Mechanical Upgrade Works to Our Lady of Meadows School, Durrow, Co. Laois. R32 FW18

AI-generated analysis of the documents. Check the official notice and any amendments for current submission details.

1. At a glance

2. Scope of Work

This procurement covers mechanical upgrade works to our lady of meadows school, durrow, co. laois. r32 fw18 for Our Lady’s Meadow Primary School. The extracted material indicates a construction-led delivery with compliance-heavy preconditions, particularly around liability cover and formal declarations. The operational requirement is to plan, execute, and complete site works in a controlled environment while maintaining programme certainty, quality assurance, and documentary evidence suitable for public-sector contract administration.

• Insurance of the Works: minimum amount insured for professional fees 15% of the
• Minimum amount for interim payments, except release of retention, €5,000
• Welding equipment is required to have flame arrest
• Welding equipment is required to have
• ing equipment is required to have
• Insurance Insurance of the Works: minimum amount insured for professional fees 15% of the Contract Sum Minimum indemnity limits for public liability and employers’ liability insurance: • public liability insurance: €6,500,000 for any one event, but this limit may b
• • employers’ liability insurance: €13,000,000 for any one event
• Maximum excess for Insurance: • insurance of Works and other Risk Items (€10,000) • public liability: (€6,500)
• Manage mobilisation, sequencing, site safety, and handover documentation to the buyer's required standard.
• Coordinate subcontractors and suppliers so programme, quality, and compliance obligations are met without disruption.

3. Background & buyer context

The buyer is Our Lady’s Meadow Primary School, and the requirement appears to be triggered by asset-condition and lifecycle needs linked to building fabric renewal. The context points to a practical infrastructure intervention rather than a discretionary enhancement, with delivery expected under public procurement controls and standard declarations. The inclusion of explicit insurance thresholds and mandatory-form language indicates a risk-managed procurement posture. Incumbency is not clearly identified in the extracted text. Strategic emphasis appears to be continuity of service, safe execution on an occupied educational site, and auditable compliance from tender through completion.

4. Eligibility & selection criteria

Bidders must pass threshold checks before detailed evaluation. Based on extracted binding/mandatory phrases, key gates are:

• Insurance: Insurance Insurance of the Works: minimum amount insured for professional fees 15% of the Contract Sum Minimum indemnity limits for public liability and employers’ liability insurance: • public liability insurance: €6,500,000 for any one event, but this limit may b
• Insurance: • employers’ liability insurance: €13,000,000 for any one event
• Insurance: Maximum excess for Insurance: • insurance of Works and other Risk Items (€10,000) • public liability: (€6,500)
• Insurance: • employers’ liability: (€6,500)
• Insurance: 3 Minimum indemnity limit for Public Liability Insurance: €6,500,000 for any one event
• Insurance: Minimum indemnity limit for Employers Liability Insurance: €13,000,000 for any one event
• Financial capacity / turnover: not specified in extracted binding lines; confirm if annual-turnover multiples or balance-sheet tests apply.
• Legal/compliance declarations: mandatory declarations and form completion appear to be required at submission stage.
• Technical suitability: evidence of capability for the specified works, programme control, and public-sector compliance is likely required.

5. Award criteria & scoring

Extracted evaluation references include the following weighted/criteria phrases:

• must not exceed ______ % of the tendered Price.
• charges must not exceed ____% of the tendered Price. If these lines are partial OCR snippets, bidders should verify exact criterion names, sub-weightings, and pass/fail thresholds in the formal award schedule.

6. Submission requirements

Submission appears to require a structured, form-driven pack. Priority deliverables to assemble are:

• Insurance of the Works: minimum amount insured for professional fees 15% of the
• Signed form of tender and pricing schedule aligned to the requested commercial breakdown.
• Confirmation of insurance position and any commitments to place cover prior to contract award where allowed.
• Methodology, programme, and resourcing narrative that directly maps to the scope and evaluation headings.

7. Key dates & process

• Submission deadline: 2026-04-09T11:00:00+00:00
• Date reference in extracts: 2026-04-09T11:00:00+00:00
• Date reference in extracts: 18/11/2024
• Date reference in extracts: 1 July 2013
• Date reference in extracts: 18 November 2024
• Date reference in extracts: 25 May 2018
• Process path (typical): publication → clarification window → submission deadline → compliance check → evaluation/award recommendation → standstill/award.
• Bidder action: lock internal review deadlines before portal cut-off; assume no tolerance for late upload or incomplete mandatory forms.

8. Contract terms that matter

Commercial/legal terms that materially affect bid risk and margin should be checked early:

• Liability and insurance minima are explicitly referenced; validate per-claim/per-event treatment and any aggregate caps.
• Confirm who carries design/interface risk, temporary works responsibility, and latent-condition exposure.
• Check payment timing, retention, liquidated damages, extension-of-time mechanics, and change-control procedure.
• Validate programme obligations against school-operation constraints, access windows, and safeguarding requirements.

9. Risks, red flags & unusuals

• High insurance thresholds increase compliance cost and may narrow eligible SME bidders.
• Short mobilisation window risk if clarifications, site constraints, or supply lead-times are unresolved before submission.
• No explicit turnover threshold found in extracted binding phrases; confirm financial-capacity tests directly in selection schedules.
• Extracted snippets include OCR artefacts; bidders should validate exact clause wording against original PDFs before pricing assumptions.
• Where numeric snippets appear fragmented, rely on the original clause text rather than OCR-extracted fragments when finalising bid assumptions.

10. SME fit assessment

Indicative fit: Proceed if insurance limits and delivery capacity are already in place; otherwise treat as conditional/no-bid until cover is evidenced.

Go / no-go rule of thumb: Go when insurance, governance, and delivery references are already in place and the bid can be submitted as a fully compliant package without qualification. No-go when compliance gaps require speculative assumptions or unresolved contractual risk pricing.

11. Where to dig deeper