TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT ONE (TMA01)

TUTOR-MARKED ASSIGNMENT ONE (TMA01)

This assignment is worth 10% of the final mark for BPM213 Procurement Management.

Note to Students:

You are to include the following particulars in your submission: Course Code, Title of the TMA, SUSS PI No., Your Name, and Submission Date.

Submit your solution document in the form of a single MS Word file on or before the cut-off date shown above.

This TMA covers materials studied in Study Unit 1, 2 and 3. You should review these materials in both your textbook and the unit notes before beginning the assignment. In addition, you will find it necessary to perform additional research in order to provide better answers to the questions.

Based on the three case situations provided in the Appendix, answer the following questions:

Question 1 – Contractual Arrangements

• In each case, recommend and justify to the client an appropriate type of contractual arrangement for the project and describe its procedures.

(24 marks)

• Identify, only in Case 2, the merits and demerits of your recommended arrangement.

(8 marks)

Question 2– Tendering Procedures, Prequalification of Contractor, Tender Evaluation and Award

• Recommend, only in Case 2 (Construction of Integrated Transport Hub), a suitable method of tendering, justify your choice of selection, and describe its procedures.

(12 marks)

• Indicate the advantages and disadvantages of your recommended tendering system for Case 2.

(16 marks)

• Five bids have been received by the public housing authority to provide architectural design consultancy services for a residential development in the western part of

Singapore. The Quality Fee Method (QFM), based on the QFM framework dated 1 December 2025, will be used to evaluate the tenders.

Tenderers were informed of the following (refer also to Table Q2) during the tender stage:

• QFM Configuration: Quality (Q): Fee (F) weightage = 80:20, with consultants’ performance weightage at 10% of overall QFM weightage
  • Format of fee proposal: Lump sum

Examine and evaluate the tender on Table Q2 by answering the following questions:

• Calculate the tenderers’ Consultants’ Performance score (CP-score), Other Quality score (Q sub-score) and the Quality score (Q-score), the Fee score (F-score) and the Total QFM score.

(16 marks)

• Show clearly your calculations and formulae on the average fee computation and checks on any outlier bids to prevent price-diving.

(6 marks)

• Rank the overall submission based on the Total QFM score and recommend a suitable tenderer for the award of the contract.

(3 marks)

Table Q2

Question 3 – Public Private Partnership

Public entities need to consider the adoption of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) as one of their procurement options for infrastructure projects whose estimated construction costs exceed $50 million. Despite the failure of the Sports Hub project, and the risks and challenges associated with the PPP, discuss FIVE (5) reasons why the Government continues to promote this type of contractual arrangement.

(15 marks) In attempting Question 3, candidates are advised to read up the following materials:

Qiu, P. ‘Making Public Private Partnerships Work: Implications for Singapore and the Region’.                  ETHOS    Issue    13,    May    2014,    Civil    Service    College.    Retrieved   from: https://knowledge.csc.gov.sg/ethos-issue-13/making-public-private-partnerships-work-implications-for-singapore-and-the-region/

Gunawansa, A. (2010). Is there a need for public private partnership projects in Singapore? COBRA 2010 – Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of the Royal

Institution of Chartered Surveyors: – ScholarBank@NUS Repository; retrieved from: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/45950

‘Government Objectives: Benefits and Risks of PPPs’. World Bank Group (US), Public-Private-Partnership Legal Resource Centre. Monday, 31 October 2016. Retrieved from: https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/overview/ppp-objectives

The Ministry of Finance, Singapore: Public Private Partnership Handbook version 2, March 2012;                                                                    retrieved                                                           from: https://www.mof.gov.sg/Portals/0/Policies/ProcurementProcess/PPPHandbook2012.pdf

Chia, Y. M. ‘PPP: Promised partnerships (can) prosper’, The Straits Times, 25 Dec. 2014, Singapore:                               Singapore              Press              Holdings.              Retrieved              from: http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/ppp-promised-partnerships-can-prosper Ling Han (2016). ‘The Problem with PPPs in Singapore’, The Diplomat, 26 September 2016. Retrieved from: https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/the-problem-with-ppps-in-singapore/

BPM213Procurement Management