CANCELLED Technical Assistance and Partnership (TAP) Facility for Somalia Security and Justice Programme II (SSJP-II)

Tender cancelled on 2021-12-10 20:41 UTC. None of the received Offers were technically compliant and hence the evaluation team could not make an award recommendation.

New amendment added #3: The RFP is further amended as follows:Document checklist section is amended to add missing the following items: (i) DRiVE: Supplier Sustainability Questionnaire, (ii) Form I: Statement of Exclusivity and Availability, (iii) Pro-forma_costing_template_RFP-2021-25215.

New clarification added: Q53: In the documents checklist on the eSourcing portal you request three certified financial statements: (i) A certified statement demonstrating minimum of USD 1,5 million annual revenue from sales of Technical Assistance and other related services during the last three financial (3) years; (ii) A certified statement demonstrating positive solvency (sum of a Offeror’s assets minus liabilities) as per the last available balance sheet; (iii) A certified statement demonstrating Liquidity Ratio: 1 or above. Please can you confirm if statements signed by our Managing Director and certified by our Director of Finance would be sufficient?   A53: Yes, statements signed by own staff shall be acceptable.

New clarification added: Q52: May we kindly ask UNOPS to clarify if a core team member of the TAP Facility, including the TAP Facility Lead, can also be included within the extended team for the MERL component?   A52: Each specific situation will have to be assessed for potential conflicts of interests.

New clarification added: Q51: In the evaluation criteria for section 3.1 (p. 6) it states:” ‘Demonstration of an effective and well-considered approach for the provision of a demand-driven (TAP) facility, which demonstrates a clear understanding of the technical requirements set out in RFP Section II - ToR and includes robust evidence to a defined standard of quality/rigour for the following:" Could UNOPS please clarify what "and includes robust evidence to a defined standard of quality/rigour" mean?   A51: UNOPS expects that Offerors will clearly articulate a coherent and well-evidenced approach and strategy for delivering the TAP Facility. Evidence to how the approach has previously been shown to be effective should include reference to specific programmes, how the approach was used and to what effect.

New clarification added: Q50: Please can UNOPS confirm whether staff will be able to stay in UN accommodation in Kismayo and Baidoa.   A50: No. It is unlikely that Contractor’s personnel shall be able to stay at UN accommodation in Kismayo and Baidoa.

New clarification added: Q49: How often will staff be expected in the SSJP 2 office and can UNOPS confirm if this is on the UN compound or elsewhere within AAIA?  A49:  Standard working schedule shall apply to everyone that shall be co-located with UNOPS. The exact locations of the offices are yet to be determined, but they all shall be compliant to UN’s Minimum Operating Security Standards.

New clarification added: Q48: What is the UN able to offer in terms of DOC in the SSJP2 office? Would emergency evacuation, medical (primary and secondary) be provided from UNOPS managed office facilities? What is the secondary process?   A48: Security and safety of all the personnel located at UNOPS provided premises shall be the responsibility of UNOPS.

New clarification added: Q47: In relation to Q5, we would like to request permission to submit our entire technical responses to sections 2.1- 3.6 and 1.7-1.8 as annexes. We would also submit completed returnable bidding forms (with references that responses to the above-mentioned sections are included in the annex). The width of the column in the returnable bidding forms is only 15.65 cm, which will not allow for legible presentation of tables or diagrams. We appreciate that tables can be submitted as an annex, but this will break the flow of text and make it harder to evaluate the proposals. UNOPS allowed for such presentation at the EOI stage and we kindly ask that you allow us to do the same at proposal stage.  A47: This is permitted.

New clarification added: Q46: Dear UNOPS - It still is a bit unclear to us in the response to question A13 - if an organization is part of a JV are they still able to be on multiple other bids as a subcontractor?  A46: No, if an organization is part of a JV, they shall not be able to be on multiple other Proposals as a subcontractor, as this will constitute a conflict of interests and will result in the disqualification of all the affected proposals.

