Question no.10:

The Tenderer shall with his Tender submit a copy of this page as well as of all

the pages of the Particular Conditions, duly initialled by the person authorised

to sign the Tender.

In those six submitted files we didn’t received Particular conditions, can you

submit them?

Answer no.10:

Particular conditions as part of RFP 6 have been now issued (Attached File: Addenda 1 Particular

conditions). Appendix 1 to 4 will be drafted based information already contained in the Term of

Reference.

Question no.11:

In compliance with General instructions to Consultants – RFP 2, paragraph 2.2 and 2.3, we would

appreciate your answers to the following questions:

1. Are there any minimal requirements for association/consortium/joint venture members if the

Prime consultant by himself complies with financial criteria stated in RFP 1 par 6 point B ?

Answer: all financial requirements for association/consortium/joint venture members are defined in

RFP 2, clause 1.5

2. Are there any minimal requirements for association/consortium/joint venture members if the

Prime consultant by himself complies with technical criteria stated in RFP 1 par 6 point C?

Answer: all technical requirements for association/consortium/joint venture members are defined

in RFP 2, clause 1.6. Clarification is also contained in answer no. 2

Question no.12:

What is a planned distribution of 5 weight points among criteria listed in RFP 4 point 4. Other factors ?

Answer no.12:

Criterions are clearly indicated in the table (local participation, local presence, back-up capacity,

environmental certifications, training/transfer of know how)

Question no.13:

Are there any criteria and/or requirements for Consultant companies and experts regarding licences in

accordance with the Montenegrin Law in Planning and Construction? If there is, how will these be

evaluated?

Answer no.13: Supevision of works has to be performed in line with requirements of montenegrin Law,

certification included. Neverthless Experts and Consultants from abroad are not obliged to present

licences in accordance with Montenegrin Law. Other liceses/habilitation, different by those released by

Montenegrin Bodies, but equivalent in accordance to the legislation of their Countries of origin, will be

deemed accettable

Question no.14:

In ToR RFP 5 paragraph 6.1.3. Resident Engineers it is stated that: ’’Two Resident are expected to be in

this Project’’ while table 5 in RFP 5 and table d3) in RFP 1 lists only 1 (one). What is a correct number of

Resident Engineers required for this project?

Answer no.14:

Only one Resident Engineer

Question no.15:

Will the expert’s experience in construction of WWTP and sewerage networks be accepted as required

qualification or it is limited to assignments in design and/or supervision.

Answer no.15:

Evaluation will be in line with indicatation in table Evaluation Criteria and Methodology - RFP 4 .

Anyway, as provided by answer 31, also assignments as Contractor’s Representative in Design & Build

Project of WWTP according to FIDIC YELLOW BOOK provisions.

Question no.16:

The consultant kindly requests to recive the particular conditions as presented in RFP6.

Answer no.16:

Please refer to answer no.10

Question no.17:

Answer no.17:

Yes, it is mandatory.

Tender Guarantee is a standard document whose format is available by any banks and shall be

completed in accordance to “Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees, published as number 458 by the

International Chamber of Commerce” therefore the format has bot been provided before.

However we attached hereinafter a general form which is reputed acceptable by this Contracting

Authority.

Question no.18:

We would like to clarify a doubt that we have after read the tender documentation:

In the initial document “INVITATION FOR TENDERS” it was written: All tenders must be accompanied by

a tender guarantee of 20.000 € (twenty thousand Euro). However now, we don't see any mention to this

subject in the tender documentation.

Our questions it’s:

It’s need to present a tender guarantee?

Answer no.18:

Please refer to Answer 17.

Question no.19:

WITH REFERENCE TO RFP 5, PAR 6.6. TABLE 5, THE MINIMA WORKING DAYS FOR PROJECT MANAGER

(PM) ARE 500.

CONSIDERING THAT THE PM NORMALLY PERFORMS PERIODIC VISIT ON SITE, WHILE HE IS SUPPORTED

BY THE RESIDENT, THAT IS ALMOST PERMANENTLY ON SITE, WE THINK THAT THE MINIMA WORKING

DAYS FOR THE PM SHOULD BE EFFECTIVELY REDUCED.

Answer no.19:

Minimal man days for project manager is 150 days, not 500 days .

Question no.20:

WITHE REFERENCE TO RFP 5, PAR 5.2 TABLE 1, SUPERVISION WORKS CONTRACT TAKES 16 MONTHS

AND THE END OF MONTH IS ESTABLISHED AT MONTH 21.

BUT, PROVIDED THAT AFTER PERMITS ACHIVEMENT THE WORKS CAN START, IF ALL PERMITS ARE

READY AT MONTH 4, WORKS SUPERVISION SHOULD END AT MONTH 20 (4+16=20), INSTED OF MONTH

21.

THEN, IF NO DEFECTION PERIODO TAKES 12 MONTHS, IT SHOULD END AT MONTH 32 (20+12), INSTEAD

OF MONTH 36.

FINALLY, WHY DO THE TEST ON COMPLETION END BEFORE WORKS SUPERVISION?

