Housing market studies implementation round 3: policy development, feasibility studies and municipal capacity support (western cape)

{"closingDate":"21 September 2026","closingTime":"11h00"}

{"name":null,"email":"[email protected]","phone":null,"department":"OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS","address":"ed bid closure date & time, late bid documentation will not be"}

The following documents must be returned with the bid: WCBD 1 (Invitation to Bid), WCBD 3.1 (Pricing Schedule – Firm Prices), WCBD 3.2 (Price Adjustments), WCBD 4 (Declaration of Interests, Bidders Past SCM Practices and Independent Bid Determination), WCBD 6.1 (Preference Points Claim Form), and the General Conditions of Contract. Bidders must complete all documents and forms provided, supply all requested information, adhere to the numbering system, submit the bid with a full table of contents, confirm the copy is a true and complete reproduction, and complete the compliance response column with 'Yes' or 'No'.

Bids will be evaluated on the 80/20 preference point system, where 80 points is for price and 20 points for B-BBEE status level of contributor as per the Preferential Procurement Regulations. The appointment is for a specialist professional service provider.

Municipal capacity support for one municipality in the western cape, over an 18-MONTH period to the

Department of environmental affairs and development planning, cape town, western cape

Bid response documents may be deposited in the bid box situated at dea&dp main entrance

Entrance department of environmental affairs and development planning

1 & 3 dorp street, utilitus building

Cape town

Bidding procedure enquiries may be directed to technical enquiries may be directed to:

CONTACT Donna Swartz CONTACT PERSON Allan Rhodes

Person

Note: all enquiries must be made via email and will be responded to via email.

[email protected] and

E-MAIL ADDRESS [email protected] E-MAIL ADDRESS

[email protected]

Supplier information

Name of bidder

Postal address

Street address

Telephone code number

Number

Cell phone

Number

E-mail address

VAT

Registration

Number

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Supplier tcs

Maaa

COMPLIANCE WCSEB Pin CSD

And

STATUS No. No:

B-bbee status b-bbee status [tick applicable box]

[Tick applicable box]

Level level sworn

VERIFICATION AFFIDAVIT Yes No

Yes NoCERTIFICATE

If yes, was the

1.1 Service providers with relevant expertise and experience are herewith invited to submit bids

for the appointment of a specialist professional service provider to support the

implementation of the Western Cape Inclusionary Housing Policy Framework (WCIHPF) and

the Housing Market Studies undertaken in Round 1 and Round 2, through the Housing Market

Studies Implementation Round 3 project.

1.2 The appointment is for an 18-month period spanning the 2026/27 and 2027/28 financial years

(October 2026 to March 2028) and focuses on translating existing housing market evidence

into practical, implementable municipal policy instruments, supported by financial feasibility

testing and targeted municipal capacity support.

2.1 Housing Market Studies Round 3 (HMS Round 3) shifts the programme's focus from evidence

generation to implementation. The project operationalises the findings of the previous two

rounds by developing standardised policy tools, testing their viability in selected

municipalities, and building municipal institutional capacity to adopt and apply these tools.

2.2 The four tasks of the project are:

• Task 1: The development of a standard draft Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy for

municipalities, providing municipalities with a structured, adaptable policy tool aligned to

the WCIHPF, that they can adapt to their circumstances and adopt as an Inclusionary

Housing Policy.

• Task 2: Undertaking light-touch Inclusionary Housing feasibility studies for three

municipalities, to determine the financial and market viability of inclusionary housing.

• Task 3: Provision of targeted capacity assistance to one municipality to develop and

prepare its own draft Inclusionary Housing Policy (excluding the need for council approval,

or any public participation, which the municipality will need to undertake itself).

• Task 4: Development of a standard draft Pro Forma Affordable Housing Enablement Policy

for municipalities, outlining a practical menu of mechanisms to support the delivery of

affordable housing beyond inclusionary approaches that municipalities may choose to

adopt.

3. Background & context

3.1 Programme History

3.1.1 The Western Cape Inclusionary Housing Policy Framework (WCIHPF), adopted by Provincial

Cabinet in 2022, identifies a sound understanding of local housing market dynamics as a

prerequisite for the design of effective, evidence-based inclusionary housing policies.

3.1.2 In response, the Western Cape Government initiated Housing Market Studies Round 1

(2021/22), covering four intermediate cities: Stellenbosch, George, Mossel Bay, and

Drakenstein. The findings informed municipal planning instruments, including IDPs, SDFs,

Human Settlement Plans, and the preparation of an inclusionary zoning policy in

Stellenbosch.

3.1.3 Building on this, HMS Round 2 (2023/24 to 2025/26) expanded the evidence base by:

• Extending studies to seven additional urban areas in the following municipalities: Bitou

(Plettenberg Bay), Knysna (town of Knysna), Oudtshoorn (town of Oudtshoorn),

Overstrand (Greater Hermanus), Saldanha Bay (several towns), Swartland (several

towns), and Breede Valley (Worcester);

• Updating the original four studies using refined methodologies and current data; and
• Producing a consolidated analytical framework, individual municipal studies, and

synthesis outputs.

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

3.1.4 Together, Rounds I and 2 have established a credible, province-wide evidence base on

housing market performance and affordability dynamics. A key gap remains: many

municipalities lack the practical tools, tested approaches, and institutional capacity to

translate this evidence into implementable inclusionary housing policies and broader

affordable housing delivery mechanisms.

3.2 Strategic Alignment

3.2.1 The project directly responds to the following strategic frameworks:

• Western Cape Provincial Strategic Plan 2025-2030: operationalises transversal outcomes

on access to shelter, household stability, and spatial transformation, bridging the gap

between strategic intent and on-the-ground delivery.

• Growth4Jobs Strategy: responds to Priority Focus Area 1 (Driving Growth Opportunities

through Investment) by reducing policy uncertainty, improving development feasibility,

and supporting capital formation in the construction and property sectors.

• Western Cape Inclusionary Housing Policy Framework (WCIHPF): directly supports the

implementation phase of the WCIHPF by translating its objectives into practical

municipal policy instruments.

4.1 The service provider will be required to undertake four tasks, combining policy development,

applied feasibility analysis, and institutional capacity support. All work must build directly on

the existing Housing Market Studies and be delivered in a manner that supports municipal

implementation, not only policy formulation.

4.2 Task 1: Development of a Standard Draft Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy

The service provider must develop a standard draft pro forma Inclusionary Housing Policy (IHP)

that Western Cape municipalities can adapt to their local contexts where inclusionary housing is

feasible. The pro forma must function as a practical, structured, and legally defensible model that

a municipality can take through a political adoption process with minimal external assistance. It

must be capable of creating certainty for municipal officials adjudicating applications, Municipal

Planning Tribunals, and private developers responding to the policy.

The service provider's approach must be informed by a critical review of existing South African IH

policy experience, including but not limited to the Stellenbosch Municipality Inclusionary Zoning

Policy (2023), the City of Johannesburg Inclusionary Housing Incentives, Regulations and

Mechanisms (2019), and relevant academic and practitioner literature including Weakley (2025)

and Turok, Rubin and Scheba (2024). Lessons drawn must be explicitly applied to the Western

Cape context and must not be uncritically transposed from metropolitan conditions.

The pro forma policy deliverable must, at minimum, address the following:

• Task 1.1: Enabling preconditions and transitional arrangements: Identify and explain the

spatial planning, bylaw, and zoning scheme preconditions that must be in place before a

municipality can implement a formal IH policy. This must include guidance on how a

municipality may impose IH contributions as conditions of planning approval during a

transitional phase prior to formal policy adoption, as occurred in Stellenbosch, and the

governance and probity requirements that apply in such circumstances.

• Task 1.2: Policy scope and trigger conditions: Define the development types, sizes, and

circumstances that trigger an IH obligation, including the relationship between existing

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

and additional land use rights. Address both greenfield and densification scenarios.

Specify threshold options and the rationale for each, with contextual criteria to guide

municipal selection.

• Task 1.3: Set-aside requirements and feasibility calibration: Present a range of set-aside

options (expressed as a percentage of total units, floor area, or additional rights value)

with accompanying guidance on how the appropriate set-aside level must be

determined for each municipality through an economic and financial feasibility study and

a standardised contribution calculator. The pro forma must include a model brief for a

feasibility study and guidance on developing or adapting an IH contribution calculator,

drawing on the CoJ calculator experience and City of Cape Town pilot work referenced

in the WCIHPF.

• Task 1.4: Policy options framework: Present clearly defined options across each of the

following policy dimensions, with contextual selection criteria for each option covering

local housing market conditions, development feasibility, institutional capacity, and stage

of municipal IH policy readiness:

• Set-aside approaches, including differentiated requirements for standard trigger areas

versus spatially targeted overlay zones or catalytic areas.

• Income targeting, including segmentation of the affordable housing income range

and proportional allocation across income sub-bands.

• Tenure options, including for-sale, rental, social housing, and hybrid models.
• On-site, off-site, and in-lieu contribution mechanisms, including the conditions under

which each is appropriate and governance requirements for in-lieu funds.

• Affordability preservation measures, including tenure restrictions, title deed conditions,

HOA/Body Corporate provisions, and monitoring requirements.

• Developer incentive options, including density bonuses, parking relaxations,

development contribution discounts, overlay zone rights, and expedited permitting.

• Task 1.5: Spatial targeting and land use management integration: Provide guidance on

designating IH trigger areas and priority receiving areas in MSDFs, creating IH overlay zones

in zoning schemes and Municipal Planning By-Laws, and aligning IH obligations with

existing spatial designations such as restructuring zones, densification encouragement

areas, and PHSHDA declarations.

• Task 1.6: Administrative process and institutional requirements: Set out the end-to-end

administrative process for applying the IH policy from pre-application engagement

through to the planning permission, the IH agreement (a legal agreement between a

municipality and a private developer that binds the developer to deliver affordable

housing units as a condition of receiving development approval or additional

development rights), affordability preservation monitoring, and enforcement. Include

guidance on the capacity, systems, and delegations a municipality needs to implement

the policy. Draw on the Johannesburg experience regarding the need for standardised

conditions and a simpler framework to reduce administrative burden and tribunal

uncertainty.

