. Quality of Solution – design and innovation
3. Cost – build costs and whole life/operating cost
• Bid was to be based on a Developed Project Proposal (DPP) with
Agreed Maximum Price (AMP) equivalent to RIBA Stage D design
• Bid costs to be borne by Constructors
• Procurement cycle to be complete within 12 months from project
approval to contract award

13. Featherstone 2: Procurement Drivers
• Improved VFM
• Cost reductions in line with economies of scale
• Drive innovations through design and construction techniques
• Implement “Lean Programming” methodologies
• Introduce performance targets linked to incentives for early
completion
• Introduce system of liquidated damages for performance failures
• Provide assurances to OGC and Major Projects Review Group (who
gave us a “green” rating without any conditions to meet – extremely
rare!)

14. Featherstone 2: Design Drivers

15. Featherstone 2: Innovation Drivers
• Building layout taking best practice from the private prisons for efficient
operation

16. Featherstone 2: Programme Overview

17. Featherstone 2: Award
• Complex award criteria with multiple evaluators and 2 moderators:
Project Overall Score
100%
Ability to Deliver Cost Quality of Solution
Score Score Score
40% 30% 30%
Management Legal Cost Technical Operational
Score Score Score Score Score
85% 15% 100% 40% 60%

18. Featherstone 2: Award
• The “Client Representative” (Project Manager) had to co-
ordinate the evaluation by 7 teams over an 11 week period
• ITT went out before we could get QinetiQ on board, so
Award had to be built around the structure of the ITT (not
the other way around as QinetiQ would have preferred)
• Responses had to be uploaded onto Award after the
submission date for evaluation to begin
• Drawings handled separately as the size was considerably
bigger than Award’s security accreditation would allow for
uploads
• Scores had to be uploaded by team leaders and then
annotated and moderated before being exported into a
detailed evaluation report and recommendation

19. Featherstone 2: Procurement Plan

20. Featherstone 2: Evaluation Methodology Schematic
Projects
Overall Interview
Score
100%
Team Ability to Quality of Cost
working Deliver Solution Compilation
Scoreshet Compilation Compilation Score
5 / 40 Score Score 30%
40% 30%
Manageme Legal Operational Cost
(60%) and
nt Score Technical (40%) Score
Score Form Form Score Forms Form
85% 15%

21. Featherstone 2: Example Award Report
Moderated count of scores (%)
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Unacceptable Poor Fair Acceptable Good Very good Excellent Exceptional
Bidder 1 6.53% 16.45% 32.11% 28.59% 11.10% 3.92% 1.04% 0.26%
Bidder 2 3.92% 7.70% 18.15% 34.33% 28.20% 6.01% 1.57% 0.13%
Bidder 3 6.01% 13.84% 22.85% 38.77% 15.01% 3.26% 0.13% 0.13%

22. Featherstone 2: Example Award Reports

23. Featherstone 2: Lessons Learned
• Engage Award early to help design tender format to best suit
evaluation tool and reduce costs
• Consider how you manage large data files and the security
implications
• Have a good evaluation project plan: treat it as a separate project if it
helps
• Be realistic in the resources and time in undertaking the evaluation
• Consider what information you will want to report on and extract for
feedback
• Be clear about what is driving your procurement to get best effect out
of the exercise

24. Conclusions
• BAU account for 60% of team activity or an average of 120
projects a year
• Many of those projects are being awarded via mini-
competition
• Featherstone 2 has become the benchmark for many of
those competitions
• Need to have a system like Award in place to facilitate those
competitions
• Legislation requires a clear audit trail and feedback to be
given if requested
• Award has assisted in all of these issues and has reduced
the workload of procurement managers by giving real-time
reporting

25. Keith Fraser BSc(Hons)(Lond), MSc(Lond), MIFMA
Head of Procurement
Estates Capacity Directorate
Keith.Fraser@noms.gsi.gov.uk