CARR IS Package D01 Paita 999967UKD001000ZZRPZZ000134 20230221 175423 827

Contract Award
Recommendation Report
Integrated Solutions - City Drainage Package D-01 Paita
Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1
Classification - Private
Review and Approval
Action Name and Role Date Signature
Nick Barrett,
Prepared by 30/11/22
Procurement Manager
Technical and QA David Kenna,

30/11/22
Review by Procurement Lead
Kate Flint,
Approved by 30/11/22
Programme Director
Revision History
Revision No. Date Description
R01 01/12/22 For Approval
Copyright Information
The contents of this document are the property of the Autoridad para Reconstruccion con Cambios
(ARCC). Use of any part of this document without the authorisation of the
ARCC is prohibited.
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION........................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 COMMERCIAL EVALUATION .................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 SUMMARY EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.5 DECISION REQUIRED ............................................................................................................................. 6
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 7
3 TENDER RECEIPT AND OPENING................................................................................................... 8
3.1 QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES .................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 SCHEDULE .......................................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 9
3.5 CONFIRMATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENTS .................................................................................... 9
3.6 WIN ONE ONLY ................................................................................................................................... 9
4 TECHNICAL SCORES .................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 KEY FINDINGS FROM TECHNICAL SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................ 11
4.2 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE ........................................................................................................................ 11
5 COMMERCIAL SCORES ............................................................................................................... 13
5.1 KEY FINDINGS FROM COMMERCIAL SUBMISSIONS..................................................................................... 13
6 SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................. 16
A. APPENDIX A TENDER OPENING FORM........................................................................................ 17
B. APPENDIX B TENDER OPENING AND EVALUATION PLAN ............................................................ 18
C. APPENDIX C ITT FLASH REPORT .................................................................................................. 19
D. APPENDIX D TECHNICAL SCORES AND RATIONALE ..................................................................... 20
E. APPENDIX E CROSS WORKSTREAM CHECK ................................................................................. 26
Contract Award Recommendation Report
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
Tenders were received for Integrated Solutions City Drainage Package D-01 Paita from 3
tenderers as follows:
• Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del Peru (Dohwa);

• Lombardi SA Ingenieros Consultores (Lombardi); and
• Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del Perú (Técnica)
Consortium details:
Table 1 – Consortium Details

Company   Consortia 
Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del Peru Consorcio DOME del Norte:
• Meta Engineering S.A. Sucursal de Perú
• Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del Perú
Lombardi SA Ingenieros Consultores N/A
Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del Perú N/A
Following evaluation, an overall summary of the scores is as follows:
Table 2
Summary of Overall Scores (Weighted)
Tenderer / Score
Description
Dohwa Lombardi Técnica
Technical Score 27.85% 54.35% 55.50%
Commercial Score 30.00% 16.82% 8.90%
Overall 57.85% 71.17% 64.40%
Overall Rank 3 1 2
The highest scoring tenderer overall was Lombardi who achieved the second highest technical
score and the second highest commercial score.
This package is subject to a ‘win one only’ rule and is to be read in conjunction with the
Contract Award Recommendation Report for Integrated Solutions City Drainage Package D-02
Tumbes.
Lombardi scored 83.20% on package D-02 and 71.17% on this package D-01. Therefore, as they
scored higher on package D-02, they are recommended for contract award for that package.
Under the win one only rule, they are not therefore eligible to be awarded this contract.
The second highest scoring tenderer therefore becomes eligible to be awarded this package,
which is Técnica. All further references to the highest scoring tenderer therefore refer to
Técnica. Lombardi are included in the remainder of this report for completeness only.
Page 4 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1
1.2 Technical Evaluation

A summary of the overall technical scores is set out in Table 3:
Table 3
Summary of Technical Scores
Tenderer / Score
Description
Score 39.79% 77.64% 79.29%
Weighted Score 27.85% 54.35% 55.50%
Rank 2 N/A 1
As can be seen, the highest-ranking tenderer Técnica scored the highest technically with a
score of 79.29% which is between Good and Very Good Confidence.
Furthermore, Técnica scored 90% (Very Good Confidence) in three categories; B2 Key People,
B4 Project Controls and B6 Design Execution. Additionally, they scored 75% (Good Confidence)
in three categories; B1 Organisation, B5 Design Management and B7 Stakeholder Engagement
representing a good level of technical competence.
Their lowest score of 55% (Moderate Confidence) was obtained for just one category, B3
Health, Safety and Environmental mainly because their submission did not fully address the
key points required of the question which had been updated to reflect that this package is for
design only.
1.3 Commercial Evaluation

The commercial submissions were submitted by completing the pricing schedule which
consisted of their total fixed price for design. The commercial weighting is 30%.
Initial commercial scores are set out in Table 4 below:

Table 4
Summary of Commercial Scores (Pre BAFO)
Tenderer / Score
Description
Dohwa Lombardi 1 Técnica
Tenderer’s Price (S/.) 15,300,000 28,504,363 52,547,784
Rank 1 N/A 2
Due to the high level of pricing received from Técnica, Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) were
requested from all tenderers prior to completion of the commercial evaluation. Updated
pricing in accordance with the BAFOs received are set out in Table 5 below:
1 Volume 0 - 6.4. stated “Tenderers can submit their commercial proposal in full in foreign currency (only in US Dollars - USD) or
Peruvian Sol (PEN), depending on the currency of the tenderer's choice. For the purposes of the evaluation of the commercial
submission, the exchange rate of the Superintendence of Banking, Insurance and AFP (SBS) at the closing date and time for
submission of tenders will be utilised in order to convert any submissions made in US Dollars to Peruvian Soles in order to
undertake the commercial evaluation.” Lombardi submitted a Pre BAFO price of USD $7,413,358.34 and the SBS exchange rate
used was 3.845.
Table 5
Summary of Commercial Scores (Post BAFO)
Tenderer / Score
Description
Dohwa Lombardi 2 Técnica
Tenderer’s Price (S/.) 15,300,000 27,285,519 51,547,282
Rank 1 N/A 2
Lombardi’s price reduced by 4% and Técnica’s price reduced by 2%, however, there was no
change to Dohwa’s price following receipt of the BAFOs.
Técnica’s fixed price is the highest of the tenderers, including Lombardi, and is above the
average price submitted of S/.31.3m.
The estimated value of the project (including design and construction) for D-01 Paita is
S/170,000,000. The estimated budget for this design package is S/7,602,000, however this
budget figure is unverified, and it is not known how the figure was calculated or what it
includes. Therefore, although Técnica’s price of S/.51.5m is over budget, design costs would
normally be anticipated to be approximately 10% of the overall budget, which equates to
S/.17m. However, using this figure the Técnica submission is still in excess of S/.30m over
budget.
Dohwa are suspected of being abnormally low as it appears they have underestimated the
level of key people and resources required to successfully deliver the contract.3 Therefore, a
comparison against the Dohwa submission is not a true reflection of the high Técnica price.
1.4 Summary Evaluation

The top ranked tenderer Técnica with the highest technical score of 79.29%, which is between
75% (Good Confidence) and 90% (Very Good Confidence), provides a high level of confidence
in the tenderer’s ability to deliver the services.
The top ranked tenderer’s commercial submission although high, represents the high level of
technical competence displayed through the achievement of their high technical score.
The top ranked tenderer therefore provides the most economically advantageous proposal
due to the quality of the technical response, and confidence in the commercial submission.
1.5 Decision Required

The recommendation is that the Integrated Solutions City Drainage Package D-01 Paita
contract is awarded to Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del Perú.
Tenders were submitted on 17 November 2022 with a validity of 90 working days. The
schedule requires a contract award execution date of 23 December 2022.
2 Lombardi submitted a Post BAFO price of USD $7,096,363.96 and the SBS exchange rate used was 3.845.
3 Refer to section 5.1.
2 Background Information
This report describes the outcome of the evaluation of tender submissions received following
the pre-qualification and ITT process for the Integrated Solutions City Drainage Package D-01
Paita contract. It details the results and recommendation for contract award.
The following 6 applicants were approved from pre-qualification and were invited to submit a
tender:
• Ayesa Ingenieria y Arquitectura S.A.U. (Ayesa);

• China Water Resources Beifang Investigation, Design and Research Co. Ltd. (CWRBIDR);
• Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del Peru (Dohwa);
• Lombardi SA Ingenieros Consultores (Lombardi);
• RSK (RSK); and
• Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del Perú (Técnica)
Consortium details are set out in Table 6:
Table 6 – Consortium Details

Company   Consortia 
Ayesa Ingenieria y Arquitectura S.A.U. Consorcio Grupo Ayesa:
• Ayesa Ingeniería y Arquitectura S.A.U.
• Ayesa México S.A. de C.V.
• Byrne Looby Partners Group Ltd
China Water Resources Beifang Investigation, N/A
Design and Research Co. Ltd.
Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del Peru Consorcio DOME del Norte:
• Meta Engineering S.A. Sucursal de Perú
• Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del Perú
Lombardi SA Ingenieros Consultores N/A
RSK N/A
Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del Perú N/A
36 tender clarifications were received and responded to prior to the relevant deadlines during
the tender process.
A minor amendment was made to one file included within the Volume 2 appendices (UK0001-
GAT-M5100-PROG-XXXX-XXX-RPT-308-R02 Plan de Ejecución BIM del Contratista (BEP).pdf) for
package D-03 and this change has also been introduced for this package to maintain
consistency. This required the ITT documentation to be amended prior to engrossment of the
contract.
3 Tender Receipt and Opening

