Technical assessment consulting for electron accelerators for isotope production

Email: [email protected]

(Other contact details such as name, phone, department, or physical address are not provided in the document.)

• Submit the quotation before the RFQ closing date and time (16 January 2026 12:00).
• Provide all required returnable documents listed in Section 7:

• Tax Clearance Certificate (SARS tax pin)
• Declaration of Interest (SBD 4)
• B‑BBEE Certificate or applicable affidavit (if classified as EME)
• Letter of Good Standing (COID) where applicable
• Any other documents specifically requested in the RFQ

• Quotations must be signed and include the price breakdown required for the 80‑point price evaluation.
• Failure to submit any of the above documents may lead to disqualification.
• All submissions must be addressed to the contact email provided and must not be sent to any other NECSA employee.

Phase 1 – Functionality/Technical Evaluation (100 points total):

• Technical feasibility, performance, quality and risk criteria (combined score out of 100).
• Minimum score to progress: 70 points.
• Only bidders meeting the threshold and scoring at least as high as the highest‑scoring bidder on functionality move to Phase 2.

Phase 2 – Price and Preferential Procurement (80/20 system):

• Price evaluation: up to 80 points.
• B‑BBEE status contributes up to 20 points (e.g., Level 1 = 20 pts, Level 2 = 18 pts, … Level 8 = 2 pts; non‑compliant = 0).
• Total possible points: 100.
• Bidders must submit proof of B‑BBEE status to claim preference points; otherwise those points are forfeited.

Disqualification triggers:

• Inadequate technical response (cannot support an acceptable solution).
• Missing required documentation.
• Failure to substantiate any claimed specific goals when requested.

Scope of work:

1. Technical Feasibility

• Review internal report on shortlisted technologies for Mo‑99 production.
• Compare electron accelerators vs cyclotron accelerators for Mo‑99, including feasibility of Ac‑225 and Cu‑67 production.
• Assess LINAC vs Rhodotron accelerators: optimal energy, energy variability, installation/operability, number of beam lines, shielding requirements, utilities, operational challenges, and maintenance.

2. Financial Viability

• Identify suitable electron‑accelerator technologies to meet local demand for Mo‑99, Ac‑225, Cu‑67.
• Identify suppliers and provide CAPEX, OPEX, cost‑of‑sales and utility cost breakdowns.

3. Deliverables

• Detailed report covering problem statement, most feasible production route, technical feasibility for all isotopes, financial viability, and investment‑committee recommendations.
• Include all references used.

4. Minimum Qualification Requirements

• Provide at least three contactable references for similar accelerator projects.
• Demonstrate relevant track record.
• Submit a company profile.

Required compliance documents:

• Tax Clearance Certificate (SARS tax pin).
• Declaration of Interest (SBD 4).
• B‑BBEE Certificate or applicable affidavit (if classified as EME).
• Letter of Good Standing (COID) where applicable.
• Any other documents specifically requested in the RFQ.

B‑bbee:

• Minimum level required: 0 (no minimum), but points are awarded according to the 80/20 system.

Other compliance:

• Adherence to NECSA’s General Conditions of Purchase, PPPFA 2000, Preferential Procurement Regulations 2022, and General Conditions of Contract.