Psp appointment for sanitation projects – kwazulu-natal cluster 10 tender

{"briefingSession":"{\"date\":\"03 July 2026\",\"time\":null,\"venue\":\"e and time for the receipt of quotations is 03 July 2026 at 11AM.\",\"is_compulsory\":false}"}

{"name":null,"email":"[email protected]","phone":"+27 12 752 6200","department":"of Basic Education – Sanitation Appropriate for","address":"esponses will not be accepted."}

RFQ Number : NECT/2026/06/010

Project : Department of Basic Education – Sanitation Appropriate for

Education (SAFE) Programme

Tender Description:

Appointment of Professional Service Providers (PSPs) for the planning, design, construction

monitoring, and close-out of sanitation projects in the KwaZulu Natal Province – Cluster 10.

Issued by: Contact :

The National Education Collaboration Trust Mammako Khumalo

272 West Avenue

Tel : +27 12 752 6200

Lakefield Office Park, Block D

Email : [email protected]

Tender documents will be available on The National Education Collaboration Trust website

(www.nect.org.za) and National Treasury e-tender portal for downloading and self-printing from 5

June 2026.

There will not be a briefing meeting.

• The closing date and time for the receipt of quotations is 03 July 2026 at 11AM.
• All responses must be deposited in the tender box at the Office of The National Education

Collaboration Trust situated, at 272 West Avenue, Lakefield Office Park, Block D, Centurion.

• The tenderer should submit two copies (hard copy and digital copy in a USB). Telegraphic,

telephonic, telex, facsimile and late responses will not be accepted.

Tenders may only be submitted on the tender documentation that is issued.

Requirements for sealing, addressing, delivery, opening and assessment of responses are stated in

the Tender Data.

The National Education Collaboration Trust reserves the right to withdraw any invitation to tender

and/or to re-advertise or to reject any tender or to accept a part of it. The National Education

Collaboration Trust does not bind itself to accepting the lowest tender.

This tender will be evaluated according to the Preference Point system in terms of PPPFA:

80/20 Preference point scoring system

Enquiries:

All enquiries regarding these tenders must be forwarded to: Email: [email protected] with the

applicable Bid No. as the subject.

Contents

Number Checklist

Part T1: Tendering procedures

T1.1 Summary of Offer

T1.1.1 RFQ Evaluation Stages

T1.2 Tender data

Part T2: Returnable documents

T2.1 List of returnable documents

T2.2 Returnable schedules

Part C1: Agreements and contract data

C1.1 Form of Offer and Acceptance

C1.2 Contract Data

Part C2: Pricing data

C2.1 Pricing Instructions

C2.2 Activity Schedule

Part C3: Scope of Work

C3 Scope of Work

Part C4: Site information (Project Clustering)

C4 Site Information

Checklist

No. Checklist of returnable documents Submitted Not

submitted

1 Submission of one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy

(USB) of the proposal

2 Tender proposal structured in accordance with the RFQ

requirements

3 SBD 1: Invitation to bid form has been completed and signed.

4 SBD 4: Bidder’s Disclosure has been completed and signed.

5 SBD 6.1: Preference points claim form has been completed,

points for B-BBEE / specific goals claimed, and signed.

6 Proof of registration on the Central Supplier Database (CSD)

has been submitted.

7 Valid SARS Tax Compliance Status PIN

8 Proof of registration on Central Supplier Database (CSD)

9 Company Registration Documents (Annexure B)

10 COIDA Certificate (Annexure C)

11 Originally certified BBBEE Certificate or Sworn Affidavit

(Annexure E)

Annexures (Risk Assessment & Experience)

1 Annexure F: Proposed Organisation and Staffing including Form

D1-1 (Participation Confirmation Letters for all team members)

2 Annexure G: Current/Previous Projects (last 3 years, including

incomplete projects

3 Annexure H: PSP Performance Evaluation Form – Project 1

4 Additional Reference Forms (minimum of three projects

recommended for alignment with risk assessment)

Pricing and Contractual Documents

1 C1.1: Form of Offer and Acceptance (completed and signed per

cluster

2 Pricing Schedule / Activity Schedule (C2.2)

3 Professional Indemnity Insurance Proof

Notwithstanding the checklist provided above, it remains the sole responsibility of the bidder

to ensure that all required returnable documents, whether listed herein or elsewhere in the

RFQ document, are fully completed, signed where applicable, and submitted as part of the

tender.

