Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning (MERL) services for Phase II of the Somalia Security and Justice Programme

New clarification added: Q65: Could you clarify where the Sustainability DRIVE questionnaire should be uploaded? I note that the instructions are to upload the excel file under the document checklist tab, but we cannot see a specific field for this to go in. A65: You can upload this document either under "Copy of Offeror's legal incorporation documents and licenses" or "Other evidences and documents supporting the statements made in Form D - Technical Proposal Form".

New clarification added: Q64: Could UNOPS confirm if both Form C (in the returnable bidding document) and the Proforma (excel file) need to be submitted? A64: Form C is a mandatory document to be submitted. It has to be signed and stamped. The Pro-forma costing template should be uploaded too, but in excel format, so then the Evaluation Committee can see the formulas used for various calculations. Both documents must be uploaded under the Financial Envelope Documents.

New clarification added: Q63: We are developing the budget based on our understanding and best guess under the assumption that the workplan (and thus budget) will be reviewed with UNOPS at every break and occasionally on an annual basis to reflect the learning and the context. Can you please confirm that this is a correct assumption?   A63: Yes, we confirm that this is a correct assumption.

New clarification added: Q62: In section 2.3 of the technical proposal form, there is a table on roles and responsibilities. It requires the supplier to copy the Terms of Reference requirements against the minimum personnel structure. Could you please clarify if the minimum personnel structure is the core team, or if it includes only the role specifically required, namely the TL and MERL Advisers? Also, can you please indicate the paragraph number from which the requirements are expected to be copied from?   A62: Offerors are asked in Section 2.3 to demonstrate the quality and appropriateness of their proposed [Core] team structure. The suggested table should include any/all Core Team positions deemed necessary by the Offeror to deliver against the overall requirements of the ToR, including (but not limited to) a MERL Team Lead and embedded MERL Advisors. Requirements for the Core Team are included in paragraphs 48-50 of the Terms of Reference.

New clarification added: Q61: Paragraph 84 of the ToRs states “expenses related to office set-up (renovation, furniture, equipment, etc.) and associated monthly charges (rent, maintenance, utilities, communications, security, cleaning, etc.) in Programme’s offices shall be the responsibility of UNOPS and must not be priced” could you please clarify: the type of communications covered (e.g. does it include also Skype credit, sim card and sim credit, Teams or Zoom licences, airtime, etc) and the type of equipment covered (e.g. screens, headsets, keyboards, mouse, cables, etc.)?   A61: The set-up and operation of the programme offices shall be per the UNOPS existing standards, which include all the requirements for the effective functioning of an office. There are approved standards for ITC hardware and software in UNOPS and those standards shall be followed. This implies provision of all the necessary furniture, IT infrastructure and equipment, as well as means of communication, including basic mobile phones.

New clarification added: Q60: Please could you clarify whether local resource partners for the MERL component can also be involved in the bidding for the TAP component? Or whether this creates a conflict of interest and is not allowed?   A60: Please refer to RFP Section I – Instruction to Offerors – Article 4. Offeror Eligibility, 3rd paragraph, 3rd bullet point, which states: “… this does not limit the inclusion of a firm as a sub-contractor in more than one bid.” However, per the condition set in the RFP/2021/25215 for TAP services it is clear that both MERL and TAP cannot be awarded to the same Supplier. Accordingly, if during the evaluation of proposals, it transpires that the selected Offerors for MERL and TAP share the same subcontractor for the services that would constitute a conflict of interest, one of the selected Offerors shall be declared ineligible at the discretion of UNOPS.

New clarification added: Q59: Please could you specify what you mean by “Contingency” and explain the difference between the “Provisional Sum” and “Contingency”?   A59: Please see 84 (f) of the Terms of Reference for the definition of Contingency. The sum of the Contingency can be calculated as a percentage over the total cost of the Core Team. The definition and purpose of the “Provisional Sum” is provided in paragraph 84 (g) of the Terms of Reference. What can and cannot be included in the “Provisional Sum” is further explained in the Q&A47. The difference between the “Contingency” and the “Provisional Sum” is that Contingency can be used only to cover the unexpected expenses associated with the functioning of the Core Team, whereas “Provisional Sum” can be used only for the purposes of the Extended Team’s operations.

New clarification added: Q58:  Please could you confirm what is covered in the communications budget?   A58: Since the provisions of paragraph 86 of the Terms of Reference cover only Programme’s offices, “Communications” as well as “Printing” budget lines in the Form C should be used to cover Supplier’s expenses for communications and printing incurred at its HQ or elsewhere outside of Programme’s offices.

