Proyecto 23.379B/1 - Diseño y ampliación; Construcción, Densificación de lodos amarillos de la EDAR

✓These are information requests, not formal minimum requirements, but clearly foreshadow future qualification and evaluation aspects.

✓On the scope of the contract, the text describes the intended future project rather than a finalized contract.

✓The hydraulic expansion of RWZI Geel will raise the peak flow capacity from 1,100 m³/h to 2,732 m³/h for 42,500 IE.

✓This is to be achieved via two projects: (1) renovation of the existing “klassieke straat” (including a new influent pump sump sized for total capacity and sludge treatment via an indiktafel, plus a common tertiary treatment for both streets, which is explicitly stated as out of scope of this RFI), and (2) a new second biological street to be procured via D&B.

✓The scope for the second street comprises, such as, a fully new above‑ground water line from the shared influent pump pit to the production of secondary effluent meeting current discharge norms and ready for tertiary treatment or direct discharge.

✓The design must use slibdensificatie technology, minimize footprint, limit dewatering needs and underground pipework, and treat approximately 60% of the influent via the new street and 40% via the existing street.

✓The site is described as a “greenfield” adjacent to the current RWZI Geel, which allows design without major constraints from existing structures.

❓Timelines in the document relate only to the RFI response: written high‑level answers are requested before 12 November 2026, with optional follow‑up meetings on 17, 19 and 23 November 2026.

✓As to award criteria and weighting, the text explicitly states that this RFI is not a call for tenders and will not be used to evaluate or rank companies for award.

✓Aquafin notes that the information will be used solely to build technical specifications and contractual requirements for a possible later overheidsopdracht.

❓Consequently, there are no defined award criteria, no weighting matrix, and no scoring system in this RFI.

❓On risks and special conditions, the document does not yet define contractual penalties, guarantees, bonding levels, subcontracting rules, offer validity periods, or maintenance obligations.

✓It does, however, highlight several risk‑related aspects that Aquafin wants market input on.

✓For example, bidders are asked how they will guarantee effluent norms and process requirements at all times, including during implementation, and what remedial measures they propose if guarantees are not met, as well as how process continuity is ensured if the offered solution underperforms.

✓They are queried on, such as, long‑term reliability of electromechanical equipment (e.g. minimum 15 years of reliable operation and post‑15‑year guarantees), exploitation support formulas, and how they manage continuity when subcontractors fail.

❓Subcontracting and partnerships are addressed through questions about which studies/works are done in‑house, which via known subcontractors, and which external collaborations exist; but no binding restrictions or percentage limits are given.

✓The procedure‑related conditions that are defined concern questions and meetings: all RFI correspondence must be in Dutch via email to Koen Dockx at Aquafin, there is a clear deadline for written answers (12 November 2026), and optional oral meetings can only be held if a complete written response has been submitted.

❓There is no mandatory site visit described in the text; the site is described mainly via figures and layout plans.

✓With respect to contradictions or corrections, the text is consistent on key procedural points: it repeats several times that the RFI is non‑binding, not a tender, and that participation or non‑participation has no impact on future eligibility or award.

✓Where certain scopes are mentioned multiple times (such as the common tertiary treatment of effluent of both streets being out of scope for this project), the statements are aligned and reinforce each other rather than contradict.

✓The only potentially confusing aspect for a reader concerned with formal tender rules is that some questions in Annex 2 (e.g. on certifications, financial stability, TCO) resemble selection or award criteria, but the document clearly states that the responses will not be used for any form of evaluation or exclusion in this phase.

❓Therefore, if a conflict were suspected, the explicitly repeated clauses stating that this is merely a market consultation and not an invitation to submit an offer or binding proposal would prevail.