Tender for heat pump to Sønderborg Varme A/S

Awarded

The competition has ended and a winner has been selected.

Award: Evaluated price 30% and 2 more
Procedure: With negotiationTwo stages
Agreement: Construction work

Brief

Sønderborg Varme A/S has entered into an agreement with Krebs A/S for the delivery of a heat pump, heat pump building, heat collector, and all tie-in related work in Gråsten, Denmark. This project is part of a larger restructuring of Sønderborg Varme's district heating system. The contract has a total value of 92,661,000 DKK and includes options for service and maintenance for the first 5 years of operation, with an additional option for another 5 years. The selection was based on evaluated price (30%), technical solution (40%), project solution including process and time schedule, organization, culture, and competences (25%), and contractual terms (5%). Two bids were received for this contract.

Elektrisitet og energiforvaltning

Result

TED

Krebs A/S
Winner

Number of bids
2
Contract value
DKK 92,661,000

Custom Assessment Criteria

Get answers to your bid/no-bid criteria
Set them up once and Cobrief answers them in every tender

Will you bid?

The agent sets up the bid and writes the first draft. Free for 14 days.

Qualification requirements

Award Criteria

Description
The evaluation will be based upon the Tenderer’s technical project proposal and supporting documentation. The Tenderer is encouraged to; Provide a comprehensive description of the conceptual and process considerations underlying the requested functionalities, the robustness of the works, and the specified operational modes. In particular addressing: o The works’ process robustness in all aspects. o The works’ ability to operate in intermittent electricity markets without accelerating component wear. o The works’ capacity and efficiency throughout the specified operational range. Describe the layout with focus on safety compliance, service and maintenance etc., including how large components are handled during maintenance and replacement. Provide a quality and inspection plan for the Project. In the assessment of the sub-criterion, the Contracting Entity will regard the following as positive; a) That provided information demonstrate the heat pump’s conceptual design is sound and robust for low winter ambient air temperature and/or high DH return temperature operation; it has short startup/shutdown time, cold plug flow through battery limit A is avoided, that system availability and component redundancy are properly considered, and it delivers high load-following capability including compressor start/stop without compromising long-term component reliability (i.e., low failure risk and minimal maintenance); the overall process-system architecture remains simple, facilitating easy access, easy maintenance and flexible component placement. The more detailed information provided, the better. b) That explanations are provided to the heat collector conceptual design and its interface with the heat pump(s), including the rationale for choosing refrigerant or brine in the collector circuit; thorough descriptions of how the circulation circuit is designed to avoid unintended flow regimes, such as slug flow, that could violate piping safety etc. as well as proper dynamic performance, circulation rates for refrigerant-based systems, piping diagrams. The more detailed, the better. c) That it, based on analyses and thorough explanations, is demonstrated that the energy collector system is robust to complex and varying in-/outflow of air, air short-circuiting, icing of surroundings is reduced, etc. d) That the Tenderer provides a thorough management strategy to condensate, frost-prevention and de-icing, with appropriate icing/de-icing duration curves, with details to robustness of FCUs to icing and vibration. The more detailed informaton, the better. e) That safety and environmental compliance measures are explained, including preliminary strategies to refrigerant leakage and detection, safety classification (such as e.g., ATEX) of the Contracting Entity’s site, emergency-venting provisions, and noise issues including from safety valves. The more detailed, the better. f) That the Tenderer’s quality and inspection plan demonstrates a thorough understanding of the Contract’s quality and inspection requirements and is designed to ensure the facility immediately meets the agreed specifications and is fully functional upon delivery and commissioning. It will be evaluated positive, if the plan include provisions for Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT), and the more detailed and comprehensive FAT procedures will be evaluated positively. The more detailed, the better. The Contracting Entity will make an overall evaluation under this sub-criterion
Evaluation Method
In the assessment of the sub-criterion, the Contracting Entity will regard the following as positive:

That provided information demonstrate the heat pump’s conceptual design is sound and robust for low winter ambient air temperature and/or high DH return temperature operation; it has short startup/shutdown time, cold plug flow through battery limit A is avoided, that system availability and component redundancy are properly considered, and it delivers high load-following capability including compressor start/stop without compromising long-term component reliability (i.e., low failure risk and minimal maintenance); the overall process-system architecture remains simple, facilitating easy access, easy maintenance and flexible component placement. The more detailed information provided, the better.

That explanations are provided to the heat collector conceptual design and its interface with the heat pump(s), including the rationale for choosing refrigerant or brine in the collector circuit; thorough descriptions of how the circulation circuit is designed to avoid unintended flow regimes, such as slug flow, that could violate piping safety etc. as well as proper dynamic performance, circulation rates for refrigerant-based systems, piping diagrams. The more detailed, the better.

That it, based on analyses and thorough explanations, is demonstrated that the energy collector system is robust to complex and varying in-/outflow of air, air short-circuiting, icing of surroundings is reduced, etc.