New clarification added: Q57: For “Form C: Financial Proposal Form”, we could notice that the “Overhead and profit” line items were added to the non-labour other expenses tables. However, we do not see this line item in the other expenses tabs of the “Pro-forma costing template” excel sheet. Is the line item of the “Overhead and profit “cost could be added separately in the “Pro-forma costing template” excel sheet to be applied on top of the non-labour other expenses costs?   A57: What you need to submit as a mandatory document in your proposal is “Form C: Financial Proposal Form”. The “Pro-forma costing template” is provided as a guidance and a template, so then you can demonstrate your calculations of the cost breakdowns and totals. You may accordingly modify/amend it to include any missing item that is included in the Form C, but not in the Pro-forma costing template.

New clarification added: Q56: Is the subcontractor cost formula (fee * rate) correct?  Can we include the Level of Effort in the subcontractors' tab too?   A56: Per the Form C – Financial Proposal Form – the unit cost calculation for the subcontractors already includes a tab/cell for the reflection of their LoE. Furthermore, please take into consideration the provisions of the paragraph 84(d) of the Terms of Reference, which provides further details on the costing of the subcontractor’s services.

New clarification added: Q55: How does the cost formula work? At the moment the Cost is given by: Rate * LoE * Fee. Could we amend the formula to treat the fee either as a percentage or number e.g. (Rate + Fee) * LoE?    A55: Per the Form C – Financial Proposal Form – the unit cost calculation is given as “number of personnel” x “Level of Effort” x “remuneration per unit (all-inclusive fee)” = “Total rate for the period”. This is what we expect the Offerors to apply in their calculations.

New clarification added: Q54: What is included in the "Monthly all-inclusive fee rate in USD or Daily all-inclusive fee rate in USD"? In a previous clarification you mentioned salary and insurance; where do the other aspects of a remuneration package could be included? Also, how the provider's margin should be calculated?  A54: “Fee” is a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services. Monthly or daily all-inclusive fee is supposed to cover an involved individual’s or entity’s remuneration for the performed services and also compensate for the required insurances (Service Incurred Illness, injury and death Insurance, Malicious Act Insurance, Health Insurance, any other insurance mandated by the Employer) in compliance with Employer’s HR policies that contain fair provisions on working hours, overtime, week-ends and holidays, sick leave, annual leave, maternity and paternity leave, etc.  The all-inclusive fee is not supposed to cover Employer’s costs for recruitment and deployment, provision of initial briefing and trainings for the personnel, transit and entry visas, arrangement of work-permits, duty-of-care in the country of services, etc. These costs must be quoted under different categories, such as reimbursables, overhead and profit, which in particular, must include Supplier’s margin for its personnel.

New clarification added: Q53: The statement of exclusivity and availability required of the 3 key experts contains the line "I confirm that I am not engaged in other projects in a position for which my services are required during the periods where my services are required under this RFP." We are invited to introduce dates of periods of availability, which we are assuming are those of the roll out of the MERL component. We understand that this statement is to ensure that the individuals proposed are fully available at the start of the project, at the level of effort we propose in our budget and workplan. However, these roles may change over time and are unlikely to be full time throughout the 7 years of the project. Would it be acceptable to interpret this line as confirming availability during the periods stated according to the level of effort/ days allocated in the budget and workplan included in the proposal, and to insert a footer to this effect?  A53: Yes, it would be acceptable.

New clarification added: Q52: When completing Form I (the Statement of Exclusivity and Availability), for what period are those in named positions expected to declare their availability? Do they need to be available for the entire 87 months of the programme, or will a declaration to commit to the entirety of the inception phase suffice at this stage? A52: It is assumed that when filling the form, people’s intention will be to remain engaged under the contract for the entire programme duration. However, UNOPS recognises that 7 years is a long period and things may change during this period both for the individuals and their employees. UNOPS expects that in case of someone’s premature departure from the Programme, a sufficiently advance notification shall be provided and the individual in question will be substituted by a suitably qualified replacement.

New clarification added: Q51: In Paragraph 30 of the TOR, a mid-line review at end of phase 1 is mentioned. Is it the MERL provider or someone external to the three components who will undertake this review?   A51: The mid-line review will be undertaken by an external and independent provider.

New clarification added: Q50: During the pre-bid clarification meeting, amongst other things, the UNOPS team presented a revised Theory of Change at the pre-proposal meeting, as well as additional information on the bid. This information is important to the full development of bidders' approaches.  Please could you make this information available in written form so that we can act upon it.   A50: The Theory of Change is annexed to the RFP Section II - ToR. The minutes of the pre-bid clarification meeting is uploaded in the document upload section of the RFP.

