This is indeed possible. One single professional who complies with several of the criteria can be proposed to cover these criteria on their own. In any case, please note that the personnel mentioned in criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be required to execute the contract. Please see section 3.3. Selection criteria of TD1 Request for Tenders.

Please see section 3.3. Selection criteria of TD1 Request for Tenders, in particular selection criterion 2: "The CV must clearly demonstrate at least 5 (five) years of experience in managing multi-disciplinary innovation projects and/or multi-disciplinary integration projects with challenges on a European scale. The individual must have verifiable experience in monitoring tasks, managing planning and budgets, coordinating stakeholders, and ensuring project governance. Together with the CV it is necessary to submit at least one reference letter signed by a public or private client referred to at least 1 (one) such project, in which the expert has taken part. The role is not technical in nature: the primary focus is on a multi-disciplinary project delivery and strategic alignment across domains, rather than on content-level or technical development".

The more information the CV provides, the more straightforward will be to ensure compliance with this criterion. Please note that the projects do not necessarily need to be "European public projects", they can refer to "managing multi-disciplinary innovation projects and/or multi-disciplinary integration projects with challenges on a European scale". A European Public project would be indeed a great reference, but not the only possibility.

For the Environmental Sustainability Expert profiel, please see section 3.3. Selection criteria of TD1 Request for Tenders, in particular selection criterion 2:  "At least 1 (one) CV of an expert with minimum 5 (five) years of experience in sustainability experience projects/designs. The CV will specifically indicate at least 1 (one) project linked to sustainability design, assessment, or implementation in the last 5 (five) years."

As indicated, the project should be linked to sustainability design, assessment, or implementation. The provider has certain leeway to select a project that covers these aspects (not necessarily altogether).

The Public Buyers Group, primarily through SAS, can provide hospital wastewater for Phase 2 testing, even if conducted at the contractor’s own facilities.

However, the contractor must propose this matrix in their Phase 2 Test Plan and obtain formal approval from SAS prior to testing. While real wastewater is available, the tender documents emphasize that synthetic spiked wastewater is the standard method used to ensure that testing is fully representative and comparable across all prototypes. If real wastewater is used, contractors must ensure that it is representative of the intended application and includes all target contaminants relevant to the evaluation.

If a contractor opts for off-site testing using samples provided by SAS, they are fully responsible for the logistics and transportation cost. This includes the shipment of influent samples to the contractor's laboratory and the return of post-test samples to SAS for analysis, if applicable. Ultimately, the contractor retains total operational and technical responsibility for the prototype and must justify the statistical adequacy and representativeness of their selected matrix within the approved Test Plan.

Please check Annex 6. Phase 2 testing strategy & requirements.

Microbiological analyses will be carried out by SAS in accordance with what is described in Section 20 of Annex 6. The remaining analyses required to quantify other contaminants (cytostatics, contrast agents, and antibiotics) will be performed in laboratories subcontracted by CHV. In both cases, if it is considered appropriate to involve either of the two partners to carry out the analyses, the cost will be covered by these two entities. 

For the detection and quantification of microbiological contaminants, the following molecular techniques and analyses will primarily be used:

Quantitative PCR (qPCR): Primary technique for the quantitative molecular detection of ARG.Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS): Sequencing platforms such as MiSeq (Illumina) will be employed for the detailed characterization of bacterial strains used in spiking (enrichment) assays. This ensures that the resistant bacteria utilized during testing are precisely identified genetically.Automated DNA Extraction: The laboratory utilizes TECAN platforms for automated DNA extraction and genomic library preparation, which guarantees the standardization of molecular samples.Bioinformatic Analysis: Specialized software including CLC Genomics Workbench, Ridom™ SeqSphere+, and BioNumerics will be used to analyze the sequences obtained and for the molecular typing of multidrug-resistant pathogens


Chemical analyses for the relevant target contaminants ( cytostatics, X-ray contrast agents and antibiotics)may be performed by specialised external laboratories coordinated or subcontracted by CHV, where applicable. The scope of these analyses should cover the whole panel of target contaminants as listed in TD1 Request for Tenders, Section 3.5 Award Criteria.

The specific Phase 2 Test Plan will be prepared by the contractor using the applicable template and requirements, and will be subject to review and formal approval by SAS before testing starts. The exact analytical panel, number and type of samples, sampling points, analytical methods and quality requirements will therefore be defined in the approved Phase 2 Test Plan.

Accordingly, the coverage applies to the analyses required for the agreed Phase 2 testing protocol and should not be interpreted as covering any additional or non-agreed analyses outside that approved Test Plan.

Operational costs related to the prototype itself, including installation, operation, optimisation, consumables, transport, waste handling and safe discharge management, remain the responsibility of the contractor, as established in the tender documents.