New clarification added: Q45: Can UNOPS provide a clear estimate of the volume, scale and complexity of TA requests anticipated in the inception phase, or an estimate for the budget which should be set aside for the Extended Team during inception phase? Alternatively, given the unpredictability of TA requests during inception phase, to ensure a level playing field, can UNOPS please confirm whether the commercial evaluation of total inception phase cost will exclude the value of the extended team?   A45: We are unable to provide a clear estimate of volume, scale and complexity of TA requests at this point when implementing organisations are not yet selected. The scope and scale of work will depend on the selection of IPs and MERL providers. Therefore, we would operate on a draw down basis for a maximum of 300 days during the inception period to support TA requests over and above the inception deliverables listed in Annex B. These days could be to extended to Core Team depending on your team configuration.

New clarification added: Q44: On Form C, Phase I & Phase II implementation under Table 9 cost breakdown there are no lines for “Extended Team Cost in the country of services & Extended Team Cost at Offeror’s HQ or their country of residence”, please confirm where bidder is required to add the cost for these?   A44: All the costs must be accounted for and if there are no lines for some of them in the Form C, you will need to add them.

New amendment added #2: The RFP is further amended as follows:The deadline for the submission of proposals is hereby extended until October 08, 2021, 09:00hrs East Africa Time (UTC + 3hrs);  

New clarification added: Q43:  May we kindly ask UNOPS for a 2-week extension of the submission deadline for the TAP facility?   A43: 2-week extension cannot be granted. The RFP deadline shall be extended till 08 October 2021. Any extension beyond this deadline shall affect the critical path of the project.

New clarification added: Q42: Please clarify where the Offeror Information Form questionnaire can be found, as referenced in the instructions to offerors?   A42: Please see the RFP in the eSourcing system.

New clarification added: Q41: How many contracts will be issued under the implementation component?   A41: 3 contracts are expected to be issued for the Implementation Component.

New clarification added: Q40: Can suppliers be in JVs for delivery under the TAP and the Implementation components?  A40: Yes, they can.

New clarification added: Q39: Could UNOPS please clarify if suppliers can be in multiple JVs for the TAP component?   A39: Please refer to RFP Section I – Instruction to Offerors – Article 4. Offeror Eligibility. An Offeror (be it a stand-alone firm or a member of a JV) cannot submit more than one proposal for the requirement. Accordingly, you cannot be a member of more than one JV and submit more than one proposal for the requirement.

New clarification added: Q38: Could UNOPS please confirm if the suppliers are supposed to include a financial narrative proposal? If yes, what should it entail?  A38: If in the opinion of the Offeror the information to be included in Form C requires further clarification, it may be accompanied with a financial narrative proposal better describing various cost components of the Offeror’s financial proposal.

New clarification added: Q37: With regards to returnable bidding form H, can you please confirm that bidders are requested to provide client names and contact details? Please understand that this is a sensitive information and most of our clients do not wish for it to be shared. As such, can you please accept returnable form H to be submitted in an anonymized form without client names and their point of contact?   A37:  Form H needs to be fully completed. Client names and their contact details are necessary for verification of the provided information. Please note that the contents of each proposal shall remain confidential and shall not be seen by anyone other than the members of the UNOPS Evaluation Team. No information from a submitted proposal shall be shared outside UNOPS without the written consent of the respective Offeror.

New clarification added: Q36: We would like to enquire whether there is a mistake in question 1.8(c) of Returnable Bidding Forms. The question asks us to provide detail of our experience in social norms, communications for development, collaborations across multiple programme partners, and adaptive programming and MERL approaches all within one 1,000-word section. It may be difficult to satisfactorily evidence all of these areas within this limit. Should we instead focus our attention on social norms and communications for development?   A36: You may directly address the question in the box and support your response with reference to annexes that may be attached to your proposal separately.

New clarification added: Q35: SSJP’s TAP and P3 components have similar tender deadlines. To ensure a greater number of strong proposals we would like to request UNOPS to consider an extension to one of the deadlines.   A35: RFP for P3 (revised to IP1) has been extended till 25 October 2021.