• Task 1.7: Certainty, consistency, and enforceability: The pro forma must include model IH

policy clauses, a model IH agreement template, and model planning permission

conditions that municipalities can adapt directly. It must propose practical enforcement

measures that are proportionate to non-metro institutional capacity and identify the

consequences of non-compliance that must be embedded in the IH agreement and

conditions of approval.

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

• Task 1.8: Monitoring and evaluation framework: Include a minimum monitoring and

evaluation framework aligned with the output and outcome indicators set out in the

WCIHPF, adapted to non-metro capacity constraints.

The Task 1 deliverable is a single structured document constituting the pro forma IHP, supported

by concise technical notes within the pro forma documenting the evidence base, comparative

analysis, and rationale for the policy options presented. The pro forma IHP and its technical notes

must explicitly address the lessons drawn from Stellenbosch, Johannesburg, and the academic

literature, and explain how these have been applied or adapted for the Western Cape context.

4.3 Task 2: Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Studies for Three Municipalities

The service provider must undertake cost-effective, applied inclusionary housing feasibility

assessments for three municipalities for which Housing Market Studies have already been

completed under the Round 1 and 2 of the Housing Market Studies project. The municipalities to

be assessed are George, Drakenstein, and Mossel Bay.

The feasibility work must be practical and proportionate, not exhaustive, voluminous or

theoretical. Its primary purpose is to determine whether, where, and under what conditions

inclusionary housing is financially viable in each municipality, and to provide sufficiently robust

evidence to support the development of an inclusionary housing policy for each, if feasible, in the

appropriate locations and market bands. The feasibility work must be consistent with the Western

Cape Inclusionary Housing Policy Framework, in which the inclusionary housing obligation is offset

by the value of additional development rights and associated incentives. The service provider

may motivate for the testing of complementary approaches where local conditions warrant this.

The service provider must propose and motivate their methodology in the bid and be approved

in the inception report. The following components must, at minimum, be addressed:

• Task 2.1: Policy intent confirmation: Before modelling commences, the service provider must

facilitate, with DEA&DP and each municipality, the confirmation of the primary objective(s) of

a prospective inclusionary housing policy, including the depth of affordability to be targeted

(income reach within the gap market), the relative priority of unit numbers versus depth of

affordability, and the preferred balance between on-site contributions and fees in lieu. These

confirmed objectives must be recorded and must anchor the scenario design in the feasibility

modelling, since different objectives imply materially different modelling assumptions. If

necessary, feedback from the consultant team to the municipality, if variables or primary

objectives are unworkable or require adjustment.

• Task 2.2: Spatial market assessment: Using existing Housing Market Study datasets and any

supplementary spatial and property market data, identify areas within each municipality's

urban area where inclusionary housing is likely to be viable, marginal, or not viable, with

reference to property values, development activity, and the strength of the residential land

market. This assessment must be spatially expressed and must inform both the feasibility

modelling and the recommended IH application zones.

• Task 2.3: Existing development rights audit: For each municipality, the service provider must

assess the extent, distribution, and uptake of existing development rights within the candidate

IH application zones and/or future urban growth areas, including the degree to which unused

bulk and density already exist under the zoning scheme in these areas. The audit must establish

a clear, agreed definition of "additional development rights" for the purposes of the study,

specifying the baseline against which additionality is measured (primary rights, consent use

rights, or both). This component is essential because an oversupply of existing or unused rights

diminishes the market value of additional rights and can render a density-based incentive

package ineffective. Prior to commencing the existing development rights audit, the service

provider must identify and document all datasets and information required from each

municipality, distinguishing between data available from existing Housing Market Study

outputs and new data to be sourced from the municipality. This may include the current zoning

scheme and any amendments, approved and pending development applications, records

of consent use approvals, and any municipal GIS layers relevant to development rights and

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

land use. The service provider must submit this data requirements list to DEA&DP and the

relevant municipality, with sufficient lead time for the municipality to compile and provide the

required information before the audit commences. The depth of this analysis depends on what

data municipalities can actually provide.

• Task 2.4: Financial and economic feasibility analysis: Assess the financial viability of

inclusionary housing in each municipality through development feasibility modelling. The

analysis must be grounded in at least three (3) representative residential development

typologies that reflect what is actually being developed, or proposed for development, in

each municipality, informed by recent development applications and local market evidence.

Both ownership and rental development scenarios must be assessed as distinct cases, given

their different cost structures, revenue profiles, and viability thresholds. The analysis must apply

a residual land value methodology, using a comparative residual land value calculation to

determine the value of a property under existing rights versus the value under existing plus

additional rights. This approach must be capable of isolating the land value created by

additional development rights, since this is the theoretical basis on which the IH obligation is

justified. The residual land value calculation, in which profitability is held constant and land

value is the output, must serve as the primary basis for the sensitivity analysis; the developer

hurdle rate functions as the viability floor within the residual land value model and must not be

applied as an alternative, parallel sensitivity method.

All incentives included in the feasibility model must be accurately and explicitly costed. The

modelled value of each incentive, including but not limited to density bonuses, parking

relaxations, height relaxations, development contribution reductions or deferrals, and

streamlined approvals processes, must be derived from verifiable local market data and must

be expressed as a quantified impact on residual land value. Assumed or indicative incentive

values are not acceptable. Where the cost or value of an incentive cannot be reliably

quantified from available data, this must be stated, the limitation must be carried through the

sensitivity analysis, and the service provider must propose how the gap can be addressed. The

accuracy of incentive costing is material to the validity of the feasibility findings and to the

municipality's ability to implement a financially sustainable policy.

Other considerations include:

• The service provider must motivate the databases used to establish base land and property

values in each municipality, including whether the municipal valuation roll, recent

comparable sales evidence, or a median of the two is used, having regard to the currency

and reliability of each source in the local market.

• The typology cost structures must explicitly include engineering infrastructure and

development contribution costs applicable to each typology, and the analysis must record

the extent to which infrastructure is municipally funded, developer-funded, or co-financed,

since high infrastructure cost burdens directly reduce the capacity of a development to

absorb an inclusionary housing obligation.

• Where a development includes multiple typologies or product types, the service provider must

assess cross-typology subsidisation opportunities, specifically whether surplus residual land

value generated by higher-margin typologies within the same development can be used to

offset the cost of the inclusionary housing obligation, and under what conditions this is

financially viable. The service provider must also assess phased construction as a mechanism

for enhancing affordability, including the financial implications of phasing for development

viability and the contractual and monitoring requirements that phasing would impose on the

municipality.

• The analysis must, at minimum, answer the following questions:

o What is the residual land value of representative development typologies under

existing rights, and how does this change when additional development rights and

associated incentives are applied? What land value increase is attributable to the

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

incentives offered, and is this sufficient to absorb an inclusionary housing obligation

while maintaining development viability?

o What is the minimum acceptable rate of return, or hurdle rate, that developers in each

municipality's market require in order to proceed with development? Separately, at

what point does the residual land value generated by a development, after

accounting for the hurdle rate, support a feasible inclusionary housing contribution?

These are distinct questions and must be answered as such.

o What is the economic value of additional development rights in the relevant areas of

each municipality, measured against the agreed additionality baseline established in

the existing development rights audit, and what land value increase is attributable to

the incentives offered?

o What quantum of additional rights generates sufficient residual land value to support

a feasible inclusionary housing contribution without reducing the residual land value

below the level needed to attract development?

o What set-aside percentage, expressed in relation to additional development rights,

total units, or floor area, is financially viable across the income sub-bands of the

affordable housing market in each municipality, and at what point does the IH

obligation reduce residual land value to a level that undermines development

viability?

o What development size threshold, expressed as a number of units or floor area, should

trigger the inclusionary housing obligation in each municipality, having regard to the

typology and development application analysis and the administrative cost of

applying the obligation to small developments?

o What is the projected yield of each policy scenario, expressed as a likely range of

inclusionary units and/or fee revenue over a five-year period, based on development

activity over the preceding three to five years in the recommended IH application

zones? The analysis must indicate whether the projected pipeline justifies the

institutional cost of adopting and administering a policy and must comment on any

risk that the obligation could suppress the supply of market units.

o How does unit size affect both development cost and the affordability of the end

product to the target income group, and what are the implications for policy?

o What affordability risks arise over time, including cost escalation, levy increases, and

household income trajectories, and what are the implications for affordability

preservation provisions in the policy? Note: the feasibility model is not expected to

resolve long-term affordability; it must identify the risks and their policy design

implications.

o What is the cost-benefit of developer incentives, including but not limited to density

bonuses, parking relaxations, height relaxations, development contribution reductions,

and streamlined approvals processes, in terms of their impact on residual land value

and the range of viable set-aside requirements, and is the incentive package as a

whole sufficient to generate developer participation? Any recommended incentive

package must be accompanied by a clear assessment of its impact on long-term

municipal financial sustainability, including the revenue implications of development

contribution reductions or deferrals, rates base effects, and any other material fiscal

consequences. Incentives must not be recommended where their cumulative effect

would materially undermine the municipality's financial position, and where trade-offs

exist, these must be explicitly stated.

o On what basis should fees in lieu of on-site inclusionary housing contributions be

calculated? The calculation method must be derived from and consistent with the

residual land value analysis and market evidence generated by the feasibility study

and must reflect the difference between the open market value and the restricted

affordable value of the required inclusionary units.

o Do these findings differ across stronger and weaker property market areas within each

municipality, in ways that have implications for spatially differentiated policy?

