The current budget available for this development is £14m (which includes costs of demolition, remediation, construction, additional survey costs and all professional fees (including Planning and Building Control)). However the Council will be seeking grant funding to help with the clearance and remediation of the site and may also seek grant funding towards the cost of the construction of the new dwellings. The budget may therefore increase to an estimated £19m however this will not be known until Spring 2024. Designers need to work to the base budget but may wish to consider additional options which would reflect this uplift in the budget.
Expressions of interest are sought from architect-led multi-disciplinary design teams. Each applicant’s multi-disciplinary design team should consist of but not limited to the services of an architect, employer’s agent, structural engineer, landscape architect and mechanical/electrical engineer.
The lead architect firm must include an architect who has the right to practise in the country where he/she is qualified or in the country where he/she currently resides or practises. UK-based applicants should therefore be registered with the Architects Registration Board (ARB) with overseas -based applicants registered with an equivalent regulatory body.
Architects with more limited experience may wish to consider collaborating with another practice, but the proposed delivery arrangement should be clearly articulated in the return.
Teams based remotely from the UK should demonstrate their ability to deliver the project from within the UK should they be successful.
No member of the Evaluation Panel, employees of the Client, their advisers, or any third party connected to the process (including any partners, close associates, or employees of them) shall be eligible to compete in this competition or assist a participating applicant.
To be considered for the competition, suitably qualified applicants must submit a completed Selection Questionnaire (in electronic copy only) as per the requirements outlined in this Briefing Document.
Interested parties who intend to apply must obtain a Unique Registration Number (URN) to receive access to the submission portal. RIBA Competitions will issue a URN to interested parties within 2 working days of submitting the online request form.
Registered applicants will be issued with an editable version of the SQ and a secure link to enable them to upload their completed Selection Questionnaire via RIBA Competitions’ digital submission portal (RIBASubmit).
It is advised that applicants who intend to submit should complete the above registration form as soon as practicable. Responses to questions raised as well as any additional competition documentation will be made available to registered applicants through the online portal.
Please note that this and all future correspondence will be sent to the email address entered into the online form.
The selection of an architect firm is being procured by Mansfield District Council in accordance with the requirements of the Competitive Procedure with Negotiation (CPN) as set out within Regulation 29 of The Public Contracts Regulations 2015.
RIBA Competitions is assisting Mansfield District Council with the management of the competitive process. The selection process will be organised over the following phases:
Phase One is a Selection Questionnaire which requests experience and track record relevant to the project especially from the designers; information on the proposed team composition including CV’s and completion of standard questions.
A shortlist of up to five teams will be selected for Phase Two, the Invitation to Participate in the negotiation phase. The negotiation phase will be restricted to design-related considerations, with the opportunity for participants to discuss and develop their design concept with the client. This will take the form of a competition workshop with each team.
The Client hopes that all shortlisted participants will take part in subsequent stages of the process. However, the Client reserves the right to reduce the number of solutions to be discussed via the application of the appropriate Award Criteria.
Each team invited to submit a Final Tender who then submits a compliant tender and makes a presentation at the final interview will receive an honorarium payment of GBP £8,000 (+VAT). Honorarium payments will be paid following submission and presentation of design proposals at the final interview.
| Activity | Estimated date |
|---|---|
| Latest date for queries relating to the SQ | 24 January 2023 |
| Deadline for receipt of SQ returns | 15 February 2023 at 12:00 midday (GMT) |
| Evaluation of SQ returns | w/c 27 February 2023 |
| Shortlisted teams notified and unsuccessful candidates notified | w/c 06 March 2023 |
| Issue of ITPN and supplementary information for shortlisted teams | w/c 13 March 2023 |
| Briefing session and site visit for shortlisted teams | w/c 13 March 2023 |
| Design approach workshop meeting | w/c 03 April 2023 |
| Latest date for general clarification queries relating to the ITPN | 13 April 2023 |
| Responses to general clarification queries in relation to the ITPN issued | 20 April 2023 |
| Issue of ITSFT | w/c 01 May 2023 |
| Deadline for general clarification queries in relation to the ITSFT | 10 May 2023 |
| Responses to general clarification queries in relation to the ITSFT issued | 17 May 2023 |
| Deadline for submission of Final Tenders (with design concepts) | 31 May 2023 |
| Tender Evaluation commences | 01 June 2023 |
| Final interviews and presentations | w/c 12 June 2023 |
| Issue of Intention to Award Contract | w/c 26 June 2023 |
| Standstill period | 10 days |
| Confirmation of Contract Award | July 2023 |
| Public Announcement of Result | July 2023 |
The Evaluation Panel will appraise the Technical and Professional Ability component of the SQ return and is expected to comprise:
| Name | Title | Organisation |
|---|---|---|
| Teresa Borsuk | RIBA Architect Adviser | Pollard Thomas Edwards Architects |
| Andy Abrahams | Executive Mayor | Mansfield District Council |
| Mike Robinson | Strategic Director | Mansfield District Council |
| Terry Waterworth | Senior Architect | Mansfield District Council |
| Adam Hill | Chief Executive Officer | Mansfield District Council |
| Rob Purser | Development Manager | Mansfield District Council |
| Jill Finnesey | Head of Housing | Mansfield District Council |
A briefing session and site visit will be undertaken with the shortlisted teams at Phase 2. Detailed arrangements will be provided to the shortlisted teams in due course.