Tenders were received from 3 tenderers before the stated deadline. Appendix A contains the
completed Tender Opening Form.
One tenderer failed to submit, and two tenderers withdrew from the tender process their
reasons are stated in Table 7 as follows:
Table 7
Tender Withdrawals
Tenderer Reason Date
Ayesa Ingenieria y Arquitectura Declined to tender as they had not 27 October 22
S.A.U. completed a fully comprehensive review of
the documentation and due to
organisational decisions of the company at
the time of tender.
China Water Resources Beifang Failed to submit before the submission 19 November 22
Investigation, Design and deadline as they failed to complete their
Research Co. Ltd. submission in time.
RSK Declined to tender due the risk profile of 15 November 22

the fixed price contract, the level of ground
risk. Furthermore, RSK stated that the
contract required them to be responsible
for third parties, permissions for rerouting /
demolish / replacement and redesign of any
interferences with existing utilities and
transportation infrastructure which we feel
is unquantifiable as well as full responsibility
for all third party / stakeholder approvals
and agreements being achieved on time.
RSK also stated that they could not accept
the implied 'fitness for purpose' obligation
(in the scope of services) which may result
in invalidating their insurance.
The Tender submissions were opened on 17 November 2022 at 10:25am (Peru) in accordance
with the Tender Opening and Evaluation Plan included as Appendix B.
An initial flash report was produced following the opening of the tender returns. This can be
found in Appendix C.
3.1 Qualifications
No qualifications against the NEC3 Professional Services Contract (PSC) Option A fixed price
lump sum contract were received with the tender returns. All tenderers signed and agreed the
Acceptance of Tendering Conditions issued with the ITT.
3.2 Change in Circumstances

No changes in circumstances were received.
3.3 Schedule
No changes / qualifications were made to the acceptance of the programme dates.
3.4 Evaluation Methodology

Tender submissions were made available for evaluation on 17 November 2022 following the
completeness checks. The tender evaluation has been carried out in accordance with the ITT
and the Tender Opening and Evaluation Plan. The technical evaluation was completed by
21 November 2022.
3.5 Confirmation of Acceptance of Amendments

Letters of clarification including final drafted contract documents were issued to the tenderers
via the Award portal on 23 December 2022. There was 1 change to the contract documents
resulting from clarifications received in the tender process. The purpose of the letter of
clarification process is to mitigate any potential further negotiation or delay to contract
execution after notification letters had been issued to the recommended tenderer.
The signed unqualified letters of clarification were received back from the tenderers by 24
December 2022 with all tenderers confirming their acceptance.
3.6 Win One Only

The Authority is operating a win one only rule for the D-01 and D-02 Packages of work. This
report should therefore be read in conjunction with the Contract Award Recommendation
Report for Integrated Solutions City Drainage Package D-02 Tumbes.
Any Tenderer that is successful in being awarded one Package will not be awarded a second
Package as was set out in the PQQ against which the Tenderer was shortlisted for this
opportunity.
Where there are simultaneous ITT award dates and if a Tenderer is successful in more than
one Package, the Tenderer will be awarded the Package that attained the highest score, and
the second Package will be awarded to the second placed Tenderer.
As can be seen further in this report, Lombardi were the top scorers on this package D-01 and
on package D-02. Their score on D-02 was higher than the score they obtained for this
package. They therefore become eligible to be awarded package D-02 and are not permitted
to be awarded this package.
The second highest scorer overall therefore becomes eligible, which is Técnica. All further
references to the highest scoring tenderer therefore refer to second placed Técnica. Lombardi
are included in the remainder of this report for completeness only.
4 Technical Scores
Technical submissions were evaluated against 7 questions using the following 7-point marking
scale in conjunction with the guidance for evaluators:
100% Excellent Confidence

90% Very Good Confidence
75% Good Confidence
55% Moderate Confidence

25% Minor Concerns
10% Concerns
0% Major Concerns
A breakdown of the tenderers’ technical scores is given in Table 8. Scores highlighted in green
are greater than 75%. Responses attaining scores of 10% or below are highlighted in red, and
responses attaining 25% are highlighted in amber. The weighted scores are shown in Table 9.
Table 8
Technical Scores
Tenderer / Score
Description
B1 - Organisation 55% 90% 75%
B2 - Key People 55% 90% 90%
B3 - Health, Safety and Environmental 10% 25% 55%
B4 - Project Controls 25% 90% 90%
B5 - Design Management 55% 90% 75%
B6 – Design Execution 55% 90% 90%
B7 – Stakeholder Engagement 10% 55% 75%
Table 9
Technical Scores (Weighted)
Tenderer / Score
Description Weight
Overall 100% 39.79% 77.64% 79.29%
Overall (weighted) 70% 27.85% 54.35% 55.50%
B1 - Organisation 9% 5.0% 8.1% 6.8%
B2 - Key People 10% 5.5% 9.0% 9.0%
B3 - Health, Safety and Environmental 9% 0.9% 2.3% 5.0%
B4 - Project Controls 10% 2.5% 9.0% 9.0%
B5 - Design Management 12% 6.6% 10.8% 9.0%
B6 - Design Execution 12% 6.6% 10.8% 10.8%
B7 - Stakeholder Engagement 8% 0.8% 4.4% 6.0%
Ranking 2 N/A 1
4.1 Key Findings from Technical Submissions

As can be seen, the highest-ranking tenderer Técnica scored the highest technically with a
score of 79.29% which is between Good and Very Good Confidence.
Furthermore, Técnica scored 90% (Very Good Confidence) in three categories; B2 Key People,
B4 Project Controls and B6 Design Execution. Additionally, they scored 75% (Good Confidence)
in three categories; B1 Organisation, B5 Design Management and B7 Stakeholder Engagement
representing a good level of technical competence.
Their lowest score of 55% (Moderate Confidence) was obtained for just one category; B3
Health, Safety and Environmental mainly because their submission did not fully address the
key points required of the question which had been updated to reflect that this package is for
design only. There are therefore no residual concerns regarding Técnica’s technical capability
as the lower score obtained was due to a misunderstanding of the question requirements
which led to an incomplete response.
It is noted that Técnica submitted a different set of key people CVs for the D-03 and D-04
packages.
Refer to Appendix D for tables containing all consensus scores and rationale.
4.2 Previous Experience

Table 10 sets out the projects that Técnica used to demonstrate relevant experience as part of
their case study submission during the PQQ stage.
Table 10
Técnica’s Previous Experience
Relevant Company Project Description Value
Técnica y Proyectos Project: Implementation and monitoring of the flood EUR€ 1,320,000
S.A. (TYPSA) risk management plan for the Júcar river basin district.
Client: Jucar Hydrographic Confederation
Nature of the service: Development of a flood risk
management plan and development of the design of
works for flood control and channeling of rainwater in
the urban environment
Técnica y Proyectos Project: Technical assistance for the construction of EUR€ 18,780,000
S.A. (TYPSA) the Urbanization UZP 2.01 Development of the East
“El Cañaveral” including drinking water and sewage
services
Client: Cañaveral Compensation Board.
Nature of the service: Technical assistance for the
technical control and management of the urbanization
project of El Cañaveral, including the water supply and
the sewage network for the collection and disposal
of wastewater and rainwater.
Técnica y Proyectos Project: Definitive study at the construction level for USD$ 9,730,000
S.A. (TYPSA) the Project "Optimization of Potable Water and
Sewage Systems, Sectorization, Rehabilitation of
Networks and Updating of Cadastre -Huachipa Plant
Area of Influence -Drainage Area-Oquendo, Oquendo,

Sinchi Roca, Puente Piedra and Sectors 84, 83, 85 and
212 -Lima.
Client: Drinking Water and Sewage Service of Lima -
SEDAPAL.
Nature of the service: Preparation of the construction
file for the execution of the water supply and sewage
works in the northern area of Lima.
It is noted that Técnica are a new entrant to the ARCC procurement processes. Further to
submitting MU responses for the City Drainage D-03 and D-04 packages, and subsequently
similar for the D-01 and D-02 packages, they have successfully passed the respective PQQ
stages and have submitted tenders in response to the ITTs for packages D-01, D-02 and D-04.
5 Commercial Scores
The commercial evaluation was undertaken in accordance with the ITT and Tender Opening
and Evaluation Plan.
Due to the high level of pricing received from Técnica, Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) were
requested from all tenderers prior to completion of the commercial evaluation.
Pre and Post BAFO final commercial scores are set out below in tables 11 and 12:
Table 11
Summary Commercial Scores (Pre BAFO)
Tenderer / Score
Description
Score (out of 100%) 100.00% 53.68% 29.12%
Weighted Score (out of 30%) 30.00% 16.10% 8.73%
Rank (Commercial Only) 1 N/A 2
Table 12
Summary Commercial Scores (Post BAFO)
Tenderer / Score
Description
Score (out of 100%) 100.00% 56.07% 29.68%
Weighted Score (out of 30%) 30.00% 16.82% 8.90%
Rank (Commercial Only) 1 N/A 2
The commercial submissions were submitted by completing the pricing schedule which
consisted of the Tenderer’s Price. The total weighting was 30%
In assessing the commercial submissions, the Authority scored the above in accordance with
the following criteria as set out in the Instructions to Tenderers:
Lowest Price x 100 = score % x 30% weighting of the criteria
Tenderer’s Price
5.1 Key Findings from Commercial Submissions

The highest overall scoring tenderer Técnica obtained the lowest commercial score.
The detailed analysis below is based on pre BAFO submissions, as the final BAFOs are
adjustments to the overall submission that does not impact heavily on the detailed analysis.
Lombardi’s price reduced by 4% and Técnica’s price reduced by 2%, however, there was no
change to Dohwa’s price following receipt of the BAFOs.
Técnica’s fixed price for the design is the highest of the tenderers, including Lombardi, and is
above the average remaining price submitted of S/.31.3m.
The estimated value of the project (including design and construction) for D-01 Paita is
S/170,000,000. The estimated budget for this design package is S/7,602,000, therefore
Técnica’s price of S/.51.5m is significantly over budget.
Whilst it would appear that the above submitted prices are in excess of the budget:
• The budget figure is unverified, and it is not known how the figure was calculated or
what it includes, and;
• S/.7.6m equates to only 4.47% of the overall estimated value of the overall project
which is below the normal expected design cost as a proportion of the overall budget.
Design costs would normally be anticipated to be approximately 10% of the overall
budget, which equates to S/.17m.
Further analysis of the key people manhours required for the RIBA stage deliverable provides
the following additional information.
It appears that Dohwa have significantly underestimated the key people resources required to
provide the RIBA stage deliverables which are below the average of the tenderers.
Dohwa
Design Site Urban Storm Hydrological Hydraulic Design Total Key People
Design Manager Manager. Drainage Specialist Modeling Specialist Specialist. Quality Specialist Manhours
Deliverables Price KP1 KP2 KP3 KP4 KP5 KP6