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

o Which incentives are of greatest practical value to the development sector in each

municipality, and in what combination are they most effective in enabling an

inclusionary housing contribution? The analysis must consider a range of incentive

types including but not limited to overlay zones providing as-of-right additional

development rights, parking requirement reductions, height and bulk relaxations,

development contribution discounts or deferrals, and streamlined approvals

processes, and must rank or differentiate these by their relative impact on

development feasibility in the local market context. The answer to this question,

together with the hurdle rate and market absorption assumptions used in the model,

must be validated through structured engagement with engineering firms, developers

and/or financiers actively operating in each municipality's market; desktop evidence

alone is not sufficient. The engagement method and participant profile must be set

out in the report.

o What is the projected net fiscal impact of the recommended incentive package on

each municipality over the policy implementation period, expressed as a quantified

range of income foregone and offsetting revenue generated, including rates base

growth attributable to increased development activity?

o Does the municipality have sufficient bulk services and engineering infrastructure

capacity to absorb the additional development density that the recommended

incentive package is intended to unlock, and if not, what are the estimated upgrading

costs and who bears them? The analysis must assess whether infrastructure capacity

constraints materially limit the viability or scale of an inclusionary housing policy in any

recommended application zone.

o Where development contribution reductions or deferrals are recommended as

incentives, how will the resulting DC income shortfall be funded by the municipality,

having regard to the requirements of the legislation governing Development Charges?

The service provider must propose a funding argument that satisfies the DC legislative

framework and does not simply transfer the cost burden to other ratepayers or

development applicants.

(Note: The service provider must produce a simple, replicable feasibility model and inclusionary

housing contribution calculator, including a method for calculating fees in lieu anchored in the

residual land value analysis, that DEA&DP and the municipality can use independently after the

contract concludes, in accordance with the data governance provisions of this contract.)

• Task 2.4.1: Developer & Stakeholder Engagement and Validation: The service provider must

conduct structured engagement with developers, engineering firms and financiers and

developer representative organisations actively operating in each municipality's market. This

engagement must not be limited to incentive validation. It must be used to test and refine the

key assumptions underpinning the feasibility model, including development cost structures,

finance costs, hurdle rates, market absorption rates, and unit price expectations, and to

validate the findings and draft recommendations of the feasibility analysis before these are

finalised. Engagement must be conducted after preliminary modelling is complete, so that

developers are responding to evidence-based findings rather than abstract propositions. The

service provider must document the engagement method, the profile and number of

participants in each municipality, and the material ways in which developer input influenced

or amended the analysis or recommendations. It is recommended that one session be

undertaken per municipal area.

• Task 2.5: Institutional capacity and readiness assessment: Assess each municipality's

institutional capacity and readiness to implement an inclusionary housing policy. This is a

distinct component from the financial feasibility analysis. The assessment must, at minimum,

answer the following questions:

o Which planning implementation instrument, or combination of instruments, is best

suited to giving effect to an inclusionary housing policy in each municipality, having

regard to the municipality's existing spatial planning framework, the recommended IH

application zones, and the administrative capacity of the municipality? The

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

assessment must consider the relative merits of instruments including but not limited to

the Municipal Spatial Development Framework, a precinct plan or local spatial

development framework, the zoning scheme and municipal planning by-law, and an

overlay zone providing as-of-right additional development rights and must

recommend the most appropriate instrument with reasons.

o Are the municipality's planning instruments, including its MSDF, Municipal Planning By-

Law, and zoning scheme, in a state that would enable implementation of an IH policy,

and if not, what must change?

o Does the municipality have the human resource, systems, and administrative capacity

to implement and enforce an IH policy over the long term, including adjudication,

agreement negotiation, affordability preservation monitoring, and compliance?

o Who would hold, allocate, and manage the inclusionary units over the affordability

period? The assessment must identify the available institutional arrangements in each

municipality, including the presence and capacity of social housing institutions or other

operators, the willingness and capacity of developers to retain and manage rental

stock, and the municipality's own capacity to administer allocation. The viability of the

rental tenure scenario in the feasibility analysis is conditional on a credible answer to

this question.

o What preconditions must be met and what capacity must be developed before the

municipality can implement the policy?

• Task 2.6: Per-municipality feasibility assessment report: For each municipality, the service

provider must produce a concise Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Assessment that includes:

o A residual land value analysis showing the value under existing rights, the value

under additional rights, and the land value increment attributable to incentives, for

each representative typology tested.

o A summary of housing market conditions and the evidence base informing the

feasibility analysis, including the development typologies used, the tenure

scenarios tested, and the basis for their selection.

o A statement of the proposed policy objectives and the agreed definition of

additional development rights against which the analysis was conducted,

together with the findings of the existing development rights audit.

o A viability outcomes table setting out the results of the feasibility modelling across

development typologies, tenure scenarios, set-aside scenarios, income sub-bands,

and market value zones, with the hurdle rate and residual land value threshold

clearly identified for each scenario.

o A comparative assessment of the cost per affordable unit generated across

typologies and market value zones, expressed as a consistent metric that allows

municipalities to be compared, such as residual land value per square metre or

net present value per affordable unit produced.

o GIS shapefiles and maps identifying recommended IH application zones,

differentiated by market strength.

o Clear recommendations on feasible set-aside percentages, the development size

threshold triggering the obligation, tenure approaches, unit size parameters,

incentive requirements, income targeting, and the basis for calculating fees in lieu,

all derived from the residual land value analysis.

o An assessment of long-term affordability risks and the implications for affordability

preservation provisions in the policy.

o A concise municipal fiscal impact assessment of the recommended incentive

package, quantifying where possible the revenue foregone through development

contribution reductions or deferrals, the offsetting rates base growth attributable to

increased development activity, and a net assessment of whether the incentive

package is fiscally sustainable over the policy implementation period.

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

o Clear identification of areas, or conditions under which, inclusionary housing should

not be applied and the reasons for this.

o A concise narrative on municipal readiness and the preconditions and capacity

development required before the policy can be implemented.

o A concise identification of early implementation opportunities, being the

conditions, locations, and/or development typologies where an inclusionary

housing obligation is likely to be viable in the near term with minimal preconditions,

and which could be prioritised for initial policy application to generate early results

while longer-term capacity and instrument development proceeds.

Deliverables must include:

• One draft feasibility assessment per municipality will be submitted in digital format (PDF

and PowerPoint, including an Executive Summary) for engagement with the relevant

municipality and review by the Project Management Team (PMT) and Project Steering

Committee (PSC) before finalisation. One final feasibility assessment per municipality,

incorporating all comments and inputs from the PMT, PSC and the relevant municipality,

will follow. The final reports must be suitable for use by the municipality and the Western

Cape Government, and for sharing with the public.

• In addition to the per-municipality reports, the service provider must hand over a

replicable feasibility model and IH contribution calculator (including the fees-in-lieu

method) in fully working editable format, and GIS shapefiles for all spatial outputs, in

ArcGIS-compatible format. All data sources, vintages, assumptions and data gaps

underpinning the feasibility models must be documented, with any limitations affecting

the confidence of findings clearly flagged.

Note on methodology: DEA&DP is not prescribing a feasibility methodology beyond the

requirement that the residual land value calculation serves as the primary sensitivity basis and that

the approach must be capable of isolating the land value created by additional development

rights. The service provider must propose and justify their approach in the bid and inception report.

The specifications above define the minimum questions the feasibility work must answer and the

minimum outputs it must produce.

Note on municipality substitution: DEA&DP reserves the right to substitute any selected municipality

with another of comparable profile, provided such substitution is agreed in writing between the

parties.

4.4 Task 3: Targeted Inclusionary Housing Capacity Assistance for One Municipality

The service provider must provide hands-on, targeted support to one selected municipality,

selected from task 2, to enable it to develop, refine, and prepare a draft Inclusionary Housing

Policy that is both contextually appropriate and implementable, drawing on the work from Task 1

and 2. The municipality to be supported will be determined upon completion of the feasibility

work.

The emphasis of this component is on long-term institutional capacity building, not document

production alone. Before support commences, the service provider must confirm, with DEA&DP

and the municipality, the approach underpinning the draft policy (mandatory, incentive-based,

or hybrid), the primary policy objectives, and the depth of the gap market to be targeted. This

confirmation must be consistent with the policy intent confirmed under Task 2 for that municipality

and must be recorded in writing. Support cannot be meaningful if the municipality and the service

provider do not share a common understanding of what the policy is trying to achieve and on

whose cost or burden the obligation will fall. Support must include:

• Task 3.1: Assisting the municipality to interpret and apply the WCIHPF;
• Task 3.2: Adapting the Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy to its local market, spatial,

and institutional conditions;

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

• Task 3.3: Translating the outcomes of the feasibility study into its own IHP; and
• Task 3.4: Working across planning, human settlements, legal, and land use management

functions to build shared understanding of the policy levers, feasibility thresholds,

administrative requirements, and legal pathways to implementation of a proposed IHP.

• Task 3.5: Assisting the municipality to identify and engage the institutional arrangements

required to hold, allocate, and manage inclusionary units, including social housing

institutions or other operators where relevant, since the absence of a credible

management arrangement is one of the most common reasons draft IH policies cannot

be implemented.

Deliverables must include:

• Deliverable 3.1: A tailored draft municipal Inclusionary Housing Policy, informed by the

feasibility work, and reflecting the confirmed policy approach and objectives. The draft

policy must, at minimum, specify: the trigger threshold; the set-aside requirement and its

basis; the incentive package; the income targeting criteria; the tenure options and

conditions; the fees in lieu methodology and calculation basis; the affordability

preservation mechanism and time horizon; and the monitoring and compliance

framework;

• Deliverable 3.2: A simple, replicable IH contribution assessment tool, consistent with the

feasibility model produced under Task 2, that municipal officials can use to evaluate the

IH obligation and incentive package applicable to a specific development application

without specialist assistance;

• Deliverable 3.3: A short internal implementation guide, covering the administrative

workflow from development application receipt through IH condition negotiation,

agreement execution, unit transfer or fee payment, and ongoing compliance monitoring;

and

• Deliverable 3.4: At least two structured working sessions with the relevant municipal officials

and departments, focused on applying the policy and tools to realistic development

application scenarios, and at least one broader internal awareness session for senior

management (and councillors, if at the correct stage of development) that addresses the

policy rationale, the feasibility evidence base, and the political and institutional

preconditions for implementation. The service provider must confirm the format,

participants, and objectives of each session in writing with DEA&DP before it is held.

Note on municipal selection: DEA&DP reserves the right to determine the municipality to be

supported under this task, to be confirmed within four weeks of submission of the final Task 2

feasibility studies, with reference to municipal readiness, political support for the policy process,

and the findings of the institutional capacity and readiness assessments conducted under Task 2.