The location of the contractor's personnel or partners will not constitute a formal award or allocation criterion and cannot guarantee assignment to any specific hospital.

The final allocation of the hospital sites will be communicated to the Phase 3 contractors during the transition from Phase 2 to Phase 3, specifically as part of the Third tender procedure (call-off for Phase 3). Please see section 2.1. Description of the services to be provided and 2.6 Time schedule of TD1. Request for Tenders

The process follows these stages:

Definition During Phase 2: Although the specific sites are implemented in Phase 3, they are defined during Phase 2 in close coordination with the procurers and relevant end users.

Formal Confirmation: The selected testing locations for each contractor are confirmed during the transition period and reflected in the ETV Application file, the Specific Verification Protocol (SVP), and the Test Plan.

Tender and Contractual Communication: The Third tender procedure (call-off for Phase 3) is scheduled to be launched in June 2028.

Following the selection of winners, the final site requirements are formally embedded in the specific contracts for Phase 3, which are signed in July 2028.



Testing Locations Phase 3 involves validating at least two final solutions across four EU Member States. Each solution must be tested in a minimum of two hospitals to ensure coverage of representative northern and southern European climatic conditions. The designated hospital sites are:

HUN – Hospital Universitario de Navarra (Spain).
AZM – Maastricht University Medical Center (Netherlands).
PERH – Põhja-Eesti Regionaalhaigla (Estonia).
WSS – Wojewódzki Szpital Specjalistyczny in Olsztyn (Poland)


Please see Annex 1. Test Sites for more information.

The budget of up to €389,537.04 referred to in Section 2.5. Total budget and budget distribution (per phase) of TD1. Request for Tenders is reserved for infrastructure adaptations that may be required at the selected Phase 3 pilot sites.

Tenderers are not required to include site-specific infrastructure adaptation costs in the TD9. Financial Form submitted as part of the Phase 1 tender. At the time of tender submission, the final allocation of pilot sites and the specific infrastructure requirements are not yet known.

Infrastructure adaptation needs, where applicable, will be identified and assessed at a later stage based on the selected solutions, the assigned pilot sites, and the corresponding installation requirements. Relevant information on the identified adaptations and their implementation will be included in the Test Plan (see TD12. Generic test plan template). Any decision regarding the use and allocation of this budget will be made by the Procurers in accordance with the needs identified for the Phase 3 implementation.

Please refer to Question 12 for more information.

The Procurers cannot pre-assess or confirm the eligibility of specific individuals prior to the formal evaluation of tenders. As stated in section 3.3. Selection criteria of TD1 Request for Tenders, in particular selection criterion 3:

“At least 1 (one) CV of an expert with experience and knowledge on cytostatics, and/or contrast agents and/or antibiotics (in water) over the past 5 (five) years. The CV will specifically indicate at least 1 (one) project/research linked to the removal of cytostatics, and/or contrast agents and/or antibiotics in water in the last 5 (five) years.

They must be employed by the Contractor(s) at the time of executing the contract.

Compliance with this criterion will be assessed based on the information and evidence provided in the submitted tender. Tenderers should therefore clearly demonstrate the relevance of the proposed expert's experience to the contaminants and objectives addressed by the THERESA PCP.

The Phase 3 pilot system is not required to treat the total wastewater flow generated by a hospital. Instead, the pilot shall operate at a scale that is representative of the intended deployment model proposed by the tenderer (e.g. a specific hospital department, unit, source-separated stream, or other justified treatment scope).

As specified under requirement SSI1.4 (Solution Layout), tenderers may propose and justify centralised, decentralised, or hybrid treatment configurations. Consequently, a decentralised solution targeting a specific hospital department or unit may be validated at the corresponding wastewater flow generated by that deployment scenario, rather than at the total hospital flow.

The key requirement is that the pilot installation is representative of the intended final deployment configuration and operates under real hospital conditions. Tenderers shall justify the selected treatment capacity and deployment scale in relation to their proposed implementation model and demonstrate that the pilot is capable of generating statistically robust, traceable and representative performance data for the purposes of verification.

The pilot shall be of sufficient scale to support the generation of performance data required under the ETV process and ISO 14034 verification framework, reflecting the operational and treatment conditions of the proposed solution.

Therefore, a decentralised pilot treating may be acceptable, provided that it is representative of the intended deployment model, is technically justified, and generates sufficient data to support the required Phase 3 verification activities.

As specified in section 3.5. Award Criteria of TD1 Request for Tenders, particularly under Space & Site Integration requirements, it is not prescribed a specific reactor size, module volume or architecture.

The purpose of the requirements is not to favour a particular technology, but to ensure that proposed solutions can be realistically deployed and scaled within hospital environments.

Contractors are therefore free to propose the technical configuration that they consider most appropriate for their technology, provided that the proposed design demonstrates technical feasibility, scalability, and suitability for the intended deployment scenario.

