Post on 25-Dec-2015
Open Day for Education Framework Teams
Agenda Opening Eamonn Boylan Framework Update Don Bryson Building Schools for the Future Ian Glaister
Allan Seaborn
Dave Carty Guidance through the PQQ John Finlay Reality check Nigel Curry Procurement Strategy John Lorimer Questions Don Bryson Coffee and informal questions
Open Day for Education Framework Teams
Strategic Objectives
Eamonn Boylan
MCC DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Open Day for Education Framework Teams
Historical Review of Procurement
Don Bryson
MCC Deputy Property Development Manager
Historical Review of Procurement
Our Vision
Our Vision
through:- Improved design Less waste and duplication Improved delivery More certainty of costs Better life cycle costs
Vision
how:- through Partnership
all parties involved in the process integrated team from the outset supply chain and sub-contractor involvement risk/reward sharing continuous value engineering Member and community involvement
OPEN : FRANK : HONEST
Vision
leading to:- Better educational results Greater inclusion within the community Better safety and environmental performance Reduced demand on future school budgets by
addressing whole life cycle costings at inception
Open Day for Education Framework Teams
Ian Glaister
Assistant Chief Education Officer
Manchester’s Vision for Education
Manchester’s Vision for EducationGreater Manchester
Manchester’s Vision for EducationThe Department
Manchester’s Vision for Education
School Population
Primary 41,424
Secondary 23,904
Special 1,546
Pre School 28,479
Educational Premises
139 Primary Schools
23 High Schools
20 Special Schools
40 Children Centres
26 Adult Education
45 Other Services
The Department
Manchester’s Vision for Education
Types of Construction
49 Clasp 29 Traditional
> 2 Storey 32 Traditional
< 2 Storey 47 Framed
> 2 Storey 21 Framed
< 2 Storey
The Department
Manchester’s Vision for EducationThe Department
Types of Construction
49 Clasp
29 Traditional
> 2 Storey
32 Traditional
< 2 Storey
47 Framed
> 2 Storey
21 Framed
< 2 Storey
Age
7 Pre 1900
27 1900 – 1930
45 1930 – 1960
64 1960 – 1990
9 1990 –
Issues for Schools
Behaviour
Transforming secondary
education
Low history of achievement
Deprivation
External pressures
Poor environment
Issues for LEAs
Raising attainment
Inclusion
Special educational needs
Workforce agenda
ICT
Community
The Department
Manchester’s Vision for Education
Education development
plan
Excellence in cities
Transforming secondary
education
Domains of influence
Developing and
sustaining high standards
in primary phase
Retention and
commitment of
staff
The effective use
of ICT
Special
educational needs
How we achieve the vision
Manchester’s Vision for Education
Open Day for Education Framework Teams
Allan SeabornHead of Planning and Property
Dave CartyHead of Corporate Property
Manchester’s Vision for Education
Review of School PlacesSchool Organisation Plan and BSF
Key Aims of Education Planning
Factors Affecting Planning
Primary Position Secondary Position Special Position Building Schools For
The Future
Principal Aims
Ensure proper availability and distribution of places in high quality and well maintained schools
Ensure that all education building stock is developed and maintained to the highest standards for the benefits of all users
Key Activities – Planning and Property
Ensure that the number of school places is adequate to meet demand and offers real choice for parents
Provide safe and environmentally friendly premises for teachers and pupils to operate in
Contribute to the inclusion agenda, including community use
Contribute to City’s regeneration strategy
Contribute to City’s crime & disorder strategy through effective security
Falling birth rate
Redevelopment versus regeneration
Pupil loss & gain
Transience
Asylum seekers & refugees
Success of higher education institutions
Change in population types
Fewer RC, more non-RC
Factors Affecting Planning - Local
External Influences
Aspirations of other agencies Sure Start, NEM, EAZ,
Urban Splash CE / RC diocesan
authorities
(Review of parishes) Aspirations of other faith
communities
External Influences
External Influences
HMI / OFSTED recommendations Tied in to inspection / standards agenda
School capacity measurement New net capacity Capital funding tie-in Only bid once per year
Some LEAs reducing surplus capacity
Other LEAs increasing capacity to take Manchester children
Parental Preference
Schools in any LEA
Standards Reputation Transport
School types Specialist Grammar Independent City Academy Denominationa
l Single sex/co-
educational
Inclusion Agenda
Statutory changes to admissions policies
RC places opened up
Co-ordinated admission – multiple places
Growth and Decline
4 Planning Districts
Primary Position
