Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Tool

The following clarifications were sought as part of the tender process for the new SHLAA system. The questions are in bold text.

 

We note that when this opportunity was originally published on the DOS6 Framework, the indicative maximum budget was stated to be £150,000 in the Attachment 1: Statement of Requirements document. Is this budget figure still accurate now that this opportunity has been released as a closed tender?

Yes

In document 'RFP - SHLAA Final Version 13_06_2023', page 20, Section B - 10. Pricing; it state: "The bidder is requested to submit a cost for all services on a Fixed price basis – Please provide a breakdown of man days & day rates in the table below;". However, there is no table inserted below this in the document. Please can you provide the relevant table for this part of the response.

As far as we can tell the table is in the RfP but for clarity we simply need a table with two columns that describe the 'Deliverable' stage and the 'Milestone payment' amount. Please also include a total amount for all the different milestone payments in the project.

In document 'RFP - SHLAA Final Version 13_06_2023', page 20, Section D - 1. Form of Tender; it states: "The Tender Sum should include the cost of services in section 2.4". However, we can see no section 2.4 in the RFP document. Please can you clarify which aspect of the document this line is referring to.

Apologies this should have referred to section B.10 on page 20.

Please can the authority confirm if you have an Enterprise License Agreement in place for ESRI Technology?

Yes

Section 11, within the Contract-for-Services-April-2020.doc, we require deletion of the ‘indirect and consequential losses’ (definition of Losses on p7, clause 1.1). If this is not possible, please clarify the extent of the consequential loss as this would appear to leave us open to significant exposure vastly disproportionate to contract value and no limit on liability.

We acknowledge there will be aspects of the contract T and C's that would need amending/revising. This will be discussed with the winning supplier after award. The GLA will not negotiate T and C's prior to an award with every supplier. Note: It is a draft contract (not a final contract), which will be tailored more specifically to the requirements before signing.

Section 11, within the Contract-for-Services-April-2020.doc, we require deletion of clause 3.3.2, fitness for purpose text.

We acknowledge there will be aspects of the contract T and C's that would need amending/revising. This will be discussed with the winning supplier after award. The GLA will not negotiate T and C's prior to an award with every supplier. Note: It is a draft contract (not a final contract), which will be tailored more specifically to the requirements before signing.

Section 11, within the Contract-for-Services-April-2020.doc, clause 20.1, we require deletion of the indemnity to principal requirement.

We acknowledge there will be aspects of the contract T and C's that would need amending/revising. This will be discussed with the winning supplier after award. The GLA will not negotiate T and C's prior to an award with every supplier. Note: It is a draft contract (not a final contract), which will be tailored more specifically to the requirements before signing.

Section 11, within the Contract-for-Services-April-2020.doc, Clause 33, we require deletion of the Novation clause OR inclusion of a “Subject to the approval of the Consultant,” such that we can manage the risk of any novation if necessary.

We acknowledge there will be aspects of the contract T and C's that would need amending/revising. This will be discussed with the winning supplier after award. The GLA will not negotiate T and C's prior to an award with every supplier. Note: It is a draft contract (not a final contract), which will be tailored more specifically to the requirements before signing.

Section 11, within the Contract-for-Services-April-2020.doc, we require a clause to be added (Clause 20?) to define the Limit of Liability of maximum aggregate value of £5m.

We acknowledge there will be aspects of the contract T and C's that would need amending/revising. This will be discussed with the winning supplier after award. The GLA will not negotiate T and C's prior to an award with every supplier. Note: It is a draft contract (not a final contract), which will be tailored more specifically to the requirements before signing.

In document 'RFP - SHLAA Final Version 13_06_2023', section B: Instructions to Bidders, 1. Specifications, page 13 -Site Assessment Tool Requirements; the final bullet points states "applied algorithms (density, transport accessibility etc)". Can the buyer confirm that these algorithms are going to be provided by the authority, as opposed to the supplier developing the algorithms as part of the solution?