Failure to submit any mandatory returnables may result in the bid being deemed nonresponsive and may lead to disqualification.

T1.1 Summary of Offer

Registered Name of

Tenderer

Trading Name of

Tenderer

Registration No. of

Entity

Cluster Offer Amount (Vat Inclusive) carried forward from Form C1.1

10 r

T1.1.1 RFQ Evaluation Process

The evaluation of bids received in response to this Request for Quotation (RFQ) shall be conducted

in four (4) stages. Bidders must successfully satisfy the requirements of each stage to proceed to

the next stage of evaluation. The four (4) stages of evaluation shall be as follows:

Stage 1: Administrative Compliance

Bidders will be evaluated for compliance with all mandatory administrative and returnable documents

required for submission. Failure to submit any mandatory document will result in disqualification.

Stage 2: Functionality

Only bidders who successfully comply with Stage 1: Administrative Compliance shall proceed to

Stage 2: Functionality Evaluation. At this stage, bidders will be evaluated against the minimum

mandatory technical requirements as stipulated in the RFQ, including relevant experience,

professional registrations, key personnel qualifications, methodology, project approach, capacity,

and other minimum qualification criteria. Evaluation shall be conducted based on predetermined

criteria and weighted scores, and only bidders achieving the minimum required threshold score shall

proceed to the final stage of Price and Preference Points Evaluation.

Stage 3: Price and Preference Points Evaluation

Only bidders who successfully pass the previous stages shall be evaluated on price and preference

points in accordance with the applicable procurement legislation and regulations using either the

80/20 or 90/10 preference point system, as determined by the estimated value of the procurement.

The bidder scoring the highest total points shall be recommended for appointment, subject to final

due diligence and approval by the relevant delegated authority.

Stage 4: Risk Assessment

Bidders who progress to Stage 4 shall also be subjected to a risk assessment evaluation. The

purpose of this assessment is to determine the bidder’s overall capability, reliability, and suitability

for successful project execution. The following factors, among others, shall be considered:

• Current workload and available capacity
• Reliability and past performance
• Experience and industry reputation

• Price offered
• Project implementation methodology

The outcome of the risk assessment may inform the final recommendation for award.

Stage 1 - administrative compliance (bidders are required to submit the

Relevant supporting documentation as part of their bid submission for

VERIFICATION PURPOSES). – Failure to submit this mandatory returnable document shall

result in the automatic disqualification of the bidder from proceeding to the next stage of

evaluation.

Company registration

SARS PIN No.

BBBEE Level

Income Tax Number

Vat Number

Tax Expiry date

CSD REG Number

COIDA Certificate No.

Stage 2 – functionality (checklist of returnables)

Tenderers who score 70 points and more (above Threshold) for functionality scoring will be carried

over/ passed on to the next evaluation stage of Price and Preferential Points.

Maximum Maximum

Evaluation Criteria number number

of points of points

Quantity Surveyor x 1 (Professionally Registered QS with more than 5

years’ experience post professional registration). Refer to Annexure

F, including Form D1-1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As

part of Annexure F)

Quantity Surveyor x 1 (Professionally Registered QS with more than 3

years’ experience post professional registration). Refer to Annexure

F, including Form D1-1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As 20

part of Annexure F)

Quantity Surveyor x 1 (Professionally Registered QS with more than 1

year experience post professional registration). Refer to Annexure F,

including Form D1-1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part

of Annexure F)

Civil Engineer x 1 (Professionally Registered Civil/Structural

Engineer/Engineering Technologist with more than 5 years post

professional registration). Refer to Annexure F, including Form D1-

1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part of Annexure F)

Civil Engineer x 1 (Professionally Registered Civil/Structural 20

Engineer/Engineering Technologist with more than 3 years post

professional registration). Refer to Annexure F, including Form D1-

1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part of Annexure F)