WE THINK THAT SOME CALCULATION MISTAKES HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED TABLE

Answer no.20:

Sequence of Principal Events during Contract for WWTP design and build has been amended. Due to

that fact following table related to Indicative schedule of implementation has been changed:

End Month

Project commencement

Inception Report 1

Supervision Manual 1

Design Review and Permits 4

Supervision of works contract (including test on completion and pre-

commissioning) 26

Trial operation 38

Defect Notification Period 50

Final Report 51

Question no.21:

WITHE REFERENCE TO RFP 5, PAR 5.2 TABLE 2.

PROVIDED THAT AFTER PERMITS ACHIVEMENT THE WORKS CAN START, AND THAT PERMITS ARE

ACHIEVED AT MONTH 3, WHY DO THE SUPERVISION OF WORKS (DURATION 8 MONTHS) END AT

MONTH 12, INSTEAD THAN MONTH 11 (3+8=11)? DO WE HAVE TO SUPPOSE THAT WWTP D&B

CONTRACT AND SEWERAGE NETWORK D&B CONTRACT WILL START TOGETHER (4+8=12)?

WHY DO THE TEST ON COMPLETION END SIX MONTHS LATER THAN WORKS SUPERVISION?

PROVIDED THAT TEST ON COMPLETION START AS SOON AS SUPERVISION OF WORKS END, WE THINK

THAT 6 MONTHS ARE TOO MUCH FOR TEST ON COMPLETION OF SEWERAGE NETWORK.

WE THINK THAT SOME CALCULATION MISTAKES HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED TABLE

Answer no.21:

Please, refer to the following table:

Question no.22:

WITH REFERENCE TO RFP 5, PAR 6.1.4.

1. SENIOR EXPERT, FORTH BULLET:

2. JUNIOR EXPERT, FORTH BULLET

3. TECHNICIANS, SURVEYORS, FORTH BULLET

DO YOU DEEM ACCETTABLE , INSTEAD OF “SAME POSITION”, DIFFERENT BUT HIGHER POSITION?

EXAMPLE 1 : IN ORDER TO COVER THE POSITION OF SURVEYOR/INSPECTOR DO YOU DEEM ACCETTABLE

THE CV OF AN EXPERT THAT HAS EXPERIENCE AS SITE MANAGER/SUPERVISOR?

EXAMPLE 2 : IN ORDER TO COVER THE POSITION OF SITE MANAGER DO YOU DEEM ACCETTABLE THE CV

OF AN EXPERT THAT HAD EXPERIENCE AS PROJECT MANAGER/RESIDENT ENGINEER?

Answer no.22:

Yes, it’s acceptable. The fact that an expert has covered higher position (respect to that one he is

proposed for), gives guarantee about his competencies in the assignment.

Indicative Schedule of Implementation SEWERAGE NETWORK Duration

(End of Month)

Project Commencement

Inception Report 1

Supervision Manual 1

Permits 3

Supervision of works contract (8 months construction ) 12

Test on Completion (3 months) 15

Defect Notification Period (10 months) 25

Draft Final Report 24

Final Report 25

Question no.23:

WITH REFERENCE TO RFP 5, PAR 6.1.1, CAN THE DEGREE IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING BE CONSIDERED

EQUIVALENT TO THE EDUCATION PROFILE IN TABLE 5? WE THINK THAT THE EQUIVALENCE OF

EDUCATION PROFILE SHOULD DEPEND ON THE SYSTEM OF LICENCE (FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES) THAT

IS RECOGNIZED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE EXPERT HAS ACHIEVED THE

UNIVERSITY DEGREE.

Answer no.23:

All the degrees that, according to the legislation of the country where they are achieved and the

relevant foreseen license, allow to design/supervision of Project in the water sector (WWTP and

sewerage network) are deemed equivalent to the education profile in table 5.

Question no.24:

WITH REFERENCE TO RFP 5, PAR 6.1.2:

- PROJECT MANAGER: REGARDING THE “SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN LAST 10

YEARS”CAN THE PROJECT VERIFICATION/REVISION BE DEEMED ACCETTABLE IN ORDER TO

COVERT THE MINIMUM 5 ASSIGNMENTS IN DESIGN AND/OR SUPERVISION OF WWTP AND

SEWERAGE NETWORK?

- RESIDENT ENGINEER: REGARDING THE “SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE IN LAST 10

YEARS”CAN THE PROJECT VERIFICATION/REVISION BE DEEMED ACCETTABLE IN ORDER TO

COVERT THE MINIMUM 5 ASSIGNMENTS IN DESIGN AND/OR SUPERVISION OF WWTP AND

SEWERAGE NETWORK?

- SENIOR EXPERT, THIRD BULLET: CAN THE PROJECT VERIFICATION/REVISION BE DEEMED

ACCETTABLE IN ORDER TO COVERT THE MINIMUM 5 ASSIGNMENTS IN DESIGN AND/OR

SUPERVISION OF WWTP AND/OR SEWERAGE NETWORK?

- JUNIOR EXPERT, THIRD BULLET: CAN THE PROJECT VERIFICATION/REVISION BE DEEMED

ACCETTABLE IN ORDER TO COVERT THE MINIMUM 2 ASSIGNMENTS IN DESIGN AND/OR

SUPERVISION OF WWTP AND/OR SEWERAGE NETWORK?

