Three-year nutrition support programme for 79 eastern cape early childhood development centres

Annexure B sets out the menu and pricing schedule for the Early Childhood Development nutrition support programme.

• It defines the meal cycle, the food items, the quantity of each item per child, and the pricing structure for a three-year contract.
• The schedule covers breakfast, lunch and a snack for each learner.
• Bidders must price each food item and each annual period on this schedule as part of their bid.

Menu and food specification for the ECD nutrition support programme

Meal structure — each learner receives three meals per day:

• Breakfast
• Lunch
• Snack (Rooibos tea with UHT milk)

Menu cycle

• Menu 1: Breakfast — maize meal porridge with UHT milk; Lunch — pilchard stew with rice and cabbage.
• Menu 2: Breakfast — oats porridge with UHT milk; Lunch — pap with UHT milk or amasi (pasteurised milk) and butternut, plus sugar bean or lentil stew with samp and carrots.
• Menu 3: Breakfast — maize porridge with UHT milk; Lunch — soya mince with rice and butternut.
• Menu 4: Processed chicken livers (canned or in pouches) with pap and orange fleshed sweet potato.

Ingredients and quantity per child

• Fortified/enriched maize porridge: 20 g
• Fortified maize meal: 25 g
• Maize meal: 25 g
• Samp: 25 g
• Sorghum: 20 g
• Oats: 20 g
• Rice: 25 g
• Soya mince: 20 g
• Soya mince (optional): 15 g
• Sugar beans or lentils: 20 g
• Sugar: 2 g
• Iodated salt: 0.5 g
• Mild curry spice: 0.5 g
• Chicken gravy powder: 0.5 g
• Vegetable gravy powder: 0.5 g
• Cooking oil: 2 ml
• Onion: 5 g
• Cabbage: 40 g
• Carrots: 40 g
• Butternut: 40 g
• Orange fleshed sweet potato: 40 g
• Pilchards in tomato or sardines: 30 g
• Processed chicken livers, pilchards or sardines: 35 g
• UHT milk: 50 ml and 25 ml (separate line items)
• UHT milk or amasi: 100 ml
• Apple or orange: half a medium fruit
• Rooibos tea bag: 125 ml using one bag per three learners

Storage and dietary notes

• Cabbage and carrots must be stored under refrigeration.
• The soya option serves learners who are lactose intolerant.
• Sugar is used only in the fortified maize porridge served at breakfast.

Volumes

• The pricing schedule records the number of learners and the number of centres to be serviced.

Pricing schedule (Annexure B)

• Unit price excluding VAT must be quoted for each food item.
• Unit price including VAT must be quoted for each food item.
• A total menu price is required per menu.
• Prices must be quoted for Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3, with a total price per year and an overall total contract price.

Cost inclusion

• The unit price must cover all input costs, including warehousing, transport, refrigeration and insurance.
• No costs may be added outside the quoted unit price.

Annexure A is the beneficiary register for the Early Childhood Development nutrition support programme. It is a spreadsheet listing the ECD centres to be served, all recorded at Bronze registration level and as conditionally registered. Each row captures the centre's name, National ECD Identifier (EMIS) number, registration status and level, education district, municipality, town or township, suburb, ward, GPS coordinates, nearest landmark, street and postal address, contact person and contact numbers, programme type and category (centre-based or non-centre-based), partial care registered capacity, staff numbers, year of opening, operating hours and days per week, holiday operation, language medium, NPO and CIPC registration details, legal entity type, fire extinguisher and gas cage availability, and the centre's ECD programme registration details.

Beneficiary register (Annexure A)

• Annexure A is the register of Early Childhood Development centres that the appointed service provider or consortium must serve under the nutrition support programme; it defines where the service is delivered.
• Every centre listed sits at Bronze registration level and is recorded as conditionally registered under the partial care system.
• Centres are located in the Eastern Cape and are grouped by education district (Nelson Mandela, OR Tambo Inland and Coastal, Buffalo City, Amathole East and West, Joe Gqabi, Chris Hani East and West, Alfred Nzo East and West), municipality, town or township, suburb and ward.
• Identifying data per centre: ECD name, National ECD Identifier (EMIS) number, registration status and level, date of approval, registration expiry date, partial care registered capacity, staff headcount, year of opening, opening and closing times, days open per week, and whether the centre operates during school holidays.
• Programme type is split between centre-based (ECD centre or partial care facility) and non-centre-based (play group, mobile ECD programme, day mother or child minder, toy library).
• Contact and location data per centre: principal or contact person's first and last name, e-mail address, mobile, alternative and landline numbers, street and postal address, postal code, GPS latitude and longitude, and the nearest landmark (police station, clinic, primary school, church or tuckshop).
• Governance and premises data per centre: NPO registration status and number, CIPC registration number, legal entity type, language medium and additional languages, whether a fire extinguisher is present, whether a gas cylinder cage is present, and archived status.
• A separate block of fields records each centre's ECD programme registration (PREG): registration number, status, level, issue and expiry dates, and whether a certificate is held.