Civil Engineer x 1 (Professionally Registered Civil/Structural

Engineer/Engineering Technologist with more than 1 years post

professional registration). Refer to Annexure F, including Form D1-

1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part of Annexure F)

Geotechnical Engineer x 1 (Professionally Registered Civil/Structural

Engineer/Engineering Technologist with more than 5 years post

Maximum Maximum

Evaluation Criteria number number

of points of points

professional registration). Refer to Annexure F, including Form D11 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part of Annexure F)

Geotechnical Engineer x 1 (Professionally Registered Civil/Structural

Engineer/Engineering Technologist with more than 3 years post

professional registration). Refer to Annexure F, including Form D11 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part of Annexure F) 15

Geotechnical Engineer x 1 (Professionally Registered Civil/Structural

Engineer/Engineering Technologist with more than 1 year post

professional registration). Refer to Annexure F, including Form D11 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part of Annexure F)

Architect x 1 (Professionally Registered QS with more than 5 years’

experience post professional registration). Refer to Annexure F,

including Form D1-1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part

of Annexure F)

Architect x 1 (Professionally Registered QS with more than 3 years’ 15

experience post professional registration). Refer to Annexure F,

including Form D1-1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part

of Annexure F)

Architect x 1 (Professionally Registered QS with more than 1 year

experience post professional registration). Refer to Annexure F,

including Form D1-1 – (Participation Confirmation letter – As part

of Annexure F)

Appointed on similar Sanitation Projects – 3 Appointment letters. Refer

to Annexure G

Appointed on similar Sanitation Projects – 2 Appointment letters. Refer 10

to Annexure G

Appointed on similar Sanitation Projects – 1 Appointment letter. Refer

2,5

to Annexure G

Reference Letter 1 from previous employers or current employers not

as sub consultants (scoring between 85- 100) regarding project &

contract management, approval of final accounts and close out reports. 10

One project with value above 1 million (construction). Refer to

Annexure H

Maximum Maximum

Evaluation Criteria number number

of points of points

Reference Letter 1 from previous employers or current employers not

as sub consultants (scoring between 70 - 84) regarding project &

contract management, approval of final accounts and close out reports. 5

One project with value above 1 million (construction). Refer to

Annexure H

Reference Letter 1 from previous employers or current employers not

as sub consultants (scoring between 61- 69) regarding project & 10

contract management, approval of final accounts and close out reports. 2,5

One project with value above 1 million (construction). Refer to

Annexure H

Reference Letter 1 from previous employers or current employers not

as sub consultants (scoring between 0- 60) regarding project &

contract management, approval of final accounts and close out reports. 0

One project with value above 1 million (construction). Refer to

Annexure H

Reference Letter 2 from previous employers or current employers not

as sub consultants (scoring between 85- 100) regarding project &

contract management, approval of final accounts and close out reports. 10

One project with value above 1 million (construction). Refer to

Annexure H

Reference Letter 2 from previous employers or current employers not

as sub consultants (scoring between 70- 84) regarding project &

contract management, approval of final accounts and close out reports. 5

One project with value above 1 million (construction). Refer to

Annexure H 10

Reference Letter 2 from previous employers or current employers not

as sub consultants (scoring between 61- 69) regarding project &

contract management, approval of final accounts and close out reports. 2,5

One project with value above 1 million (construction). Refer to

Annexure H

Reference Letter 2 from previous employers or current employers not

as sub consultants (scoring between 0- 60) regarding project & 0

contract management, approval of final accounts and close out reports.

Maximum Maximum

Evaluation Criteria number number

of points of points

One project with value above 1 million (construction). Refer to

Annexure H

Maximum possible score for evaluation criteria

Stage 3 – price and preference points evaluation

Preference points claim form in terms of the preferential procurement

Regulations 2022 (sbd 6.1)

This preference form must form part of all tenders invited. It contains general information and

serves as a claim form for preference points for specific goals.

Nb: before completing this form, tenderers must study the

General conditions, definitions and directives applicable in

Respect of the tender and preferential procurement

Regulations, 2022

1. General conditions

1.1 The following preference point systems are applicable to invitations to tender:

• the 80/20 system for requirements with a Rand value of up to R50 000 000 (all

applicable taxes included); and

• the 90/10 system for requirements with a Rand value above R50 000 000 (all

applicable taxes included).