-Deliverable 1 - Design methodology and strategy 716,040 20 40 60 40 40 12 212
-Deliverable 2 - Interference 1 644,436 20 40 60 0 0 12 132
-Deliverable 3 - Topography for design purposes (primary information) 644,436 20 40 40 40 80 12 232
-Deliverable 4 - Geology geomorphology, Geotechnics, Soils, Quarries and Water sources 1,074,060 20 40 40 40 80 12 232
RIBA 3.1 -Deliverable 5 - Hydrology 787,644 20 40 40 160 40 12 312
-Deliverable 6 - Design Parameters 358,020 20 40 80 40 40 12 232
-Deliverable 7 - Base Hydraulic Model 358,020 40 80 200 20 400 32 772
-Deliverable 8 - Hydraulic models and design at the RIBA 3 level 537,030 40 200 400 40 800 40 1520
-Deliverable 9 - Landscaping, Interference 2 and Risks 537,030 20 80 200 0 40 12 352
-Deliverable 10 - Conceptual design 501,228 80 200 800 80 800 40 2000
RIBA 3.2
-Deliverable 11 - Models incorporting multi criteria analysis 572,832 40 80 200 40 400 32 792
-Deliverable 12 - Design, Landscaping 2 and SCBA 214,812 40 80 200 0 200 20 540
RIBA 3.3
-Deliverable 13 - Planning of the execution of future work 214,812 40 80 200 0 80 20 420
-Deliverable 14 - Interference technical documents and Area Liberation Plan 477,360 40 80 40 0 200 20 380
RIBA 4 -Deliverable 15 - Detailed design and plans 3,341,520 40 200 400 0 0 20 660
-Deliverable 16 - Complete technical file 954,720 40 200 400 40 80 40 800
Total 540 1520 3360 540 3280 348 9588
Lombardi
Design Site Urban Storm Hydrological Hydraulic Design Total Key People
Design Manager Manager. Drainage Specialist Modeling Specialist Specialist. Quality Specialist Manhours
Deliverables Price KP1 KP2 KP3 KP4 KP5 KP6 Total
-Deliverable 1 - Design methodology and strategy 692,100 240 240 120 120 120 240 1080
-Deliverable 3 - Topography for design purposes (primary information) 897,790 96 168 48 0 0 144 456
RIBA 3.1 -Deliverable 5 - Hydrology 153,800 96 24 48 480 84 96 828
-Deliverable 7 - Base Hydraulic Model 1,288,075 336 264 252 240 276 240 1608
-Deliverable 8 - Hydraulic models and design at the RIBA 3 level 1,576,450 380 380 336 360 360 360 2176
-Deliverable 9 - Landscaping, Interference 2 and Risks 576,750 80 80 36 0 0 144 340
-Deliverable 10 - Conceptual design 3,001,023 12 132 108 0 120 144 516
RIBA 3.2
-Deliverable 11 - Models incorporting multi criteria analysis 1,153,500 60 24 96 0 60 120 360
-Deliverable 12 - Design, Landscaping 2 and SCBA 2,154,161 360 372 336 0 324 300 1692
RIBA 3.3
-Deliverable 13 - Planning of the execution of future work 2,576,150 280 292 144 0 144 180 1040
-Deliverable 14 - Interference technical documents and Area Liberation Plan 1,684,110 400 400 264 0 312 432 1808
-Deliverable 16 - Complete technical file 4,360,230 720 720 720 0 720 720 3600
Total 3492 3600 2820 1200 2820 3600 17532
Técnica
Design Site Urban Storm Hydrological Hydraulic Design

Design Manager Manager. Drainage Specialist Modeling Specialist Specialist. Quality Specialist Total
Deliverables Price
-Deliverable 1 - Design methodology and strategy 3,050,026 234 234 206 226 226 224 1350
-Deliverable 3 - Topography for design purposes (primary information) 5,447,245 76 76 76 76 76 76 456
RIBA 3.1 -Deliverable 5 - Hydrology 1,239,848 87 87 107 107 107 66 561
-Deliverable 7 - Base Hydraulic Model 991,878 52 44 59 59 59 34 307
-Deliverable 8 - Hydraulic models and design at the RIBA 3 level 3,496,371 216 216 139 139 139 216 1065
-Deliverable 9 - Landscaping, Interference 2 and Risks 1,091,066 97 97 97 97 97 97 582
-Deliverable 10 - Conceptual design 2,762,381 98 98 98 98 98 98 588
RIBA 3.2
-Deliverable 11 - Models incorporting multi criteria analysis 2,172,213 188 188 223 234 223 203 1259
-Deliverable 12 - Design, Landscaping 2 and SCBA 3,025,229 282 272 423 224 235 257 1693
RIBA 3.3
-Deliverable 13 - Planning of the execution of future work 1,041,472 100 100 100 100 100 100 600
-Deliverable 14 - Interference technical documents and Area Liberation Plan 3,299,553 358 348 308 83 308 308 1713
-Deliverable 16 - Complete technical file 9,967,033 320 320 320 320 320 320 1920
Total 2749 2711 2624 2079 2280 2576 15019
A comparison of the total key people manhours and costs are set out in tables 13 and 14:
Table 13
Total Key People Manhours for 16 RIBA stage Deliverables
Dohwa 9588
Lombardi 17532
Técnica 15019
AVERAGE 14046
Table 14
Key People Manhour / Cost for the 16 RIBA stage Deliverables
Tenderer Key People for the deliverables /manhour
Dohwa S/. 1245
Lombardi S/. 1354
Técnica S/. 3331
AVERAGE S/. 1976
As can be seen, Técnica’s tender allowed for 15,019 key people manhours which aligns with
the average across all three tenderers. However, as can be seen the average cost per hour of
Técnica is significantly higher than that of the other tenderers.
6 Summary of the Evaluation and Conclusion

The top ranked tenderer Técnica with the highest technical score of 79.29%, which is between
75% (Good Confidence) and 90% (Very Good Confidence), provides a very good level of
confidence in the tenderer’s ability to deliver the services.
The top ranked tenderer’s commercial submission although high, represents the high level of
technical competence displayed through the achievement of their high technical score.
The top ranked tenderer therefore provides the most economically advantageous proposal
due to the quality of the technical response, and confidence in the commercial submission.
The recommendation is that the Integrated Solutions City Drainage Package D-01 Paita
contract is awarded to Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del Perú.
Tenders were submitted on 17 November 2022 with a validity of 90 working days. The
schedule requires a contract award execution date of 23 December 2022.
Appendix A Tender Opening Form
A. Appendix A Tender Opening Form
ITT Opening Form

IS - ITT City Drainage D-01 Paita
Opening Details:
Date 17-Nov-2022
Time 10:25hrs Peru / 15:25hrs UTC
Tenderer Company Observations

No.
Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal
1 Submission appears complete
del Peru
2 Lombardi SA Ingenieros Consultores Submission appears complete
Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del

3 Submission appears complete
Perú
Appendix B Tender Opening and Evaluation Plan
B. Appendix B Tender Opening and Evaluation Plan
Introduction
ITT Opening and

Evaluation Plan
Integrated
Solutions
Tranche 3 – City
Drainage
Packages D-01
Paita and
D-02 Tumbes
ARCC
17 November 2022
Confidential: UKDT | ARCC | |

Page 1
Introduction
CONTENTS
1 Introduction............................................................................................. 3
1.1. Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 3
2 Evaluation Panel ..................................................................................... 4
2.1. Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................................................................... 4
2.2. Competency and Probity ........................................................................................................ 4
3 ITT Opening............................................................................................. 5
3.1. Approved ITT Opening and Evaluation Plan .......................................................................... 5
3.2. Use of AWARD....................................................................................................................... 5
3.3. ITT Opening Form .................................................................................................................. 5
4 ITT Evaluation ......................................................................................... 6
4.1. ITT Briefing ............................................................................................................................. 6
4.2. Scoring ................................................................................................................................... 6
4.3. Evaluation Progress Monitoring ............................................................................................. 8
5 Approvals ................................................................................................ 9
5.1. Contract Award Recommendation Report.............................................................................. 9
6 Contract Award ..................................................................................... 10
6.1. Report Approval on No Objection......................................................................................... 10
6.2. Notification Letters................................................................................................................ 10
6.3. De-Briefing ........................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A – ITT Details and Timetable ...................................................... 11
Appendix B – ITT Evaluation Stakeholders.................................................. 12
Appendix C – Assessor Competency Matrix ............................................... 13
Appendix D – Criteria, Weighting and Assessor Assignment.................... 17
Appendix E – Assessor Briefings ................................................................. 18
UKDT | ARCC | Integrated Solutions Tranche 3 – City Drainage Packages D-01 Paita and D-02 Tumbes | 17 November 2022
Page 2
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose
This document sets out the process of ITT opening and evaluation for Integrated Solutions Tranche 3
City Drainage Packages D-01 Paita and D-02 Tumbes. The purpose of this document is to set out
procedures that aim to ensure that the opening and evaluation:
• meets G2G, procurement strategy, and relevant legislative requirements;