The system would ideally be customisable so they users of the system could alter parameters which could change the applied algorithms. The GLA are working with London Boroughs to check if the algorithms from the 2017 are still valid or if they need amending. We hope to have this completed before the project starts.

What is the maximum number of users and concurrent number of users envisaged to need access to this portal at any one time?

Assuming all users are logged in at the same time, this would amount to 36.

Will the existing ESRI licencing enable this as an application within GLA's existing environment?

Yes

Please advise if you are willing to discuss some of the T&Cs with the successful tenderer or should the tenderers document their comments in their respective responses.

We acknowledge there will be aspects of the contract T and C's that would need amending/revising. This will be discussed with the winning supplier after award. The GLA will not negotiate T and C's prior to an award with every supplier. Note: It is a draft contract (not a final contract), which will be tailored more specifically to the requirements before signing.

We note the budget for the previous DOS6 procurement was £150,000 maximum. Please confirm if this is still the case, what the amount covers (for example licences, hosting, support, services) and over what period. Please also confirm if this includes or excludes (a) VAT and (b) expenses.

The budget is still £150,000 for the project and does not include licenses, hosting, support and maintenance. We would like to consider these elements, but it's outside of the scope of this contract.

The RfP appears to be seeking a licensed solution yet states the solution should be "open source". Many suitable solutions will be based on proprietary commercial-off-the-shelf products which will be based on open standards but not open source. Please confirm whether suppliers offering a fully compliant and cost effective proprietary solution that is not open source will be eliminated.

The scoring criteria covers four key areas and each response will be judged on how well they meet the criteria for each area. Therefore we will not be excluding any supplier for how they meet any individual elements of the requirements but these may be reflected in the score for that area. Ideally our solution would be open source however we recognise that individual suppliers may wish to retain IP of particular elements, which is something that we are comfortable with however we would expect the project and its learnings to be carried out in the open.

The RfP provides a clear structure for the suppliers' proposals with associated scoring. However, the RfP also asks suppliers to describe additional information (Section B Variation Procedure and Assessing Best Value) that does not appear in the prescribed sections or the scoring. Please confirm that responses to these points are required and how they will contribute to the evaluation.

These sections will form factors in our thinking when scoring the criteria however do not form criteria in themselves.

Please clarify how many individual named users would need to have access to the solution (bearing in mind the need for all London Boroughs to access it).

A minimum of 35 in total assuming one per planning authority however it is likely that each Borough will have two users each in addition to GLA licenses.

Please confirm if all your requirements are mandatory. If so, what are the implications of being non-compliant against any requirements.

The scoring criteria covers four key areas and each response will be judged on how well they meet the criteria for each area. Therefore we will not be excluding any supplier for how they meet any individual elements of the requirements but these may be reflected in the score for that area.

We note you are asking for a fixed price and an agile delivery. Please confirm whether you are expecting all the requirements to be met within the fixed price or whether you will work with the supplier to prioritise the requirements within the budget in line with agile delivery principles.

We would expect the project milestones to be set out as part of your responses and we will then work with the successful supplier to jointly agree the scope for each of the milestones. There are elements of the project that are currently unknown and it is these areas that we will need to use agile to deliver this project.

Making the software open source is not possible for a Software as a Service business as it will make public our proprietary code. The additional effect of making the software open source will be to allow existing private companies to adopt and monetise solutions developed for this project. Would you consider a solution that was not open source?

Ideally our solution would be open source however we recognise that individual suppliers may wish to retain IP of particular elements, which is something that we are comfortable with however we would expect the project and its learnings to be carried out in the open.

We understand that some of the spatial data that is collected through this process may be commoditised and sold to SaaS firms in the future. Would involvement in this project allow the successful partner access to use all of the hosted spatial data, and for purposes that extend beyond the remit of this project?

The initial answer to this question is no, however the GLA and its 35 partners are open to a conversation in the near future as to how a model like this might work.

Is there any requirement for maintenance and support post go-live?

We would like to consider this, but it's outside of the scope of this contract.

Is the buyer expecting the successful supplier to provide a pre-existing solution and configure for the identified user needs?