New clarification added: Q49: Section II Terms of References, page 25, #86 - " 1. Note that expenses related to office set-up (renovation, furniture, equipment, etc.) and associated monthly charges (rent, maintenance, utilities, communications, security, cleaning, etc.) in Programme’s offices shall be the responsibility of UNOPS and must not be priced." Can UNOPS confirm if this is applicable even if an Offeror proposes an office in Kenya? Or is only applicable to Programme offices in Somalia?   A49: This provision is applicable only to Programme Offices in Somalia. For the purposes of implementation of the SSJP-II Programme a project office in Kenya is not deemed necessary. However, noting that (i) duty stations for Team Leads are not fixed in the TOR and (ii) Team Leads will have to work closely with the UNOPS Director of Security and Justice, who is based in Nairobi, UNOPS shall provide office space/desks for all the Contractors’ Team Leads in its premises in Nairobi. As for the rest of the Contractor’s personnel, Offerors can have their own offices wherever it makes operational and economic sense for them, noting that extra offices outside of Programme locations may increase their costs and may have negative implication on the scoring of their financial proposal.

New clarification added: Q48: We are told that a 'Provisional Sum' can be provided for uncertain activities during implementation, rightly recognising that it is not possible to accurately estimate costs for activities that have not been determined and may be 7 years in the future. However, the proforma for the Provisional Sum seems to require the same level of detail as the proforma for inception. Can you please confirm that the right forms have been provided, or if any detail can be omitted in section 2.2 of the provided form?  A48: Per the guidelines provided Form C – Financial Proposal Form: “The format for the detailed cost breakdown table includes specific expenditures, which may or may not be required or applicable but are indicated to serve as examples. Offerors may adjust the headings of expenditures as necessary.” Accordingly, you can modify the description of expenses in the relevant cost-breakdown tables as you deem necessary.

New clarification added: Q47: We are asked to provide details of the core team for implementation but many of the activity of the core team will be for uncertain activities outlined in the provisional sum. Can you please provide further guidance on how we should represent the core team in the implementation phase?   A47: You will need to ascertain, to the best of your ability, the composition and scope of activities of the Core Team during the Programme Implementation Phase I and II. All the “uncertain” elements of the Core Team’s work during the said period shall be covered from the contingency amount described in Paragraph 84 (f).

New clarification added: Q46: 84(g) in the ToR states that a ‘Provisional Sum’ is to be provided. Are there restrictions to what can/can’t be included in the Provisional Sum, and will the value for money of the Provisional Sum be considered in the scoring?  A46: Please read the TOR, Paragraph 84.  Fees and expenses described in sub-paragraphs “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”, “e”, “f”, “h” and “I” cannot be included in the Provisional Sum. Only fees and expenses described in sub-paragraph “g” can be included in the Provisional sum.

New clarification added: Q45: UNOPS have not provided a recommended methodology or a budget ceiling for this evaluation. Due to the varying levels of inputs and expenses required across the broad range of methodologies that could be selected to conduct the evaluation, our proposed budget could differ greatly from that of another bidder. We are aware that the financial proposal is being scored on lowest price only - does UNOPS plan to take the chosen methodology into account when scoring the financial proposal?   A45: Since the chosen methodology will be described in the Technical Proposal, it shall be accordingly scored during the technical evaluation and shall have no bearing during the financial evaluation of proposals. However, noting the overall 70/30 weight proportion of the technical proposal over the financial proposal, it is safe to assume that selection of a better methodology over a cheaper methodology has a better chance of winning.

New clarification added: Q44: We are presenting our bid as a consortium formed of a prime and subcontracted close associate. Are supporting documents, i.e., audited accounts and registration statement, required from our subcontractors as well as ourselves? Can you confirm that the self-certification letters on solvency, insurance etc are only required from the prime?   A44: If an Offeror is a Consortium, the associated supporting documents for turnover, solvency, quick ratio, etc. (audited financial statements, solvency, liquidity ratio, etc.) can be provided for the Prime Contractor only.

New clarification added: Q43: Could UNOPS please confirm is NCBA Bank Kenya is an acceptable bank for the proposal guarantee?   A43: Per the information received from UNOPS Kenya Finance Department, bank guarantee issued by NCBA Bank Kenya shall be accepted.

