Designs are available for this corridor, although more developed solutions are necessary to manage aspects such as junction movement (and conflicts), bus stop access & egress, consideration of appropriate traffic management (i.e. diversions, signage, lining etc), road crossings, integration and coherence with proposed / existing active travel infrastructure and appropriate future ‘light segregation’ module options.





Figure 8 – Overview of broad issues & challenges for A727

Figure 9 below highlights the extent of proposed B767 (Strategic Cycle Corridor 3) cycle infrastructure (“bike & roll”) measure. The extent of the corridor is approximately over 1.5km and extends from Clarkston Halls in the south to Netherlee Road to the north.

Initial investigations undertaken for the corridor suggest a bidirectional cycle facility may be incorporated through road space reallocation along the eastern margin of the carriageway providing a dedicated active travel facility linking communities, schools and other local amenities, including Clarkston Town Centre.

Designs are available for this corridor, although more developed solutions are necessary to manage aspects such as junction movement and conflicts, bus stop access & egress, requirement for (and impact on) road crossings and appropriate future ‘light segregation’ module options.

A key consideration includes the removal of car parking, therefore, a key aspect of any future monitoring and evaluation includes a parking assessment to quantify likely impacts on parking provision in the area.





Figure 9 – B767 extents

ERC014a/b - Davieland Road, Giffnock

Figure 10 below highlights the extent of proposed of Davieland Road Spaces for People measures. The extent of the corridor is approximately 1km and extends from Ayr Road (A77) junction in the south to Rouken Glen Road (A727) junction in the north.

The measures include a proposed one-way system for vehicles in order to facilitate the introduction of enhanced pedestrian & protected cycle facilities as per figure 11 below. Initial investigations undertaken suggests a new footway and bidirectional cycle facility may be incorporated through road space reallocation and realigned parking along the western margin of the carriageway. Discussions to date suggest a one-way vehicular flow system northbound may be appropriate in order to mitigate potential congestion concerns at junctions.

Although ERC have developed initial concept designs in partnership with Sustrans, further developed designs are necessary in order to incorporate aspirations for a more balanced, accessible, attractive and safer road environment.

Impacts on surrounding communities, in particular the displacement of vehicular traffic and parking in surrounding residential streets, is a key consideration within any future monitoring & evaluation effort.





Figure 10 – extent of Davieland Road proposals (red) & linkages with wider aspirational active travel network

Figure 11 – Preferred concept design option (from Sustrans’ Davieland Road Design Package 2020)

ERC015 - Spiersbridge Road to Rouken Glen Road, Thornliebank

Figure 12 below highlights the extent of the proposed Spiersbridge Road (B769) active travel Response Measure. The extent of the corridor is approximately 0.5km and extends from the old Rouken Glen Road junction in the south to Thornliebank in the north. Proposals seek to reduce the carriageway width to minimum extents (i.e. c.6m) in order to introduce additional pedestrian and/or cycle space between key trip generators.

It is envisaged measure will integrate with existing active travel links as well proposed measures - namely ERC008 A727; Eastwood Toll - Spiersbridge Roundabout (Strategic Cycle Corridor 4) and ERC016 (Rouken Glen Road closure) - as part of the development of a local COVID active travel network.

Designs for this corridor have not been developed, however, options include the creation of a southbound (uphill) protected cycle lane utilising light segregation options. Other complimentary measures may include the formalisation of a shared use path facility, introduction of parking restrictions and a signage strategy. The later may be include considerate sharing of footway aimed towards less confident cyclists and mitigate unsafe overtakes for more confident cyclists travelling downhill / northbound.






Figure 12 – Extent of Spiersbridge Road proposals (red) & linkages with wider active travel network; existing & aspirational

From the documents provided It appears that AECOM Limited, Aurora, 120 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 4BG have got this approx £70,000 contract.

It would appear there is a temporary post for 26 weeks @
£10.79 - £12.14 per hour 35 hour week

Some Council emails regarding the Tender won by AECOM.



RE: SXL Mini competition - technical & engineering framework

Morning ,

Quick Quote won’t be an option as this is over the QQ threshold of £10k > £50k, therefore it would be a full tender process (route 2). Given that there is competition within this framework, I still think a mini comp would be a quicker option and this FW is already in place.

I have attached the template for the Mini Comp Information Pack Template and the Contract Strategy that would need to be completed. We could turn this around a bit quicker however, it is better that we know about this exercise much sooner to allow us to add to our tender plan as this helps determine the teams and myself’s workload.

Let me know how you wish to proceed?
Regards



Sent: 24 August 2020 17:57
Subject: SXL Mini competition - technical & engineering framework

Hi ,

Thanks for your time and advice earlier this afternoon. I have been pondering what you said re mini-comp. Although this would be the best route under normal circumstances, I am mindful that we grant we have available is via emergency Scottish Government transport/COVID funding (‘Spaces for People’ administered via Transport Scotland/Sustrans). Very mindful of the 2-3 month lead in time for mini-comps would not work in our favour given the expectations for quick spend.

Just wondering what other options are available. Don’t think I can perpetually dish out SXL Direct Awards. Would this leave Quick Quote as the way forward?

Senior Strategy Officer
Roads & Transportation




RE: Mini Comp Templates
Hi ,

I understand that you have funding and you’re not seeking the cheapest competitive bid, however you do want to ensure that you are getting value for money and we would want the bidders to demonstrate what they could do for the full £80k. I think you would need some weighting on the commercial section say 10% and the technical section would address on how they intend to approach the specification as one bidder could show that they can do  XY&Z whereas another would only do X&Y (does that make sense?).