We are happy for an existing solution to be developed, or a new solution produced. 

Please can the authority confirm who did the discovery project for this opportunity?

The GLA working with the boroughs across London.

Please could you clarify whether this work should be performed within London or if some part of it can be performed in other offshore / bidder locations (like India)?

Our preferences for some representation onshore, with in-person, meetings and events. However, we recognise that some work might need to take place offshore.

How the base data for the application will be supplemented e.g., Land record, property ownership record, change of title? Will there be an API integration aspect with the HM Land Registry application?

We are not currently proposing an API integration to Land Registry, however, this is something that we would think about if you are proposing it.

Is there any existing platform in use e.g., GIS, Content Management System? If yes, please share the details about architecture and software-hardware components.

There is currently no platform in place.

It is mentioned in relation to core critical sites that the following is a requirement of the system "probability of coming forwards applying a probability matrix based on adjustable criteria". The IMA tool has previously implemented some probability forecasting, will the same modelling be adopted for this tool?

It is unlikely to be the same modelling, but it will be along similar principles.

There does not appear to be any requirements relating to handover of solutions or capability building requirements (how will the supplier support the GLA in capability building for longevity). We would like to provide the GLA with a solution rather than vendor lock-in to a licensed product. Would the GLA be open to this approach?

The GLA is open to looking at both solutions, this is because it is about having the right solution that works in a pan-London way rather than being constrained by delivery model.

Will the GLA set standards for the data that would be collected from boroughs? Not all boroughs use the same software, or follow the same data management standards. What role will the commission have in defining those standards (if any)?

The GLA has worked with the boroughs to set a data standard that all of the borough's will be subscribing to. As with all part of this project, this has been done collaboratively to avoid anyone missing out on being involved.

Is there an expectation for the application to be hosted in a GLA environment or in an external environment? - If external, does the client have any expectation of handover or migration post-delivery?

If hosted externally, the GLA would have an expectation of support with an SLA in place prior to go live. However the costs of this could be in addition to the build costs.

Would the consultant be required to develop and build the application on GLA systems or on their own systems?

Ideally it will be built on a system outside of the GLA network, however we are open to reviewing whether it is hosted on AWS or Azure or any other platform that might be appropriate.

Does the client expect costs for hosting, maintenance and storage of the application to be included in the budget?

No

Is the client able to provide an estimate of the number and formats of the datasets to be used?

The same as the 2017 SHLAA with the addition of the feed to the Planning London Datahub as a minimum.

Does the client have any requirements on the number of stakeholder and industry meetings?

Yes, with boroughs through an existing framework where we meet them bi monthly.

Is your expectation that a fully-developed live service is the outcome of this procurement, Or would you be prepared to accept an MVP, which can be iterated in any potential future phases of work?

The idea is that an MVP would be capable of being live, but with limitations.

What level of integration are you expecting the service to have; for instance, are there existing data sets and tools that are expected to be used?

The minimum it must link with includes the Planning London Datahub and the Planning London Datamap, our internal Arcus system (data from which can be retrieved from a Salesforce API), as well as a form for the call for sites.

Are there any more detailed discovery findings that you could share, either as part of the bidding process or upon contract award?

We are happy to provide anything we have, and hold any meeting to explain any findings.

How many suppliers have been invited to the closed tender and on what basis were they selected?

Nine suppliers have been invited to the tender, and were selected on the basis they may be able to deliver the required scope of work and we are committed to this process being open and transparent.

Could you please confirm the contract term and what it includes? For example, does it cover both the development phase and then x years under which the system is to be licensed?

No firm decisions have been made about contract decisions but we would expect this to be a minimum of three years.

On page 7 there are references to a numbering system (1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc)which we cannot find reflected elsewhere in the document. Could you please advise how this corresponds to the mention of an RFP response structure?

Apologies these related to the previous DOS6 framework tender, you are welcome to ignore the sections inside the brackets.

Would GLA please provide a list of information and geospatial data along with sources for which the system is expected to use?