Where the selected municipality is assessed as insufficiently ready to develop a policy within the

contract period, the service provider must advise DEA&DP accordingly and propose a scope

focused on precondition development rather than policy drafting, drawing on Tasks 3.1 to 3.5,

and Deliverables 3.1 to 3.4.

4.5 Task 4: Development of a Pro Forma Municipal Affordable Housing Enablement Policy

The service provider must develop a standard draft Pro Forma Municipal Affordable Housing

Enablement Policy that could be adapted by municipalities to support expanding affordable

housing supply using a broader set of tools beyond Inclusionary Housing. The pro forma must be

capable of adaptation by any Western Cape municipality. The service provider must take

account of existing municipal affordable housing enablement and incentive policies already

adopted or in preparation in the Western Cape or South Africa, including the Garden Route

District Municipality Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing (2025), and must build on, reconcile

with, and improve upon these rather than duplicate them. The inception report must include a

short review of the existing policy landscape.

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

The pro forma policy must:

• Task 4.1: Present a clear and practical menu of affordable housing enablement

mechanisms available to municipalities, distinguishing between direct fiscal (financial)

instruments such as development charge rebates, rates phasing, fee waivers, and the

release of municipal land at discounted values or on long-term lease, and regulatory and

development rights-based instruments, including density bonuses, bulk and parking

relaxations, streamlined development approvals, and project packaging. While

analytically distinct, both categories must be recognised as having material financial

implications for development feasibility, either through direct cost reductions or by

enhancing development yield, reducing risk, and improving project viability.

• Task 4.2: Include guidance on large-scale and institutional affordable rental, owner-driven

small-scale rental, and replicable small and medium-scale affordable housing models

identified in the Housing Market Studies, and align the income bands and instrument

definitions used in the policy with national and SHRA legislated criteria, expressed so that

they update automatically as those criteria are revised;

• Task 4.3: Anchor every financial incentive in a test of municipal fiscal affordability, so that

no incentive is recommended without reference to the revenue foregone and the

municipality's capacity to absorb it. Where the service provider proposes a financial

affordability or scorecard model for this purpose, it must be consistent with, and improve

upon, the financial incentive model already developed in the Garden Route work, and

must be usable by municipal officials without specialist support;

• Task 4.4: Outline key preconditions for success and risks to manage, including the spatial

targeting of incentives to designated restructuring zones, priority human settlement and

housing development areas, and corridors identified in municipal SDFs, so that incentives

reinforce rather than work against the spatial development framework;

• Task 4.5: Demonstrate how planning controls, land use management, municipal land, and

capital investment levers can be used to support delivery; and

• Task 4.6: Specify the institutional arrangements required to operate the policy, including

the evaluation and approval pathway for incentive applications, the departments

responsible for each mechanism, and the delegations required, recognising that

affordable housing enablement cuts across planning, human settlements, finance,

engineering, and legal functions;

• Task 4.7: Include a monitoring and evaluation framework with defined performance

indicators, data sources, and reporting responsibilities, and a measures-for-non-

performance provision addressing lapsing of incentives and recovery of rebates where a

project does not proceed;

• Task 4.8: Include the relationship between this policy and a municipal Inclusionary Housing

Policy developed under Tasks 2 and 3, so that the two instruments may operate together:

inclusionary housing as a condition of land use approval, and the enablement incentives

as the offsetting support, without double-counting or contradiction; and

• Task 4.9: Be concise, evidence-based, and designed for easy municipal adaptation and

implementation, structured so that a municipality can populate local figures, income

bands, and spatial targets without redrafting the policy architecture.

Deliverables must include:

• Deliverable 4.1: A draft Pro Forma Affordable Housing Enablement Policy in a format that

municipalities can adopt and adapt through their own council processes; and

• Technical notes set out in Deliverable 4.1 that provide short adaptation guide notes

explaining which provisions are fixed (for legal or alignment reasons) and which are

intended to be amended or populated locally.

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

5. Phasing and timeframes

5.1 This project will run over an 18-month period from ~October 2026 to March 2028. Deliverables

must be completed within the following timeframes as a minimum:

Category / Deliverable(s) Target /

Component Deadline

1 Project Initiation & Inception Report confirming methodology, sequencing, task Month 1

Inception Report dependencies, governance arrangements, data acquisition

strategy, and invoicing schedule for the 18-month period.

Inception meeting to be held within 20 working days of

appointment; report delivered to PMT within 7 working days of the

inception meeting.

2 (Task 1) Draft Pro (Task 1) Draft Standard draft Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing ~ Month 4 / 5

Forma Inclusionary Policy for municipalities, aligned to the WCIHPF, incorporating (Before mid-

Housing Policy policy options framework with contextual selection criteria, spatial March 2027)

targeting guidance, enabling preconditions and transitional

arrangements, model policy clauses, model IH agreement

template, model planning permission conditions, and monitoring

and evaluation framework. Submitted for comment by PMT and

Psc.

3 (Task 2) Draft (Task 2) Draft IH feasibility Studies: ~ Month 4 / 5

Inclusionary Housing Per municipality: residual land value analysis; viability outcomes (Before mid-

Feasibility table across typologies, tenure scenarios, set-aside scenarios, March 2027)

Assessments (3 income sub-bands, and market value zones; comparative cost

municipalities) per affordable unit metric; GIS shapefiles of recommended IH

application zones; replicable feasibility model and IH contribution

calculator including fees-in-lieu calculation method; assessment

of long-term affordability risks; institutional capacity and readiness

assessment; and recommendations on set-aside percentages,

tenure, incentives, income targeting, fees in lieu, and exclusion

areas. Submitted for comment by PMT, PSC, and relevant

municipalities.

4 (Task 1) Final Pro (Task 1) Final version of the Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy, ~ Month 12

Forma Inclusionary incorporating comments and inputs from PMT and PSC

Housing Policy

5 (Task 2) Final (Task 2) Final IH Feasibility Studies for each municipality, ~ Month 12

Inclusionary Housing incorporating comments and inputs from PMT, PSC, and relevant

Feasibility Studies (3 municipalities.

municipalities)

6 (Task 4) Draft Pro (Task 4) Draft Standard draft Pro Forma Affordable Housing ~ Month 13

Forma Affordable Enablement Policy presenting a practical menu of enablement

Housing Enablement mechanisms, and incentives anchored in municipal fiscal

Policy affordability, implementation pathways, spatial targeting

guidance, institutional arrangements, and monitoring and

evaluation framework. Submitted for comment by PMT and PSC.

7 (Task 3) Targeted (Task 3) Draft tailored municipal IH policy for one selected ~ Month 15

Municipal Capacity municipality, informed by Task 2 feasibility findings; simple IH

Support (1 contribution assessment tool for use by municipal officials; short

municipality): Draft internal implementation guide covering the administrative

Tailored Municipal workflow from application receipt to compliance monitoring.

Inclusionary Housing Submitted for comment by PMT, PSC, and municipality.

Policy and

Implementation Tools

8 (Task 4) Final Pro (Task 4) Final Standard draft Pro Forma Affordable Housing ~ Month 15

Forma Affordable Enablement Policy, incorporating comments and inputs from PMT

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

Category / Deliverable(s) Target /

Component Deadline

Housing Enablement and PSC.

Policy

9 (Task 3) Targeted (Task 3) Tailored final draft municipal Inclusionary Housing Policy; ~ Month 18

Municipal Capacity incorporating comments and inputs from PMT, PSC, and

Support (1 municipality; record of two structured working sessions and one

municipality): Final broader awareness session held with municipal officials and

Tailored Municipal relevant stakeholders.

Inclusionary Housing

Policy and

Implementation Tools

10 Knowledge Transfer One-day workshop for provincial and municipal officials covering ~ Month 17

Workshop feasibility methodology, pro forma IH policy, and pro forma (prior to

affordable housing enablement policy; handover of all tools and project close-

models in fully working editable format; lessons learnt reflection. out)

11 Monthly Progress Concise monthly written progress reports submitted via email to Monthly

Reports the Project Manager, covering progress, risks, and throughout the

data/information needs. contract

period

12 Close-out and Report documenting outcomes, lessons learnt, process reflection, ~ Month 18

Overview Report and record of all key stakeholder engagements, documented data

Data Handover limitations and their effect on feasibility conclusions, and

recommendations for future iterations; full handover of all

statistical, financial, and spatial data, models, and tools in

editable working format, subject to the data governance

agreement.

5.2 The service provider may propose their own sequencing and scheduling of tasks, provided

this is clearly motivated by the internal logic of the methodology and the dependencies

between deliverables. The proposed schedule must, however, ensure that the total cost of

delivery is spread approximately equally across the two financial years of the contract

period, being 2026/27 (October 2026 to 31 March 2027) and 2027/28 (1 April 2027 to 7 March

2028). All final deliverables must be submitted no later than 7 March 2028, to allow sufficient

time for review, comment, and sign-off before the close of the 2027/28 financial year.

5.3 Whilst the exact start date is to be confirmed on appointment, the contract period must

conclude no later than 31 March 2028. The service provider may propose to complete the

project sooner in its bid, provided quality and engagement requirements are not

compromised.

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

6. Deliverables

6.1 The service provider must provide the following deliverables as part of the project:

DELIVERABLES Reply Add

“COMPLY” comments

or “DO NOT and

COMPLY” attachments

in the as required

boxes

below

1 project inception meeting and inception report

a) The project will begin with an Inception Meeting between the successful

bidder and the PMT, to be held within 20 working days of appointment. The

purpose of the meeting is to clarify and confirm the scope, methodology,

deliverables, project timeframes, invoicing schedule, meeting

arrangements, access to existing HMS Round 1 and 2 data, and any

related matters. This meeting may also serve to introduce the service

provider to the participating municipalities for the Task 2 feasibility studies.

b) One Inception Report covering the full scope of work must be delivered to

the PMT within seven working days of the Inception Meeting.

c) The Inception Report must include, at a minimum:

• The proposed methodology for each of the four tasks, including the

proposed feasibility methodology for Task 2 and the basis for the

selection of representative development typologies, with motivation for

the approach;

• A gap analysis identifying data requirements, data sources, and the

data acquisition strategy, including identification of any gaps in the

existing HMS Round 1 and 2 datasets that may affect the confidence

of Task 2 feasibility findings, and how these will be addressed;

• A project plan setting out the phasing of deliverables, key milestones,

task dependencies, meeting schedule, and alignment of expenditure

across the two financial years of the contract period. The schedule must

make provision for the development of draft deliverables, commenting

on draft deliverables, and final deliverables;

• The proposed sequencing of tasks, with motivation where this departs

from the indicative sequencing in the ToR;

• Roles and responsibilities for both the service provider and DEA&DP,

including the nominated contact persons and key personnel for each

task; and

d) The inception report must be agreed with the PMT before substantive work

on any task commences.