That the Tenderer provides a thorough management strategy to condensate, frost-prevention and de-icing, with appropriate icing/de-icing duration curves, with details to robustness of FCUs to icing and vibration. The more detailed informaton, the better.

That safety and environmental compliance measures are explained, including preliminary strategies to refrigerant leakage and detection, safety classification (such as e.g., ATEX) of the Contracting Entity’s site, emergency-venting provisions, and noise issues including from safety valves. The more detailed, the better.

That the Tenderer’s quality and inspection plan demonstrates a thorough understanding of the Contract’s quality and inspection requirements and is designed to ensure the facility immediately meets the agreed specifications and is fully functional upon delivery and commissioning. It will be evaluated positive, if the plan include provisions for Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT), and the more detailed and comprehensive FAT procedures will be evaluated positively. The more detailed, the better.
The Contracting Entity will make an overall evaluation under this sub-criterion.
Source
No source found in the documents. Check the weight against the tender documents.
Description
The Tenderer is encouraged to; ▪Demonstrate a realistic process- and time schedule that reflects the works and the options. ▪ demonstrate competencies (matrix) for the organization including Subcontractors and management. a) Organizational plan for the design phase and the execution phase, describing the organization and the key persons who will carry out the task. The organizational plan must show the division of roles in the different phases. The organizational plan should also show to what extent the offered key people are allocated to the Project in the different phases. The allocation should be shown based on a regular full-time position (37 hours per week). b) CV’s of the key people who will perform the roles in the organizational matrix, indicating the key people relevant education, qualifications and experience. In the assessment of the sub-criterion, the Contracting Entity will regard the following as positive; a. A process- and time schedule showing a detailed program and test, which appears responsible and well described. Furthermore, a plan that supports the fastest possible delivery and supports a high degree of quality management during the delivery and test phases, b. The more detailed, project specific (and relevant), coherent, and designed for continuous implementation the management and lessons learned procedures are, the better. It is also considered positive if the proposal includes examples from previous projects and how this is applied to this project, and c. If each CV has a competent profile with experience, qualifications, training and competences in relation to the project and in relation to the assigned role in the team, and. The Contracting Entity will pay particular attention to the key persons performing the following roles and tasks: i. The Tenderer's project managers (primary contact persons for the Contracting Entity). ii. Overall responsibility for process design carried out by the Tenderer or its subcontractors/suppliers. iii. Overall responsibility for civil works carried out by the Tenderer or its subcontractors/suppliers. iv. The Tenderer's construction management. The Contracting Entity will make an overall evaluation under this sub-criterion.
Evaluation Method
In the assessment of the sub-criterion, the Contracting Entity will regard the following as positive:

A process- and time schedule showing a detailed program and test, which appears responsible and well described. Furthermore, a plan that supports the fastest possible delivery and supports a high degree of quality management during the delivery and test phases.

The more detailed, project specific (and relevant), coherent, and designed for continuous implementation the management and lessons learned procedures are, the better. It is also considered positive if the proposal includes examples from previous projects and how this is applied to this project.

If each CV has a competent profile with experience, qualifications, training and competences in relation to the project and in relation to the assigned role in the team.
The Contracting Entity will pay particular attention to the key persons performing the following roles and tasks:

The Tenderer's project managers (primary contact persons for the Contracting Entity).

Overall responsibility for process design carried out by the Tenderer or its subcontractors/suppliers.

Overall responsibility for civil works carried out by the Tenderer or its subcontractors/suppliers.