1.2 To be completed by the organ of state

a) The applicable preference point system for this tender is the 80/20 preference point

system.

b) The 80/20 preference point system will be applicable in this tender. The lowest/ highest

acceptable tender will be used to determine the accurate system once tenders are

received.

1.3 Points for this tender (even in the case of a tender for income-generating contracts) shall

be awarded for:

(a) Price; and

(b) Specific Goals.

1.4 To be completed by the organ of state:

The maximum points for this tender are allocated as follows:

Points

Price

Specific goals

Total points for Price and SPECIFIC GOALS 100

1.5 Failure on the part of a tenderer to submit proof or documentation required in terms of this

tender to claim points for specific goals with the tender, will be interpreted to mean that

preference points for specific goals are not claimed.

1.6 The organ of state reserves the right to require of a tenderer, either before a tender is

adjudicated or at any time subsequently, to substantiate any claim in regard to preferences,

in any manner required by the organ of state.

2. Definitions

(a) “tender” means a written offer in the form determined by an organ of state in response to

an invitation to provide goods or services through price quotations, competitive tendering

process or any other method envisaged in legislation;

(b) “price” means an amount of money tendered for goods or services, and includes all

applicable taxes less all unconditional discounts;

(c) “rand value” means the total estimated value of a contract in Rand, calculated at the time

of bid invitation, and includes all applicable taxes;

(d) “tender for income-generating contracts” means a written offer in the form determined by

an organ of state in response to an invitation for the origination of income-generating

contracts through any method envisaged in legislation that will result in a legal agreement

between the organ of state and a third party that produces revenue for the organ of state,

and includes, but is not limited to, leasing and disposal of assets and concession contracts,

excluding direct sales and disposal of assets through public auctions; and

(e) “the Act” means the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act, 2000 (Act No. ).

3. Formulae for procurement of goods and services

3.1. Points awarded for price

3.1.1 The 80/20 or 90/10 preference point systems

A maximum of 80 or 90 points is allocated for price on the following basis:

80/20 or 90/10

PPPP−PPmmmmmm PPPP−PPmmmmmm

PPPP= 8888ቀ11− ቁ or PPPP= 9999ቀ11− ቁ PPmmmmmm PPmmmmmm

Where

Ps = Points scored for price of tender under consideration

Pt = Price of tender under consideration

Pmin = Price of lowest acceptable tender

3.2. Formulae for disposal or leasing of state assets and income

Generating procurement

3.2.1. Points awarded for price

A maximum of 80 or 90 points is allocated for price on the following basis:

80/20 or 90/10

PPPP−PPmmmmmm PPPP−PPmmmmmm

PPPP= 8888ቀ11+ ቁ or PPPP= 9999ቀ11+ ቁ PPmmmmmm PPPPPPPP

Where

Ps = Points scored for price of tender under consideration

Pt = Price of tender under consideration

Pmax = Price of highest acceptable tender

4. Points awarded for specific goals

4.1. In terms of Regulation 4(2); 5(2); 6(2) and 7(2) of the Preferential Procurement Regulations,

preference points must be awarded for specific goals stated in the tender. For the purposes

of this tender the tenderer will be allocated points based on the goals stated in table 1 below

as may be supported by proof/ documentation stated in the conditions of this tender:

4.2. In cases where organs of state intend to use Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations, which states

that, if it is unclear whether the 80/20 or 90/10 preference point system applies, an organ of

state must, in the tender documents, stipulate in the case of—

(a) an invitation for tender for income-generating contracts, that either the 80/20 or 90/10

preference point system will apply and that the highest acceptable tender will be used to

determine the applicable preference point system; or

(b) any other invitation for tender, that either the 80/20 or 90/10 preference point system will

apply and that the lowest acceptable tender will be used to determine the applicable

preference point system,

then the organ of state must indicate the points allocated for specific goals for both the 90/10

and 80/20 preference point system.

Table 1: Specific goals for the tender and points claimed are indicated per the table below.

(Note to organs of state: Where either the 90/10 or 80/20 preference point system is

applicable, corresponding points must also be indicated as such.