• is fully planned and communicated to relevant stakeholders;
• is fully transparent; and
• treats all Tenderers equally and in a non-discriminatory way.
This plan (and relevant sections of the ITT) shall be implemented by all Assessors and those involved
in the evaluation process (Appendix B – ITT Evaluation Stakeholders).
1.2. Background
Tenderers shall submit ITT responses using the E-Sourcing Portal (the electronic procurement platform
‘AWARD’ used by the Authority to conduct this Procurement).
Only the responses received through AWARD are assessed.
Evaluation is conducted using the predetermined evaluation criteria.
Evaluation is undertaken by the members of the Evaluation Panel, whose roles and responsibilities are
described in section 2.1 below. All levels of the evaluation criteria with their percentage weightings
were included within the ITT; these are summarised in Appendix D – Criteria, Weighting and Assessor
Assignment.
Page 3
Evaluation Panel
2 EVALUATION PANEL
2.1. Roles and Responsibilities
The Procurement Manager will co-ordinate the ITT evaluation process.
The Procurement Manager will manage and oversee the implementation of this ITT Opening and
Evaluation Plan and shall manage the evaluation process, monitor evaluation progress and in
conjunction with the Procurement Lead produce the Contract Award Recommendation Report.
The Procurement Manager will co-ordinate the authorisation of the Contract Award Recommendation
Report.
The Procurement Manager will operate AWARD.
Reports covering progress, the consensus process and results reports, will be produced by the
Procurement Manager.
The Evaluation Panel will be responsible for undertaking the evaluation of ITT submissions in
accordance with this plan. The assignment of Assessors to criteria is shown in Appendix D.
The Consensus Scorer will ensure that the criteria have been scored on a consistent and fair basis.
The Consensus Scorer will be responsible for coordinating with the relevant Assessors, a single view
score based on the Assessors’ scores and the ITT submissions. This score will be supported by a short
summary rationale statement clearly highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the submission for
each criterion.
2.2. Competency and Probity

In order to demonstrate that the nominated Assessors have the proficiency required to assess the
criteria assigned to them, they will be required to provide details of their relevant experience,
knowledge, qualifications, etc. demonstrating their competency to assess the criteria that they have
been nominated to review. The Procurement Manager will compile this information in the Assessor
Competency Matrix, which is shown in Appendix C – Assessor Competency Matrix. The Procurement
Manager will liaise with the relevant Mace / Arup / Gleeds Director (as appropriate and as detailed in
Appendix B) who will sign off the Matrix for each Assessor to confirm their competence. In signing this
matrix, the relevant Director also confirms that the Assessors will be able to commit the required time
in order to complete the evaluations in the timescales detailed in Appendix A.
If due to unforeseen circumstances any of the Assessors are unable to undertake the evaluation then
they will propose, for the Procurement Manager’s acceptance, a delegate to act on their behalf. The
competency of the delegate must be confirmed by the relevant director.
All members of the Evaluation Panel, and the Consensus Scorer must confirm that they do not have
any personal or financial interest in, or previous working relationships with, any of the Tenderers
(including the parties forming a Consortium), which presents a material or perceived risk to the
objectivity of the process. This is confirmed by a signed declaration of Conflict of Interest. The
Procurement Manager will maintain a record of all conflicts of interest should any be identified and refer
them to the authorising body.
Page 4
ITT Opening
3 ITT OPENING
3.1. Approved ITT Opening and Evaluation Plan
ITT opening shall not commence until the ITT Opening and Evaluation Plan has been produced and
signed off by each relevant director.
3.2. Use of AWARD

ITT responses are being submitted via AWARD. Evaluation will be undertaken in AWARD.
3.3. ITT Opening Form

The Procurement Manager shall open the ITT submissions in AWARD. As this is being done, an initial
check will be undertaken for completeness of the submissions. Details will be recorded on an ITT
Opening Form. They will also check that submissions are compliant i.e. have met any/all mandatory
requirements. The ITT Opening Form shall record the details of all Tenderers who have submitted an
ITT response, together with any obvious omissions or discrepancies in their response
Any apparent omissions, discrepancies, non-compliance or conflict of interest will be noted.
Once all ITT responses have been opened and the compliance checks have been completed, the
Procurement Manager will complete the ITT Opening Report and issue a Flash Report.
Page 5
ITT Evaluation
4 ITT EVALUATION
4.1. ITT Briefing
The Procurement Manager will invite members of the Evaluation Panel to an ITT Briefing meeting, the
purpose of which is to ensure that roles and duties are clearly understood ahead of the evaluation
process.
Training and guidance will be given, as required, in the use of applying scores and rationale.
The Evaluation Panel members will ensure that they understand and make themselves fully conversant
with the relevant ITT documents and the requirements of this plan.
A record of attendances at the briefing meeting can be found at Appendix E.
Assessors that are deemed not required at the briefing meeting due to previous experience as an
evaluator are noted as such within Appendix E. Assessors who have not attended the briefing are
required to confirm that they are available and can complete the evaluation within the timeframe set
out in Appendix A.
4.2. Scoring
ITT submissions will be evaluated using the criteria, scoring and weightings set out in the ITT
documentation.
The following principles should be kept in mind when assessing the tender submissions:
• All Tenderers will be given an equal opportunity to succeed;

• Evaluation must be carried out in a fair, objective and non-discriminatory fashion, using only
the evaluation criteria and scoring criteria in Appendix D.
• No additional sub-criteria or sub-weightings are to be introduced (by the Assessors); and
• Consistent and objective reasons for deciding on particular scores highlighting the key positives
and negatives will be recorded to support de-briefing.
Assessors will ensure that the evaluation is not undertaken in public areas and not discussed with
anyone not formally associated with this plan.
In the first instance, the Assessors will score the submissions independently and their scores will be
supported by suitable rationale statements. These will be deemed to be draft scores.
Assessors will record a full and accurate rationale, ensuring that it captures the reasons behind the
scores awarded for the responses to the submissions. Comments should be aligned with the specified
criteria and not refer to any other matters not disclosed in the Instructions for Tendering Volume 0.
Rationale statements will fully and clearly support the score awarded and give reasons in terms of
submission strengths and any missing information or concerns. The rationale in support of any score
below 100% must include the reasons why an applicant has been scored down.
Assessors will ensure that scores are based exclusively on what can be read in the written
submissions. Any preconceptions that Assessors may have regarding the Tenderers through previous
contact will be inadmissible.
Page 6
ITT Evaluation
Scores will be based on a clear and reasonable understanding of the ITT submissions. Therefore,
communication with Tenderers to clarify submissions may be required during the ITT evaluation
process. Assessors will not communicate directly with any Tenderer. Any issues requiring clarification
that arise during the ITT evaluation shall be discussed with the Procurement Manager. Management
of communications with Tenderers is the responsibility of the Procurement Manager who will arrange
for the clarification request to be communicated to Tenderers.
It is the responsibility of the Tenderers to present their proposals clearly in their ITT submissions within
the time allowed for responding. It is important to ensure that a Tenderer does not obtain an unfair
advantage by being given an extra opportunity to submit new information, or to improve their
presentation of material through the clarification process. All Tenderers shall be treated equally and so
if one Tenderer is given an opportunity to score marks by submitting new information as part of the
clarification process then all Tenderers would have to be given the same opportunity. It is for this
reason that in general extra marks should not be given as a result of clarifications. The approach should
be for the Assessors whenever possible to base their initial score on the best interpretation of the ITT
submission. If there is uncertainty in the interpretation, then clarification or confirmation should be
sought. If it is not possible to award a score, then clarification may be obtained first but care should be
taken not to award a score on the basis of new information. If confirmation is obtained then the initial
score can be retained; if not, then the score may be reduced based on the correct understanding
following clarification.
The only exceptions to the rule that the score should not be increased are if the clarification process
shows that information was overlooked in the original submission which should have been scored or if
an Assessor realises that a manifest error was made in the original evaluation and marking.
The Procurement Manager will review responses to clarifications to ensure that the response is purely
a clarification and does not include additional material. Material that adds new content to the
submission rather than clarifying the submission will not be permitted and will not be assessed.
Following the completion of the initial scoring process, the Consensus Scorer will begin to review the
evaluation made against each criterion, for each applicant, and will enter a single ‘view’ score based
on the Assessor’s scores and the ITT submissions. A short summary rationale statement clearly
highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the submission for each criterion will support this score.
The proposed draft consensus scores will be shared with the Assessors in order to gain their
acceptance. The Assessors will either accept the proposed consensus scores produced by the
Consensus Scorer or provide their own. It is important to note that the Assessors ultimately own the
final consensus score.
The consensus scoring process is not required for the Pass / Fail questions for the following reasons:
• There is only one evaluator for each question, therefore there is no consensus score or rationale
to be determined, and;
• Pass / Fail questions require factual responses, which do not result in subjective responses or
scoring
Upon completion of the procedures within this plan the individual scores will be locked. The final
consensus scores will be used to give the overall weighted score for each Tenderer.
Page 7
ITT Evaluation
4.3. Evaluation Progress Monitoring

The Procurement Manager will monitor the progress of the evaluation (including the compliance
evaluation) on a daily basis. Any areas which are deemed to be behind schedule will be flagged up to
the individuals concerned by the Procurement Manager and reported to the Procurement Lead.
Page 8
Approvals
5 APPROVALS
5.1. Contract Award Recommendation Report
After the ITT evaluation has been undertaken, the Procurement Manager will prepare a summary report
of the ITT evaluation activities, findings and score summary tables. The main contents of this report
(Contract Award Recommendation Report) will be as per the prepared Contract Award
Recommendation Report template. It will include:
• A summary of the entire competitive tendering and selection process;

• A summary of all expressions of interest, and ITT submissions;
• A summary of any notable issues at each stage;
• The results of the ITT evaluation;
• Key points of the process relating to probity, fairness, transparency and objectivity;
• The winning tender; and
• A recommendation to award.
Page 9
Contract Award
6 CONTRACT AWARD
6.1. Report Approval on No Objection
The Contract Award Recommendation Report will initially be presented to UKDT senior directors for
their approval of the outcome of the procurement process.
Following approval from UKDT the Contract Award Recommendation Report will then be issued to
ARCC for their notification of no objection to the procurement process.
6.2. Notification Letters

