Faqja Kryesore
Rreth nesh
Aktivitete
Prokurime
Info & Lajme
Publikime
Rreth Shqipërisë
Kontakt
Prokurime
Faqja Kryesore > Prokurime > Tenderat Fitues

Employer: Albanian Development Fund (ADF)


Project: Community Works IV: Development of the Albanian Alps and Coastal Areas


Contract title: “Urban requalification, restoration in Vuno village, Himara municipality”


Country: Albania


Loan No.: ALB - LD 1853


RFB No:CWPIV/W/OP/2016/8


Issued on: June 20, 2017


I. The duration and summary scope of the contract: The construction period is 10 months. The main objective of the project is restoration and urban requalification of the territory in Vuno village, in order to develop tourism as well as economic progress through restoration, conservation and rehabilitation of traditional houses and cultural heritage areas. This is achieved through several key interventions, mainly in historic areas of this village, to facilitate the movement and orientation of vehicles as well as pedestrians:

- Intervention at the national road and secondary roads, infrastructure, lighting and objects along the way.
- Restorative interventions aiming the maintenance of urban-architectural areas, traditional road network in composition and technique, keeping unchanged the space configuration of resting land and traditional vegetation.
- Rehabilitative interventions, integrating conservation or restoration, on constructions that are already ruined to prevent the further degradation


The Site is Vuno village, Himara municipality.


II. The selection method used: The Most Advantageous Bid.


III. The Bidder submitting the successful Bid: : “Fusha” shpk. Adr. Rr. "Murat Toptani", nr. 25, Tiranë.


IV. The Contract price of the successful Bid: 372,010,478 ALL (net of VAT) – 446,412,574 ALL (VAT included).


V. The Bidders who submitted a Bid:

1) JV "G.P.G. Company" shpk & “AD-STAR” shpk
2) JV “R&T” shpk & "Gjikuria" shpk
3) “Fusha” shpk


VI. The bid prices as read out at opening of financial parts of bids:
1) “Fusha” shpk - 372,010,478 ALL (net of VAT) – 446,412,574 ALL (VAT included).


VII. The bid prices as evaluated:
1) “Fusha” shpk - 372,010,478 ALL (net of VAT) – 446,412,574 ALL (VAT included).


VIII. The unsuccessful bidders and the reasons the bids were unsuccessful:


1) JV "G.P.G. Company" shpk & “AD-STAR” shpk


The bid does not meet the qualifying criteria, conforming to all the terms, conditions and specifications of the Bidding Documents as follows:


3.1 (i) Financial Capabilities. The criterion is not fulfilled.


The JV member “AD-STAR” shpk submitted two confirmed bank accounts, one from Credins Bank with a balance of 10,062,685 ALL and another from Intessa San Paolo Bank with a balance of 3,756,028 ALL. The total is 13,818,713 ALL which presents 12% of the total required. According to clause 3.1 each member must fulfill at least 25% of the total amount.


3.2 Financial Capabilities. The criterion is not fulfilled.


The JV member “AD-STAR” shpk has an average TO of 54,501,162 which presents only 6.1% of the total. Referring to the criteria each member must meet at least 35% of the required.


4.2.a) Specific Construction Experience. The criterion is not fulfilled.


The JV member “AD-STAR” shpk has submitted the following contracts:


1. Full restoration of Church and consolidation of existing situation of konak tower of the ST. Mary monastery, started in 2012 and completed in 2013. Value of works 59,516,697 ALL.

2. Restoration of ST. Thanasi Church in Karavasta e Re, Lushnje, started in 6/2015 and completed in 12/2015. Value of works 15,909,281 ALL.

3. Restoration of Roofs of Cultural monument residences started in 11/2012 and completed in 09/2013. Value of works 12,093,000 ALL.

4. Reconstruction and structural Reinforcement of St. Mary Cathedral, Prizren, Kosovo started in 10/2012 and completed in 03/2013. Value of works 14,756,562 ALL.

5. Rehabilitation and Restoration of the ST. Mary monastery in Apolloni started in 12/2015 and completed in 01/2017. Value of works 104,061,665 ALL.

6. Restoration and rehabilitation of Culture monument GYM Kat.2 UT started in 2013 and completed in 2014. Value of works 55,674,481 ALL.

All the above mentioned contracts are smaller than the requested value, therefore are not considered similar.


The JV member "G.P.G. Company" shpk submitted the following contracts:


1. Construction of road Lushnje – Berat lot 1 started in 6/2011 and completed in 2014. Value of works 490,612,722 ALL.

2. Construction of road Lushnje – Hysgjokaj started in 2013 and completed in 2014. Value of works 672,972,541 ALL completed by G.P.G. Company & Filipos.

3. Construction of road Lushnje – Berat lot 2 started in 2013 and completed in 2016. Value of works 1,619,005,442 ALL.


5.1) License. The criterion is not fulfilled.

The JV member "G.P.G. Company" shpk has not submitted the license.


2) JV “R&T” shpk & "Gjikuria" shpk


The bid does not meet the qualifying criteria, conforming to all the terms, conditions and specifications of the Bidding Documents as follows:


1.2 Conflict of Interest. The criterion is not fulfilled.


Letter of Bid is presented only in name of “R&T” shpk meanwhile that the applicant is JV ‘R&T” shpk & “Gjikuria” shpk.


1.3 Bank Eligibility. The criterion is not fulfilled.


Letter of Bid is presented only in name of “R&T” shpk meanwhile that the applicant is JV ‘R&T” shpk & “Gjikuria” shpk.


4.2.a) Specific Construction Experience. The criterion is not fulfilled.


The JV member “R&T” shpk submitted the following contracts:


1. Infrastructure inside and around Medieval Castle stared in 12/2011 – 7/2012 and value of 582,711,367 ALL VAT excluded.

2. Construction of Municipal Social Rental Housing started in 2011 and completed in 2013. Value 442,074,079 VAT Excluded.

3. Restoration and construction of roofs of the building Monument of Culture, started in 1/2012 and completed in 10/2012. Value of works 167,041,794.


The JV member “Gjikuria” shpk submitted one contract.


1. Revitalization of Square Pavarsia phase no.2 started in 2012 and completed in 2014. Value of works is 74,663,500 ALL. This contract is smaller than the requested minimal amount therefore cannot be considered as similar.