Note to tenderers: The tenderer must indicate how they claim points for each preference point

system.)

Number of points Number of points claimed (80/20 The specific goals allocated points

system) in terms of this tender (for South allocated

African Citizens only) (To be completed by the tenderer) (80/20 system)

Black Africans Ownership 10

Women Ownership 5

Youth Ownership 3

People with Disabilities Ownership 2

Declaration with regard to company/firm

4.3. Name of company/firm...............................................................................

4.4. Company registration number: .....................................................................

4.5. Type of company/ firm

Partnership/Joint Venture / Consortium

One-person business/sole propriety

Close corporation

Public Company

Personal Liability Company

(Pty) Limited

Non-Profit Company

State Owned Company

[Tick applicable box]

4.6. I, the undersigned, who is duly authorised to do so on behalf of the company/firm, certify

that the points claimed, based on the specific goals as advised in the tender, qualifies the

company/ firm for the preference(s) shown and I acknowledge that:

i) The information furnished is true and correct;

ii) The preference points claimed are in accordance with the General Conditions as

indicated in paragraph 1 of this form;

iii) In the event of a contract being awarded as a result of points claimed as shown in

paragraphs 1.4 and 4.2, the contractor may be required to furnish documentary proof

to the satisfaction of the organ of state that the claims are correct;

iv) If the specific goals have been claimed or obtained on a fraudulent basis or any of the

conditions of contract have not been fulfilled, the organ of state may, in addition to any

other remedy it may have –

(a) disqualify the person from the tendering process;

(b) recover costs, losses or damages it has incurred or suffered as a result of

that person’s conduct;

(c) cancel the contract and claim any damages which it has suffered as a

result of having to make less favourable arrangements due to such

cancellation;

(d) recommend that the tenderer or contractor, its shareholders and directors,

or only the shareholders and directors who acted on a fraudulent basis,

be restricted from obtaining business from any organ of state for a period

not exceeding 10 years, after the audi alteram partem (hear the other side)

rule has been applied; and

(e) forward the matter for criminal prosecution, if deemed necessary.

..............................................

Signature(s) of tenderer(s)

Surname and name: ................................................................

Date: ...............................................................

Address: ...............................................................

Stage 4 – comprehensive risk assessment acknowledgement

Bidders are required to provide the necessary information in Annexures F, G, and H as part of the

submission in order to be eligible for scoring against the criteria below.

The purpose of this assessment is to ensure that all potential risks associated with the project are

identified, properly understood, and appropriately mitigated.

Annexure of:

A. Work-load and Capacity (3 points) C.3.11

Evaluation

Assessment of current projects, geographical spread, available resources,

Of bid offers

and any other tenders under consideration.

Low risk Medium risk High risk

Service provider has Service provider has Service provider is

adequate capacity, moderate capacity overcommitted, with

with current projects constraints, with minor significant delays

well managed and not delays (≤10%) in (>10%) in current

behind schedule. current projects. projects and/or

Available resources Resource allocation insufficient resources

are sufficient to may require to effectively manage

accommodate the adjustment to additional projects

additional workload accommodate within required

without compromising additional work. timelines.

delivery timelines.

B. Reliability (3 points)

Assessment based on completion of similar projects within agreed timelines

over the past three (3) years.

Low risk Medium risk High risk

Successfully Delivered projects with Delivered projects with

delivered at least delays between 11% delays exceeding 20%

three (3) similar and 20% of agreed of agreed timelines.

projects within 10% of timelines.

agreed timelines

C. Experience and reputation (3 points)

Assessment based on references from similar sanitation, infrastructure, or

school-based projects.

Low risk Medium risk High risk

At least three (3) Mixed references, with Weak references,

strong, positive at least two (2) fair including poor

references (score ratings and one (1) performance

above 80 points) from good rating (60 – 79 feedback or inability

comparable projects points). to provide sufficient

(e.g. DBE, credible references

municipalities, (below 59 points).

implementing agents).

D. Price Offered (3 points)

Assessment of whether the proposed fees are realistic, market-related, and

sufficient to ensure quality delivery. An offer that is considered to be

significantly low compared to the market related price/cost norm will be

considered a high risk.

