Group

Technology

Strategy
Title:

Atlas substation Concrete

security wall Technical
Tender Evaluation Strategy

Compiled
by

Dawie
Naude
Senior
Engineer
Civil

Date:

Unique Identifier:

Alternative Reference
Number:

N/A

Area of Applicability:

Engineering

Documentation Type:

Strategy

Revision:

0.1

Total Pages:

13

Next Review Date:

N/A

Disclosure Classification:

CONTROLLED
DISCLOSURE

Supported by

Functional
Responsibility

Supported by

Authorised by

P Tlhatlhetji

E Lechtman

P Moyo

Project
Manager

Substation
Engineering
Chief
Engineer

Substation
Eng. Manager

GM Power
Delivery

Date:

Date:

Date:

Date:

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
2 of 13

CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................
2. SUPPORTING CLAUSES...............................................................................................
2.1 SCOPE............................................................................................................................................................
2.1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................................................
2.1.2 Applicability..............................................................................................................................................
2.2 NORMATIVE/INFORMATIVE REFERENCES.................................................................................................
2.2.1 Normative................................................................................................................................................
2.3 DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................................................
2.3.1 Classification............................................................................................................................................
2.4 ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................................
2.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES...................................................................................................................
2.5.1 Lead Discipline Engineer.........................................................................................................................
2.5.2 Engineer (Technical Area Lead)...............................................................................................................
2.6 RELATED/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS........................................................................................................
3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION STRATEGY............................................................................
3.1 TEAM COMPOSITION....................................................................................................................................
3.2 TECHNICAL AREAS TO BE EVALUATED.......................................................................................................
3.3 EVALUATION SCHEDULE..............................................................................................................................
3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA.................................................................................................................................
3.4.1 Mandatory Criteria...................................................................................................................................
3.4.2 Qualitative Criteria...................................................................................................................................
3.4.3 Evaluation Scoring Table.........................................................................................................................
3.5 EVALUATION PROCESS................................................................................................................................
3.5.1 Evaluation Venue.....................................................................................................................................
3.5.2 Appointments of Team Members..............................................................................................................
3.5.3 Kick-off Meeting.......................................................................................................................................
3.5.4 Evaluation of Mandatory Criteria..............................................................................................................
3.5.5 Evaluation of Qualitative Criteria..............................................................................................................
3.5.6 Technical Adjustments.............................................................................................................................
3.5.7 Evaluation Report....................................................................................................................................
4. AUTHORISATION......................................................................................................
5. REVISIONS..............................................................................................................
6. DEVELOPMENT TEAM...............................................................................................
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................

TABLES
Table 1: Technical Evaluation Team............................................................................................................................
Table 2: Technical Areas and Team Leaders...............................................................................................................
Table 3: Mandatory Criteria.........................................................................................................................................

CONTOLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
3 of 13

Table 4: Percentage Weighting Breakdown................................................................................................................

Table 5: Evaluation Scoring Table...............................................................................................................................

CONTOLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
4 of 13

1. INTRODUCTION
This document establishes the technical evaluation strategy for the evaluation of tenders that will
be received in response to the request for tender no: PS(PDP)2012/FM/10. This strategy is a high
level consideration of key aspects that will give direction to the technical evaluation process. It is in
accordance with the GBE Technical Evaluation Guideline 474-011 Rev.0.
A open enquiry for the civil construction of Atlas Substation concrete security wall will be issued on
the 06 September 2012. The closing date for the tender is 05 October 2012.

2. SUPPORTING CLAUSES
2.1 SCOPE
This document covers the technical evaluation strategy for the evaluation of tender no:
PS(PDP)2012/FM/10.
2.1.1 Purpose
The aim of this document is to provide a technical evaluation strategy that shall be used for the
technical evaluation of tender no: PS(PDP)2012/FM/10. Furthermore, it will ensure transparency in
the evaluation process as per the requirements of GBE Technical Evaluation Guideline 474-011
Rev.0.
2.1.2 Applicability
This document shall apply to the civil construction of the Atlas Substation Concrete security wall
and the inside security fence.
2.2 NORMATIVE/INFORMATIVE REFERENCES
Parties using this document shall apply the most recent edition of the documents listed in the
following paragraphs.
2.2.1 Normative
[1]

TSP41-727: Stringing, Cabling, Earthing and Erection Specification for Substations

[2]

TST41-877: Transmission Substations Design Earthing Standard

[3]

SANS 1200: Standardized Specification for Civil Engineering Construction

[4]