We would require at a minimum integration with the Planning London Datahub, the Planning London Datamap, our internal Arcus system (data from which can be retrieved from a Salesforce API) and any existing call for sites platform data standard.

Is there a more detailed technical specification? Ideally we would like to receive greater granularity in terms of the scope, scale and complexity of the technical requirements.

No but if you are interested in understanding the SHLAA process in more detail please view the 2017 SHLAA documentation.

What is an external user when compared to an internal user?

An internal user is any member of staff from the GLA or a London borough. An external user is a member of the public/development community.

Is it possible for a user to access the system without being logged in (anonymous user)?

Ideally no everyone using the system would require an account to login to the system.

For clarity when frontend and backend are referenced, is this referring to the regular application workflow for ordinary users and some form of administrative tools for users with higher authority?

When referencing the front end we are referring to external users of the system (i.e. members of the public/development community). When we refer to the back end we are referring to internal users who are additional permissions to edit polygons submitted by the external users.

What would the authentication workflow look like? Can users sign up themselves or does an admin need to create an account for them?

Ideally internal users would need to be created by GLA staff, external users can create accounts for themselves but would have different permissions than internal users.

There are references to a SHLAA Tool, a SHLAA System and Site Assessment Tool. Are these the same thing? If they are not then could you please provide definitions for each?

Yes they are the same thing.

What is meant by grouping? Is this combining multiple polygons into one SHLAA site? Or is it taking already existing SHLAA sites and “grouping” them together to sum up results from an analysis? or something else?

Assessments can be carried out across multiple sites and this would enable this to be completed more efficiently.

Importing Data - What and how much data is needed? For example will we be working with 10/100/1000’s of datasets?

For more information on this please refer to the Planning London Datahub and Planning London Datamap. The data the salesforce API will only be considered as one dataset.

Importing Data - What format would these datasets come in? e.g. geopackages, csv, scraped from webpage/pdf.

For more information on this please refer to the Planning London Datahub and Planning London Datamap. The salesforce data will come from a resting API.

Importing Data - Could you please define what is meant by “live” data? If this in practical terms means updated regularly and periodically, could you please advise in terms of these intervals?

Ideally we would like the new system to fetch data from our data sources on a regular basis i.e. on a daily basis.

Importing Data - Are there specific “live” datasets that need to be imported or queried from an API?

All datasets can be queried by APIs.

Importing Data - Users can import data but in what format should they import in and is there any validation/specification that their import needs to match?

Yes it is likely that we will have a requirement for users to import data manually and we would like to flesh these requirements out with the Boroughs during the discovery sessions.

Exporting Data - What formats are needed for exporting?

Yes it is likely that we will have a requirement for users to export data and we would like to flesh these requirements out with the Boroughs during the discovery sessions.

Exporting Data - Are any of these formats pdf based? e.g. map or report for print.

Yes it is likely that we will have a requirement for users to export data and we would like to flesh these requirements out with the Boroughs during the discovery sessions.

Exporting Data - Do we need to develop our own API that other tools need to hook into?

This would be useful but does not form part of the MVP.

Analysing data - What and how many datasets are expected to need to be used to analyse data?

Please review the 2017 SHLAA documentation for more information. However the final details will be established during discovery sessions with the boroughs.

Analysing data - What are the algorithms needed to analyse the data?

Please review the 2017 SHLAA documentation for more information. However the final details will be established during discovery sessions with the boroughs.

Analysing data - Can the users dynamically change the algorithm/analysis in any way to try and obtain different results? Or are the algorithms/analysis only going to use static/”live” datasets to drive them?

Yes we would like external users to be able to change particular parameters. The final details will be established during discovery sessions with the boroughs.

Analysing data - How often would snapshots need to be taken? And are these snapshots of GIS data or user inputted data?

Annually and both.

Analysing data - What data should be cached (until manually refreshed) vs. “live”? e.g. hypothetically flood zone is updated and now covers part of site, are all calculations automatically updated? Could this confuse a user who is now seeing different results from when they last checked the platform?