Acceptable risk Medium risk High risk

Fees are within 10% of Fees are moderately Fees are significantly

the market range and below market norms below market norms

aligned to the scope of (10%–20%), raising (>20%), posing risk to

services. concerns about quality, resourcing, and

project delivery.

sustainability of

service delivery

Bidders may be requested to provide detailed cost breakdowns, including

personnel rates, overheads, and project management costs.

E. Project Implementation methodology (Technical approach): 3 points

Bidders must submit a detailed methodology addressing:

● Project governance and reporting structures

● Preparation and management of variation orders, final accounts,

close-out reports, and final completion processes.

● Mechanisms for addressing and resolving queries from NECT Project

Managers, the Quantity Surveying (QS) team, and the DBE.

● Preparation and submission of payment certificates linked to

completed project milestones.

● Human resource allocation, including key personnel (e.g. Quantity

surveyor, Architect, Engineers), with clearly defined roles and

responsibilities.

● Programme and scheduling approach, including alignment with project

timelines.

● Quality assurance and quality control processes.

● Risk identification, management, and mitigation strategies.

● Stakeholder engagement approach, including coordination with

schools, the DBE, and local communities.

● Cash flow projections aligned to the project programme and key

milestones.

● Provision of as-built site development plans and detailed drawings.

● Full contract administration, including management of all contractual

processes.

● A clear implementation plan demonstrating the bidder’s ability to

complete all aspects of the contract within six (6) months.

Low risk Medium risk High risk

Comprehensive, Adequate Incomplete or poorly

coherent, and methodology covering developed

detailed methodology more than 60% of the methodology

covering all key areas key areas above but covering fewer than

above with clear lacking depth in 60% of the key

alignment to project certain aspects. required areas, with

objectives. unclear execution

approach.

Legend

Colour Points

Risk Assessment Results

• For a bidder to pass the Risk Assessment and considered for award

they must obtain a minimum of 11 points.

• Bidders who obtain below 11 on their Risk Assessment as per the

table below WILL NOT be considered for award:

The BEC may call the bidder for an interview should it deem it necessary

based on the objective risk assessment and may be requested to justify

with supporting documents.

As part of overall risk assessment, the Bidders give The NECT the right

to enquire from previous and/or current employers about bidders’

performance.

Bidder will not be considered if;

(i) Delivered projects more than 25% beyond agreed timelines

(ii) Incurred penalties

(iii) Failed to finalise contractual obligations (e.g. unsigned final accounts)

(iv) Demonstrated poor defect management

(v) Had contracts terminated due to non-performance

On previous or current project implemented by The NECT or other

Implementing Agents on the SAFE and ASIDI programmes on behalf of the

Department of Basic Education.

Other information and documentation that may be requested as part of

evaluation process.

The NECT does not bind itself to accepting the lowest tender. Risk

assessment will be considered in the awarding of tenders.

T1.2 Tender Data

The conditions of tender are the Standard Conditions of Tender as contained in Annex C of CIDB

Standard for Uniformity in Engineering and Construction Works Contracts (August 2019). This

standard is issued in terms of sections 4(f), 5(3)(c) and 5(4)(b) of the Construction Industry

Development Board Act read with Regulation 24 of the Construction Industry

Development Regulations, 2004 (as amended) issued in terms of section 33. (See

www.cidb.org.za).

The Standard Conditions of Tender make several references to the Tender Data for details that

apply specifically to this tender. The Tender Data shall have precedence in the interpretation of

any ambiguity or inconsistency between it and the Standard Conditions of Tender.

Each item of data given below is cross-referenced to the clause in the Standard Conditions of

Tender to which it mainly applies.

Clause

Tender Data

number

C.1.2 The Tender Documents issued by The National Education Collaboration Trust

comprise the following documents:

The tender

Part T1: Tendering procedures

T1.1 - Tender notice and invitation to tender

T1.2 - Tender data

Part T2: Returnable documents

T2.1 - List of returnable documents

T2.2 - Returnable schedules

The contract

Part C1: Agreements and Contract data

C1.1 - Form of offer and acceptance

C1.2 - Contract data

Part C2: Pricing data

C2.1 - Pricing instructions

C2.2 - Activity Schedule for Value Based Fees

Part C3: Scope of work

C3 - Scope of work

Part C4: Site information

C4 - Site information

C.1.4 The National Education Collaboration Trust’s agent is: Mammako Khumalo

Tel : +27 12 752 6200

Email : [email protected]

C.1.6.2.1 The National Education Collaboration Trust will not announce the names of the

tenderers who make a submission.