New clarification added: Q42: Would UNOPS accept a letter verifying Offeror’s liquidity in its current line of credit and/or bank accounts instead of a Proposal Security?   A42: Proposal Security cannot be substituted by any other document. It is mandatory to submit a Proposal Security in the prescribed format provided in Form E – Proposal Security Form.

New clarification added: Q41: Form E - Proposal Security Form (referred to as Returnable Proposal Schedule 2 – Form of Proposal Security in the Tender Particulars' Section) - Can you please confirm the complete title that Offerors need to put under the Beneficiary line in the form? Is it United Nations Office for Project Services, Somalia Representation Office at Kenya Multi-Country Office (KEMC)? Or do we just put United Nations Office for Project Services?   A41:  It is sufficient to put “United Nations Office for Project Services”.

New clarification added: Q40: Please could you confirm that the Form E Proposal Security form is the same form you are referring to when you mention the proposal security at $30,000 in the tender particulars section of the portal entry? Are form E in the proposal and the Returnable Proposal Schedule 2 - Form of Proposal Security the same document?   A40: Yes, Form E – Proposal Security Form is the same document referred to in the Tender Particulars Section of the RFP. We apologize for the inaccurate reference to the document title in the Tender Particulars section.

New clarification added: Q39: We read that "UNOPS will retain 10% of fees from each milestone payment until relevant deliverables and outputs are successfully delivered to the satisfaction of UNOPS” and “KPIs will be assessed as either pass (100%) or fail (0%) for that quarter”. Does it mean that the 100% of the KPI value could be recouped during the next quarters as soon as it is achieved?   A39: As provided in the ToR, paragraph 96: There will be no opportunity to “carry over” retained fees relating to contract management KPIs from one quarter to the next. This means that if a given KPI wasn’t achieved during a given quarter, the associated retained amount shall not be paid and this unpaid amount cannot be recouped during the next quarter(s).

New clarification added: Q38: CV formats - Will full CVs as per Form F of the Technical Proposal document be required for all team members, including short term specialists, or just for the three named core positions?   A38: CVs in the prescribed format provided in Form F are required for all the team members, including the short-term specialists.

New clarification added: Q37: The bank guarantee template mentions that: "This guarantee will exprire [...] - (ii) twenty-eight days after the expiration of the Offeror’s Proposal." The tender particulars mention however that "the proposal security shall be valid for 120 days from the date of proposal submission". Are we correct to assume that we are allowed to modify this part of the template to have the proposal security valid for 120 days instead of 28 days?   A37: These two statements do not contradict. However, to be precise and explicit on the matter, noting that Proposal Submission Deadline was extended till 13th September 2021, the Proposal Security shall have a validity untill at least 13th January 2022.

New clarification added: Q36: Could you please confirm that the end date to be entered on the proposal guarantee form should be 120 days from 31st August, i.e., 31st December? Please could you confirm that the Form E Proposal Security form is the same form you are referring to when you mention the proposal security at $30,000 in the tender particulars section of the portal entry? Are form E in the proposal and the Returnable Proposal Schedule 2 - Form of Proposal Security the same document?   A36: Returnable Proposal Schedule 2 – Form of Proposal Security referred to in the RFP Particulars and Form E – Proposal Security Form are the same documents. Offerors shall be required to use Form E for submitting their proposal security form. Noting that Proposal Submission Deadline was extended till 13th September 2021, the Proposal Security shall have validity till 13th January 2022.

New clarification added: Q35: Would it be possible for UNOPS to consider an extension to the deadline for the MERL component, taking into account the delay in responding to clarifications and very limited availability of staff during this holiday period? A35:  The RFP has been extended till 13th September 2021, 09:00am East Africa Time (UTC + 3.00hrs).

New clarification added: Q32: The ToR p.19, says ‘Embedded (Somali) MERL Advisors’ – could you clarify whether the embedded (Somali) MERL Advisors positions can be filled by experts who are Somali residents (living in Somalia) with experience of the country, or whether they must be Somali-nationals?   A32: It is not mandatory for the Embedded (Somali) MERL Advisors to be Somali nationals. The absolute requirements here are that the Incumbent must be embedded in the respective Programme Office and must be fluent in local language to easily engage with local field staff, authorities, community leaders, etc. Also, it must be noted that engaging expatriates to fill these positions may increase costs and have negative implication on the scoring of the Offeror’s financial proposal.

New clarification added: Q33: Regarding Q.1.2. Compliance to legal and regulatory requirements - Subcontracting - We intend to form a core consortium and work will primarily be undertaken by the three partners. Does the limit of 33% apply to consortium partners, or would it only apply to subcontractors beyond this core?   A33: The Consortium Lead (the Prime contractor) will have to undertake at least 34% of all the tasks and the value of work to be performed by each of the subcontractors cannot exceed 33%. 

