II.2.3) Place of performance
NUTS code:
UKG31
II.2.4) Description of the procurement
3.1 The University of Birmingham (the University) is seeking to appoint a Smart Digital Infrastructure ‘Innovation’ Collaborator to drive forward new technologies for its Edgbaston Campus, but also linking (where feasible) to other key University initiatives and locations. The University is looking to work in a form of strategic collaboration, where all parties, including the main contractor’s sub-contractors engage in an Innovation Team, to work together and collaborate to deliver a project or a set of outcomes. They will avoid confrontational behaviour or behaviour intended to take inappropriate commercial or legal advantage of the other party. All parties will be expected to sign a partnering charter, so that a true innovation collaboration can be created.
3.2 The concept and vision would be to make the University of Birmingham (and its associated locations) a ‘Living Lab’ where estates building technology, core infrastructure, plant and University Research would be linked with an Innovation Collaborator to drive behaviours and technologies that would support the Campus becoming Net Carbon Zero by 2050.The requirement will be delivered in two phases:
(a) phase 1: generate a campus investment grade audit and a joint collaborator/university route map to net zero carbon by 2050. This may then lead to;
(b) phase 2: innovative investment collaborator to develop prioritised.
3.3 An investment grade audit (IGA), Phase 1 (to be completed within 12 months of award of contract), is a key early activity for the collaborating arrangement that UoB are seeking to establish. It will provide the ability for the selected UoB collaborator to survey our campus/sites in detail – looking at physical condition, installed assets and infrastructure, development plans and importantly to review and interrogate historic consumption information data, etc. The IGA will enable our selected collaborator to develop a greater insight and understanding of our buildings, plant, equipment, working arrangements and development plans. It is the University’s aspiration to proceed with the selected collaborator to deliver the agreed outcomes of the phase 1 investment grade audit. However if for some reason the partnership agreement does not progress on to phase 2 the collaborator would be reimbursed for the stated and qualified costs incurred to produce the investment grade audit. For the avoidance of doubt at that point the IGA would be owned by the University. The IGA must support the collaborator/UoB routemap to achieve net zero carbon by 2050 The University would expect the format and key headings for the UoB campus/site investment grade audit to be included as a minimum:
1.0 Executive summary
• introduction
• project summary
• summary of the overall value of Energy Conservation measures (ECMs)
• executive summary graphs and Infographics
2.0 Technical appraisal
• technical appraisal
• ECMs breakdown per building
• description of proposed interventions and design intent
3.0 Commercial appraisal
• commercial
• value for money
• measurement and verification (M&V)
4.0 Risk appraisal
• risk register
• backlog maintenance/condition
• business continuity and resilience
• health and safety
5.0 Project delivery
• design and implementation quality plan
• communication plan
• behavioural change programme
• programme interfaces
• Progress reporting
6.0 Delivering our vision and values
• vision and values
• community projects
• option appraisals for adding value
• the UoB Route to Nett Zero carbon (NZC) by 2050 including an appropriate Roadmap.
The University would expect the proposal and costs to be included in the pricing schedule for phase 1 on a Gold, silver and bronze basis. The University expects that ‘Bronze solution’ to cover everything listed sections 3 and 4 in the invitation to tender document and for the supplier to inform the University of what additional deliverables would be included in the pricing schedule for a silver and gold solution respectively.
II.2.5) Award criteria
Quality criterion: Quality
/ Weighting: 54 %
Quality criterion: Selection criteria
/ Weighting: 6 %
Price
/ Weighting:
40 %
II.2.11) Information about options
Options:
No
II.2.13) Information about European Union funds
The procurement is related to a project and/or programme financed by European Union funds:
No