# Framework agreement for deodorization units

- **Source:** TED · `309335-2025`
- **Buyer:** Energinet
- **Published:** 2025-05-14
- **Deadline:** —
- **Estimated value:** 17,000,000 EUR
- **CPV codes:** 42514000, 42514320, 44615000, 44615100
- **Place-of-performance NUTS:** DNK
- **Buyer-address NUTS:** —
- **Notice type:** can-standard / 30

## Procedure details

Source lists may span several lots; list positions do not establish relationships.

### Procedure Types

- neg-w-call

### Award Criterion Names

- Price
- Technical Solution
- Quality management
- Time schedule
- Delivery time
- Project management
- Social sustainability
- Contract terms

### Award Criterion Descriptions

- When evaluating “Price”, the Contracting authority will evaluate the grand total, contract price, cf. the Schedule of Prices.
- In the evaluation of “Technical solution”, the Contracting Authority will evaluate the extent to which the tenderer complies with Contracting Authority specifications: Appendix 2.1: Deodorization Unit Technical Specification (doc. no. 24/06394-6) and appendix 2: Scope of Work; Costumer’s Requirements (doc. no. 24/06394-16) including the scope and content of any deviations in relation thereto. In this context, the elements listed below are of particular importance (in prioritized order): a) It is evaluated positive if the deodorization units electrical and mechanical equipment offer technology for efficiently removing odorant from bio natural gas. Further, a functional and simple design with manual operation is preferred of each plant. b) Adsorber process: • It is evaluated positive if the adsorber process includes long intervals between replacements of the adsorber material. • It is evaluated positive if procedures for replacement of adsorber material in the THT filter pressure vessels includes clear step by step procedures and easy access for all operations required for replacement of the adsorber material. c) Maintenance, hereunder: • It is evaluated positive, that the planned maintenance includes few and simple maintenance operations. • Further, long exchange intervals and easy access to perform the work with few special tools/components and minimum personnel needed are evaluated positive. d) Emissions: • It is evaluated positive, that actions are taken to reduce emissions from fabrication and under transportation. An overall evaluation will be made of this sub-criterion.
- For the sub-criteria “Quality management”, the Contracting Authority will evaluate to which degree the tender provides assurance as to the quality of production. The evaluation will therefore include the tenderer’s ability to ensure quality in the entire production line and across all interfaces and will be evaluated to the extend the requirements from the technical specification as well as the requirements from standards are met. In this context, the elements listed below are of particular importance: e) Fabrication processes: • It is evaluated positive that project steps from design to mechanical completion are included, such as attention to sub-contracted and purchased parts. • It is evaluated positive that risks are identified, and mitigations described. • It is evaluated positive that manufacturing interfaces are kept at a minimum to prevent unnecessary risk. f) Inspection and Test Plan (ITP): • It is evaluated positive that the ITP includes steps for pre-fabrication, fabrication, surface treatment, assembly and testing. • Further, it is evaluated positive that topics identified include references to internal procedures as well as procedures of sub-contractors and third-party interventions to ensure that quality requirements are met. g) Quality management systems: • It is evaluated positive if tenderer and relevant sub-contractors have implemented third-party certified systems to support quality management. h) Sub-contractor management: • It is evaluated positive if relevant sub-contractors are approved or assessed. i) CE marking: • It is evaluated positive that third-party involvement is specified, and intervention points are identified for the CE marking process. j) Document control system: • It is evaluated positive if the document control system includes internal review and approval steps for master record data book (MRB) to reduce the time of follow up during review. An overall evaluation will be made of this sub-criterion.
- For the evaluation of “Time Schedule”, the Contracting Authority will evaluate the degree to which the tender demonstrates a well-planned, realistic and robust time schedule, which allows sufficient time for potential schedule contingencies, but still provides evidence of a high level of security for delivery within the timeframe set out in the Tender Documents. In this context it will be evaluated positive that: • The schedule reflects a realistic, but frontloaded schedule for the critical activities. • The schedule reflects sufficient time for 3rd party engagement. An overall evaluation will be made of this sub-criterion.
- The evaluation of “Delivery time” will be based on the stated delivery time as offered by the tenderer: • A maximum delivery time of up to 40 weeks will result in a score of 10, whereas a maximum delivery time of 52 weeks or more will result in a score of 0. In between these two points scores will be given on the basis of linear interpolation.
- Evaluation of the sub criterion “Project management” will be based on the competences and experiences demonstrated in the included CV’s and their relevance to the specified roles of the key persons. It will also be evaluated to which degree the individual key per-sonnel will be involved in fulfillment of the assignment and how they complement each other. Further, the evaluation will be based on whether the proposed organizational structure is operational, efficient and have clear lines of communication. An overall evaluation will be made of this sub-criterion.
- Evaluation of case 1 will focus on the tenderer’s description of the supply chain management, within the specified key materials (steel, metal manufacturing including iron ore, coal). Of particular importance is: • Process description of the supply chain management for the key components (steel, metal manufacturing including iron ore, coal) of the objective of the purchase. • The degree of traceability for the raw material used in the production (tier 1, tier 2 etc.), the closer to the initial stage the company can trace the components, the higher score/will be evaluated positively. • Documentation that supports the process description, such as internal processes, strategies and measures and/or plan to request a certificate of origin, the use of blockchain technology etc. Evaluation of case 2 will focus on the tenderer’s description of management of Energinet’s Code of Conduct throughout the supply chain. Of particular importance is: • Process description of the management of CoC throughout the supply chain of the objective of the purchase. • The implementation of a Supplier Code of Conduct and contractual obligations, ensuring that suppliers are aware of and committed to up-holding human rights standards. • The degree of accountability/grievance mechanism en-suring access to a reporting channel for suppliers and sub-suppliers to report CoC violations, including clear procedure how to handle misconduct. • Supplier and sub-supplier visits/audits to ensure robust process when it comes to ensuring compliance with CoC throughout the supply chain, not only description but that actions are made. An overall evaluation will be conducted.
- The tendered assignment must be performed on the basis of the attached contract terms. The tenderer may, however, suggest explicit and well-explained deviations to the contractual terms which the Contracting Authority has identified as competitive criteria’s below: Framework Agreement (doc. 24/06394-14): o Sub-Clauses 10.4, 10.5 & 10.6 (Validity and Termination) Appendix 1: General Terms and Conditions for Works (doc. 24/06394-15): o Clause 2 (Requirements), except for sub-clause 2.3 o Sub-clause 5.6 (Advance payment guarantee – except for what is stated as mandatory parts of the Tender Documents, cf. sub-section 3.7.1 above) o Clause 10 (Time for Completion) o Clause 14 (Intellectual property rights) o Clause 15 (Late-delivery or non-delivery) o Clause 16 (Defects and remedies) o Clause 17 (Limitation of liability) o Clause 18 (Product liability) o Clause 19 (Insurance) o Clause 20 (Indemnification) o Clause 21 (Performance guarantee – except for what is stated as mandatory parts of the Tender Documents, cf. sub-section 2.7.1 above) o Clause 28 (Termination) o Appendix 1G: Insurance Exhibit (doc. 24/06394-20) Agreement under Framework Agreement (doc. 24/06394-18): o Section 7, sub-clause 10.1 (Time for Completion) o Section 7, sub-clause 15.1 (Late-delivery or non-delivery) o Section 7, sub-clause 16.1 and 16.6 (Defects and remedies) o Section 7, sub-clause 17.2 (Limitation of liability) o Section 7, sub-clause 19.1 (Insurance) o Section 7, sub-clause 20.1 + 20.3 (Performance Guarantee) o Section 7, sub-clause 23.3 (Code of conduct and HSE requirements) o Section 7, sub-clause 28.3 (Termination) These will be included in the evaluation of the sub-criterion "Contract terms" and it is noted that any deviations may lead to a reduction to the score depending on the content, clarity, and consequence. In this regard it is explicitly noted that deviations which intends to limit liability and shift the financial risk in favor of the tenderer will be of particular importance in the evaluation. No deviations, and thereby absolute fulfillment of the contract terms, will result in the maximum score of 10. An overall evaluation will be made of this sub-criteria. A minimum score of 4 must be achieved, cf. sub-section 3.7.1.