North >>> Mixture of shortages/surpluses
East >>> Mainly surpluses
(but one new school required)
Center/South >>> Tight with some shortages
Wythenshawe >>> Mainly Surpluses
RC >>> Surpluses
Secondary Position
All Existing Schools Retained
New school in East
New school in North
Special Position
Retain specialist schools
Close MLD, EBD, VI
Move to greater Inclusion
Open Day for Education Framework Teams
Details of the Selection Process
John Finlay
MCC TECHNICAL CORPORATE SERVICES
Details of the Selection Process
The Framework Management Team The Consultation Process Overview of Selection Process Scoring Mechanism Detailed Review of Questionnaire Programme of Events
Management of the Framework
Core Team 5 members from within the Council Carry out detailed reviews of bids Manage the implementation of the Framework Agreement Manage review of performance (KPI’s)
Full “Buildings for the Future” Framework/PFI Team Yet to be finalised but will include Council Members and Head
Teachers Review and approve findings of the Core Team
Executive Members Group Final Approval on behalf of Manchester City Council
Wider Stakeholders Actively consulted and informed from outset
MCC’s Core ObjectiveTo enhance the delivery of Manchester City Council’s regeneration objectives by achieving educational excellence for all, through a transparent and continuously improving process for design and delivery of quality learning facilities
MCC’s Core ObjectiveTo enhance the delivery of Manchester City Council’s regeneration objectives by achieving educational excellence for all, through a transparent and continuously improving process for design and delivery of quality learning facilities
• Reduce Uncertainty• Deliver Best Value• Harness Innovation• Reduce Red Tape• Involve key stake-holders in design process from outset
• Reduce Uncertainty• Deliver Best Value• Harness Innovation• Reduce Red Tape• Involve key stake-holders in design process from outset
• Improve training, re-population & quality of life• Focus schools at centre of community• Widen educational perspectives of community• Contribute to MCC’s long-term strategy
• Improve training, re-population & quality of life• Focus schools at centre of community• Widen educational perspectives of community• Contribute to MCC’s long-term strategy
•Provide opportunities for all• Improve environment for learning & working through better design• Change cultures and aspirations
•Provide opportunities for all• Improve environment for learning & working through better design• Change cultures and aspirations
Primary ObjectivesPrimary Objectives
Deliver an effective design & delivery process
Deliver an effective design & delivery process
Raise educational standards for all
Raise educational standards for all
Contribute to neighbourhood
renewal
Contribute to neighbourhood
renewal
Sh
ort-te
rm
Lo
ng-t
erm
MCC’s Core ObjectiveTo enhance the delivery of Manchester City Council’s regeneration objectives by achieving educational excellence for all, through a transparent and continuously improving process for design and delivery of quality learning facilities
MCC’s Core ObjectiveTo enhance the delivery of Manchester City Council’s regeneration objectives by achieving educational excellence for all, through a transparent and continuously improving process for design and delivery of quality learning facilities
• Reduce Uncertainty• Deliver Best Value• Harness Innovation• Reduce Red Tape• Involve key stake-holders in design process from outset
• Reduce Uncertainty• Deliver Best Value• Harness Innovation• Reduce Red Tape• Involve key stake-holders in design process from outset
• Improve training, re-population & quality of life• Focus schools at centre of community• Widen educational perspectives of community• Contribute to MCC’s long-term strategy
• Improve training, re-population & quality of life• Focus schools at centre of community• Widen educational perspectives of community• Contribute to MCC’s long-term strategy
•Provide opportunities for all• Improve environment for learning & working through better design• Change cultures and aspirations
•Provide opportunities for all• Improve environment for learning & working through better design• Change cultures and aspirations
Primary ObjectivesPrimary Objectives
Deliver an effective design & delivery process
Deliver an effective design & delivery process
Raise educational standards for all
Raise educational standards for all
Contribute to neighbourhood
renewal
Contribute to neighbourhood
renewal
Sh
ort-te
rm
Lo
ng-t
erm
Primary ObjectivesPrimary Objectives
Deliver an effective design & delivery process
Deliver an effective design & delivery process
Raise educational standards for all
Raise educational standards for all
Contribute to neighbourhood
renewal