In order to be considered for the project, candidates must submit a duly completed Selection Questionnaire (SQ). Candidates who intend to submit an SQ return must obtain an editable version of the SQ document together with a Unique Reference Number by registering.
| Technical and Professional Ability | Weighting | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
|
Ability to design & deliver high quality schemes of a similar nature, scale &/or complexity to the proposed White Hart Street Development |
50% |
Illustrative case studies should be presented for (up to) three (3 No.) which demonstrate:
Please provide a brief description of the contract delivered (to include project value and date of practical completion) and outline its relevance to the vision for the proposed residential redevelopment on White Hart Street. Images and sketches should be included to illustrate the rationale and drivers behind the final realised design. Each case study example (text and images) should be presented over a maximum of x2 single sides of A4. If a collaborative approach with another architect firm is proposed, at least one contract case study example should be included from each practice and/or a contract example case study delivered jointly by the firms should be included as one of the x3 case studies provided. |
|
Ability to design & deliver projects to budget & programme involving complex briefs and input from Clients, stakeholders and the public |
25% |
An expanded illustrative case study (1 No. additional or as an expanded case study to the above) which demonstrates:
Please provide a brief description of the contract delivered (to include project value and date of practical completion) and any similarities in the challenges faced to those likely to be encountered at White Hart Street. This should include representative illustrations and sketches, together with additional explanatory notes where the duration and/or final budget exceeded the original projections. The case study example (text and images) should be presented over a maximum of x2 single sides of A4. |
|
Overall experience and balance of the design team, including proposed key personnel who will be responsible for design development of the project, including proposed consultants from other required core design disciplines (structural engineer, M&E engineer, landscape architect etc.) |
25% |
Brief CVs for key members of the design team demonstrating professional qualification, recent project experience, current position and proposed role within the team. Reference should be made to the contract example case studies where possible. Please indicate where firms from the other core required design disciplines were involved in the delivery of the projects shown. Featured images should be clearly annotated to explain to which projects, consultant firms and personnel they refer. If a collaborative approach with another firm of architects is proposed, the respective roles and anticipated delivery arrangement must be clearly articulated. The information should be presented over a total of x2 single sides of A4 for the lead architect firm, and a further total of x4 single sides of A4 for the other required core design disciplines. |
Contracts for supplies or services should have been performed during the past seven (7) years and relate to the architect firm wishing to be considered for the opportunity.
Applicants should consider the relevance & relative merits of projects within their portfolio. Whilst the inclusion of an ‘incomplete’ project (i.e. a project that is on, or about to commence on site); as one of the contract example case studies would not deem the submission unacceptable, it may, depending on the stage that it is at, limit the ability of its qualities to be appraised.
Similarly, whilst Applicants may elect to include projects which reached completion beyond the stipulated 7-year limit, their inclusion may limit the current technical & professional ability of the architect firm to be appraised.
A clear distinction should be made between photographic images of completed projects and computer-generated visualisations. Any images featured within the submission should be clearly annotated to explain to which project(s) and/or firms they refer.
The contract example case studies will be evaluated in a holistic manner. Greater weight will be applied to the contract example case studies where individuals named in the CVs were involved in delivery of the project(s) shown.
The deadline for submission of the SQ is 12:00 midday (GMT) on Wednesday 15 February 2023. The Council and RIBA Competitions will not be responsible for any SQ returns delayed, lost or otherwise damaged or corrupted during transmission, however so caused. Late submissions will not be accepted.
The SQ must be submitted in English (including all additional information). Any financial data provided must be submitted in or converted into GBP Pounds Sterling. Where official documents include financial data in a foreign currency, a Pounds Sterling equivalent must be given.