Functionality evaluation of the bidder's workplan / project plan (Annexure C) — a maximum of 40 points across three criteria.

Clearly defined project deliverables — 0 to 20 points

• 0 points: no information on processes or intended outcomes.
• 5 points: the plan covers only 1 or 2 deliverables, with insufficient clarity and detail.
• 10 points: limited information covering 3 of the 5 deliverables, with limited detail and unclear points.
• 15 points: 4 of the 5 deliverables covered with adequate detail, but one deliverable is weak or lacks sufficient detail.
• 20 points: all 5 deliverables clearly defined, intended outcomes comprehensive, beneficiary numbers appropriate, and the implementation approach detailed and feasible.

Clearly defined project milestones — 0 to 15 points

• 0 points: milestones not provided or not aligned to project requirements.
• 2 points: milestones partially provided and unclear, major gaps against the 5 deliverables, feasibility questionable.
• 5 points: milestones cover most phases linked to the 5 deliverables with minor gaps; sequencing logical and generally clear, but interdependencies thinly described; feasibility appears reasonable.
• 10 points: milestones aligned to all 5 deliverables and the major project phases; sequencing logical and clear, with limited detail on interdependencies; feasibility appears reasonable.
• 15 points: milestones comprehensive and fully aligned to all 5 deliverables and project phases; sequencing and interdependencies clearly defined; milestones detailed, realistic and clearly feasible.

Clearly defined project timelines — 0 to 5 points

• 0 points: no timelines provided.
• 1 point: limited timeline information, many milestones omitted, critical dependencies unspecified, and the proposed timelines do not appear feasible.
• 2 points: timelines for most of the 5 deliverables, but critical dependencies unspecified and feasibility questionable.
• 4 points: timelines for all 5 deliverables with critical dependencies specified, although feasibility may present challenges.
• 5 points: detailed timelines for all 5 deliverables, dependencies clearly specified, sequencing logical, and timelines realistic and feasible.

Workplan / project plan content assessed under this annexure

• Deliverables: the plan must set out 5 distinct deliverables with clearly defined intended outcomes and appropriate beneficiary numbers.
• Milestones: milestones must align to all 5 deliverables and to the major project phases, with logical sequencing and defined interdependencies.
• Timelines: detailed timelines for all 5 deliverables, with critical dependencies specified, logical sequencing and realistic, feasible dates.
• Implementation approach: must be detailed and feasible.

Implementation approach assessed in the workplan rubric

• The approach must be detailed and feasible to reach the top deliverable score.
• Score rises with deliverable coverage: 1 or 2 deliverables covered scores 5 points; 3 covered with limited detail scores 10; 4 covered with adequate detail scores 15; all 5 covered with comprehensive intended outcomes, appropriate beneficiary numbers and a detailed, feasible approach scores 20.
• Milestone feasibility and logical sequencing, and realistic timelines with critical dependencies specified, are separately scored.

Workplan / project plan functionality rubric (Annexure C) — 40 points in total.

Project deliverables — 0 to 20 points

• No outcomes or process information: 0 points.
• Only 1 or 2 deliverables covered, unclear and thin: 5 points.
• 3 of the 5 deliverables covered with limited detail and unclear points: 10 points.
• 4 of the 5 deliverables covered with adequate detail, one deliverable weak: 15 points.
• All 5 deliverables clearly defined, outcomes comprehensive, beneficiary numbers appropriate, implementation approach detailed and feasible: 20 points.

Project milestones — 0 to 15 points

• Milestones absent or unaligned to requirements: 0 points.
• Milestones partial and unclear, major gaps against the 5 deliverables, feasibility doubtful: 2 points.
• Most phases linked to the 5 deliverables with minor gaps, sequencing generally clear but interdependencies under-described, feasibility reasonable: 5 points.
• Milestones aligned to all 5 deliverables and major phases, sequencing logical and clear, interdependency detail limited, feasibility reasonable: 10 points.
• Milestones comprehensive and fully aligned to the 5 deliverables and project phases, sequencing and interdependencies clearly defined, milestones detailed, realistic and clearly feasible: 15 points.

Project timelines — 0 to 5 points

• No timelines: 0 points.
• Sparse timelines, many milestones missing, critical dependencies unspecified, timelines appear infeasible: 1 point.
• Timelines for most of the 5 deliverables, critical dependencies unspecified, feasibility questionable: 2 points.
• Timelines for all 5 deliverables, critical dependencies specified, but feasibility may be challenging: 4 points.
• Detailed timelines for all 5 deliverables, dependencies clearly specified, sequencing logical, timelines realistic and feasible: 5 points.

Returnable documents: all mandatory forms must be completed, signed, and submitted with the bid. No further details are provided in the available text.

The Department of Basic Education requires the appointment of a service provider or consortium to deliver services under the Early Childhood Development Nutrition Support Programme for a period of three years.