Following the receipt of formal authorisation to notify Tenderers of the Intention to Award, the
successful Tenderer and all unsuccessful Tenderers will be notified electronically of the intention to
award, simultaneously, by letter.
6.3. De-Briefing
De-briefing is an integral part of the procurement process in that it provides transparency and allows
unsuccessful bidders the opportunity to improve their bidding performance in future opportunities.
A bespoke briefing for each Tenderer can be provided upon request, utilising the consensus score and
rationale.
De-briefing to Tenderers will be undertaken by the Procurement Lead or a nominated deputy.
Page 10
Appendix A – ITT Details and Timetable
APPENDIX A – ITT DETAILS AND TIMETABLE

Contract / Package: Integrated Solutions Tranche 3 - City Drainage Packages D-01 Paita and D-02
Tumbes
ITT documents were issued to Tenderers on: 05 October 2022
ITT submissions are due to be returned on: 17 November 2022
ITT issued to 6 bidders for both Packages D-01 Chiclayo and D-02 Tumbes.
The key dates in the evaluation programme for both Packages are as follows:
Planned activity Date

Issue ITT Documentation 05 October 2022
Joint Tenderer Information Briefing 12 October 2022
Confidential Tenderer Clarification Meetings (Round 1) w/c 17 October 2022
Confidential Tenderer Clarification Meetings (Round 2) w/c 31 October 2022
Assessor Briefing Meetings 14/15 November 2022
Deadline for Receipt of Tenders (time and date) 10:00hrs (Peru time)
17 November 2022
ITT Opening, Compliance and Completeness checks 17 November 2022
Evaluation Commences 18 November 2022
Complete initial Evaluation 21 November 2022
Complete Draft Contract Award Recommendation Report and issue 02 December 2022
for UKDT approval
ARCC to confirm notification of no objection to procurement process 06 December 2022
Issue Notification Letters 07 December 2022
Contract Award 23 December 2022
Page 11
Appendix B – ITT Evaluation Stakeholders
APPENDIX B – ITT EVALUATION STAKEHOLDERS

Evaluation Panel As identified in Appendix C – Assessor Competency Matrix
Supporting Contacts:
Role Name
Procurement Lead David Kenna
Procurement Manager Nick Barrett / Steve Davies
Mace Director Kate Flint
Arup Director Nic Merridew
Gleeds Director David Radford-Wilson
Page 12
Appendix C – Assessor Competency Matrix
APPENDIX C – ASSESSOR COMPETENCY MATRIX

Questions Assessor 1 Assessor 2
A1 – Qualification Name: Steve Davies N/A

Experience:
20+ years’ experience as a Quantity
Surveyor/Commercial Manager/ Procurement
Manager.
Recent Commercial and Procurement
Management roles (c. 10 years) have included
the management of various multi- discipline
work packages for the infrastructure Capital
Projects and Upgrade Programmes for
Transport for London / London Underground
covering the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly
Lines. Additionally, similar to support the
London Underground lifts and escalators
replacement and refurbishment programmes.
B1 – Organisation Name: John Remesar Name: Juan Vicente

Experience: Experience:
Qualifications: Civil engineer specialised in Qualifications: MSc Construction Project
civil works from Polytechnic University of Management, Associate RICS consultant
Catalonia (Spain), Masters Degree in (Assoc RICS), Accredited NEC 4 Project
Construction Management at Kingston Manager, Project Manager Professional
University (UK), Executive MBA at ESADE (PMP) Certified by Project Management
Business School (Spain) and PMP® Institute, MSc & BSc Industrial Engineering
candidate. Experience: 10 years’ experience as Project
Experience: More than 15 years of experience Manager / Contract Manager with an
working in a global environment as a Project engineering background, specialising in
and Planning Manager for complex projects for Construction and M&E (Mechanical and
large British and Spanish organisations in the Electrical). Experience includes project lead,
field of Turnkey, Design and Build and providing leadership and delivery of all
Traditional contracts. My experience includes aspects of the projects from conception to
the new Terminal 2 Heathrow Airport via completion and driving projects forward
HETCo (JV between Laing O’Rourke and effectively on time, within budget and within
Ferrovial). At Berkeley Homes I was involved scope. Experience includes NEC4 Contract
in the construction of One Tower Bridge, Management/Administration, Commercial
Saffron Square, South Quay Plaza 1, 2 & 4 management, Risk Management,
and TwelTrees Park. Back to Spain I project- Cost/Budget management, Quality
managed urban drainage and regeneration Management, Change Control and Project
projects such as Barcelona Local Network 2 as Reporting.
well as industrial projects in Denmark for a
pharmaceutical company.
B2 – Key People Name: Ian Carradice Name: Siraj Tahir

Qualifications: Chartered Member of the Qualifications: BSc Civil and Environmental
Institution of Water and Environmental Engineering, MSc Environmental and Water
Management. BSc Honours Degree in Civil Resources Engineering, EngD (exp 2021)
and Environmental Engineering. Urban Sustainability & Resilience.
Experience: Over 35 years’ experience as a Experience: 23 years of experience in flood
consulting civil, water and environmental risk management, flood risk modelling, urban
engineer. Specialising in infrastructure design drainage, and integrated urban water
of districts, cities and regions with a particular management. Recent roles include: Manager
interest in integrated, sustainable, resilient and Early Warning Systems for Peru
nature based solutions and Integrated Water Reconstruction with Changes Programme,
Management Strategies. Recent roles have Technical Lead on integrated urban water
included: technical assurance of both management strategies and flood risk
Page 13
Component C projects on Peru: the Early management strategies for masterplanning

Warning System and the Reforestation, projects in UK, Italy, Germany, Albania and
Terracing, Gully and Nature based Systems; China. Prior experience includes 10 years as
technical review and assurance of the flood risk management specialist in UK’s
Sustainability Strategy of the London Olympic Environment Agency.
Legacy Masterplan; infrastructure lead for the
team developing the masterplan for a new City
in China including the Integrated Water
Management Strategy of water supply, foul
drainage and wastewater treatment, flood risk
management and surface water drainage and
water quality improvement; infrastructure lead
for the Seychelles Strategic plan including
assessing the existing flood risk, susceptibility
to lands slides, tsunamis and climate change.
B3 – Health, Safety and Name: Aisling Padden Name: Amy Sadgrove

Environmental Experience: Experience:
Qualifications: MSc Environmental Monitoring, Qualifications: NEBOSH National Diploma in
Modelling & Reconstruction NVQ L5 – Occupational Health and Safety – Units B &
Occupational Health & Safety Nebosh C. NEBOSH Construction Certificate and
Certificate Construction Health & Safety NEBOSH General Certificate.
Member of IOSH and over 12 years’ Experience: 5 years’ experience within the
experience in managing Health & Safety in construction sector and 3 years dedicated as
Construction managing projects for Shell, over a health and safety professional. Experience
85 fit out projects for Mace, as well as includes projects such as Battersea Power
schemes such as Television Centre, Angel Station – Phase 2, Shard Place, Finsbury
Court, Shard Place, One Crown Place, 1 Tower, Sky B2B and Jaguar Land Rover.
Grosvenor Square and Battersea Power
Station.
B4 – Project Controls Name: Alfredo Vila Name: Joe McShee

Qualifications: Chartered Civil Engineer; PMI Qualifications: Chartered Member of the
certified as Project Management Professional Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
(PMP); Master of Science in Construction (RICS); BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying and
Management program by University of Texas Commercial Management.
at Austin, USA. Experience: 15 years’ experience as a
Experience: Civil Engineer with 9 years’ Commercial / Cost Manager. Experience on
experience in project controls, planning and wide range of Projects such as Education,
scheduling. Experience includes lead Health, Transportation, Commercial,
scheduler for Jorge Chavez International Infrastructure. Notable projects: CHUM
Airport Expansion and Lima 2019 Videna Montreal (largest healthcare facility in North
Project. Project Controls specialist in a variety America), Westfield Shopping Centres
of projects, such as mining plants, highway (largest commercial centre in the UK), Kusile
infrastructure, sports facilities, buildings and and Medupi Power Stations (largest coal fired
retail projects. power plant in Africa), The Shard (tallest
building in the UK).
B5 – Design Name: Roberto Palomares Name: Sergio Macias

Management Experience: Experience:
Qualifications: Chartered Civil Engineer – Qualifications and Experience: Chartered
Spanish Institution of Civil Engineers. MSCE member of the Chartered Institution of Water
Master of Science in Civil Engineering, and Environmental Management; Chartered
University of Castilla La Mancha, Spain. Engineer over 12 years of experience as a
Master on City Planning, Open University of Civil Engineer expert delivering various
Catalonia, Spain. Course in Urban Hydrology, design projects.
Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain. Experience includes working on High Speed
Experience: 17 years’ experience in civil 2 C224, Newport Tunnel Catchment
engineering working on projects in Spain, Resilience - Welsh Water, IST Ganol
United States, Canada, and the Netherlands, Catchments - Welsh Water, ISA - Flood
Page 14
amongst others. Roberto has a wide range of Assessment Work-Sellafield Ltd., Yorkshire
practical skills including utility design, storm Water projects, King Abdullah Sport City -
water management, grading, and roadway Saudi Arabia
design. He has experience in designing and
collaborating with international and multi-
disciplinary teams engaged in projects from
concept to completion including construction.
He has a wide-ranging experience working
and managing civil designs for site
development projects including residential,
commercial and public spaces, transport
infrastructures including airports, roadways,
LRT and BRT, and master planning for new
urban developments.
B6 – Design Execution Name: Thomas Sagris Name: Saskia De Longvilliers