The SQ must be completed in its entirety, with an electronic version (PDF format) of the completed SQ return submitted via RIBA Competitions’ digital submission portal (RIBASubmit). A total upload limit of 20Mb will be available, but Candidates are requested to keep file sizes as small as practicable whilst ensuring that the information presented is readily legible. A secure link for this purpose will have been sent to the email address entered in the registration form used to request the SQ and Unique Reference Number [M#].
Each consultant firm from the required core design disciplines must complete Part 1 (Potential Supplier Information) and Part 2 (Exclusion Grounds) of the SQ. The architect firm leading the design team should in addition complete Part 3 of the SQ. The contract example case studies and CVs etc. of the Professional and Technical Ability component of the SQ return (Part 3, Section 8.3) must use Arial 11-point typeface (or close equivalent). Candidates may elect to submit responses to Section 8.3A through to Section 8.3C (Project Specific Questions to assess Technical and Professional Ability) as a separate, collated Appendix provided the requested information is presented and numbered in the order set-out in the SQ and the responses do not exceed the specified page limits.
Candidates electing to submit a separate Appendix should append a Front cover sheet (in addition to the specified page limits) displaying the name of the lead architect firm, together with the names of proposed firms from the other required core design disciplines. The file names should consist of the URN [M#] assigned to the Candidate by RIBA Competitions, together with the name of the architect firm leading the design team:
Any other appended files should follow a similar file-naming protocol.
As above please note that the front cover, any blank dividing pages and back cover (if used) can be additional to the specified page limits.
Candidates are strongly advised to familiarise themselves with RIBA Competitions’ digital submission portal (RIBASubmit) and allow sufficient time for their SQ return to successfully upload in advance of the deadline.
The portal system will not allow material to upload after the deadline has expired.
The Client recognises that arrangements in relation to a group of economic operators (for example, a consortium) and/or use of sub-contractors, may be subject to change and will, therefore, not be finalised until a later date. The lead contact should notify the Client immediately of any change in the proposed arrangements and ensure a completed Part 1 and 2 of the SQ is submitted for any new organisation relied on to meet the selection criteria. The Client will make a revised assessment of the submission based on the updated information.
The Council reserves the right to disqualify any Candidate where there is a change to any aspect of its response to the SQ if the Council considers the effect of the change is such that the basis of the evaluation for the purpose of selecting potential bid teams, the Candidate would not qualify.
| Score Band | Definition | Benchmark |
|---|---|---|
|
Score of 10 |
Exemplary |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response provides information which addresses all requirements, with exemplary quality relevant supporting evidence in relation to the project and the criterion being scored, which to some material degree constitutes a world-class leading response. |
|
Score of 9 |
Outstanding |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response provides information which addresses all requirements and outstanding quality relevant supporting evidence that significantly exceeds the normal expectation in relation to the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 8 |
Excellent |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response provides information which addresses all requirements and excellent quality relevant supporting evidence that greatly exceeds the normal expectation in relation to the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 7 |
Very Good |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response provides information which addresses all requirements and very good quality relevant supporting evidence that exceeds the normal expectation in relation to the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 6 |
Good |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response provides information which addresses all requirements and good quality relevant supporting evidence that meets the normal expectation in relation to the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 5 |
Adequate |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response provides information which addresses most requirements, but the supporting evidence falls below the normal expectation and/or is of more limited relevance to the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 4 |
Sub-Optimal |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response provides information which addresses some, but not all, of the requirements, with the supporting evidence falling below the normal expectation and/or is of limited relevance to the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 3 |
Poor |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response provides information which addresses some aspects of the requirements, but the supporting evidence is not considered to be relevant to the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 2 |
Very Poor |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response does not adequately address the stated requirements in respect of the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 1 |
Deficient |
In the opinion of the Evaluators, the Candidate’s response does not meet the requirements / expectations in respect of the project and the criterion being scored. |
|
Score of 0 |
Not Answered |
The Candidate failed to provide a response and/or in the opinion of the Evaluators, the information supplied provides insufficient detail for evaluation. |
Weightings will be applied to the scores awarded by the Evaluation Panel against each criterion.
The following documents will be made available to shortlisted teams at phase 2:
It is envisaged that up to 5 teams will be shortlisted to proceed to the concept design phase of the competition. Shortlisted teams will be invited to a site visit and briefing session and will be provided with further information to enable them to outline their design strategy, approach to the site opportunities and through the following outcomes:
Following the submission of concept designs each shortlisted team will be invited to give a presentation to the Evaluation Panel and participate in a question and answer session.
The ownership of copyright will be in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – i.e. Copyright rests with the author of the submitted design.