New clarification added: Q32: Regarding Q 1.1. Compliance to legal and regulatory requirements - One of our consortium members is already registered in Somalia, although we as lead contractor are not. Will it be a requirement in the inception phase for us as lead contractor to obtain registration to operate in Somalia?   A32: Yes. You will require a registration/license to legally operate in Somalia. 

New clarification added: Q31: What is the difference between the descriptions required in 1.6 g (A proposed team with a balanced team structure, which includes both International and Somali MERL expertise, experienced in developing and delivering MERL frameworks that drive and facilitate programme learning, innovation and adaptation) and Section 2 Personnel Proposed.   A31: RFP was amended and Section 1.6 was removed from the Technical Proposal Submission Form. You only need to respond to questions in Section 2.

New clarification added: Q30: Could UNOPS clarify what they would like to see in sections 1.9 a, b, and c, that is different to sections in 1.6 d, e, and f,- i.e., the difference between 'strength of experience and track record' and 'capability and prior successful delivery'.   A30:  RFP was amended and Section 1.6 was removed from the Technical Proposal Submission Form. You only need to respond to questions in Section 1.9.

New clarification added: Q29: Can the Offeror have a project office in Kenya?  A29:  For the purposes of implementation of the SSJP-II Programme a project office in Kenya is not deemed necessary. However, noting that (i) duty stations for Team Leads are not fixed in the TOR and (ii) Team Leads will have to work closely with the UNOPS Director of Security and Justice, who is based in Nairobi, UNOPS shall provide office space/desks for all the Contractors’ Team Leads in its premises in Nairobi. As for the rest of the Contractor’s personnel, Offerors can have their own offices wherever it makes operational and economic sense for them, noting that extra offices outside of Programme locations may increase their costs and may have negative implication on the scoring of their financial proposal.

New clarification added: Q28: Would UNOPS be amenable to having the Team Leader based in Kenya?  A28: Please refer to Pre-bid minutes, Q&A Section, Answer 7, where it is stated: There is no formal duty station set for the MERL Team Leader in the TOR. It is intentionally kept flexible. It is however expected that the MERL Team Lead shall be spending at least ⅓ of their time in the Country of Services. 

New amendment added #3: The RFP is further amended as follows:  Deadline for the submission of proposals is hereby extended until September 13, 2021, 09:00hrs East Africa Time (UTC + 3hrs);  Deadline for clarifications is hereby extended until Close of Business on September 05, 2021, East Africa Time (UTC + 3hrs);  Minutes of the pre-bid clarification meeting conducted on 02 August 2021 have been uploaded in the document upload section.  

New clarification added: Q27: What is the performance standard for deliverables, milestones, and KPIs? How does UNOPS define what is deemed “satisfactory” for deliverables?  A27:  UNOPS will agree the means of verification for each of these KPIs, milestones and deliverables at the point of contracting and again as part of the Inception Phase. These will be mutually discussed with clear measures of success.

New amendment added #2: The RFP is further amended as follows:  Exclusivity and/or availability statement details under the RFP Particulars' tab has been amended to specify that exclusivity and availability statements shall be required only for MERL Team Leader and embedded MERL advisors.   Document titled “Annex I-A: Description of Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Methodology” has been replaced with document titled “Annex I-A: Description of Evaluation Criteria and Scoring Methodology (as amended on 02.08.21)”Document titled “Section III – Returnable Bidding Forms” has been replaced with document titled “Section III – Returnable Bidding Forms (as amended on 02.08.21)”.The evaluation criteria under the RFP Criteria tab have been amended as follows:  “Skills and Competencies - Offeror has demonstrated the possession of all the necessary skills and competencies, as provided in the ToR under "Skills and Competency Requirements for MERL Provider" - deleted, as information contained in this section is already covered by other relevant criteria (Sections 2 (personnel) and 3 (proposed approach and methodology)“Technical capability - Offeror was in continuous business of providing monitoring, evaluation, research and learning services during the last 5 years (demonstrated by copy of Company's registration certificate as well as past similar contracts)”. – has been amended to read as follows: “Technical capability - Offeror was in continuous business of providing monitoring, evaluation, research and learning services during the last 3 years and has proven track record of successfully managing and implementing similar projects in Sub-Saharan Africa or another similar geographic, conflict and political context (demonstrated by copy of Company's registration certificate as well as past similar contracts)”.“Technical capability - Offeror has executed one or more contracts for services of similar nature and scope to the satisfaction of the relevant contracting party for the cumulative value of at least USD 10 Million during the last five years (not earlier than 2015)” has been amended to read as follows: “Technical capability - Offeror has executed or is currently executing one or more contracts for services of similar nature and scope to the satisfaction of the relevant contracting party for the cumulative value of at least USD 6 Million during the last 3 years”.