Qualifications: Member of the Chartered Qualifications: MEng Civil and Environmental
Institution of Water and Environmental Engineering degree from Imperial College
Management (MCIWEM); Chartered Engineer London (UK).
(C.Eng), Chartered Water and Environmental Experience: 12 years of professional
Manager (C.WEM), Chartered experience in hydrology, hydraulic design
Environmentalist (CEnv). and urban infrastructure engineering, having
Experience: 20 years experience as a Water worked on various projects including
and Environmental Engineer specialising in sanitation and drainage master plans,
river basin and urban water management. feasibility and detailed designs of wastewater
Experience includes international projects for and drainage networks as well as resilient
the World Bank, the European Bank for and sustainable water strategies for both
Reconstruction and Development and the
private and public clients. Experience
European Investment Bank. He has led
numerous water and stormwater management includes multi-disciplinary, large scale and
projects in Europe and Asia. international projects. She has recently
worked on projects in Panama, Mozambique,
Colombia and Guatemala amongst others.
B7 – Stakeholder Name: Felipe Arenas Gallo Name: George Beane

Engagement Experience: Experience:
Qualifications: Bachelor of Science in Civil & Qualifications & Experience: Ten years’
Environmental Engineering from Rice experience with stakeholder engagement
University. around urban planning issues, specifically
Experience: 5+ years of experience in the related to water infrastructure. Masters in City
technical, commercial, environmental and Planning (MCP), Masters of Science in
social evaluation of infrastructure projects, Architectural Studies (SMARCHS), Bachelor
particularly public-private partnerships, for of Arts in Architecture (BA). Core
lenders and government entities. Have closed competencies include urban resilience, water
over US$8 billion in transactions in the and sanitation and geospatial analysis.
transport, energy, and social infrastructure George has worked on multi-disciplinary
sectors, and additionally have delivered initiatives to integrate human-centered design
multiple public sector advisory engagements, into large-scale urban infrastructure projects.
real estate studies, due diligence, as well as He has a background in urban design, spatial
construction / operations / environmental and analysis, and city resilience. He has
social monitoring for infrastructure throughout professional and academic experience
North and Latin America, including Peru. working throughout Latin America, Africa and
Experience includes leading stakeholder Asia including extensive fieldwork in the area
engagement activities for a water distribution of urban water infrastructure in Ecuador and
project in Nicaragua, and developing Mexico. Recent project experience
evaluation criteria for procurement of municipal managing complex stakeholder relations for
building in California (including drafting of city water infrastructure in South Africa,
stakeholder engagement procurement criteria). United States and United Kingdom.
Experience includes international projects.
Page 15
C1 - Commercial Name: David Bower Name: Mike Penny

Qualifications: Member of the Royal Institution With 28 years’ experience as a construction
of Chartered Surveyors professional, having significant experience
Over 14 years of experience as a Quantity across client, contracting and consultancy
Surveyor delivering various construction and organisations Mike reports direct to the
infrastructure projects. Experience includes Gleeds board as a director of Gleeds
working on Public Sector housing, schools, Management Services. In addition to being a
regeneration projects, Infrastructure lead Chartered Project Professional (ChPP) of the
housing development for 2,000 homes, mixed Association of Project Management Mike has
use project in Fountainbridge Edinburgh, St 15 years of business leadership experience,
James Centre, Edinburgh, A-Listed / Historic including the multi-disciplinary teams of 100+
Building works in Glasgow and Edinburgh. staff, providing mentoring and coaching, and
delivering training to diverse businesses.
Mike has a broad sector experience in public
buildings including Health and Education as
well as major project experience.
Page 16
Appendix D – Criteria, Weighting and Assessor Assignment
APPENDIX D – CRITERIA, WEIGHTING AND

ASSESSOR ASSIGNMENT

Criteria Sub-criteria Weighting Assessor names Consensus
(Min 2 names per Scorer
scored question) name
SECTION A – QUALIFICATION
A1 Acceptance of Tendering Conditions and Pass / Fail Steve Davies
Change in Circumstances Confirmation
SECTION B – TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ABILITY
Technical B1 Organisation 9% John Remesar Steve Davies

Juan Vicente
B2 Key People 10% Ian Carradice Nick Barrett
Siraj Tahir
B3 Health, Safety and 9% Aisling Padden Miluska Auris
Environmental Amy Sadgrove
B4 Project Controls 10% Alfredo Vila Tony Nesic
Joe McShee
B5 Design Management 12% Roberto Palomares Vince Bourke
Sergio Macias
B6 Design Execution 12% Thomas Sagris John
Saskia De Longvilliers McLaughlin
B7 Stakeholder 8% Felipe Arenas Gallo Steve Davies
Engagement George Beane
SECTION C - COMMERCIAL RESPONSE
C1 Commercial 30% David Bower Nick Barrett
Mike Penny
TOTAL: 100%
Probity Consideration:
Assessors should not have a disproportionate level of influence over the final evaluation outcome.
It is generally recommended that the Assessors should not score more than 30% of the overall ITT.
Leadership Approval:
Leaders of each JV company within UKDT (or delegates thereof) confirm that the selected assessors
are competent to evaluate their assigned questions and have availability to complete the evaluation
within the allotted timeframe.
Page 17
Appendix E – Assessor Briefings
APPENDIX E – ASSESSOR BRIEFINGS

Session Name Date / Time
Session 2 Aisling Padden Tuesday 15 November 2022 at 1200hrs Peru / 1700hrs UTC
Session 2 Alfredo Vila Tuesday 15 November 2022 at 1200hrs Peru / 1700hrs UTC
Session 1 Amy Sadgrove Monday 14 November 2022 at 1000hrs Peru / 1500hrs UTC
Session 2 David Bower Tuesday 15 November 2022 at 1200hrs Peru / 1700hrs UTC
Session 2 Felipe Arenas Gallo Tuesday 15 November 2022 at 1200hrs Peru / 1700hrs UTC
Did Not Attend George Beane Familiar with process and timescales, many previous assessments
Session 1 Ian Carradice Monday 14 November 2022 at 1000hrs Peru / 1500hrs UTC
Session 2 Joe McShee Tuesday 15 November 2022 at 1200hrs Peru / 1700hrs UTC
Session 2 John Remesar Tuesday 15 November 2022 at 1200hrs Peru / 1700hrs UTC
Did Not Attend Juan Vicente Familiar with process and timescales, many previous assessments
Session 2 Mike Penny Tuesday 15 November 2022 at 1200hrs Peru / 1700hrs UTC
Session 1 Roberto Palomares Monday 14 November 2022 at 1000hrs Peru / 1500hrs UTC
Session 1 Saskia De Longvilliers Monday 14 November 2022 at 1000hrs Peru / 1500hrs UTC
Session 2 Sergio Macias Tuesday 15 November 2022 at 1200hrs Peru / 1700hrs UTC
Session 1 Siraj Tahir Monday 14 November 2022 at 1000hrs Peru / 1500hrs UTC
Session 1 Thomas Sagris Monday 14 November 2022 at 1000hrs Peru / 1500hrs UTC
Page 18
Appendix C ITT Flash Report
C. Appendix C ITT Flash Report
Initial ITT Submission Flash Report

ARCC Projects - IS City Drainage Package D-01 Paita
ITT Opening 17 November 2022
Contract Description
Package: IS City Drainage Package D-01 Paita
ITT Assessment Plan timeline highlights

• ITT submissions were opened 17 November 2022
• Completeness checks commenced 17 November 2022
• Assessors’ evaluation due to commence 18 November 2022
• Assessors due for completion 21 November 2022
• Letters of Clarification 24 November 2022
• Notification letters 07 December 2022
• Award Contract 23 December 2022
Completeness
• Portal locked at 10:25 am Peru and submissions unsealed.
• 3 out of 6 submissions received by the deadline.
• 3 tenderers, Ayesa Ingenieria y Arquitectura S.A.U., China Water Resources Beifang
Investigation, Design and Research Co. Ltd. and RSK did not submit.
• All bidders have signed Acceptance of Tendering Conditions.
Tenderer details:
Company Consortium Details
Consorcio DOME del Norte

Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del
1) Meta Engineering S.A. Sucursal de Perú
Peru
2) Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del
Perú
Lombardi SA Ingenieros Consultores
N/A
Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del Perú

N/A
Classification - Public
Appendix D Technical Scores and Rationale
D. Appendix D Technical Scores and Rationale

Submission Question Score Rationale
Dohwa B1 - Moderate Response presented that addresses some parts of the question, however there are
Engineering Organisation some areas lacking sufficient detail. Organisation structure is provided including KPI,
Co., Ltd. KP3, KP4, KP5, KP6 and Specialist staff as indicated in Works Information. However, it is
Sucursal del unclear if the Design Site Manager (KP2) is included. Regarding the ethical behaviours
Peru and legal compliance, it is referenced that the META code of conduct will be
implemented for ethical behaviour, however there are no details or information
provided on this within the submission. An estimated histogram is provided and it is
stated the balance between staff resource and cost control is based on reducing
reworks, endless reviews and quality control, however the response is very generic. It
would have been beneficial to include specific details on how the rework and endless
reviews would be avoided, and more detail could also have been provided on how the
resourcing would be balanced between controlling costs and successfully delivering the
design. Although it is stated that the structure offers money value through a
multidisciplinary approach, the submission did not provide specific details/examples of
why/how value for money will be achieved. The multidisciplinary approach is something
expected for this project, more specific detail was required to adequately answer this
part of the question.
Dohwa B2 - Key Moderate KP 01 Design Manager - Lacked detail of experience in relation to urban drainage and
Engineering People value added.
Co., Ltd. KP 02 Design Site Manager - Lacked detail of experience in relation to urban drainage
Sucursal del and value added.
Peru KP 03 Urban Storm Drainage Specialist - City Drainage - The tenderer has provided
evidence of adequate duration and level of experience of delivery of projects of similar
value and scope.
KP 04 Hydrological design specialist - Some experience of city drainage however lacked
value added detail.
KP 05 Hydraulic Design Specialist - Lacked some detail on projects in urban drainage.
KP 06 Quality Specialist - Lacked detail in project experience in city drainage.
Dohwa B3 - Health, Concerns The tenderer does not appear to have understood the requirements of the question,
Engineering Safety and therefore the response provided fails to adequately address the specific details
Co., Ltd. Environmental required resulting in a low score.
Sucursal del Instead it focusses on top risks, best practice and innovation, and the strategy to meet
Peru environmental and SSOMA obligations for the execution a construction project and any
references to design are extremely limited.
There is some minor detail provided around engaging with those affected by the design
and some high-level information about environmental strategy. However, unfortunately
the vast majority of the points of the question which relate to design have not been
answered.
It does not appear to provide a clear answer on how the design process will be aligned
to capturing and eliminating health and safety hazards for the project or a strategy for
the formulation and approval of the environmental requirements for the acceptance of
the design including liaison with relevant authorities for licenses and approvals.