Each participant invited to submit a Final Tender who then submits a compliant tender and makes a presentation at the final interview will receive an honorarium payment of GBP £8,000 (+VAT). However, in the event that the Client carries out deselection on conclusion of the negotiation phase, teams who participated in the interim design workshops in accordance with the ITPN but were not invited to submit a Final Tender will receive an honorarium of £5,000 (+VAT). Honorarium payments will be paid to the Lead Consultant from each multi-disciplinary design team. The client will undertake to make the honorarium payments within 30 calendar days of the clarification interviews and on receipt of an invoice which should be submitted to RIBA Competitions. No payments will be made in respect of the SQ phase.
The anticipated programme is as follows:
It is the Council’s intention to appoint the successful architect firm (and employer’s agent if applicable), to develop the design proposals up to RIBA Stage 3+ in the first instance, leading to submission of a planning application in December 2023 and preparation of a tender documentation pack for this particular aspect of the required services.
The successful architect firm will be appointed under an NEC contract option A – Professional Services Agreement.
Further progression of the project will be subject to securing necessary consents and confirmation of construction cost. It intended that the successful architect firm will be novated to a lead contractor from RIBA Stage 4 onwards as well as continue to act as Employer’s Agent for the Council.
The Council reserves the right to review and terminate the project at RIBA Stage 3+.
The Council also reserves the right not to proceed beyond the competition phase in the event that no one scheme meets the requirements and aspirations set for the competition, but all honorarium payments as indicated will be awarded.
On appointment the architect firm shall have in place the following insurance levels as a minimum for each individual claim:
|
Professional Indemnity Insurance |
GBP £5m |
|
Public Liability Insurance |
GBP £10m |
|
Employer’s Liability Insurance |
GBP £5m |
This is an Expression of Interest (Selection Questionnaire) phase only. Nothing in this briefing document or accompanying SQ is to be construed as implying commitment by the Client that it will award a contract. The Client is not obliged to accept any submissions or enter into any contract pursuant to process and reserves the right in its absolute discretion to withdraw from or terminate the process set out in this document at any time, for any reason and without prior notice to the applicants and at its sole discretion re-invite proposals on the same or any alternative basis. Any expenditure, work or effort undertaken is accordingly a matter solely for the commercial judgement of the applicants. The Client will not reimburse any expense incurred by teams in preparing their Expression of Interest.
Applicants are responsible for obtaining the information which they consider necessary in connection with the competition and must form their own judgement on its validity and suitability. Each applicant must make its own independent assessment after making such investigations. The subject matter of this brief and/or SQ return shall only have a contractual effect when it is incorporated into the express terms of an executed contract.
The Client (including its employees, agents, consultants, advisers and representatives) does not make any representations or warranties (express or implied) or accept any liability or responsibility (other than in respect of fraudulent misrepresentation) in relation to the adequacy, accuracy, reasonableness or completeness of the information in this Briefing Document or any part of the SQ (including but not limited to, any loss or damage arising as a result of reliance by the Competitor on the information or any part of it).
The information supplied with this document and all other information whether written or oral made available at any time to applicants by or on behalf of the Client in connection with this Competition is provided on the basis that the applicant, their sub-contractors and/or respective advisers will keep such information provided confidential at all times and that such information will only be used for the purpose of participating in this competition. For the avoidance of doubt nothing in this paragraph shall prevent an applicant from passing the information provided to its employees, potential sub-contractors and professional advisers in connection with this procurement provided such persons agree to treat such information as confidential in accordance with the duty described in this paragraph.
The duty of confidentiality in this paragraph does not apply to information:
Applicants and participating teams will be required to maintain confidentiality throughout the procurement process and not identify themselves; the names of shortlisted applicants; or the names of successful or unsuccessful applicants; or release any design proposal images etc. to any third parties or media outlets until they have been given permission by the Client and RIBA Competitions.
Once any anonymity restrictions or embargoes have been lifted, authors of all proposals will be duly credited and recognised in all associated media publicity.
All documents submitted via RIBAsubmit by participants will be made available to Mansfield District Council for the purposes of the Competition.
RIBA Competitions are assisting the Client with the management of the competition process. Representatives from the Client and members of the Evaluation Panel should not be directly solicited for information as this may lead to disqualification from the process.
All queries relating to the Selection Questionnaire Phase should be submitted via email to riba.competitions@riba.org. Applicants should refer to the Competition Timetable regarding the latest deadline by which to raise queries.
The intention will be to make advice arising from queries received available to all applicants (where doing so is in the interest of maintaining transparency and fairness in the procedure and would not constitute a breach of commercial confidentiality) via RIBAsubmit, so those wishing to access the Q&A documents should register via the form as indicated in Section 3.