I will continue to work on this, however will speak to …….. on Tuesday (I’m off on Monday), to get her thoughts on how best to proceed.

Regards


Sent: 15 October 2020 18:30
Subject: RE: Mini Comp Templates
Hi ,

Thanks for chat and advice this afternoon.

I have attached a draft Mini Comp strategy for your info & action. The only area where I anticipate an issue is with the Award Criteria, specifically the Commercial Offer section. We are not interested in competitive quotes per se, rather, how consultants propose to use the £80,000. However, I am unsure how we might assess a commercial offer based on hourly staff rates alone. A solution may be to have commercial at 0% and bidders instead demonstrate staff breakdown costs as part of the technical section? Keen for your input on this.

I have also included the Expressions of Interest from suppliers. Hopefully have a final draft of the tender ready by tomorrow.

Thanks in advance
Senior Strategy Officer
Roads & Transportation



Sent: 15 October 2020 12:22
Subject: Mini Comp Templates

Templates as discussed.

Regards
Procurement Category Manager
Corporate Procurement Section
East Renfrewshire Council



RE: Draft Tender Docs - MC 20 21 038 - Covid-19 Transport Measures
Hi

I’ve updated the overview as requested and I have now published tender with a closing date of Friday 6th November 2020.

Will advise if I receive any  technical questions rec’d in relation to the above tender.

Regards


Sent: 27 October 2020 10:31
Subject: RE: Draft Tender Docs - MC 20 21 038 - Covid-19 Transport Measures
Hi ,

this seems OK to me and no qualms about approach suggested below. Please proceed with approval for ITT.

The only minor omission is within the PCS Tender pdf (Overview – ITT Description section) is inclusion of a fourth point to include  

“Contribute towards the development of an ongoing monitoring and evaluation framework”

Thanks


Sent: 27 October 2020 08:44
Subject: Draft Tender Docs - MC 20 21 038 - Covid-19 Transport Measures
Morning ,

Please find attached draft ITT and all associated documents that will be uploaded as part of the tender, would appreciate if you can review and advise if you happy  are with the content  and would like to proceed to publish or advise if you have any changes that you would like to make prior to publishing.

I’ve made the closing date Friday 6th November as I will be off w/c 9th November and won’t be able to facilitate the evaluation, however I can start the qualification evaluation and have it concluded by the Monday for the technical evaluation to begin.

Let me know how you would like to proceed, as I still need to get to approve the ITT before I can publish.

Regards
Procurement Category Manager
Corporate Procurement Section
East Renfrewshire Council



Sent: 28 October 2020 17:00
Subject: Q via PCS-T - extension to deadline
Hi ,

Please see undernoted request to the deadline, given the short timescale we have put into this for a quick turnaround, may have an impact on how many responses we get back.

“We wish to request a two-week extension to the tender submission. With a 90% quality weighting we feel that one week is not sufficient time to allow us to develop a comprehensive response that will directly respond to the bespoke requirements of this scheme.

Given the short timescale, we will also be unable to fully complete our internal review of the terms and conditions and therefore request that our bid may be submitted subject to a full review if we are successful.”

Regards
Procurement Category Manager
Corporate Procurement Section
East Renfrewshire Council


Q - via PCS-T - Liability
Forwarded 29/10/2020
Hi

Another question re liability.

“We refer to the level of liability requested in your invitation to tender (table contained in Section 8 of Appendix 2: Work Package Data for work package conditions NEC3 Professional Services Contract (April 2013) Option A). Whilst we are able to provide the relevant level of insurance cover for each of the particular elements within the table, the ‘each and every claim without limit to the number of claims’ is essentially requesting the consultant to provide unlimited liability cover, which I am sure you will appreciate no consultant can provide.

Under call-off’s from the Scotland Excel Framework, local authorities are expected to provide a suitable and relevant cap value on the ‘Consultant’s total liability to the Employer for all matters arising under or in connection with this contract, other than excluded matters’ which is the information immediately under the table contained in Section 8. However, this has been left blank and therefore is effectively unlimited.

We request a suitable cap is provided based on the size and complexity of the services to be provided which we believe should be no more than 10 x the consultants total fee for delivery of services or £2m, whichever the lesser.”

Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Procurement Category Manager
Corporate Procurement Section
East Renfrewshire Council



RE: MC 20 21 038 - COVID-19 Transport Response Measures; Spaces for People - Technical Evaluation
Morning ,

Do you want me to change from …… to …… for the technical evaluation?

It is only the evaluators that can access the technical envelope.

Regards



HI ,

I will issue a communication advising that we will extend until 16th November 2020.

Thanks



Sent: 29 October 2020 12:06
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - extension to deadline
Hi ,

how do you feel about this? Mindful deadline was in place before you go on leave so you could get documentation sent over for evaluation.

What are the implications of an extension?


Sent: 29 October 2020 12:10
Subject: RE: Q via PCS-T - extension to deadline
Hi ,

The timescales are I feel a bit tight due to the nature of this project as companies will need to review the t&c’s, the scope etc. I’m due back from annual leave on the 16th November, therefore we could extend it until then which gives them another eight days to provide a response, I’m not sure how this will affect your timelines though.

Regards