OHS Act, 1993: Electrical Installation Regulations, 2009

[5]

0.54/393: Eskom Earthing Standard

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
5 of 13

[6]

N.SS 45-661: Specification for Electrical, Air Conditioning and Ventilation Installations in
Substation Control Buildings

[7]

GBEG 474-011: Technical Evaluation Guideline

2.3 DEFINITIONS
2.3.1 Classification
a. Controlled Disclosure: Controlled Disclosure to external parties (either enforced by law, or
discretionary).
2.4 ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviati
on

Description

SE

Substation Engineering

GT

Group Technology

LDE

Lead Discipline Engineer

EIT

Engineer in Training

2.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.5.1 Lead Discipline Engineer

Accountable for all the power plant technical evaluation of deliverables for activities to be
performed in the civil construction of Atlas Substation security concrete wall.

Manages the technical evaluation process.

2.5.2 Engineer (Technical Area Lead)

Provides a service to the Lead Discipline Engineer, specific to his/her technical area. The
Technical Area leader is to coordinate all the evaluation activities within his/her area of
responsibility

2.6 RELATED/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Not Applicable

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION STRATEGY

The technical evaluation of the tenders will be based on the tenderers ability to meet the
requirements defined in the works information to be issued to the market on the 06 September
2012. The following aspects are discussed in the sub sections below:
CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
6 of 13

Team composition
Technical areas to be evaluated
Evaluation schedule
Evaluation criteria
Evaluation process
3.1 TEAM COMPOSITION
The technical evaluation team has been established and comprises of technical representatives
from the Substation Engineering Department (Civil). The evaluation team is listed in the table
below.
Table 1: Technical Evaluation Team

#
1.

Name
Bilal Hajee

Designation

Department

Role

Engineer

Substation Engineering

Designer

Chief Engineer

Substation Engineering

Chief Engineer

Manager

Substation Engineering

Manager

Chief Engineer

Substation Engineering

Group Leader

2.
3.

Phineas Tlhatlhetji

4.

Elli Lechtman

5.

Dawie Senekal

6.
7.

3.2 TECHNICAL AREAS TO BE EVALUATED

Table 2 below shows a list of Technical Areas that will be evaluated. Each Technical Area is
allocated a team leader who co-ordinates all activities within the Technical area.
Table 2: Technical Areas and Team Leaders

#
1.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION - TECHNICAL

Civil Works: Concrete wall

TEAM LEADER
Bilal Hajee

2.
3.
4.

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
7 of 13

3.3 EVALUATION SCHEDULE

The proposed schedule for conducting the technical evaluation process will be 30 days from the
date of receiving the tenders from procurement. During this time the technical evaluation report will
be finalised and issued to the Project Manager.
3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA
3.4.1 Mandatory Criteria
Table 3 below shows the Mandatory criteria that will be assessed. These criteria were issued to the
potential tenderers as part of the enquiry.
Table 3: Mandatory Criteria

Mandatory Criteria - Civil

1.

Construction Program

2.

Construction method statements

3.

List of subcontractors

4.

Method of concrete mix

5.

List of plant and machinery

6.

Material suppliers

3.4.2 Qualitative Criteria

Compliant tenders will be evaluated against a set of weighted qualitative evaluation criteria. The
evaluation criteria have been broken down into sections and a percentage weighting for each
section is allocated.
Percentages weighting summary figures are indicated in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Percentage Weighting Breakdown
QUALITATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA

DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS

WEIGHT AND SCORE

% RESULT

1 Civil Works: Concrete wall

Item No.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

Item
Skills and Relevant Experience
Past Performance
Construction Program
Construction method statements
Plant and machinery

Weighted
Weight
(W)

15
15
30
25
15

Actual
(A)

Max
(M)

Result(R)
(A / M) X W

5
5
5
5
5

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
8 of 13

Result (R) = (A / M) X W
Subsection = sum of Result (R)

%
Comments

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5

2. Steelworks: Fencing
Item No.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

Weighted

Item

Weight
(W)

Skills and Relevant Experience

Past Performance
Construction Method Statements
Plant and Machinery
Technical Schedule

Actual
(A)

Max
(M)

Result(R)
(A / M) X W

5
5
5
5
5

25
20
21
6
10

25
20
35
10
10

Result (R) = (A / M) X W
%

Subsection = sum of Result (R)

Comments
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5

3. General
Item No.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

Item
List of key personnel,incl. CV, academic qualification and Relevant
Experience. Total number of manpower to this project
List of comparable projects undertaken
List of Sub-contractors
Material suppliers