### Options

- The framework agreement can be extended for (2x2 years) by a written notice to the Supplier no later than 3 months before the termination of the Agreement. Companies in which Energinet SOV or another company in the Energinet group acquire half or more than half of the capital or have the authority to exercise half or more than half of the voting rights or has the right to manage the company’s business regardless of the official name during the term of the Frame Agreement will have an option to use the Frame Agreement.

## Description

In Denmark, the amount of biogas in the distribution grids increases. When bio natural gas (biomethane) from distribution grids is fed into the transmission grid, the concentration of odorant present in the gas needs to be reduced to accepted trace amounts max (1.0 mg THT/Nm3) before the gas enters the transmission grid. The removal of the odorant, tetrahydrothiophene (THT), will be executed by a deodorization unit, at the place of injection into the transmission system. Through the establishment of the present framework agreement, the Contracting Authority wants to purchase a number of deodorizing units for injection of upgraded biogas from the distribution grid into the natural gas transmission grid in Denmark. Deodorization units for reduction of odorant (THT) in the source gas has to the requirements of the export grids will be included in the reverse flow plant’s facilities. The capacity is within 3.500 Nm3/hr., to 9.500 Nm3/hr., and maximum inlet pressure 19-40 barg. The exception is 3.C which is 17.300 Nm3/hr. and 19 barg. The total purchase is made for a period of 4 year(s) from the signing of the framework agreement with the option of an extension for 2x2 years. Orders under the framework agreement will be allocated directly to the supplier which, in the view of the Contracting Authority, has submitted the most economically advantageous tender, see section 4.1. The estimated consumption during the term of the framework agreement is expected to amount to (7) deodorizing units in total. The estimated number of deodorizing units is one of each of the following (ID 1, ID 2, ID 3.b, ID 3.c, ID 4, ID 6, and ID 7). The framework agreement consists of an estimated consumption for the FTB project of six (6) deodorizing units. This framework agreement consists of an initial call-off for four (4) deodorizing units (ID 2, ID 3.b or ID 3.c, ID 6 and ID 4), which will be awarded on the basis of the award of the framework agreement to the tenderer that achieves the highest score, cf. section 4.2. Further, two (2) deodorizing units are expected to be ordered after the first order, which it expected to be (ID 1 and ID 7). The consumption figures are estimates only and are consequently not binding for the Contracting Authority. The Contracting Authority is not obligated to purchase solely from the framework agreement and may in connection with single-standing purchases choose to tender these independently. For further details concerning the purchase, reference is made to the appendices to the tender documents.

## Award result

- **Published notice total:** 17,000,000 EUR
- **Contract concluded:** 2025-05-01
- **Winner:** SulfaTrap LLC (CVR 45-4320485) · value 17,000,000 EUR
Published values may cover multiple lots, options and frameworks; they are not supplier revenue. Unlinked notice summaries do not assign each value or expiry to each winner.

## Original notice

https://ted.europa.eu/da/notice/-/detail/309335-2025