AF-Nanyuki and Nairobi: 1502 - Emergency Water Supply Works

This contract is for a series of works in Nairobi and Nanyuki to facilitate appropriate Emergency Water supply at Key locations. The work includes demolition of existing infrastructure, Installation of water supply tanks and pump units and replacement of inadequate water supply pipework.

Estimated value excluding VAT: KSH 12,000,000 - KSH 18,000,000

Duration in months: 2 (from the award of the contract)

Type of procedure: Restricted

Envisaged minimum number: 3 and maximum number: 4

Objective Criteria for choosing the limited number of candidates:

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

Questions:

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)

c) Demonstrate how you will satisfy Local working regulations, specifically working Visas. (Pass/Fail)

d) Provide details of any sub-contractors (including contact details) regularly used for specialist work such as mechanical, electrical or design work. (Yes/No)

e) Provide outline financial details of the previous trading year (Pass/Fail)

f) Submit current company insurance certificates (Yes/No)

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 demolition of a timber framed CGI clad building 12m long by 8m wide by 5m high on an occupied camp with adjacent roads each side of the building. (Scored)

J). Provide a method statement for deconstruction / demolition of the roof structure of the above detailed building. (Scored)

Returns to be delivered in hard copy to the WCO on the address above, or left in the tender box at GE Dept office, Kifaru Camp, Kahawa Barracks, Nairobi. If sending returns via the BFPO address above, please e-mail the works contracts officer with a tracking number to let us know your response is en route.

to access ITT document please use access code: 79MNM4J6KG

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.