Weighted
Weight
(W)

Actual
(A)

Max
(M)

30

10
30
30

5
5
5

Result(R)
(A / M) X W

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
9 of 13

Result (R) = (A / M) X W
%

Subsection = sum of Result (R)

Comments
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
FINAL TOTAL SCORE EQUALS SUM OF SUBSECTIONS 1 to 6 AS A PERCENTAGE

3.4.3 Evaluation Scoring Table

The scoring will be done as per the scoring table shown below. This table is as per the
requirements of GBE Technical Evaluation Guideline 474-011. The minimum weighted average
required for the tender to be considered for further evaluation is 70%. The team will perform risk
analysis on tenders falling below the 70% threshold to substantiate the result and to authenticate
the credibility of the evaluation process and results.

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
10 of 13

Table 5: Evaluation Scoring Table

Scor
e

Percentag
e

100

80

Definition
Meets Employers Requirements:
No errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions.
Meets Employers Requirements with qualifications:
Some qualifications required from tenderer to eliminate the errors, risks,
weaknesses and omissions.
Marginally does not meet Employers Requirements:

60

Some minor errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions which can be corrected or

overcome with negotiation and minor cost impact.
Substantially does not meet Employers Requirements:

40

20

Existence of numerous errors, risks, weaknesses or omissions which cannot be

corrected.

Totally deficient / non-responsive*

Many errors, risks, weaknesses which may be difficult to be correct or overcome

and make acceptable.
No achievement of Employers Requirements:

*Non-responsive items must be defined and declared in a non-responsive items list which should form part
of the evaluation documentation. The list must be signed off by a Commercial representative.

3.5 EVALUATION PROCESS

3.5.1 Evaluation Venue
The evaluation will take place at Megawatt Park in C-MAX. The venue protocols will be discussed
with the team in the kick-off meeting.
3.5.2 Appointments of Team Members
Members will be appointed in writing by the Electrical Discipline Manager. The appointment letter
will include declaration of any conflict of interest. The technical evaluation team will have no insight
into the financial part of the tender until after the technical part evaluation has been completed.
3.5.3 Kick-off Meeting
A kick-off meeting is planned for the 11 October 2012 for the discussion of the evaluation plan and
procedure.

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
11 of 13

3.5.4 Evaluation of Mandatory Criteria

The mandatory criteria shown in Table 3 are evaluated on a YES/NO basis. Complying with the
mandatory criteria will allow the tenderers proposal to proceed to the detailed evaluation described
in the next section.
3.5.5 Evaluation of Qualitative Criteria
This is a detailed assessment of the tender focusing on the sub-criteria issued as part of the
Enquiry. The tenderers ability to satisfy the qualitative criteria will be assessed on the basis of
scores allocated by the evaluation team in response to questions relating to each criterion. The
scoring of tenders will be based on the degree of achievement by the tenderer of the requirements
set out in document Enquiry Works Information. PDF. The scoring will be done as per Table 5
above.
Evaluation Team members will conduct the evaluation individually and the final score will be
determined as the average of the separately evaluated scores.

The following key aspects will be documented for each sub-criterion where applicable:
Description of what the Tenderer has provided
Assumptions made about what the Tenderer has provided
Deviations
Clarification Questions to be asked
Technical Adjustment Required
Risks & Consequences
Rating Justification
Rating
3.5.6 Technical Adjustments
Once the Qualitative assessment is finalised the Technical team will then have access to the
pricing documentation for the purpose of performing technical adjustments of the pricing. All
technical adjustment done on the pricing will be documented in a report for each Tenderer.
3.5.7 Evaluation Report
The final results will be documented in a Technical Evaluation report. The report will cover the
following aspect
Tender Evaluation Methodology
Technical Gatekeepers Compliance

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
12 of 13

Technical Comparison of Tenders

Technical Adjustments
Recommendation

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.

ATLAS SS CONCRETE SECURITY WALL Technical Tender

Evaluation Strategy

Unique Identifier:
Revision:
Page:

0.1
13 of 13

4. AUTHORISATION
This document has been seen and accepted by:
Name
Dawie Senekal

Designation
Civil Design Group Leader

5. REVISIONS
Date

Rev.

Compiler

Remarks

6. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The following people were involved in the development of this document:
Dawie naude

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following people were involved in the review of this document:
Bilal Hajee

CONTROLLED DISCLOSURE
When downloaded from the EDMS database, this document is uncontrolled and the responsibility rests with the user to ensure it
is in line with the authorised version on the database.