C.1.6.3 The two stage-system proposal procedure SHALL NOT apply.

C.2.1 Eligibility

Only entities that are appropriately qualified and professionally registered with their

relevant professional bodies may submit tenders. Valid professional registration

certificates must be attached as part of the submission. The appointed entity will be

required to lead a multidisciplinary team that meets the minimum eligibility criteria

outlined below.

The core team should consist of the following minimum staff per sub cluster:

1. Quantity Surveyors (Professionally Registered QS with more than 5 years’

experience post professional registration)

2. Civil Engineers (Professionally Registered Engineer/Technologist)

3. Architects (Professionally Registered Architect with more than 5 years’

experience post professional registration)

4. Geotechnical Engineers (Professionally Registered Geotechnical Engineer

with more than 5 years’ experience post professional registration)

The core staff is required to be fully committed and available to service the

projects.

Service Providers who don’t meet the above minimum requirements and/or who

failed to perform on any previous contract and have been given a written notice(s)

to this effect and/or the tenderer has been terminated by The NECT or other

employers due to poor performance (SBD 4 to be completed) will not be considered

and will be disqualified. The National Education Collaboration Trust reserves the

right to request other employers regarding the service provider performance.

C.2.13.1 All the parts of each tender offer communicated on paper shall be submitted as an

original

C.2.13.2 Return all returnable documents to The NECT after completing them in their entirety,

in hard copies written legibly in non-erasable ink.

C.2.13.3 Submit the parts of the tender offer communicated on paper as an original plus the

number of copies stated in the tender data, with an English translation of any

documentation in a language other than English, and the parts communicated

electronically in the same format as they were issued by the NECT.

C.2.13.9 Accept that tender offers submitted by facsimile will be rejected by the NECT, unless

stated otherwise in the tender data.

C.3.1.2 The National Education Collaboration Trust will consider any request to make a

material change in the capabilities or formation of the tendering entity (or both) or

any other criteria which formed part of the requirements used to pre-qualify a

tenderer to submit a tender offer in terms of a previous procurement process and

deny any such request if as a consequence:

a) an individual firm, or a joint venture as a whole, or any individual member of

the joint venture fails to meet any of the collective or individual qualifying

requirements;

b) the new partners to a joint venture were not prequalified in the first instance,

either as individual firms or as another joint venture; or

c) in the opinion of The National Education Collaboration Trust, acceptance of

the material change would compromise the outcome of the prequalification

process.

C.3.3 Tender offers received after the closing time stated in the Tender Data will not be

returned.

C.3.4.2 The name of each tenderer whose tender offer is opened will not be announced in

public.

C.3.5 A two-envelope procedure will not be followed

C.3.11 The tenders will be evaluated for functionality, quality, price and preference.

Apply the 80/20 Preference Point system where a maximum of eighty (80) points

will be awarded for price and twenty (20) points will be awarded for B-BBEE.

Risk Assessment will be conducted for all eligible Tenderers, after price and

preference evaluation. Risk assessment will be evaluated on the following:

• Proposed resources have the relevant experience
• Price offered does not pose risk to completion of the project
• Current workload of service provider
• No. of projects not closed out whose time has lapsed.
• Validity of adequate PI insurance
• Financial Capabilities of the tenderer
• Failed to perform on any previous contract and has been given a written notice(s)

to this effect and/or the tenderer has been terminated by THE NECT or other

employers due to poor performance (SBD 4 to be completed).

As part of risk assessment, the Bidders give The NECT the right to request for

enquiries from previous and/or current employers about bidders’ performance.

The risk assessment will be scored according to stage 4.

C.3.11.1 Points scored for price will be calculated in accordance with the formula shown in

Sbd 6.1

T1.1.1 RFQ Evaluation Stages