The Tenderer's construction management.
The Contracting Entity will make an overall evaluation under this sub-criterion.
Source
No source found in the documents. Check the weight against the tender documents.
Description
Only the draft contract documents listed below (the “Draft Contract Documents”) will be included in the evaluation of “Contractual Terms”: 1.0 Design and build contract 1.1 Appendix 1: ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions 1.3 Appendix 3: Performance bond 1.4 Appendix 4: Advance payment bond 1.5 Appendix 5: Parent company guarantee 1.9 Appendix 9: Code of Conduct The provisions within any of the Draft Contract Documents listed as requirements or minimum requirements under Section 7.4.4 are not included in the evaluation of Contractual Terms. If the BAFO includes proposed changes: (a) to any other contract documents than listed above as a Draft Contract Document; (b) to the payment term under Clause 10 in the Design and build contract; or (c) to any clauses listed in section 7.4.4 (Requirements) such proposed changes will not be subject to evaluation under Contractual Terms but will be considered as a reservation and will be handled as set out under Section 8.9 (Reservations). Contractual requirements The following provisions shall be considered as minimum requirements (MR) for the BAFO and will not be included in the evaluation of Contractual Terms: Governing Law: Clause 3 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client special Conditions), MR Arbitration: Clause 67 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client special Conditions), MR Code of Conduct: Appendix 9 (Code of Conduct), MR The Contracting Entity reserves the right to introduce further requirements or minimum requirements to the Draft Contract Documents. If the BAFO contains any proposed changes to minimum requirements, the Contracting Entity is entitled and obliged to reject the BAFO. The Contracting Entity will evaluate any deviation to the Draft Contract Documents qualitatively focusing on substance. When evaluating a deviation to the Draft Contract Documents, the Contracting Entity will assess the overall risk exposure to the Contracting Entity. The Draft Contract Documents are the Contracting Entity's preferred split of risk and acceptance of the Draft Contract Documents will receive maximum score for Contractual Terms on the scale set out in Section 3.2. The more risk the deviations to the Draft Contract Documents will expose the Contracting Entity to, the fewer points will be awarded. When assessing the risks, the Contracting Entity will consider the size of the potential impact/consequences should the risk materialize and the likelihood of the risk materializing. Risks are deviations to the Draft Contract Documents that change the balance between the Contracting Entity and the Tenderer in favour of the Tenderer. If the deviations put more risk on the Contracting Entity, it will negatively affect the evaluation leading to the Tenderer being awarded fewer points. In general, the Contracting Entity considers the following (not exhaustive) list of deviations to constitute significant deviations to the draft Contract Documents that (depending on the exact deviation suggested) might entail significant risks: - Clause 9 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Limiting the Contractor’s obligation to deliver securities - Clause 7 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Extending the Contractors’ right to transfer rights and obligations - Clause 37 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Extending the Contractor’s right to extension of time - Clause 7 of the design and build contract and clause 38 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Limitation to the Contracting Entity’s right to liquidated damages - Section G. Defects of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Limitation in the Contracting Entity’s right to claims defects and the Contractor’s obligation to remedy such defects - Clause 11, subclause 3 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Limiting the Contractor’s obligation to take out and maintain insurances - Section J. Disputes of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions) Side-tracking or removing the current dispute resolution procedures from the process of handling disputes. Deviations to the provisions set out in Section 7.4.1 do not have a higher weight than other significant deviations since the Contracting Entity focuses on actual changes to the Contracting Entity’s risk exposure and not specific provisions. Focusing on specific provisions could lead to circumvention either if the Tenderer submits significant deviations to other provisions than those listed in Section 7.4.1 or submits deviations with the same effect as mentioned in Section 7.4.1but do so by submitting deviations to another provision/new provision.
Evaluation Method
The Contracting Entity will evaluate any deviation to the Draft Contract Documents qualitatively focusing on substance. When evaluating a deviation to the Draft Contract Documents, the Contracting Entity will assess the overall risk exposure to the Contracting Entity. The Draft Contract Documents are the Contracting Entity's preferred split of risk and acceptance of the Draft Contract Documents will receive maximum score for Contractual Terms on the scale set out in Section 3.2. The more risk the deviations to the Draft Contract Documents will expose the Contracting Entity to, the fewer points will be awarded. When assessing the risks, the Contracting Entity will consider the size of the potential impact/consequences should the risk materialize and the likelihood of the risk materializing. Risks are deviations to the Draft Contract Documents that change the balance between the Contracting Entity and the Tenderer in favour of the Tenderer. If the deviations put more risk on the Contracting Entity, it will negatively affect the evaluation leading to the Tenderer being awarded fewer points. In general, the Contracting Entity considers the following (not exhaustive) list of deviations to constitute significant deviations to the draft Contract Documents that (depending on the exact deviation suggested) might entail significant risks:

Clause 9 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Limiting the Contractor’s obligation to deliver securities

Clause 7 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Extending the Contractors’ right to transfer rights and obligations

Clause 37 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Extending the Contractor’s right to extension of time

Clause 7 of the design and build contract and clause 38 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Limitation to the Contracting Entity’s right to liquidated damages

Section G. Defects of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Limitation in the Contracting Entity’s right to claims defects and the Contractor’s obligation to remedy such defects

Clause 11, subclause 3 of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions): Limiting the Contractor’s obligation to take out and maintain insurances

Section J. Disputes of Appendix 1 (ABT 18 with the Client’s special conditions) Side-tracking or removing the current dispute resolution procedures from the process of handling disputes.
Deviations to the provisions set out in Section 7.4.1 do not have a higher weight than other significant deviations since the Contracting Entity focuses on actual changes to the Contracting Entity’s risk exposure and not specific provisions. Focusing on specific provisions could lead to circumvention either if the Tenderer submits significant deviations to other provisions than those listed in Section 7.4.1 or submits deviations with the same effect as mentioned in Section 7.4.1but do so by submitting deviations to another provision/new provision.
Source
No source found in the documents. Check the weight against the tender documents.

Previous winners

Who are you up against?
The suppliers who have won similar contracts at Sønderborg Varme A/S

From the notice

Contact
Line Sørensenls@energylegalpartners.dk
Type
Result · Prequalification
Location
Sydjylland
Main code
Heating plant construction work
45251200