2 task 1: standard draft pro forma inclusionary housing policy

One draft and one final version of the Standard Draft Pro Forma Inclusionary

Housing Policy must be submitted in digital format (PDF and editable Word

format). The draft must be submitted to the PMT and PSC for comment before

the final version is produced. The final version must consider and/or incorporate

all comments and inputs from the PMT and PSC.

The Pro Forma Inclusionary Housing Policy report must, at minimum, include:

• The pro forma IH policy document itself, structured as a model policy

that a municipality can adopt and adapt directly through its own

council processes, covering all sections specified in Task 1 of this ToR,

namely: enabling preconditions and transitional arrangements; policy

scope and trigger conditions; set-aside requirements and feasibility

calibration; policy options framework with contextual selection criteria;

spatial targeting and land use management integration; administrative

process and institutional requirements; certainty, consistency, and

enforceability provisions; and monitoring and evaluation framework.

Each section must be supported by concise internal technical notes

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DELIVERABLES Reply Add

“COMPLY” comments

or “DO NOT and

COMPLY” attachments

in the as required

boxes

below

documenting the evidence base, comparative policy analysis, and the

rationale for the options and contextual selection criteria presented,

with explicit reference to lessons drawn from Stellenbosch,

Johannesburg, and relevant academic and practitioner literature, and

how these have been applied or adapted for the non-metro Western

Cape context;

• Model IH policy clauses in a format suitable for direct incorporation into

a municipal IH policy;

• A model Inclusionary Housing Agreement template; and
• Model planning permission conditions for IH obligations.

3 task 2: inclusionary housing feasibility studies for three municipalities

a) One draft feasibility assessment per municipality must be submitted in

digital format (PDF and PowerPoint presentation format) in an agreed

template, including an Executive Summary, for engagement with the

relevant municipality and for review and comment by the PMT and PSC

before finalisation.

b) One final feasibility assessment per municipality must be submitted in

digital format (PDF and PowerPoint presentation format) in an agreed

template, including an Executive Summary, incorporating all comments

and inputs from the PMT, PSC, and the relevant municipality. The final

reports must be suitable for use by the municipalities and the WCG, and

for sharing with the public.

Each draft and final feasibility assessment must include, at minimum:

• A summary of housing market conditions and the evidence base

informing the feasibility analysis, including the development typologies

used, the tenure scenarios tested, and the basis for their selection;

• A residual land value analysis showing the value of representative

development typologies under existing rights, the value under

additional rights, and the land value increment attributable to

incentives, for each typology tested;

• A viability outcomes table setting out the results of the feasibility

modelling across development typologies, tenure scenarios, set-aside

scenarios, income sub-bands, and market value zones, with the hurdle

rate and residual land value threshold clearly identified for each

scenario;

• A comparative assessment of the cost per affordable unit generated

across typologies and market value zones, expressed as a consistent

metric such as residual land value per square metre or net present

value per affordable unit produced, to allow municipalities to be

assessed on a consistent basis;

• GIS shapefiles identifying recommended IH application zones,

differentiated by market strength;

• Clear recommendations on feasible set-aside percentages, tenure

approaches, unit size parameters, incentive requirements, income

targeting, and the basis for calculating fees in lieu, all derived from the

residual land value analysis;

• An assessment of long-term affordability risks and the implications for

affordability preservation provisions in the policy;

• Clear identification of areas or conditions under which inclusionary

housing should not be applied, and the reasons for this; and

• A concise narrative on municipal readiness and the preconditions and

capacity development required before the policy can be

implemented.

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DELIVERABLES Reply Add

“COMPLY” comments

or “DO NOT and

COMPLY” attachments

in the as required

boxes

below

c) In addition to the per-municipality feasibility assessment reports, the service

provider must produce and hand over the following tools and supporting

outputs:

• A simple, replicable feasibility model and inclusionary housing

contribution calculator, including a method for calculating fees in lieu

anchored in the residual land value analysis, in a fully working editable

format that DEA&DP and the municipalities can use independently

after the contract concludes; and

• GIS shapefiles for all spatial outputs produced under Task 2, in ArcGIS-

compatible format.

d) The service provider must document all data sources, vintages,

assumptions, and data gaps underpinning the feasibility models, and must

flag where data limitations affect the confidence of findings. This

documentation must be included in the feasibility assessment reports and

in the close-out and overview report.

Note on municipality substitution: DEA&DP reserves the right to substitute any

selected municipality with another of comparable profile, provided such

substitution is agreed in writing between the parties.

4 task 3: tailored municipal inclusionary housing policy and

Implementation tools for one municipality

a) One draft report (in PDF and editable Word format) setting out the tailored

draft Inclusionary Housing Policy for the selected municipality, for

engagement with the municipality and review and comment by the PMT

and PSC before finalisation.

b) One final draft report (in PDF and editable Word format) setting out the

agreed upon final draft Inclusionary Housing Policy for the selected

municipality, incorporating all comments and inputs from the PMT, PSC,

and the municipality, for further development, engagement, and later

council approval by the municipality.

Note: The service provider will not be expected to take this document through

any public participation or council approval processes. Responsibility for

tabling and processing the technically-verified final draft through the

municipality's internal governance and council approval processes rests with

the municipality.

The draft and final tailored municipal IH policy report must, at minimum, include:

• A tailored draft municipal Inclusionary Housing Policy, informed directly

by the Task 2 feasibility findings for the selected municipality, and

structured so that it can be adopted and adapted through the

municipality's own council processes. The policy must, at minimum,

specify: the trigger threshold and its basis; the set-aside requirement

and the feasibility evidence supporting it; the incentive package and

its cost-benefit justification; the income targeting criteria and income

sub-band allocations; the tenure options and conditions; the fees in lieu

methodology and calculation basis derived from the Task 2 residual

land value analysis; the affordability preservation mechanism and time

horizon; the spatial targeting of IH obligations and receiving areas; the

administrative process from pre-application engagement through to

compliance monitoring; and the monitoring and compliance

framework;

• A simple, replicable IH contribution assessment tool, consistent with the

feasibility model produced under Task 2, that municipal officials can

use to evaluate the IH obligation and incentive package applicable to

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DELIVERABLES Reply Add

“COMPLY” comments

or “DO NOT and

COMPLY” attachments

in the as required

boxes

below

a specific development application without specialist assistance; and

• A short internal implementation guide covering the administrative

workflow from development application receipt through IH condition

negotiation, agreement execution, unit transfer or fee payment, and

ongoing compliance monitoring.

c) The following engagements must be conducted with the selected

municipality and documented in writing:

• At least two structured working sessions with the relevant municipal

officials and departments, focused on applying the policy and tools to

realistic development application scenarios, with written notes

confirmed with participants after each session; and

• At least one broader internal awareness session for senior

management, and councillors if at an appropriate stage of policy

development, addressing the policy rationale, the feasibility evidence

base, and the political and institutional preconditions for

implementation.

The service provider must confirm the format, participants, and objectives of

each session in writing with DEA&DP before it is held.

d) The service provider must document all engagements conducted under

Task 3, including attendance, key discussion points, decisions taken, and

follow-up actions required. This documentation must be submitted to the

PMT after each engagement and included in the close-out and overview

report.

Note on municipal selection: DEA&DP reserves the right to determine the

municipality to be supported under this task once feasibility analysis is complete

(or for all practical purposes, almost complete), with reference to municipal

readiness, political support for the policy process, and the findings of the

institutional capacity and readiness assessments conducted under Task 2.

Where the selected municipality is assessed as insufficiently ready to develop a

full policy within the contract period, the service provider must advise DEA&DP

accordingly and propose a revised scope focused on precondition

development rather than policy drafting.

5 task 4: standard draft pro forma affordable housing enablement

Policy

a) One draft and one final version of the Standard Draft Pro Forma Affordable

Housing Enablement Policy must be submitted in digital format (PDF and

editable Word format). The draft must be submitted to the PMT and PSC

for comment before the final version is produced. The final version must

incorporate all comments and inputs from the PMT and PSC.

b) The report must include a short review of the existing affordable housing

enablement policy landscape in the Western Cape and South Africa,

identifying existing policies that the pro forma must build on, reconcile with,

and improve upon rather than duplicate, including but not limited to the

Garden Route District Municipality Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing

(2025).

c) The Pro Forma Affordable Housing Enablement Policy report must, at

minimum, include:

• A practical menu of affordable housing enablement mechanisms

available to municipalities, clearly distinguishing financial incentives,

including development charge rebates, rates phasing, fee waivers,

and municipal land made available at reduced value or on long lease,

from non-financial incentives, including density bonuses, parking and

bulk relaxations, streamlined approvals, and project packaging, and

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DELIVERABLES Reply Add

“COMPLY” comments

or “DO NOT and

COMPLY” attachments

in the as required

boxes

below

indicating which mechanisms apply to each affordable housing

instrument and delivery model;

• Guidance on large-scale and institutional affordable rental, owner-

driven small-scale rental, and replicable small and medium-scale

affordable housing models, with income bands and instrument

definitions aligned to national and SHRA legislated criteria and

expressed so that they update automatically as those criteria are

revised;

• A financial affordability assessment for every financial incentive

proposed, demonstrating the revenue foregone and the municipality's

capacity to absorb it, using a financial affordability or scorecard model

that is consistent with and improves upon the model developed in the

Garden Route work, and that is usable by municipal officials without

specialist support;

• Guidance on spatial targeting of incentives to designated restructuring

zones, priority human settlement and housing development areas, and

corridors identified in municipal spatial development frameworks, so

that incentives reinforce rather than undermine the spatial

development framework;

• Guidance on how planning controls, land use management

instruments, municipal land, and capital investment levers can be used

to support affordable housing delivery;

• The institutional arrangements required to operate the policy, including

the evaluation and approval pathway for incentive applications, the

departments responsible for each mechanism, and the delegations

required, recognising that affordable housing enablement cuts across

planning, human settlements, finance, engineering, and legal

functions;

• A monitoring and evaluation framework with defined performance

indicators, data sources, reporting responsibilities, and a measures-for-

non-performance provision addressing the lapsing of incentives and

recovery of rebates where a project does not proceed;

• A clear articulation of the relationship between this policy and a

municipal Inclusionary Housing Policy developed under Tasks 2 and 3,

so that the two instruments may operate together without double-

counting or contradiction, with inclusionary housing operating as a

condition of land use approval and the enablement incentives

operating as the offsetting support mechanism; and

• Short adaptation guide notes, integrated into the policy document,

explaining which provisions are fixed for legal or alignment reasons and

which are intended to be amended or populated locally, so that a

municipality can adapt and adopt the pro forma through its own

council processes without specialist assistance.