Dohwa B4 - Project Minor The Tenderer has put together a below average response to the question.1.The
Engineering Controls Concerns Tenderers response doesn't mention how to work to complete the design under/on
Co., Ltd. budget. The cost management strategy is not described2. The Tenderers response
Sucursal del identifies key risks, however, the mitigation actions are generic, and there is not enough
Peru detail about their overall risk management strategy. 3. The Tenderers response has
provided a satisfactory schedule in the majority of respects. However, it doesn't include
TRAs, list of assumptions or exclusions. Also, some durations, like the RIBA 4, seems
unachievable (2 months) considering the project total duration. The key showing the
colours of the critical path and other items was blurry and difficult to read, even when
zoomed in. 4. The Tenderers response includes how they will identify, manage and
mitigate the schedule and cost risks on this project including local complications with
access to site and the discovery of unknown buried services was provided - but the
answer was to brief and requires expansion.
Dohwa B5 - Design Moderate The Submission lacks provision of 2 clear examples of where the Tenderer expect to be
Engineering Management able to realise efficiencies on this project areas where they expect to implement
Co., Ltd. efficiencies on the projects or design optimization.
Sucursal del The schedule, review periods for technical design (RIBA 4) where only 51 days are
Peru allocated, is considered a very short period for the size of the project, and not realistic.
In addition, the schedule lacks design review milestones and key design deliverables. It
also lacks explanation around where the schedule offers efficiencies or good practice.
The Tenderer did not use the full extent of the page limits provided within the
guidance.
The submission lacks specific explanation or detail around how the organisation
conducts value engineering exercises to offer the client a higher value design quality
The response considering to how the Tenderer will adopt the design information and
take it to full design maturity is considered too generic in nature the response could
have offered more specific detail around how the design ensured construction in line
with the requirements.
The Tenderer on a number of occasions cross referenced to other questions which are
not available to the evaluators for this question, so some understanding may have been
lost.
It is further noted that the submission content is significantly duplicated / mirrored with
the D-02 Tumbes submission content, therefore the answers to the Project Specific
elements would have provided more confidence in the Tenderers ability had these
answers been more individually specific.
Dohwa B6 - Design Moderate The Tenderer shows a good understanding of the basic studies required for the
Engineering Execution technical design work.
Co., Ltd. The Tenderer has confirmed the type of software to be used for the study but have
Sucursal del provided little detail on the modelling methodology. They recognise the need for the
Peru solution to be cost beneficial but there is no description on how this will be done.
A higher degree of confidence could have been achieved if the response had included
details of a specific multicriteria analysis to support the identification of the optimum
solution.
The Tenderer highlights the need to understand land availability and social acceptability
for key locations which will provide storage and regulations of the flows. The proposed
site investigations to support the design of the City drainage are comprehensive.
However, there is no acknowledgement of how the coastal environment/discharges
may impact on the solution.
There is reference to undertaking sensitivity analysis to understand the behaviour of
the infrastructure under different conditions. The Tenderer proposes the execution of
the downstream works first which is a good recommendation.
The Tenderer provides a comprehensive response on the use of BIM in design
development and describes the how they will provide a 3D BIM model using the BIM
360 platform. They also recognise the limitations of working with linear infrastructure in
BIM. The Tenderer has also flagged that land acquisition is a key risk for the project.

Dohwa B7 - Concerns Response is very brief (using only 2 of the permitted 4 pages) and many parts of the
Engineering Stakeholder question were not adequately answered. It provides a high-level diagram of stakeholder
Co., Ltd. Engagement engagement processes but does not describe these in sufficient detail or include
Sucursal del information about communications. Does not identify specific key stakeholder groups
Peru or a methodology for engaging with these. Also, it does not appear to identify the risks
that are anticipated from the proposed works or the activities planned to mitigate these
risks. A limited plan for land acquisition is set out but this could have provided more
information. Describes technical and legal issues related to land management
acquisition but not engagement issues related to this or how concerns will be identified
and addressed. Interferences and temporary works are not mentioned in sufficient
detail, for example. Briefly describes how urban growth will be assessed using the city's
urban development plan, but does not set out a detailed assessment of how the impact
of urban growth will be accounted for in the project. Does not present sufficient
evidence that the consultant has knowledge of these trends and their potential impact
on the project.
Lombardi SA B1 - Very A strong, full and well detailed response is presented that addresses all parts of the
Ingenieros Organisation Good question. A brief explanation on how the staff resourcing will be balanced between cost
Consultores control and completion of design deliverables is mentioned, however this particular
point would have benefitted from more detail being provided.
Lombardi SA B2 - Key Very KP 05 Hydraulic Design Specialist. Lacked detail of experience in relation to urban
Ingenieros People Good drainage.
Consultores KP 06 Quality Specialist - Lacked detail of experience in relation to urban drainage.
Lombardi SA B3 - Health, Minor The tenderer does not appear to have fully understood the requirements of the
Ingenieros Safety and Concerns question, therefore the response provided fails to adequately address many of the
Consultores Environmental specific details required and is quite difficult to follow as it does really not align to the
structure of the question.
Appears to largely provide generic information about management of health and safety
for project execution. When design is addressed it is not clearly outlined how design
and safety interact or how design will reduce safety impacts, for example.
It does not appear to provide a fully clear answer on how the design process will be
aligned to capturing and eliminating health and safety hazards for the project. There is
some detail provided around the hazard elimination in the construction phase but not
in the design phase.
The strategy for the formulation and approval of the environmental requirements has
been answered to some extent, however this section is quite brief and more detail
would have been beneficial.
Lombardi SA B4 - Project Very The Tenderer has put together a very good response to the question.1. The Tenderers
Ingenieros Controls Good response in relation to the general strategy regarding risks is presented and the key
Consultores risks are identified, however, the response doesn't include mitigation actions. 2. The
Tenderers response has provided a good schedule that allows easily identifies their
strategy, however, the schedule doesn't include TRAs, list of assumptions or exclusions.
Lombardi SA B5 - Design Very The Tenderer presented a work schedule, and explanation around where the schedule
Ingenieros Management Good offers efficiencies or good practice. The program of activities followed the RIBA stages
Consultores but lacked sufficient detail in respect to the Key Milestones dates that determine each
RIBA phase. The schedule also lacks inclusion of design review periods for approval of
the Technical design, therefore it was difficult to assess if the programme could be
considered realistic or not. Had these elements been provided more confidence in the
Tenderers ability would have been higher.

Lombardi SA B6 - Design Very The Tenderer shows a very good understanding of the basic studies required for the
Ingenieros Execution Good technical design work.
Consultores The response includes an in depth description of the proposed hydraulic modelling
methodology including confirmation of the software (1D model only with 2D elements
as required) to be used for the study.
The Tenderer has provided a good level of detail of how they carry out multicriteria
analysis and social cost benefit analysis to identify the optimum solution of the city
drainage project.
The Tenderer will provide a socio-environmental-legal team support the design of the
urban drainage. They also identify their reducing the acquisition of private land is a key
consideration.
A good description of the geotechnical and multi-hazard site investigations and analysis
that needs to be undertaken has been provided. The Tenderer provides a description of
the key considerations and risks which influence how the design will be zoned. They
highlight the need for robust scheduling to ensure that key activities are completed
before the rainy season.
A higher degree of confidence could have been achieved if the response had included
information on how the coastal environment/discharges may impact on the zoning or
solutions.
The Tenderer has provided a good response on the application of BIM and how they will
use it to minimise project risks. The Tenderer has identified key risks which need to be
managed such as existing services, construction techniques and traffic, noise and dust
considerations.
Lombardi SA B7 - Moderate Response sets out a credible approach for stakeholder management and engagement,
Ingenieros Stakeholder with a well defined strategy and plan that addresses all parts of the question. It includes
Consultores Engagement principles for engagement although these could have been described in greater detail,
including specific actions that are appropriate based on the geographic context and
project scope. Identifies general stakeholder groups but does not appear to provide
specifics around the key stakeholders. Identifies risks but does not describe these in
enough detail to indicate what specific social risks are anticipated from the proposed
works or the activities planned to mitigate these risks, again more detail could have
been provided. Provides a credible plan for land acquisition although interferences and
temporary works are not mentioned in detail and states that urban growth will be
assessed in the development of the social study for the project, but provides a limited
assessment of how the impact of urban growth will be accounted for in the project and
more information on these aspects would have been beneficial to better demonstrate
knowledge of the current trends and their potential impact.
Técnica y B1 - Good Generally a robust response is presented that addresses the majority of the parts of the
Proyectos S.A. Organisation question. States that a permanent team in the project area will monitor certain
Sucursal del activities such as interference activities, affected services, property, stakeholder
Perú management and maintain contact with the population, however, it lacked sufficient
detail on how the contact with different stakeholders will be proactively managed and
monitored. A communication management plan is mentioned, but it was not fully
explained how they will interface with all external parties/stakeholders and more
detailed information could have been provided on this aspect. A limited resource
histogram is presented, however this would have benefitted with the additional
inclusion of the total number of people for both the project management and the
design teams being provided. Acknowledged the need to provide qualitative and
quantitative technical solutions, however there is limited explanation provided on how
they will successfully deliver the design deliverables on time and on budget. More detail
Técnica y B2 - Key Very KP 04 Hydrological Modelling Specialist - Experience of catchment scale modelling in
Proyectos S.A. People Good Peru and Brazil, less specific experience of urban catchments.
Sucursal del KP 05 Hydraulic Modeling Specialist - Lacked detail of experience in relation to urban
Perú drainage. The project value is for the larger projects, which drainage was a component,
therefore it is unclear whether the scope of works is in relative comparison. The score
would have been higher if the scope of the drainage design was clearly articulated.