New clarification added: Q26: Could you please give an indication on the expected length of the technical proposal sections for which the RfP does not give a maximum length, i.e. Section 1: Offeror’s qualification, capacity and expertise (1.1. to 1.5.) and Section 3: Proposed Methodology, Approach and Implementation Plan (3.1. to 3.7)?  A26: As already mentioned in A7 below, UNOPS expects that the Offeror's responses to these questions shall be short, concise and to the point. Whereever necessary, references shall be made to other relevant documents and those required documents shall be attached to the proposal separately. 

New clarification added: Q25: Form I is a statement of Exclusivity and Availability which requires the signatory to ‘participate exclusively with the Offeror’ and ‘by making this declaration, they understand that they are not allowed to present themselves as a candidate to any other Offeror submitting a proposal for this RFP’ and that they are ‘fully aware that if they do so, they will be excluded from this RFP, the proposals may be rejected, and they may also be subject to exclusion from other UNOPS tender procedures and contracts.’ We understand from the Instructions to Offerors that this form covers the stated key experts contained within the bid. However, the EME was very clear that exclusivity would not be a requirement and thus this form would seem to contradict this. Could you provide us with some direction therefore as to whether exclusivity or non-exclusivity applies please?   A25: To be noted that requirement for exclusivity and availability applies only to Senior members of the Core Team (please refer to RFP Particulars section). It is correct that the question on exclusivity was raised during the EME as well as EOI processes. However, at those earlier stages this question was raised with regards to Organisations and it was clarified that there was no limitation for subs to partner with more than one prime. It was further clarified that provided that Conflict of Interest considerations are met, it is possible for individual specialised experts to be engaged by both the MERL and Technical Assistance and Partnerships Facility Components. These requirements have not changed since and remain the same, i.e., exclusivity and availability statements are not requested from subcontractors or individual specialised experts. The statements are requested from and apply to only the Senior members of the Core Team, as an Offeror's proposal shall be scored on the basis of those proposed individuals' qualificaitons and experience. The same person cannot be offered for the same role by more than one offeror. 

New clarification added: Q24: Form G: Performance Statement Form. This information was provided previously at EOI stage. Could you confirm whether any additional information is required? A24: Your proposal submitted in response to this RFP must be complete and comprehensive, i.e., it must include all the requested information. So, even if an information was already provided at EOI stage, you need to include it again in your proposal. 

New clarification added: Q23: Form E: Proposal Security Form requests a bank guarantee form guaranteeing the proposal. Could you elaborate why this is needed and if it is, what figure should be included in the form?  A23: Please refer to the RFP Particulars section for the Proposal Security details. 

New clarification added: Q22: Form D: Technical Proposal 1.11 asks a series of questions relating to Duty of Care, which confirms intent to take responsibility for the Security and Duty of Care throughout the lifetime of the contract. Question 8 however requests the offeror to evidence their intent, but it is unclear what documentation is required to do so?  A22: Please provide relevant documentation to evidence that (i) you have completed an initial assessment of potential risks and demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the risk management implications; (ii) you have prepared an outline plan that you consider appropriate to manage these risks (or will you do so if you are awarded the contract) and are you confident/comfortable that you can implement this effectively; (iii) you ensured or will you ensure that your staff are appropriately trained (including specialist training where required) before they are deployed and how you will ensure that on-going training is provided where necessary; (iv) you have an appropriate mechanism in place to monitor risk on a live / on-going basis (or will put one in place if you are awarded the contract); (v) you have ensured or will ensure that your staff are provided with and have access to suitable equipment and how you will ensure that this is reviewed and provided on an on-going basis; (vi) you have appropriate systems in place to manage an emergency / incident if one arises. 

New clarification added: Q21: Form D: Technical Proposal 1.8 Technical capability requires the offeror to have executed one or more contracts for services of similar nature and scope to the satisfaction of the relevant contracting party for the cumulative value of at least USD 10 Million during the last five years (not earlier than 2015). This would appear to be inconsistent with 1.3 in Form D which required a $2m turnover for three years rather than five.   A21: 2M USD refers to annual revenue from sales of MERL and other related services during the last three (3) financial years. 10M USD / 5 years also gives the same figure of 2M USD. There is no inconsistency here.