6 data

All data produced, acquired, or synthesised under this contract must be

handed over to DEA&DP in fully working, editable format at project close-out,

subject to the data governance agreement. The following must be included:

a) All spatial data created for the analysis and reports, including all GIS

shapefiles for maps and spatial outputs produced under Tasks 1, 2, 3, and

4, in ArcGIS-compatible shapefile format. Spatial data must include all

recommended IH application zones, market value zone delineations, and

any other spatially expressed outputs produced under Task 2.

b) All statistical, financial, and property market data acquired or synthesised

for the project, including all feasibility models, contribution calculators, and

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

The service provider must propose and motivate their methodology in the bid, to be approved in the inception report. For Task 2, the feasibility work must be practical and proportionate, using a residual land value methodology with comparative calculations to determine land value under existing rights versus existing plus additional rights. The analysis must be grounded in at least three representative residential development typologies, assess both ownership and rental scenarios, and explicitly cost all incentives. The service provider must document all data sources, vintages, assumptions, and data gaps.

completed bid document.

1.2 This document is official and may not be re-typed on forms. Only original, signed

documents will be considered. Failure to complete and sign the bidding documents,

required certificates or qualifications, questionnaires, and specification forms in all respects

will invalidate your bid.

1.3 Standard Bid Forms and Related Documents - Checklist:

1.3.1 Wcbd 1: invitation to bid (part a & b);

1.3.2 Wcbd 3.1: Pricing schedule – firm prices;

1.3.3 Wcbd 3.2: Price adjustments

1.3.4 Wcbd 4: provincial government western cape declaration of interests,

policy experience, including but not limited to the Stellenbosch Municipality Inclusionary Zoning

Policy (2023), the City of Johannesburg Inclusionary Housing Incentives, Regulations and

Mechanisms (2019), and relevant academic and practitioner literature including Weakley (2025)

and Turok, Rubin and Scheba (2024). Lessons drawn must be explicitly applied to the Western

• Developer incentive options, including density bonuses, parking relaxations,

development contribution discounts, overlay zone rights, and expedited permitting.

• Task 1.5: Spatial targeting and land use management integration: Provide guidance on

designating IH trigger areas and priority receiving areas in MSDFs, creating IH overlay zones

in zoning schemes and Municipal Planning By-Laws, and aligning IH obligations with

existing spatial designations such as restructuring zones, densification encouragement

areas, and PHSHDA declarations.

• Task 1.6: Administrative process and institutional requirements: Set out the end-to-end

administrative process for applying the IH policy from pre-application engagement

through to the planning permission, the IH agreement (a legal agreement between a

municipality and a private developer that binds the developer to deliver affordable

housing units as a condition of receiving development approval or additional

development rights), affordability preservation monitoring, and enforcement. Include

guidance on the capacity, systems, and delegations a municipality needs to implement

the policy. Draw on the Johannesburg experience regarding the need for standardised

conditions and a simpler framework to reduce administrative burden and tribunal

uncertainty.

• Task 1.7: Certainty, consistency, and enforceability: The pro forma must include model IH

policy clauses, a model IH agreement template, and model planning permission

conditions that municipalities can adapt directly. It must propose practical enforcement

measures that are proportionate to non-metro institutional capacity and identify the

consequences of non-compliance that must be embedded in the IH agreement and

conditions of approval.

Deliverables must be submitted in digital format (PDF and editable Word) and must be suitable for use by municipalities and the WCG. Draft reports must be submitted to the Project Management Team (PMT) and Project Steering Committee (PSC) for comment before finalisation. Final versions must incorporate all comments and inputs. The service provider must document all data sources, vintages, assumptions, and data gaps, and flag where data limitations affect confidence of findings.

1.3.5 Wcbd 6.1: Preference points claim form in terms of the preferenctial

Procurement regulations 2022 and in terms of the western cape

Government’s interim strategy as IT relates to preference points

1.3.6 General Conditions of Contract

1.4 Closing time of bids and provisions relating to submission of bids - Reminder

1.4.1 The closing time for the receipt of bids in response to this invitation to bid is detailed

on the first page / cover page of this invitation to bid document.

1.4.2 All bids must be submitted in a sealed envelope bearing the bid number, bid

description and closing date.

1.4.3 All bids must be received before the closing time and date stipulated above and

must be posted to or deposited in the bid box at the address detailed on the cover

page of this invitation to bid.

1.5 Pricing

1.5.1 Pricing must be stipulated inclusive of VAT (where the bidder is VAT registered).

1.5.2 Prices charged by the bidder for goods delivered and services performed under the

contract shall not vary from the prices quoted by the bidder in this Tender.

1.5.3 The Bidder will be liable to take out forward cover to barricade him/her against

fluctuation of the exchange rate in the event of importing any component, related

to the tender, from a country dealing in currency other than that of South Africa.

1.5.4 The Pricing Schedule (WCBD 3.1) must be completed in all respects.

1.6 Validity

o Which incentives are of greatest practical value to the development sector in each

municipality, and in what combination are they most effective in enabling an

inclusionary housing contribution? The analysis must consider a range of incentive

types including but not limited to overlay zones providing as-of-right additional

development rights, parking requirement reductions, height and bulk relaxations,

development contribution discounts or deferrals, and streamlined approvals

processes, and must rank or differentiate these by their relative impact on

development feasibility in the local market context. The answer to this question,

together with the hurdle rate and market absorption assumptions used in the model,

must be validated through structured engagement with engineering firms, developers

and/or financiers actively operating in each municipality's market; desktop evidence

alone is not sufficient. The engagement method and participant profile must be set

out in the report.

o What is the projected net fiscal impact of the recommended incentive package on

each municipality over the policy implementation period, expressed as a quantified

range of income foregone and offsetting revenue generated, including rates base

growth attributable to increased development activity?

o Does the municipality have sufficient bulk services and engineering infrastructure

capacity to absorb the additional development density that the recommended

incentive package is intended to unlock, and if not, what are the estimated upgrading

costs and who bears them? The analysis must assess whether infrastructure capacity

constraints materially limit the viability or scale of an inclusionary housing policy in any

recommended application zone.

o Where development contribution reductions or deferrals are recommended as

incentives, how will the resulting DC income shortfall be funded by the municipality,

having regard to the requirements of the legislation governing Development Charges?

framework and does not simply transfer the cost burden to other ratepayers or

development applicants.

(Note: The service provider must produce a simple, replicable feasibility model and inclusionary

housing contribution calculator, including a method for calculating fees in lieu anchored in the

residual land value analysis, that DEA&DP and the municipality can use independently after the

contract concludes, in accordance with the data governance provisions of this contract.)

• Task 2.4.1: Developer & Stakeholder Engagement and Validation: The service provider must

conduct structured engagement with developers, engineering firms and financiers and

developer representative organisations actively operating in each municipality's market. This

engagement must not be limited to incentive validation. It must be used to test and refine the

key assumptions underpinning the feasibility model, including development cost structures,

finance costs, hurdle rates, market absorption rates, and unit price expectations, and to

validate the findings and draft recommendations of the feasibility analysis before these are

finalised. Engagement must be conducted after preliminary modelling is complete, so that

developers are responding to evidence-based findings rather than abstract propositions. The

service provider must document the engagement method, the profile and number of

participants in each municipality, and the material ways in which developer input influenced

or amended the analysis or recommendations. It is recommended that one session be

undertaken per municipal area.

• Task 2.5: Institutional capacity and readiness assessment: Assess each municipality's

institutional capacity and readiness to implement an inclusionary housing policy. This is a

distinct component from the financial feasibility analysis. The assessment must, at minimum,

answer the following questions:

o Which planning implementation instrument, or combination of instruments, is best

suited to giving effect to an inclusionary housing policy in each municipality, having

regard to the municipality's existing spatial planning framework, the recommended IH

application zones, and the administrative capacity of the municipality? The

• Task 4.1: Present a clear and practical menu of affordable housing enablement

mechanisms available to municipalities, distinguishing between direct fiscal (financial)

instruments such as development charge rebates, rates phasing, fee waivers, and the

release of municipal land at discounted values or on long-term lease, and regulatory and

development rights-based instruments, including density bonuses, bulk and parking

relaxations, streamlined development approvals, and project packaging. While

analytically distinct, both categories must be recognised as having material financial

implications for development feasibility, either through direct cost reductions or by

enhancing development yield, reducing risk, and improving project viability.