Técnica y B3 - Health, Moderate The tenderer does not appear to have fully understood the requirements of the
Proyectos S.A. Safety and question, therefore the response provided fails to adequately address some of the
Sucursal del Environmental specific details required.
Perú Appears to be focussed on community engagement when answering the design aspects
of the questions. Whilst this is valid in the construction phase, the question was looking
for specific details on how the design stage will be coordinated to reduce design risks
and hazards. Similarly, the tenderer has outlined their risk management hierarchy and
risk assessment, but this again this speaks of construction phase and not risk
assessment in design stages.
It does not appear to provide a fully clear answer on how the design process will be
aligned to capturing and eliminating health and safety hazards for the project. There is
minimal detail provided on how health risks will be designed out, only how they will be
controlled.
The strategy for the formulation and approval of the environmental requirements has
been answered to some extent, however this section is quite brief and more detail
Técnica y B4 - Project Very The Tenderer has put together a very good response to the question.1. The Tenderers
Proyectos S.A. Controls Good response in relation to the general strategy regarding risks is presented well along with
Sucursal del the identifying of the key risks and the mitigation actions are identified. However, the
Perú strategy is too generic and it needs to be specifically focused on this project.2. The
Tenderers response has provided a satisfactory schedule in some respects. It shows
RIBA stages, permits, land acquisition activities and review periods. However, it does
not include TRAs or a list of assumptions or exclusions. Additionally, the sequence of
activities is a bit confusing and doesn't allow to better understand the critical path.
Técnica y B5 - Design Good The Tenderer has provided a high-level explanation of the process of risk management
Proyectos S.A. Management associated with the NEC form of contract in a general context, the submission in the
Sucursal del main lacked clarity on the specifics of the question asked. It is not clear how the
Perú Tenderer will manage and mitigate the risks associated with the completion of a high-
quality design solution. The submission would have scored higher if more detail was
offered mentioning gap analysis and verification of the referential project reports. The
answer provided generally missed the mark and lacked outlining the Tenderers
proposed strategy for managing and mitigating these risks.
Applicant presented a design optimisation and cost proposal though the reinforce of
BIM Methodology, which is recommended and can help on the design however the
Tenderer give excessive weight on the use of BIM for the propose on how to develop
the value engineering exercises.
The Tenderers response lacked explanation on how the design will optimise the future
operation and maintenance of the final project.
Técnica y B6 - Design Very The response demonstrates a good understanding of the basic studies required for the
Proyectos S.A. Execution Good technical design work.
Sucursal del The Tenderer proposes an integrated 1D-2D model for the entire study area in line with
Perú modelling best practice. They confirm that the software package Iber will be used for
the study.
The Tenderer has demonstrated a very good understanding of both the multicriteria
analysis and social cost benefit analysis methodologies. The Tenderer has identified the
land availability and social acceptability investigations that they plan to undertake. A
higher degree of confidence could have been achieved if the response had included
more detail on how the data from these will be used to inform the optimal solution.
There is a more detailed section on the proposed geotechnical investigations and how
the data will be used for optioneering. The Tenderer provides a description of how the
construction work will be sequenced based on the hydraulic capacity of the drainage
system and the contributing sub basins. The map provided with the proposed 9 sectors
in Paita Baja and 12 sectors in Paita Alta is useful.
The response focuses on the BIM Execution Plan but there is no information on the

tools they will deploy to achieve their aims. The Tenderer has identified key risks and
considerations which need to be managed.
Técnica y B7 - Good Response sets out a credible approach for stakeholder management and engagement,
Proyectos S.A. Stakeholder with a well defined strategy and plan that addresses all parts of the question. This is
Sucursal del Engagement complemented with identification of specific key stakeholder groups, communications
Perú and risks/mitigations that are expected to impact the project. However, It could have
included more specific actions that are appropriate based on the geographic context
and project scope. Provides a credible plan for land acquisition and how urban growth
trends will be reviewed. However, interferences and temporary works are not
mentioned in detail and there is limited emphasis of the social management of the land
acquisition process, more information on these aspects would have been beneficial to
better demonstrate knowledge of the current trends and their potential impact on the
project.
Appendix E Cross Workstream Check
E. Appendix E Cross Workstream Check

A detailed analysis and cross workstream check of previous ITT scores was carried out and the results of this are included in the following table.
IS City Drainage Package D-01 Paita
Key Same score

Score differs by one scale
Score differs by more than one scale
Score differs by more than one scale with no valid reason
Code 1 1x different evaluator

2 2x different evaluators
3 Page limit breached
4 Question has been updated and response is different to previous submission
5 Different response to previous submission
6 Question has been updated but response is similar to previous submission
7 Previous score from another workstream (not Integrated Solutions and different question)
8 Substantially the same question but an improved response
9 Substantially the same question but an incomplete response
10 Response is substantially the same (over 50% CV duplication) to previous submission
X Question not previously asked, no comparison submission available
Appendix E Cross Workstream Check
Current ITT
B3 Heath, Safety and B7 Stakeholder
Company Overall Previous ITT B1 Organisation B2 Key People B4 Project Controls B5 Design Management B6 Design Execution
Environmental Engagement
Technical Score
Technical Score Workstream Package Previous Current Code(s) Previous Current Code(s) Previous Current Code(s) Previous Current Code(s) Previous Current Code(s) Previous Current Code(s) Previous Current Code(s)
Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. IS City

39.79% 39.79% D-02 55% 55% 55% 55% 10% 10% 25% 25% 55% 55% 55% 55% 10% 10%
Sucursal del Peru Drainage
Lombardi SA Ingenieros IS City

77.64% 77.64% D-02 90% 90% 90% 90% 25% 25% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 55% 55%
Consultores Drainage
Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal IS City

79.29% 79.29% D-02 75% 75% 90% 90% 55% 55% 90% 90% 75% 75% 90% 90% 75% 75%
del Perú Drainage
Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd.

39.79% 49.29% IS Studies 2 75% 55% 55% 55% N/A 10% X N/A 25% X 55% 55% N/A 55% X 55% 10% 1, 4, 7
Sucursal del Peru
Lombardi SA Ingenieros
77.64% 65.00% IS Studies 2 75% 90% 75% 90% N/A 25% X N/A 90% X 75% 90% N/A 55% X 55% 55%
Consultores
Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd.

39.79% 49.29% IS Studies 3 75% 55% 55% 55% N/A 10% X N/A 25% X 55% 55% N/A 55% X 55% 10% 1, 4, 7
Sucursal del Peru
Lombardi SA Ingenieros
77.64% 65.00% IS Studies 3 75% 90% 75% 90% N/A 25% X N/A 90% X 75% 90% N/A 55% X 55% 55%
Consultores

CARR IS Package D01 Paita 999967UKD001000ZZRPZZ000134 20230221 175423 827

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARR IS Package D01 Paita 999967UKD001000ZZRPZZ000134 20230221 175423 827

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contract Award

Action Name and Role Date Signature

Technical and QA David Kenna,

Revision No. Date Description

R01 01/12/22 For Approval

• Dohwa Engineering Co., Ltd. Sucursal del Peru (Dohwa);

Table 1 – Consortium Details

Following evaluation, an overall summary of the scores is as follows:

Page 4 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

1.2 Technical Evaluation

1.3 Commercial Evaluation

Initial commercial scores are set out in Table 4 below:

Page 5 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

1.4 Summary Evaluation

1.5 Decision Required

Page 6 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

• Ayesa Ingenieria y Arquitectura S.A.U. (Ayesa);

Consortium details are set out in Table 6:

Table 6 – Consortium Details

Page 7 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

3 Tender Receipt and Opening

RSK Declined to tender due the risk profile of 15 November 22

Page 8 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

3.2 Change in Circumstances

3.4 Evaluation Methodology

3.5 Confirmation of Acceptance of Amendments

3.6 Win One Only

Page 9 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

100% Excellent Confidence

75% Good Confidence

55% Moderate Confidence

Page 10 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

4.1 Key Findings from Technical Submissions

4.2 Previous Experience

Page 11 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

Area of Influence -Drainage Area-Oquendo, Oquendo,

Page 12 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

Lowest Price x 100 = score % x 30% weighting of the criteria

5.1 Key Findings from Commercial Submissions

Page 13 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

Deliverables Price KP1 KP2 KP3 KP4 KP5 KP6

Deliverables Price KP1 KP2 KP3 KP4 KP5 KP6 Total

Page 14 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

Design Site Urban Storm Hydrological Hydraulic Design

Page 15 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

6 Summary of the Evaluation and Conclusion

Page 16 Document Control No. – 999967-UKD001-000-ZZ-RP-ZZ-000134 Revision 1

A. Appendix A Tender Opening Form

ITT Opening Form

Tenderer Company Observations

2 Lombardi SA Ingenieros Consultores Submission appears complete

Técnica y Proyectos S.A. Sucursal del

B. Appendix B Tender Opening and Evaluation Plan

ITT Opening and

Confidential: UKDT | ARCC | |

• meets G2G, procurement strategy, and relevant legislative requirements;

Only the responses received through AWARD are assessed.

Evaluation is conducted using the predetermined evaluation criteria.

The Procurement Manager will operate AWARD.

2.2. Competency and Probity

3.2. Use of AWARD

3.3. ITT Opening Form

Any apparent omissions, discrepancies, non-compliance or conflict of interest will be noted.