New clarification added: Q20: Form D: Technical Proposal 1.7: Technical capability requires the offeror to have been in continuous business of providing monitoring, evaluation, research and learning services during the last 5 years. Could you confirm that this is an essential requirement please as this precludes organisations which are less than five years old from tendering for the services.   A20: Yes. Please refer to RFP Evaluation Criteria where this requirement is listed under "Qualification criteira" as "Pass/Fail" type. As provided in RFP Section I-A - "Description of evaluation Criteria and Scoring Methodology", paraphraph 14 (page 3) "Non-compliance with any of the qualification criterion shall result in disqualification of the Offeror from further process".

New clarification added: Q19: Form D: Technical Proposal 1.3: Financial Capacity (Revenue) states that ‘A minimum of USD 2 million annual revenue from sales of MERL and other related services during the last three financial (3) years.’ This was not a requirement outlined in the initial expression of interest, nor is it clear on what basis this figure has been derived. Could you confirm that this is an essential requirement please?  A19: Yes. Please refer to RFP Evaluation Criteria where this requirement is listed under "Qualification criteira" as "Pass/Fail" type. As provided in RFP Section I-A - "Description of evaluation Criteria and Scoring Methodology", paraphraph 14 (page 3) "Non-compliance with any of the qualification criterion shall result in disqualification of the Offeror from further process".

New amendment added #1: The RFP is amended as follows: The date and time for pre-bid clarification meeting is changed to 02 August 2021, from 14:00hrs to 16:00hrs East Africa time [UTC +3hrs]. "Pro-forma costing template" is added to the document upload section. This document can be used "as is" or modified by the prospective Offerors as deemed necessary.

New clarification added: Q18: Does the liquidated damage clause of 3%  apply to this contract?   A18: No. Please refer RFP Particulars' section where it is stated that Liquidated Damages are not applicable.

New clarification added: Q17: ​What types of costs does the 10% withholding apply to for each milestone, deliverable, and KPI? Does it include total costs of labor and other direct costs?   A17: Retentions shall apply only to fees (please see Terms of Reference, paragraphs 84 (a) and 84 (d)).

New clarification added: Q16: Could UNOPS clarify when the $30,000 proposal guarantee is returned to the offeror?  A16: Please refer to RFP Section I - Instructions to Offerors, Article 19 (page 5).

New clarification added: Q15: Could UNOPS kindly clarify if the Danger Pay for the proposed personnel could be budgeted as a separate line item or should be a part of the all-inclusive personnel rate?   A15: Since the quoted fee rates for international staff must not be location specific, the Danger Pay for the international staff to be deployed in Somalia should be accounted for and budgeted separately under the expenses for "duty of care and administrative services" per the provision of paragraph 84 (b) of the Terms of Reference.

New clarification added: Q14: Could UNOPS kindly confirm that the personnel rates for the subcontractors under the prime bidder proposal should be all-inclusive as well?   A14: Please refer to RFP Section II - Terms of Reference, paragraph 84 (d), where it is stated: It is expected that each subcontractor’s pricing schedule and fee structure will be equally transparent and similar to Supplier’s pricing schedule and fee structure and will be broken down to measurable components with unit rates, so then costs for different services that may be acquired from the subject subcontractor during the course of contract’s execution may be calculated based on the unit rates and quantities of each measurable service component.

New clarification added: Q13: Could UNOPS kindly confirm that the currency of the local subcontractor budget under the international prime bidder proposal could be in US Dollars as well?   A13: All the prices in the financial proposal must be in US Dollars.

New clarification added: Q12: Could UNOPS kindly provide an expected/tentative cost or ceiling for this opportunity?   A12: Please note that per the standard UNOPS Procurement procedures it is not permissible to disclose the budget envelope for the requirement. Therefore, we are unable to provide an expected/tentative cost or ceiling for this opportunity.

New clarification added: Q11: Could UNOPS kindly clarify if the budget narrative is required? A11: Yes. It is expected that the Offeror's financial proposal shall be accompanied with a budget narrative explaining the proposed prices by line item or category and how the costs associated with each line item or category relate to the performance of the services as outlined in the submitted technical proposal.

New clarification added: Q10: Would the Senior MERL Team Lead be eligible for breather breaks on the same schedule as other members of the UNOPS Mogadishu office? A10: Yes. 