Contribute to neighbourhood
renewal
Sh
ort-te
rm
Lo
ng-t
erm
Framework Objectives
2-Stage Selection Process To appoint Constructor Teams to design and
construct or construct education related projects over a 3-5 year period
1st Stage – Pre-Qualification Objective review of Pre-Qualification Questionnaires by Core
Team Produce a short-list of between 10 and 12 Teams for informal
interview Produce a short-list of between 6 and 8 Teams for progression
to 2nd stage 2nd Stage – Final Selection
Detailed analysis of bids including Team presentations, interviews, site & office visits
Select between 2 and 5 Teams for final negotiation
Scoring Mechanism Pre-Qualification Stage – look for evidence that the
Teams have the experience, financial and technical capability to undertake the work
Quality Criteria Weighting
Part B – Quality & Experience Delivery Team Design Team Interview
55%
20%
20%
Part C – Statutory Requirements 5%
Scoring Mechanism Final Selection Stage – look for evidence of the
Teams’ abilities to deliver the Framework Objectives
Evaluation Criteria Weighting
Quality Assessment Submission Documents Presentation & Interview Overall consistency
x Reality Check Factor
25%
35%
10%
0 to 1
Quality Score 70%
Financial Proposal 30%
Cost Score 30%
Detailed Review of Documents
Part A – Identity of Applicant Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation Part C – Statutory Requirements Part D – Financial Evaluation Part E – Declaration
Part A – Identity of Applicant
Not Assessed
A1,2,3 – Name & address A4,5,6 – Details of lead contact A7-13 – Name & details of lead organisation A14,15 – Details of contractual commitments
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B1 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B1.1 - Provide details of the structure, roles and relationships of your Design Team.
Please include the following: Organisational chart identifying roles and relationships Names, addresses & contact details (including key S/Cs) Practice backgrounds & profiles Relevant qualifications, skills and experience of the key
personnel No word limit 2½% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B1 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B1.2 - Provide examples (3 max.) of relevant projects you have undertaken within the last 3 years, which demonstrate your ability to undertake education related works and/or adopt collaborative ways of working.
Include evidence of the team members/organisations working together on such projects and a list of references and their contact details.
6 pages max. 5% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B1 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B1.3 - Explain your approach to the design of schools. In your response you may include, but are not limited to, the following topics:
Design philosophy Team dynamics Systems and processes Stakeholder communication
Word limit – 1500 words 7½% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B1 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B1.4 – Raising Education Standards & Neighbourhood Renewal - Explain how your approach to the design and construction of schools has improved educational standards and contributed to the neighbourhood renewal of projects you have undertaken
Word limit – 250 words 2½% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B1 PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B1.5 – Explain your approach to major High School extensions and alterations with particular reference to continued delivery and minimum disturbance to the education provision.
Word limit – 1000 words 2½% of marks
B 1.2, B1.3, B1.4 and B1.5 should only be addressed by the lead designer
Lead design teams must only be linked to a single constructor
Part B – Quality & Experience
Evaluation
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B2 CONSTRUCTOR RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B2.1 - Provide details of the structure, roles and relationships of your Constructor Team and any key sub-contractors and/or suppliers. Please include the following: Organisational chart identifying roles and relationshipsNames, addresses & contact details (including key S/Cs) Company backgrounds & profiles Relevant qualifications, skills and experience of the key
personnel No word limit 5% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B2 CONSTRUCTOR RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B2.2 - Provide examples (3 max.) of relevant projects you have undertaken within the last 3 years, which demonstrate your ability to undertake education related works and/or adopt collaborative ways of working.
Include evidence of the team members/organisations working together on such projects and a list of references and their contact details.