• Task 4.2: Include guidance on large-scale and institutional affordable rental, owner-driven

small-scale rental, and replicable small and medium-scale affordable housing models

identified in the Housing Market Studies, and align the income bands and instrument

definitions used in the policy with national and SHRA legislated criteria, expressed so that

they update automatically as those criteria are revised;

• Task 4.3: Anchor every financial incentive in a test of municipal fiscal affordability, so that

no incentive is recommended without reference to the revenue foregone and the

municipality's capacity to absorb it. Where the service provider proposes a financial

affordability or scorecard model for this purpose, it must be consistent with, and improve

upon, the financial incentive model already developed in the Garden Route work, and

must be usable by municipal officials without specialist support;

• Task 4.4: Outline key preconditions for success and risks to manage, including the spatial

targeting of incentives to designated restructuring zones, priority human settlement and

housing development areas, and corridors identified in municipal SDFs, so that incentives

reinforce rather than work against the spatial development framework;

• Task 4.5: Demonstrate how planning controls, land use management, municipal land, and

capital investment levers can be used to support delivery; and

• Task 4.6: Specify the institutional arrangements required to operate the policy, including

the evaluation and approval pathway for incentive applications, the departments

responsible for each mechanism, and the delegations required, recognising that

affordable housing enablement cuts across planning, human settlements, finance,

engineering, and legal functions;

• Task 4.7: Include a monitoring and evaluation framework with defined performance

indicators, data sources, and reporting responsibilities, and a measures-for-non-

performance provision addressing lapsing of incentives and recovery of rebates where a

project does not proceed;

• Task 4.8: Include the relationship between this policy and a municipal Inclusionary Housing

Policy developed under Tasks 2 and 3, so that the two instruments may operate together:

inclusionary housing as a condition of land use approval, and the enablement incentives

as the offsetting support, without double-counting or contradiction; and

• Task 4.9: Be concise, evidence-based, and designed for easy municipal adaptation and

implementation, structured so that a municipality can populate local figures, income

bands, and spatial targets without redrafting the policy architecture.

(2025).

c) The Pro Forma Affordable Housing Enablement Policy report must, at

minimum, include:

• A practical menu of affordable housing enablement mechanisms

available to municipalities, clearly distinguishing financial incentives,

including development charge rebates, rates phasing, fee waivers,

and municipal land made available at reduced value or on long lease,

from non-financial incentives, including density bonuses, parking and

bulk relaxations, streamlined approvals, and project packaging, and

ISSUED BY A VERIFICATION AGENCY [TICK APPLICABLE BOX] ACCREDITED BY THE SOUTH Yes No AFRICAN NATIONAL ACCREDITATION SYSTEM (SANAS) [A B-BBEE STATUS LEVEL VERIFICATION CERTIFICATE/SWORN AFFIDAVIT (FOR EMEs& QSEs) MUST BE SUBMITTED TOGETHER WITH A COMPLETED WCBD 6.1 FORM IN ORDER TO CLAIM PREFERENCE POINTS FOR B-BBEE] ARE YOU THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE IN ARE YOU A FOREIGN BASED SUPPLIER Yes No SOUTH AFRICA FOR Yes No FOR THE GOODS /SERVICES /WORKS THE GOODS OFFERED? [If Yes, Answer All Questions /SERVICES /WORKS [IF YES ENCLOSE PROOF] Below] OFFERED? QUESTIONNAIRE TO BIDDING FOREIGN SUPPLIERS IS THE ENTITY A RESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (RSA)? YES NO DOES THE ENTITY HAVE A BRANCH IN THE RSA? YES NO DOES THE ENTITY HAVE A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN THE RSA? YES NO DOES THE ENTITY HAVE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME IN THE RSA? YES NO IS THE ENTITY LIABLE IN THE RSA FOR ANY FORM OF TAXATION? YES NO IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” TO ALL OF THE ABOVE, THEN IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER FOR A TAX COMPLIANCE STATUS SYSTEM PIN CODE FROM THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE (SARS) AND IF NOT REGISTER AS PER 2.3 BELOW. Contractor to initial................................... of 89 www.westerncape.gov.za Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning PART B TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR BIDDING

Bid submission: 1.1. Bids must be delivered by the stipulated time to the correct address. Late bids will not be accepted for consideration. 1.2. All bids must be submitted on the official forms provided – (not to be re-typed) or in the manner prescribed in the bid document. 1.3. This bid is subject to the preferential procurement policy framework act, 2000 and the preferential procurement regulations, 2022, the general conditions of contract (gcc) and, if applicable, any other special conditions of contract. 1.4. The successful bidder will be required to fill in and sign a written contract form (wcbd 7.1).

TAX COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS 2.1 BIDDERS MUST ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR TAX OBLIGATIONS. 2.2 BIDDERS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THEIR UNIQUE PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PIN) ISSUED BY SARS TO ENABLE THE ORGAN OF THE STATE TO VIEW THE TAXPAYERS PROFILE AND TAX STATUS. 2.3 APPLICATION FOR TAX COMPLIANCE STATUS (TCS) OR PIN MAY ALSO BE MADE VIA E-FILING THROUGH THE WEBSITE WWW.SARS.GOV.ZA 2.4 BIDDERS MAY ALSO SUBMIT A PRINTED TCS CERTIFICATE TOGETHER WITH THE BID. 2.5 IN BIDS WHERE CONSORTIA / JOINT VENTURES / SUB-CONTRACTORS ARE INVOLVED; EACH PARTY MUST SUBMIT A SEPARATE TCS CERTIFICATE AS MENTIONED IN 2.3 ABOVE AND CSD NUMBER. 2.6 WHERE NO TCS PIN IS AVAILABLE, BUT THE BIDDER IS REGISTERED ON THE CENTRAL SUPPLIER DATABASE (CSD), A CSD NUMBER MUST BE PROVIDED. 2.7 NO BIDS WILL BE CONSIDERED FROM PERSONS IN THE SERVICE OF THE STATE, COMPANIES WITH DIRECTORS WHO ARE PERSONS IN THE SERVICE OF THE STATE, OR CLOSED CORPORATIONS WITH MEMBERS/PERSONS IN THE SERVICE OF THE STATE. NB: FAILURE TO PROVIDE / OR COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE PARTICULARS MAY RENDER THE BID INVALID SIGNATURE OF BIDDER: ................................................... NAME AND SURNAME OF BIDDER: ................................................... CAPACITY UNDER WHICH THIS BID IS SIGNED: ................................................... (Proof of authority must be submitted e.g., company resolution) DATE: ................................................... Contractor to initial................................... of 89 www.westerncape.gov.za Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

BID CONDITIONS 1.1 All the documentation stipulated below must be returned with the bid document. Bidders must note that some of the documents require completion by the bidder and that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning will ONLY accept duly completed bid document. 1.2 This document is official and may not be re-typed on forms. Only original, signed documents will be considered. Failure to complete and sign the bidding documents, required certificates or qualifications, questionnaires, and specification forms in all respects will invalidate your bid. 1.3 Standard Bid Forms and Related Documents - Checklist: 1.3.1 WCBD 1: INVITATION TO BID (PART A & B); 1.3.2 WCBD 3.1: PRICING SCHEDULE – FIRM PRICES; 1.3.3 WCBD 3.2: PRICE ADJUSTMENTS 1.3.4 WCBD 4: PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT WESTERN CAPE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS, BIDDERS PAST SCM PRACTICES AND INDEPENDENT BID DETERMINATION 1.3.5 WCBD 6.1: PREFERENCE POINTS CLAIM FORM IN TERMS OF THE PREFERENCTIAL PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS 2022 AND IN TERMS OF THE WESTERN CAPE GOVERNMENT’S INTERIM STRATEGY AS IT RELATES TO PREFERENCE POINTS 1.3.6 General Conditions of Contract 1.4 Closing time of bids and provisions relating to submission of bids - Reminder 1.4.1 The closing time for the receipt of bids in response to this invitation to bid is detailed on the first page / cover page of this invitation to bid document. 1.4.2 All bids must be submitted in a sealed envelope bearing the bid number, bid description and closing date. 1.4.3 All bids must be received before the closing time and date stipulated above and must be posted to or deposited in the bid box at the address detailed on the cover page of this invitation to bid. 1.5 Pricing 1.5.1 Pricing must be stipulated inclusive of VAT (where the bidder is VAT registered). 1.5.2 Prices charged by the bidder for goods delivered and services performed under the contract shall not vary from the prices quoted by the bidder in this Tender. 1.5.3 The Bidder will be liable to take out forward cover to barricade him/her against fluctuation of the exchange rate in the event of importing any component, related to the tender, from a country dealing in currency other than that of South Africa. Contractor to initial................................... of 89 www.westerncape.gov.za Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning 1.5.4 The Pricing Schedule (WCBD 3.1) must be completed in all respects. 1.6 Validity Bid documentation submitted by the bidder will be valid and open for acceptance for a period of 90 (ninety) calendar days from the closing date and time of the bid. 1.7 Enquiries: Enquiries relating to this bid must be directed to the person/s whose details appear on the cover page of this bid invitation. 1.8 Right of discretion to accept a bid The Department does not bind itself to accept either the lowest or any bid and reserves the right to accept the bid which it deems to be in the best interest of the State even if it implies a waiver by the Department of certain bid requirements which the Department considers to be of minor importance and not complied with by a bidder. 1.9 Date of Commencement of Service The bidder will be required to start service as from the date mutually agreed upon by the Department. 1.10 Evaluation Methodology: 1.10.1 The bid will be evaluated in terms of the Bid Conditions, specification requirements of the bid and Preferential Procurement Points System. 1.10.2 A bid may be regarded as non-responsive if it fails to meet Bid compliance, Specification requirements and failing to provide any requested documentation. 1.10.3 Only the qualifying bids are evaluated further in terms of the 80/20 preference points system, where the 80 points is for price and the 20 points for Black Economic Empowerment points (BEE) status. POINTS PRICE 80 B-BBEE STATUS LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTOR 20 Total points for Price and B-BBEE must not exceed 100 Contractor to initial................................... of 89 www.westerncape.gov.za Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning 1.11 The bid will be awarded to the bidder scoring the highest points based on the price and B-BBEE points allocated. 1.12 Bidders will be required to submit an accredited B-BBEE certificate or sworn affidavit as evidence and in order to claim the points in respect of 20 points (80/20) and 10 points (90/10). Should a bidder fail to submit an accredited B-BBEE certificate or sworn affidavit, the bidder may only score points for price in terms of the 80/90 points. No points will be allocated for preference. Contractor to initial................................... of 89 www.westerncape.gov.za Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING BID DOCUMENTS Bidders are advised to read all the pages of this tender document carefully and to comply fully with all requests for information and documentation. Please acknowledge that conditions have been read and understood in the ‘Comply’ column by responding with either a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ entry. Bidders are required to: Comply Condition Yes/No Comments

Complete all the documents and forms provided in this bid invitation document.