New clarification added: Q9: Can you please confirm that organisations involved in the MERL contract would not be able to participate in the Technical Assistance programme?   A9: UNOPS hereby confirms that a firm/organisation contracted for the provision of MERL services shall not be able to participate in the RFPs for the Technical Assistance and Partnerships Facility services as well as Programme Implementation services under the SSJP II. This requirement shall be clearly articulated in the Eligibility Criteria sections of the respective RFPs for TAP and Programme Implementation services.

New clarification added: Q8: Does exclusivity of consultants apply to the full team, or the 3 core team roles only?   A8: As already stated in the RFP Particulars, the Exclusivity and Availability Statements are required only from the proposed senior members of the Core Team.

New clarification added: Q7: Is there a word or page limit for the responses to the subsections under Section 3 (3.1 - 3.7) in the Form D: Technical Proposal Form?   A7: UNOPS expects the Offeror's responses to these questions shall be short, concise and to the point. Whereever necessary, references shall be made to other relevant documents and those required documents shall be attached to the proposal separately. 

New clarification added: Q6: We have noted that the RFP is publicly advertised in the UNGM portal and currenly open to all till August 31, 2021. Is it restricted to those who responded to the EOI or open to everyone? If it is open to everyone, what happened to the EOI bid submitted earlier for evaluation?   A6: As already provided in A1 and A2, this RFP is open to all potential bidders. As for the Call for Expression of Interest, by responding to the Call for EOI you only expressed your interest in providing the services. You shall receive feedback on your submitted EOI from UNOPS in the coming days once the evaluation of all the EOIs are finalised. 

New clarification added: Q5: Could you kindly clarify if the DRiVE questionnaire is compulsory for all members of a consortium or for the leader only?  A5: DRiVE questionnaire is compulsory only for the lead firm/organisation. Other members of the Consortium can fill it too, if they wish to do so.  

New clarification added: Q4: We are writing you to enquire whether the RFP for the Technical assistance and partnership (TAP) facility of the Somalia Security and Justice Programme Phase II (SSJP-2) will be published before the award of the MERL tender.  A4: Yes. The RFP for TAP is expected to be published in early August 2021.

New clarification added: Q3: Dear Sir/Madam. Aware that this question has been raised already, but there remains some confusion with the UNOPS Procurement Manuel 2021/P.53/Para 5.5. For our wider understanding, can we kindly ask what the purpose of the EOI process was if this RFP is now open to all commercial entities (even those who did not submit the lengthy EOI?). Our understanding (P.53/Para 5.5) is that the EOI serves to: "(a).identify suppliers that wish to participate in a solicitation, (b). demonstrate experience and qualifications in provision of the relevant goods/services/works.....The information provided by interested suppliers is assessed and suppliers are considered for inclusion on the short list of companies that are invited to submit detailed offers/propsals.  A3: As provided in the 3rd paragraph of the quoted section 5.5 of the UNOPS Procurement Manual Rev 7, "An EOI should be used when there is an over-supply of potential bidders; it allows for the review of suppliers’ qualifications in order to make sure the most qualified are invited to bid. An EOI is typical for a consulting assignment and/or assignments where technical expertise is critical". As a result of the Early Market Engagement that was conducted in May 2021 over 70 companies were identified as potential service providers for the implementation of SSJP-2, which led us to believe that there was an "over-supply" in the market. Hence the EOI process was conducted. However, following the EOI process, only a limited number of responses were received and that was insufficient for the purposes of short-listing. This is the reason why an open international RFP was opted as solicitation method. Hope this satisfies your query. 

New clarification added: Q2: Thanks so much for your kind attention and prompt reply confirming that this RFP is the next step, my doubt came from the fact that this RFP step is open to all candidates even the ones that didn't submit an EOI and hence shall be eligible for the RFP, correct? A2: Correct. This RFP is open to all potential suppliers including those who did not submit an EOI in response to EOI/2021/SSJP2/001/AMDT_1. Please refer to Particulars and Instructions sections of the RFP for the specific eligibility criteria that apply to prospective Offerors.  

New clarification added: Q1: Would it be possible to know if this open procedure "RFP-2021-23835" cancel and replace the following one "EOI/2021/SSJP2/001/AMDT_1" posted on 07 June 2021?A1: Please note that Call for Expression of Interest (EOI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) are two distinct processes and one cannot cancel or replace the other. The Early Market Engagement and EOI processes were the initial steps of the acquisition process for the MERL contract. Through EME and EOI processes UNOPS assessed the supplier base and their interest for the provision of the required services. The RFP is the next step through which we're now soliciting technical and financial proposals for the MERL services.