6 pages max. 10% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B2 CONSTRUCTOR RESOURCE CAPABILITY B2.3 - Service Delivery Manchester City Council are looking for this Framework Agreement
to improve the certainty of projects in terms of time, cost and quality by adopting the Government’s Rethinking Construction agenda. Explain your approach to project management, covering the following topics with appropriate supporting evidence: Procedures for monitoring, measuring and improving performance Measures for managing value and risk Policy towards people management including training of staff Evidence of a collaborative working culture, throughout the team Commitment to open book accountability Communications strategy
Word limit – 2000 words 20% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B2 CONSTRUCTOR RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B2.4 -Raising Education Standards & Neighbourhood Renewal Explain how your approach to the design and construction of
schools has improved educational standards and contributed to the neighbourhood renewal of projects you have undertaken.
Word limit – 250 words 5% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B2 CONSTRUCTOR RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B2.5 – Explain your approach to major High School extensions and alterations with particular reference to continued delivery and minimum disturbance to the education provision
Word limit – 1000 words 10% of marks
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B2 CONSTRUCTOR RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B2.6 – Explain your approach to the service and provision of an extended maintenance agreement for the fabric and infrastructure
Word limit – 500 words Zero marks (proposal for discussion)
Part B – Quality & Experience Evaluation
B2 CONSTRUCTOR RESOURCE CAPABILITY
B2.7 – The Council are concerned about the volume of Construction work taking place within the City’s curtilage. Whilst this is welcomed its impact on the ability of constructor teams to deliver cannot be ignored. Given the desired schedule of projects as indicated on the outline delivery programme (Appendix A), indicate how the supply chain can be secured to ensure delivery
Word limit – 1000 words 5% of marks
Part C – Statutory Requirements C1 HEALTH AND SAFETY
C1.1 - Please provide a copy of your Health and Safety Policy as required by Section 2(3) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974. This should contain details of:
i. Any fatal accidents to any employees, sub-contractors whilst working for you, or members of the public in connection with your work in the last 5 years
ii. Any prosecutions or notices served on you by the Health and Safety Executive or the Environmental Health Services of a Local Authority under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 or other relevant Health and Safety legislation
Notes: For non-UK based applicants, it is permissible to give details of equivalent health and safety policies operated by you based on your own national legislation.
Pass/Fail
Part C – Statutory Requirements C1 HEALTH AND SAFETY
C1.2 - Explain your approach to implementing your Health and Safety Policies and procedures including:
i. Conveyance of procedures to staff/employees ii. The induction and/or safety training employees will receive before
undertaking work tasks iii. Procedures for the reporting and recording of accidents,
occupational ill health and dangerous occurrences iv. Procedures for ensuring the Health and Safety of members of the
public
Word limit – 500 words 2½% of marks
Part C – Statutory Requirements
C2 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
C2.1 - Please provide a copy of your Equal Opportunities Policy. Pass/Fail
Part C – Statutory Requirements C2 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
C2.2 - Please confirm that all organisations within your Constructor Team comply with the following legislation:
i. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ii. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 iii. Equal Pay Act 1975 iv. Race Relations Act 1976 v. Commission for Racial Equality’s Code of Practice for Employment,
1983 Notes: For non-UK based applicants, it is permissible to give details of
equivalent equal opportunities policies operated by you based on your own national legislation.
Pass/Fail
Part C – Statutory Requirements C2 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
C2.3 - Training & Apprenticeship Schemes Manchester City Council wishes to encourage the training and skill
building of the local labour force. Explain your approach to training and recruitment. You should provide relevant examples of any recruitment advertisements or other literature in support of your description.
3 pages max. (including supporting information) 2½% of marks
Part C – Statutory Requirements C3 ELIGIBILITY
C3.1 - Have any of the organisations within your Constructor Team been subject to the following at any time?
i. Entered into a state of bankruptcy, insolvency, compulsory winding up, administration, composition with creditors or any analogous state or subject to relevant proceedings
ii. Committed an act of grave misconduct in the course of business iii. Had outstanding obligations relating to the payment of taxes iv. Had outstanding obligations relating to social security contributions Notes: For non-UK based applicants, it is permissible to give details of
equivalent obligations relating to the payment of taxes and/or social security contributions based on your own national legislation.
