New tenders - Questions & Answers for The Source separation of household waste in Berat Municipality

23 Dec 2020

There are new Q&As from 5 January 2021 to the tender The Source separation of household waste in Berat Municipality. Ref. No. UM2020/39340, to be found below.

Q1: Invitation to Tender: 3.3. Qualification of tenderers, request: Evidence that the tenderer and any subcontractors on which the tenderer relies, or consortium parties are not to be excluded according to Chapter 13, Section 1 of the LOU (i.e., section “A: Grounds relating to criminal convictions” in this procurement document) (…): Does the requirement refer to the responsible person in the company too (i.e., CEO)?

A1: Yes, for crimes key people are also included, please see appendix 5 – Declaration of honour:



Q2. Referring to the question above- if yes, is the Declaration of honour considered to be the evidence?

A2: Yes, that is considered a valid evidence. We refer to invitation to tender 3.3, item 1.

Q3: ITT Appendix 4: Self Declaration by Tenderers, 2.2 Economic and financial standing, Key financial ratios: Can we submit certification from the other international companies (i.e. Bisonde) or national business register agency as the basis as evidence the tenderers’ financial standing and financial stability, or does it have to be the Creditsafe brand, as described in?

A3: It is fine to use the service of such company or agency. The rating shall then be equivalent of at least 60 (low risk) in Creditsafe’s rating.

Q4: Are bidders submitting Key financial ratios only for the lead company or for each member of the consortium?

A4: We refer to appendix 4 – Self declaration 3.1 and 3.2 on what is needed for sub-contractors and consortia. In regards to 2.2 Economic and financial standing there is nothing needed from the sub-contractors and consortia – the consortia as whole shall meet the requirement.

Q5. ToR Section 7.3: Does the incidental budget of 7.62MIL SEK include the budget for equipment (maximum budget of 5.46MIL SEK)?

A5: Yes, the incidental budget of 7.62 MSEK includes the budget for equipment.

Q6: The provision for incidental expenditure  (ToR page 21) is stated as 7.62 MSEK however the list for same does not mention the purchase of any equipment. Is it correctly understood that the 5.46 MSEK for purchase of equipment should be included in the list?

A6: Yes, the incidental budget of 7.62 MSEK includes the budget for equipment (5.46 MSEK).

Q7: According to Appendix 1, Terms of Reference, N° 7.1 Staff, the “Key Expert 1 – Project Manager” is considered with a total of 30 days. – With a project duration of 30 months, 30 days for the project manager seems very little to us. Is this time indication correct and binding?

A7: The time is based on our estimation but the tenderer can propose another division of days between the Project Manager and the Senior Waste Expert as long as the maximum total days of 150 is respected.

Q8: According to Appendix 1, Terms of reference, N° 7.3 (page 21) the amount of the incidental costs available for this project is provided as “SEK 7,620.296”. We assume this is a typo and would like to ask that the correct amount be stated.

A8: No, the incidental budget of 7.62 MSEK includes the budget for equipment (5.46 MSEK).

Q9: In Chapter 1.1. and 1.6 of the Procurement Document, it is indicated that the maximum budget is 10.7 MSEK (approximately 1.050.000 €), including VAT. Which VAT rate is considered here?

A9: VAT costs have been calculated for all incidental costs, I e 7.62 MSEK, but not for fee costs. The VAT rate used is 20%.

Q10: Usually, the projects financed by international donors and implemented in Albania are exempted from VAT. Is this not the case for this project?

A10: See A9 above.

Q11: In Chapter 6.1 of the Procurement Document it is indicated, that out of the maximum budget of 10.7 MSEK a maximum 5.46 MSEK is set aside for purchase of equipment (vehicles, bins etc). Is the difference foreseen for the consultancy budget? Are the provisions for incidental expenditures and expenditure verification as stated in Chapter 7.3 of the ToR included in the available consultancy budget or is the budget for incidental expenditures additional?

A11: The incidental budget is included in the consultancy budget.

Q12: According to Chapter 5.4 of the Procurement Document “Merits” the senior waste expert “shall have experience of similar size capacity building project […] completed in the past 5 years.” – Could you please specify if only completed projects or also ongoing projects are assessable.

A12: No the proven experience could also be from an ongoing project. Only the period implemented at the date of submission of the tender will be evaluated.

Q13: According to Appendix 4, N° 2.1 “non-Swedish tenderers shall be registered for VAT (if not exempted from the payment of values added tax) and possess a Tax Identification Number (TIN).” – Does this refer to a registration in Sweden or in Albania?

A13: It refers to the country in which the company is registered.

Q14: Could you please specify if for Sub-Consultants and Consortia both, Appendix 4 and 5 shall be submitted?

A14: Appendix 5 is not required to be included in the tender. Appendix 5 is for information on what could be requested later from the embassy during the evaluation, in accordance with the ITT 3.3.

Appendix 4 shall be included in the tender in the case there are consortia partner or sub-contractors which capacity is referred to in fulfilling requirements for “economic and financial standing or technical and professional capacity”. For sub-contractors to implement the assignment appendix 4 is not needed to be included.

Q15 The Penalty upon Delay is a maximum of 15% of the sum of fees and reimbursable expenses. This means that the maximum delay penalty (15% of 10.7 MSEK = 1,605,000 SEK) appears to be more than 50% of the fees, which we have calculated as maximum 3 079 704 SEK (10,700,000 – 7,620,296). This is an exceptionally high penalty considering 70% of the contact consists of “incidental expenditure”. FYI, a normal figure is a limit of 10% of the fees. Taking this into account:

• Is this the right interpretation of the Delay Penalty?

• If so, will you consider a lower maximum Delay Penalty?

A15: Yes, the maximum delay penalty should instead be based on the total fee budget and only part of the incidental costs, I e the budget for incidentals excluding the equipment costs (5.46 MSEK).

Q16: In the general conditions, the Supplier’s Liability for damages is limited to the sum of the ceiling amount for fees and the ceiling amount for reimbursable expenses for the Assignment. Out of the maximum budget of 10.7 MSEK, a maximum 5.46 MSEK is set aside for purchase of equipment and cannot be used for any other part of project. Given the circumstances, will you lower the Liability by 5.46 MSEK?

A16: Yes, the liability should be lowered by 5.46 MSEK.

Last updated 23 Dec 2020, 4.33 PM