黑洞社区

In June, the consultant was dismayed when it failed to make it onto the 12-strong list of consultants for project management and design services, formerly known as the OGC framework, and considered an appeal against the decision.

But the firm has since decided against a formal protest and is instead trying to get a share of the work by joining one of the successful bidders on the list.

Gleeds senior partner Richard Steer said: 鈥淲e are trying to find our way in as a supplier to one of the companies who got through.鈥�

黑洞社区 understands that a preliminary agreement is already in place between Gleeds and a successful consortium and the consultant is waiting for Buying Solutions to approve the move.

It is not clear which consortium Gleeds is hoping to join but industry commentators speculated that it was likely to be one of the non-QS led teams.

After months and months, why would the ogc let people in through the back door?

QS source

One consultant said: 鈥淭here are lots of enquiries for new work coming through already so it鈥檚 a natural move. If I were in Gleeds鈥� shoes, I would tout my services.鈥�

But others criticised the decision. A source at a fellow QS said: 鈥淚t makes a nonsense of the whole thing. Why would the OGC go through that process, which took months and months, just to let people in the back door?鈥�

The framework, which is worth about 拢200m a year, prequalifies firms to work on capital projects for any public sector body. In June it was expanded from five names to 12: Bovis Lend Lease, Capita Symonds, Drivers Jonas, EC Harris, Faithful + Gould, Gardiner & Theobald, Jacobs, Mace, Mott MacDonald, Pick Everard, Rider Levett Bucknall and Turner & Townsend.

Bidders that failed to make the grade included Cyril Sweett and Arup.