Whilst it may confuse some users initially we would prefer that the data and the calculations are automatically updated so that the results are the most up to date possible.

Analysing data - How much control is needed for each planning stage?

All pre-app application data is to be kept confidential, as is each borough's own analysis of sites. For all other data there is no control requirement.

Analysing data - How much control of units is needed? Can the user specify the exact number of ‘x’ things that need to be built? Or are we just leaving the algorithm to calculate indicative costs?

This is something that will need to be fleshed out during the user discovery sessions at the start of the project.

Analysing data - Are we factoring things like carbon usage/offset and MMC into algorithms?

Not for the MVP.

Analysing data - Do the algorithms need to consider monetary cost? e.g. cost to build, Section106.

Not for the MVP.

Analysing data - Do the algorithms need to consider built to rent vs buy differences for residential?

Not for the MVP.

Analysing data - Do the algorithms need to factor in other benefits such as community benefits? e.g. number of jobs produced, number of extra school spaces needed.

Not for the MVP.

Permission levels - Can any user create and edit polygons?

Internal users yes, external users will be able to create polygons but not edit them.

Permission levels - To make changes to the database/system, does there need to be a confirmation from a more admin role (e.g. GLA officer) so ordinary users cannot just change anything.

We would like a super user role that can create and define different internal user roles that will potentially have different permission levels.

Permission levels - Should there be a higher level admin over the GLA officer who can assign them to authorities? A super admin?

Yes ideally there would be a handful of super users who have the ability to do more than ordinary internal users such as assign roles/permissions.

In document 'RFP - SHLAA Final Version 13_06_2023', 1. Specification under the theme of "Geospatial Tool" there is a statement of holding numerous spatial datasets containing policy and environmental data from internal and external sources. Is it the Buyer's expectation that this data will be loaded INTO the system or will it be sufficient to be incorporated via APIs?

The preference is that it will be sufficient to be incorporated via APIs

Has a standard data model already been defined for presentation of the SHLAA information/data?

This will be done through discovery work with the boroughs.

In document 'RFP - SHLAA Final Version 13_06_2023', Section A - 5. Contract Award Criteria, the RFP states that the 0 - 25 scale will be used for the quality of submission and Technical Capability & Experience sections. Please confirm that the scale also applies to the ED&I section too?

Yes the 0-25 scale will be used for all four sections of the criteria which includes the ED&I section. The GLA is committed to improving the diversity of the workforce in the built environment sector.

In document 'RFP - SHLAA Final Version 13_06_2023' Section A - 4. Tender Response Instructions it states: "Your proposal should include the following: Total Cost of Solution on a Fixed Price basis together with potential cost of hosting and hosting solutions". Please can you confirm that the 'potential cost of hosting' are to be presented separately to the Fixed Price for delivering the solution?

Yes

In document 'RFP - SHLAA Final Version 13_06_2023' Section A - 5. Contract Award Notice; we note that there is reference to an RFP Response Structure for the Stage 1 Criteria Sections, page 7. Should we have been provided an RFP Response Structure Document and if so can you provide us with this? Or alternatively is this just to outline how the authority wishes to see the structure of responses for each criteria section?

Yes this is just the outline of how we would like to see the structure of the responses for each criteria section.

Clarify the requirements for: Adopt open-source code to enable others to replicate and build on the learning in accordance with the GLA’s Local Digital Service Standard obligations.

Ideally our solution would be open source however we recognise that individual suppliers may wish to retain IP of particular elements, which is something that we are comfortable with however we would expect the project and its learnings to be carried out in the open. 

Clarify the requirements for: Future proofing – All software should be open source: Do you wish to retain the entire source code for the system or have the system built on open-source technologies so that key elements (e.g. database, GIS layers etc.) can be easily migrated if needed and where some elements of the system may remain closed / 3rd party IP under license?

Ideally our solution would be open source however we recognise that individual suppliers may wish to retain IP of particular elements, which is something that we are comfortable with however we would expect the project and its learnings to be carried out in the open.