Pass/Fail
Part C – Statutory Requirements C4 QUALITY MANAGEMENT
C4.1 - Please provide details of any quality management accreditation, such as ISO 9000 or its equivalent. If you do not have ISO or other recognised quality accreditation, please show how your firm has an effective, auditable quality management system in place.
1 page max. Pass/Fail
Part D – Financial Evaluation
D1 – Details of person responsible for financial matters D2 – Copies of audited accounts for last 3 years D3 – Financial Summary sheets of key financial ratios for each
consortium member. D4 – Statement of turnover if accounts are more than 10 months old D5 – Details of any outstanding claims or litigation D6 – Copies of insurance certificates for each consortium member Pass/Fail
Part E - Checklist
Not Assessed E1 CHECKLIST Before returning the questionnaire, please ensure that you have: a. Answered all the questions b. Enclosed all relevant documents, having first marked them clearly
with the name of the candidate and the number of the question to which they apply:
c. Signed the declaration in section E2.
Please check that you have enclosed any documents that you have mentioned in your submission.
Part E - ChecklistObligatory
E2 DECLARATION PLEASE READ AND SIGN THE DECLARATION BELOW I/We apply to be considered to be appointed as a constructor under a
framework agreement with Manchester City Council for design and construction or construction of education related premises in Manchester.
I/We certify that the information supplied is accurate to the best of my/our knowledge and that I/we accept the conditions and undertakings requested in the questionnaire. I/We understand that false information could result in my/our exclusion from consideration for this or any other contract with Manchester City Council.
I/We also understand that it is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment to give or offer any gift or consideration whatsoever as an inducement or reward to any servant of a Public Body.
Programme of Events
2004Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Open Day 21-Nov
Deadline for PQQs 9-Dec
Issue Invitations (estimated) 30-Jan
Deadline for Submissions (est) 19-Mar
Final Selection Process (est) Apr
Final Negotiations (est) May
Commence Framework (est) June
2003Activity Dates
Concluding Remarks
Looking for Teams that will be able to work with us collaboratively to deliver the Framework Objectives
Flexible and responsive Supply Chain Efficient use of resources Make your responses clear and concise Provide evidence to support your statements Submissions to include 1 hard copy & 1 soft copy
Open Day for EducationFramework Teams
Rethinking ConstructionCatalyst for MCC Framework
Nigel Curry
Centre for Construction Innovation
Rethinking Construction
… for the UK construction industry to realise maximum value for all clients, end users and stakeholders and exceed
their expectations through the consistent delivery of world class products and services.
Our vision is …
Key Reports Latham 1994 – Constructing the Team
Integrated teams Non-adversarial approach – partnering People, process and technology – people and process
centred Egan 1998 – Rethinking Construction
Culture, process and performance Best practice – demonstration projects
Egan 2002 – Accelerating Change Same issues as Rethinking Construction but focus on Integrated supply chains Non-adversarial procurement approaches Targets and measurement
Rethinking Construction
Rethinking Construction – published by John Egan in 1998 – sometimes called the Egan Report
Research into the UK construction industry Found that the industry was
Adversarial – a lot of conflict between all parties in projects Unproductive and low in innovation Unprofitable Poor procurement by clients – lowest price Fragmentation of project delivery teams Huge room for improvement
Too many Contractors chasing too little work created a very competitive market
The Contractor’s tender price is the figure to beat the opposition - NOT the price for building the job
The procurement processes used by the industry often allow the Design Team time to prepare an outline design which requires completion during the construction phase.
Current traditional contractual arrangements do not facilitate the delivery of Best Value
The State Of Our Industry
The Business Arrangement Breaks Down And . .
Contracts overrun on time and money
Final accounts last for 2 - 3 years after the job has finished . . . and more !!
The industry and professionals have a terrible image
Expensive “one-off” relationships occur
The industry is wasteful and inefficient - and everybody seems to accept it !
The lawyers and barristers are the only ones who make any money
Nobody enjoys going to work
The Carrot ?
1995 Sir Michael Latham’s review of the construction industry in 1994 concluded that real cost savings of up to 30% could be made.
