AF-Nanyuki: 1503 Fire Inspection Works

This contract is for a series of minor works in Nairobi and Nanyuki to carry out the recommended works identified by the Defence Fire Officer. The works include the installation of smoke detectors, fire doors and Non-Maintained emergency lights as well as re-configuring existing systems and providing additional electrical sockets.

Invitations to tender will be sent on the highest scoring companies following evaluation of information submitted against questions below.

a) Provide full company name, registered office address, primary contact details and full name of all directors. (Yes/No)

b) Provide overall company structure, including names and qualifications of key employees (Pass/Fail – must contain hnd / degree level qualifications for any elements of design if no design sub-contractor nominated)

c) Demonstrate how you will satisfy Local working regulations, specifically working Visas. (Pass/Fail – must state no visas required, contain Visa details or clear demonstration of ability to obtain working visas in time for contract award for non-kenyan nationals)

d) Provide details of any sub-contractors (including contact details) regularly used for specialist work such as mechanical, electrical or design work. (Yes/No, answer supplements pass/fail above – statement of no sub-contractors to be used will be a yes)

e) Provide outline financial details of the previous trading year (Pass/Fail – must show annual turnover of at least the contract value and not show a loss for past trading year)

f) Submit current company insurance certificates (Yes/No – Companies should have a level of insurance if trading, even if it is increased for each project)

g) Provide examples of similar previous projects, Specifically electrical design and installation of large FG Wilson generators, including description of overall project and your areas of works, point of contact name and telephone number of clients. (Scored)

h) Demonstrate your understanding of our requirement as the MOD to work to UK regulations on our estate, and give examples of technical and safety regulations you would expect to be working with. (Scored)

i) Provide an example risk assessment for the installation of smoke detectors in the apex of a roof space (height approx. 3.5m). (Scored)

To access the ITT document use access code: GXTHSDVE7B

Additional information: The contracting authority considers that this contract may be suitable for economic operators that are small or medium enterprises (SMEs). However, any selection of tenderers will be based solely on the criteria set out for the procurement, and the contract will be awarded on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender.# That is an automatically generated statement, this work will be awarded based on lowest technically compliant bid, NOT MEAT. #

This work is solely base in Nanyuki, KENYA, and not Glasgow. There is currently no NUTS code for this location on the system.

The Authority will score the Potential Provider’s response to each question based on its assessment of the evidence provided by the Potential Provider as detailed below:

Award Criteria and Evaluation Methodology

Except where indicated below, responses will be allocated a PASS / FAIL mark, YES / NO mark or a Score ranging from 0 to 4 in accordance with the following categories:

a. Pass / Fail Question. If a “FAIL” is noted for any questions assessed on a “PASS / FAIL” basis, your inclusion on the Tender List may be precluded, subject to verification by the evaluation team.

b. Yes / No Question. If a “NO” is noted for any questions assessed on a YES / NO basis, your inclusion on the Tender List should not be precluded, however this is subject to verification by the evaluation team.

c. 0 - Non-Compliant. No response, unacceptable or insufficient information provided upon which to make a reasonable assessment. Response fails to provide confidence and demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding of the requirement.

d. 1 - Less than Satisfactory. Response is limited; it lacks detail, credibility and/or explanation, and demonstrates only a basic understanding of the requirement. Partial responses provided, not linked to the key attributes of the questions - anecdotal in parts. The response provides limited evidence of processes, procedures, roles/responsibilities and professional competency. The answer contains ambiguities or deficiencies that cannot be tolerated.

e. 2 - Adequate Response. Response demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of the requirement. The response outlines clear roles and responsibilities, with adequate level of professional competency. Response includes some key processes and procedures, linked to key attributes of the questions and demonstrates a reasonably acceptable approach that covers most areas, however, lacks depth and supporting evidence.

f. 3 - Good Response. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good understanding of the requirement. The response provides details of team resources in terms of qualifications / experience aligned to roles and responsibilities, demonstrating a good spread of professional competencies and addresses the arrangements through the Stakeholder group. Demonstrable approach that is clear and consistent. Processes and procedures are reasonably well explained and logical. Response is clear, verifiable and covers all key attributes of the question.

g. 4 - Excellent / Ideal Response. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates a strong understanding of the requirement. Approach is detailed and includes robust and effective measures, with processes and procedures being clearly explained and perfectly logical. It provides specific details of team resource that clearly demonstrates a full spread of professional competencies and works experience throughout the Stakeholder group. Clear and fully verifiable evidence provided that covers all attributes, providing high degree of confidence in ability to deliver. The response identifies specific commendations/awards achieved in relation to the question being answered, that can be verified by the evaluation team. The response clearly demonstrates the ability to benefit from lessons learnt throughout the life cycle of the project.