Supply all the requested information.

The numbering system used in this bid SHALL be adhered to. If there are additional and/or alternative product options, every option/alternative proposal to an item SHALL be separately quoted, with a complete schedule, description, deviations from specifications, and technical brochures on each proposal.

Submit the bid under the cover of a full table of contents referencing all the documents contained therein about the relevant page numbers.

Confirm in writing that the copy submitted is a true and complete reproduction of the original and contains all the annexures submitted to the Department.

The bidder is to complete the bid response document by stating in the block opposite each subsection whether the bidder will comply or will not comply with the specifications in that subsection.

A response of “Noted” SHALL be interpreted as “Comply”. In addition, an explanatory note MUST be provided in a separate document with a clear reference to the corresponding paragraph number or beneath each point in the bid document. The numbering in the bid document may not be altered.

Items not completed in this manner SHALL be to the disadvantage of the bidder and, if excessive, SHALL lead to exclusion in the tender evaluation process.

Bidders are permitted to submit video/cd/samples/product literature/catalogues to support their statements of competence and are to confirm that such are true and accurate reflections of the service/s which the bidder intends to provide.

All additional supporting documentation that is submitted as part of this tender MUST be given a document number that is marked on each page of the document. Contractor to initial................................... of 89 www.westerncape.gov.za Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING THIS DOCUMENT SETS OUT THE TERMS OF REFERENCE: APPOINTMENT OF A SERVICE PROVIDER TO PROVIDE SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR HOUSING MARKET STUDIES IMPLEMENTATION: ROUND 3, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRO FORMA DRAFT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY, A PRO FORMA DRAFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ENABLEMENT POLICY, THREE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDIES, AND MUNICIPAL CAPACITY SUPPORT FOR ONE MUNICIPALITY IN THE WESTERN CAPE, OVER AN 18-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING, CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE BID NUMBER: DEA&DP3/2026 NAME OF BIDDING COMPANY................................................................................................................. NAME OF SERVICE OFFERED.................................................................................................................... NAME OF BIDDER / CONTACT PERSON........................................................................................................ CONTACT NUMBER........................................(w)........................................... (cell) NOTE: SHOULD THE ITEM OFFERED DEVIATE FROM ANY SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS, FULL DETAILS OF SUCH DEVIATIONS MUST BE GIVEN. IN THE EVENT OF THE AVAILABLE SPACE BEING INSUFFICIENT, SUCH DETAILS MUST BE GIVEN ON A SEPARATE SHEET, INDICATING THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH NUMBER IN THE SPECIFICATION. ALL SECTIONS OF THIS BID DOCUMENT MUST BE COMPLETED IN FULL, WHERE RELEVANT. FAILURE TO REPLY TO ALL SECTIONS WILL RESULT IN THE OFFER NOT BEING CONSIDERED. Contractor to initial................................... of 89 www.westerncape.gov.za Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR): APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIALIST PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER TO UNDERTAKE HOUSING MARKET STUDIES IMPLEMENTATION: ROUND 3, THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRO FORMA DRAFT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY, A PRO FORMA DRAFT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ENABLEMENT POLICY, UNDERTAKE 3 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEASIBILITY STUDIES, AND PROVIDE MUNICIPAL CAPACITY SUPPORT IN DEVELOPING AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY FOR ONE MUNICIPALITY IN THE WESTERN CAPE OVER AN 18 MONTH PERIOD CONTENTS OF THIS BID SPECIFICATION / TERMS OF REFERENCE X 1. PURPOSE X 2. INTRODUCTION X 3. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT X 4. SCOPE OF WORK X 5. PHASING & TIMEFRAMES X 6. DELIVERABLES X 7. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT X 8. DATA GOVERNANCE X 9. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER X 10. ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES X 11. CONSULTANT PROPOSAL AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS X 12. EVALUATION AND ADJUDICATION OF BIDS X 13. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY X 14. GENERAL CONDITIONS X 15. ENQUIRIES X 16. APPROVAL Contractor to initial................................... of 89 www.westerncape.gov.za Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

B-BBEE Minimum Level: 20

Points Allocation: 80 points

B-BBEE Details: ctive unregistered bidders must register as a supplier on the CSD prior to bidding.

Central Supplier Database

Self- www.csd.gov.za (self-registration only)

registration

5. Bidders already registered on the CSD must have confirmation of their registration, by

contacting www.csd.gov.za, AND ensure that their status is up to date prior to bidding.

6. In instances where a bidder’s tax compliance status cannot be verified or if a bidder’s tax status

is non-compliant on the CSD, the bidder will be afforded 7 working days to confirm tax

compliance for the bid to be considered.

7. Only the B-BBEE status reflected on form WCBD 6.1 included in the bid document will apply to

the evaluation of the relevant formal bids and not the B-BBEE status on CSD. Bidders are further

required to complete the attached form WCBD 4 and include it in the Bid document.

8. All other mandatory information held on CSD will be accepted by the Western Cape

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning for the consideration of

formal bids.

9. This bid is subject to the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and, if applicable, any other Special

Conditions of Contract.

10. The 80:20 Points System is applicable to this bid.
11. Please refer to all technical/specification enquiries to Allan Rhodes by email:

[email protected] and [email protected]

Digitally signed by Donna D

Swartz (56155689)

Date: 2026.08.20 12:35:58

+02'00'

Deputy director: supply chain management

Department of environmental affairs and development planning

Donna swartz

Date

Contractor to initial...................................

of 89

www.westerncape.gov.za

Department of Environmental Affairs and

No explicit environmental content was found in the unclassified content.

Policy for one municipality in the western cape over an 18 month period

......................................................................................................................................... 12

Wcbd 3.1 ................................................................................................................................................... 52

Pricing schedule – firm prices .................................................................................................... 52

Wcbd 3.2 ................................................................................................................................................... 54

Price adjustments ........................................................................................................................... 54

Wcbd 3.3 ................................................................................................................................................... 56

Pricing schedule............................................................................................................................. 56

Wcbd 4....................................................................................................................................................... 58

Provincial government western cape: declaration of interests, bidders past SCM

Practices and independent bid determination ............................................................ 58

The national industrial participation programme (wcbd5) ................................................... 66

Wcbd 6.1 ................................................................................................................................................... 68

Preference points claim form in terms of the preferential procurement regulations 2022

X 1. Purpose

X 2. Introduction

X 3. Background & context

X 4. Scope of work

X 5. Phasing & timeframes

X 6. Deliverables

X 7. Stakeholder engagement

X 8. Data governance

X 9. Knowledge transfer

X 10. Roles & responsibilities

X 11. Consultant proposal and submission requirements

X 12. Evaluation and adjudication of bids

X 13. Intellectual property

X 14. General conditions

X 15. Enquiries

X 16. Approval

• The service provider must motivate the databases used to establish base land and property

values in each municipality, including whether the municipal valuation roll, recent

comparable sales evidence, or a median of the two is used, having regard to the currency

and reliability of each source in the local market.

• The typology cost structures must explicitly include engineering infrastructure and

development contribution costs applicable to each typology, and the analysis must record

the extent to which infrastructure is municipally funded, developer-funded, or co-financed,

since high infrastructure cost burdens directly reduce the capacity of a development to

absorb an inclusionary housing obligation.

• Where a development includes multiple typologies or product types, the service provider must

assess cross-typology subsidisation opportunities, specifically whether surplus residual land

value generated by higher-margin typologies within the same development can be used to

offset the cost of the inclusionary housing obligation, and under what conditions this is

financially viable. The service provider must also assess phased construction as a mechanism

for enhancing affordability, including the financial implications of phasing for development

viability and the contractual and monitoring requirements that phasing would impose on the

municipality.

• The analysis must, at minimum, answer the following questions:

o What is the residual land value of representative development typologies under

existing rights, and how does this change when additional development rights and

associated incentives are applied? What land value increase is attributable to the

This bid is subject to the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and, if applicable, any other Special Conditions of Contract. The successful bidder will be required to complete and sign a written contract form (WCBD 7.1). The Department does not bind itself to accept the lowest or any bid and reserves the right to accept the bid it deems in the best interest of the State, even if it implies a waiver of minor bid requirements. The bidder will be required to start service from a date mutually agreed upon with the Department.

Bidders must be registered on the Central Supplier Database (CSD) at the time of bid closing. Unregistered bidders must register prior to bidding. Bidders must ensure their CSD status is up to date. If tax compliance status cannot be verified or is non-compliant on CSD, the bidder will be afforded 7 working days to confirm tax compliance. Only the B-BBEE status reflected on form WCBD 6.1 will apply to evaluation, not the CSD status. Bidders must complete form WCBD 4 and include it in the bid. Bids must be submitted on official forms, not re-typed, and must be signed. Failure to complete and sign all required documents will invalidate the bid. Bids must be delivered in a sealed envelope with bidder name, address, bid number, and closing date. Late bids will not be considered. Bids must be valid for 90 calendar days from closing date.

the evaluation of the relevant formal bids and not the B-BBEE status on CSD. Bidders are further

10. The 80:20 Points System is applicable to this bid.

1.10 Evaluation Methodology

of the bid and Preferential Procurement Points System.

1.10.3 Only the qualifying bids are evaluated further in terms of the 80/20 preference

points system, where the 80 points is for price and the 20 points for Black Economic

Empowerment points (BEE) status.

Total points for Price and B-BBEE must not exceed 100

1.11 The bid will be awarded to the bidder scoring the highest points based on the price and

B-BBEE points allocated.

evidence and in order to claim the points in respect of 20 points (80/20) and 10 points

(90/10). Should a bidder fail to submit an accredited B-BBEE certificate or sworn affidavit,

the bidder may only score points for price in terms of the 80/90 points. No points will be

allocated for preference.

tender evaluation process.

Preference points claim form in terms of the preferential procurement regulations 2022

Preference points .................................................................................................................... 68

project sooner in its bid, provided quality and engagement requirements are not