- TECHNICIANS, SURVEYOR, THIRD BULLET: CAN THE PROJECT VERIFICATION/REVISION BE

DEEMED ACCETTABLE IN ORDER TO COVERT THE MINIMUM 5 ASSIGNMENTS IN DESIGN

AND/OR SUPERVISION OF WWTP AND/OR SEWERAGE NETWORK?

Answer no.24:

YES, revision/verification assignments are acceptable. In the scope of the contract, the Engineer

shall carry out design review activities. Therefore, for the expert proposed in the Team, any

experience in this field is qualifying for the Tender.

Question no.25:

Answer no.25:

Fidic conditions do not provide terms such as resident or others.

Site manager, resident, surveyor represent a common terminology identified by the client for the

positions deemed necessary to comply with the contracts goals.

Since the description of detailed activities to be assigned to each role is part of the technical offer (see

rfp 3.5), no further clarification can be given.

Question no.26:

Answer no.26:

Correct, only 1 resident Engineer.

Question no.27 (a to e):

Question a.

Question b.

Question c.

Question d.

Question e.

Answer 27 (a to e):

“Each expert can be proposed for more than one position until the proposal is compatible with timing

and scheduling of activities”.

This means that an expert that, according to GANNT (rfp 3.5),” is assigned on day “n” to position “a”,

cannot be assigned on the same day “n” to position “b”.

Provided that this principle is complied with, all the bids will be comparable and the working days

won’t be less than the minimal established by tor.

Furthermore, if any expert would be proposed for more than one position, the evaluation committee

will assess that the solution proposed by the bidder was not in conflict with the principle above

mentioned.

Since the above topic is part of the technical offer (see rfp3.4, rfp 3.5), no further clarification can be

given.

Question no.28 (a and b)

Question a.

Question b.

Answer 28 (a and b)

Site surveyor/inspector is intended to be a quantity surveyor, also in charge to supervise the quality of

works (inspection).

Since the description of detailed activities to be assigned to each role is part of the technical offer (see

Rfp 3.4), no further clarification can be given.

For question b, see also answer to question 21.

Question no.29:

Answer no.29:

The Candidate is free to propose junior or senior profile for experts at par 6.1.4.The Committee will

evaluate the adequacy of their profile.

Question no.30:

Answer no.30:

Technician/surveyor has not a university degree, but a technical education. The lower level in education

is offset by experience. Please, not that only for short term expert is allowed “technical education”,

further than the “university degree”.

Question no.31:

Answer no.31:

Yes, are acceptable, provided that the experience in relevant to D&B contract under FIDIC conditions.

See also answer 15.

Question no.32:

Answer no.32:

Yes, are acceptable provided that the experience in relevant to D&B contract under FIDIC conditions.

Question no.33:

Answer no.33:

Please refer to Answer 17

Question no.34:

In the pag 3, from RFP1, d3) it’s written:

d3) The candidate shall guarantee the following Key experts:

Position Number

Long Term Key Experts Resident Engineer 1

Short Term Key Experts

In the pag 12, from RFP5, point 6.1.1 it’s written:

Table 5 Experts’ working days

Position Education profile N° Minima

working

days

Long

Term Key

Experts

Resident Engineer

WWTP and sewerage

network

civil, construction, hydraulic, environmental engineer or equivalent,

1 500

In the pag 13, from RFP5, point 6.1.3 it’s written:

Resident Engineers

(…)

Two Resident are expected to be in this Project:

Resident for WWTP and sewerage network .

(….)

Our questions it’s:

• How many Resident Engineers we need to guarantee in order to fulfill the Tender

requirements?

Answer no.34:

Only one Resident Engineer . Pag 13, from RFP5, point 6.1.3 contains a typing mistake.

Question no.35:

In the pag 3, from RFP1, d1) it’s written:

d1) The candidate should have at least 6 stable engineers; stable engineers means that the

work relationship with the company shall be longer than 1 year, continuous and not occasional.

In the pag 5, from RFP2, point 3.6 it’s written:

(…)

• it is mandatory that 4 of the key experts proposed, have an extended

and stable working relationship with the Candidate;

from this, we understand:

Our questions it’s:

• It’s correct our reasoning?

Answer no.34:

No the reasoning is incorrect.

The coorect explanation is the following:

The requirements at page 3, from RFP1, d1) is referred in general to the staff of the

Candidate; this requirement aims at demonstrating the organizational and technical capacity

(in terms of technical staff) of the Candidate, independently from the team that he will

propose for the assignment.

The requirement at page 5, from RFP2, point 3.6 is referred to the key experts, that means

to the Supervision Team that is proposed in the Tender.

In conclusion, this means that at least 4 key expert of the Supervision Team (RFP 5, page

12, par 6.1.1 table 5) shall be chosen among the stable (6 or more) engineers that

constitute the permanent staff of the Candidate.

Question no.35:

Answer no.35:

Correct.

Question no.35:

Answer no.35:

As defined in RFP, clause 1.5, meaning that sub criteria is valid.