The Stick……
“Achieving Excellence” Targets had to be met by March 2002
Housing Grants conditional on Rethinking by 2003
Beverley Hughes warned that Local Authorities need to be Best Value compliant, and funding will become conditional by 2004
“Better Public Buildings Report” - the writing on the wall for the Crown Estate and Grant assistance
What has this got to do with us?
Latham argued that public sector clients …
“should deliberately set out to use their spending power not only to obtain value for money for a particular project but also to assist the productivity and competitiveness of the construction industry, and thereby obtain better value for money in the long-term”
… MCC Framework aspires to deliver this
What has this got to do with us?
Achieving Excellence - the Government response to Egan 1999 requires all government clients …
to work with industry to reduce waste in all aspects of construction procurement
to enter into co-operative relationships with their supplier to ensure a mutually productive environment
to ensure an integrated supply chain
… MCC Framework aspires to deliver this
What has this got to do with us?
OGC – Peter Gershon March 2003 …
It is government policy that all public procurement should be based on value for money, having due regard to propriety and regularity.
Value for money is defined as the optimum combination of whole life costs and quality to meet the customer’s requirements.
It is not the same as initial purchase price.
… MCC Framework acknowledges this
Influences on Manchester CC
Rethinking Construction and the Government Client
Local authority and government clients are being directed to follow Rethinking Construction in procurement guidelines from the Office of Government Commerce
Best Value – to drive improvement in the delivery of public services
Achieving Excellence – move towards partnering, performance measurement and culture change
Issues of public accountability Public sector clients want benefit from Rethinking Construction
approach
Rethinking Construction - Recommendations
Look to how to improve this situation Expressed a model for how things need to change 5 Drivers, 4 Processes, 7 Performance – The 5-4-7 Model
What does this mean? Basically is a three stage model Enables us to think about what we do and how we do it
Drivers
The values that drive what we do
Drivers
The values that drive what we do
Processes
How we do it
Processes
How we do it
Improvements
How well we are doing it
Improvements
How well we are doing it
What is it Worth?
Manchester City Council – Education Department - 100 million spend over 5 years
Rethinking Construction Annual Targets for Improvement:
Capital Cost down 10% - £110m of work done for £100m – Client gets “extra” £10m worth of buildings?
Time reduced by 10% - approx £1m saving on prelims over 3yrs?
Defects reduced by 20% - approx £1m saving over 5 yrs?
Turnover & Profitability up by 10% - profit up by £???
Accidents reduced by 20% - everybody is happy
Productivity up by 10% - everybody is happy
Predictability up by 20% - everybody is happy
Quality Driven Agenda
“The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot – it can’t be done.
If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something
for the risk you run…..
and….
if you do that you will have enough to pay for something
better.”
John Ruskin (1819 – 1900)
Business Fact
“The most successful enterprises do not fragment their operations – they work back from the customer’s needs and focus on the product and the value it delivers to the customer.
The process and the production team are then integrated to deliver value to the customer efficiently and eliminate waste in all forms.”
… MCC seek to emulate this
Learning from others…..
… Sharing Best Practice
Why should we do this?
Rethinking Construction is about Culture Change Better Processes Measurement and Improvement
Clients are being driven to embrace RC by central government
Contractors therefore must embrace RC or they won’t get the work from local government clients
Partnering is a key tool to change the way we work
What do we get from doing this?
Partnering gives us a chance to concentrate on the project rather than the contract
Partnering enables projects to benefit from Team Skills and Competencies:-
Life cycle costing Risk Management Buildability Value Engineering Value Management Design Excellence
Open Day for Education Framework Teams
MCC Procurement Strategy
John Lorimer
MCC CAPITAL PROGRAMME DIRECTOR
MCC Procurement Strategy
Supports Manchester Community Strategy Driven by best value and government
guidelines Embraces current collaborative working
arrangements Must deliver more for less Current frameworks
MCC Procurement Strategy
Need to understand costs Early involvement with providers Local hotspots and skills shortage More certain in delivery Working with the supply chain Continuous improvement
Final Thoughts Demonstrate an understanding of our need Work as a team Clear responses, no waffle please
Open Day for EducationFramework Teams
Open Day for Education Framework Teams
Question and Answer Session
Open Day for Education Framework Teams