There is no predefined "optimal" trade-off between modularity and treatment capacity. Tenderers should justify how their proposed configuration represents the most appropriate balance for their technology and intended deployment model, while ensuring compliance with the requirements related to space efficiency, site integration, scalability and Phase 3 pilot validation.

a) The timeline set out in TD1. Request for tenders reflects the expected overall schedule for Phase 3. The detailed planning of site access, any necessary infrastructure adaptations, installation activities and commissioning will be coordinated between the selected contractors and the Procurers following the allocation of pilot sites.

Contractors should note that information on the test sites is already provided in Annex 1. Test Sites and that site visits may be carried out during the different phases, as indicated under SSI1.1. Site Compatibility and Installation (section 3.5 Award Criteria of TD1. Request for tenders). In addition, during Phase 2 contractors will further define their deployment approach and coordinate pilot implementation requirements with the Procurers. Prior to Phase 3 deployment, contractors will have the opportunity to verify technical feasibility, infrastructure compatibility, spatial constraints, safety conditions and integration requirements at the assigned sites, as specified under GER1.2. Phase 3 Pilot Deployment (section 3.5 Award Criteria of TD1. Request for tenders).

Contractors should therefore use the information and opportunities provided throughout Phases 1 and 2 to prepare for deployment. Where infrastructure adaptations are required, these will be addressed as part of the Phase 3 implementation planning to ensure that installation and commissioning can be completed within the contractual timeframe.



b) As indicated in Annex 7. Phase 3 verification strategy & requirements, each solution shall be tested in two hospitals during Phase 3. Contractors should therefore be prepared to operate and support both pilot installations during the applicable testing and verification period.



c) The contractor is responsible for organising and financing the performance testing activities required for Phase 3, including the engagement of an independent test body in accordance with the requirements set out in Annex 7. Phase 3 verification strategy & requirements and the ETV process. Performance data used for verification must be generated by the selected test body in compliance with the applicable requirements. The contractor remains responsible for coordinating these activities and providing all necessary operational support and access to the pilot installations.

The Financial Form (TD9) is provided as a template to be completed by tenderers. Therefore, tenderers are expected to provide the information expressly requested in the template (and in each field) while respecting the maximum length of 10 pages applicable to TD9. In this regard, the level of detail should be consistent with the structure of the tables included in TD9 and should not exceed what is necessary to complete them. These tables are intended to harmonise the manner in which financial information is presented, ensuring comparability between tenders and supporting a consistent assessment of the submitted information.

For personnel costs, tenderers should provide the breakdown requested in the TD9 template, namely the personnel categories, applicable hourly rates, and the corresponding number of hours per phase. Where indicated in the template, personnel categories may be linked to the relevant phase.

However, TD9 does not require a full breakdown by consortium partner and by individual staff member unless such information is specifically requested elsewhere in the form. Tenderers should therefore present the information in a manner that enables the contracting authority to understand the allocation of resources while remaining within the page limits established in TD9. The list of staff requested in the table should be completed in accordance with the instructions provided therein.

For materials, subcontracting, and other cost categories, tenderers should provide the information requested by the relevant fields of the TD9 template. The purpose is to allow an assessment of the cost structure and the realism of the proposed budget. The information should be presented in a concise manner, aligned with the categories and tables included in TD9.

-Do the cover pages and table of contents count towards the maximum page limits?

Yes. Tenderers are requested to refer, for each document to be prepared, to the specific instructions set out in the relevant Tender Document (TD). The documents mentioned in the question, TD8 and TD9, contain explicit requirements regarding maximum length and formatting, and no exceptions or alternative arrangements are provided within those instructions.

Accordingly, tenderers should comply with the requirements expressly stated in each Tender Document.


-Does the pre-existing instructional text provided in the templates count towards the limit? Are we allowed to delete it to save space? Alternatively, if it must be retained, are we permitted to reduce its font size?

Pre-existing instructional text provided in the templates counts towards the limit and elimination of sections and/or modifications of the templates are not allowed. Where the tender documentation does not provide specific derogations or exemptions, none should be assumed. This applies, among other aspects, to page limits, cover pages, tables of contents, instructional text included in the templates, bibliographies, reference sections, and font requirements. In addition, the templates provided as part of the tender documentation must be completed as issued.


-Regarding the bibliography and references section, must it strictly adhere to the Calibri 11 font requirement, or is it acceptable to use a smaller font size for this specific part?

Please refer to previous answer. The documents mentioned in the question, TD8 and TD9, contain explicit requirements regarding maximum length and formatting, and no exceptions or alternative arrangements are provided within those. Where the tender documentation does not provide specific derogations or exemptions, none should be assumed. This applies, among other aspects, to page limits, cover pages, tables of contents, instructional text included in the templates, bibliographies, reference sections, and font requirements.