New clarification added: Q34: Returnable Bidding Form: The information required for in the Word document for Form C: Financial Proposal Form, from page 4 to 9 (tables 1 to 9) are already captured in the Pro-forma_costing _template_RFP-2021-25215. Could UNOPS please clarify whether Tables 1 to 9 for Form C still need completing since this information is already captured in the Pro-forma?   A34: The Offerors are required to submit Form C fully completed, signed and stamped and the Pro-forma costing template fully completed in Excel format.

New clarification added: Q33:  In the Pro-forma_costing _template_RFP-2021-25215, in tab 2. Implementation, the Total Cost for Implementation Phase I is calculated in column K and for Implementation Phase II is in column O, could UNOPS please clarify what is the purpose of columns D, E & F in 2. Implementation and the formula in column F (D x E x F)? A33: Please delete column F. Column D is for a given specialist’s daily or monthly rate, Column E for a given specialist’s total level of effort for the entire Programme Implementation Period (both phases 1 and 2), Column G is for a given specialist’s total cost for the entire Programme Implementation Period (both phases 1 and 2). The sum of figures in Column K and Column O must equal the figure in Column G.

New clarification added: Q32: Pro-forma: In the Pro-forma_costing _template_RFP-2021-25215, what UNOPS expects Offerors to enter in column D and F in both tabs 1. Inception and 2. Implementation? Also, the formulas in column F (in both tabs 1. Inception and 2. Implementation) multiply D x E (level of Effort) x F. Is this formula incorrect as it double-counts the Fees (in columns D and F)?  A32: Please delete column F. In Colum D please enter a person’s daily or monthly rate. For current column G (which will be a new F after you delete the current column F), the formula must be D x E = G. In the “Inception” tab it will be a given specialist’s total cost for the Inception phase and in the “Implementation” tab it will be a given specialist’s total cost for the Implementation phase.

New clarification added: Q31: Pro-forma: In the Pro-forma_costing _template_RFP-2021-25215, in tab 1. Inception and 2. Implementation, column D: ‘Unit (Monthly all-inclusive fee rate in USD or Daily all-inclusive fee rate in USD)’ and column F: ‘Fee (USD)’; Could UNOPS please clarify the following: what is the difference between column D and F in both tabs 1. Inception and 2. Implementation?   A31: Indeed, there is a duplication between the columns D and F. You can delete the Column F. Column D must include the fee rate, which can be monthly or daily. Column E is the level of effort, i.e., for how many days or months a given specialist is planned to be engaged for, Colum G is the total cost of that given person’s services, which is calculated as “daily/monthly fee [Column D] x Level of Effort [Column E] = person’s total fee for the duration of services [Column G].

New clarification added: Q30: Office Costs for TAP: In the ToR, point 91, page 28, states 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”. Could UNOPS please confirm that this will cover the costs for IT equipment as well, both hardware and software? Could UNOPS further clarify whether the budget for office costs will be paid out of the total budget of USD 100m, or will it be paid from a separate budget?   A30: 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. The office costs will also be paid out from the project budget, but from a different budget line. 

New clarification added: Q29: Fee Rates: In the ToR, point 60, page 22, states that “…fee rates associated with the Core and Extended Teams will be evaluated as part of the financial evaluation”. Could UNOPS please clarify what basis will be used to evaluate Fee Rates, since the ToR provides that Tender evaluation will be based on Total Cost for Inception and Total Cost for Implementation (ToR points 92 & 93, page 28)?   A29: Fee rates shall be evaluated for reasonableness by comparing them with other rates for comparable services (ICSC rates, rates from other UN/UNOPS contracts for similar services, etc.).

New clarification added: Q28: Programme Duration of TAP: In the Introduction section of the ToR, point 1, page 5, states that “…SSJP II will be a seven-year programme…, this equates to 84 months. However, in the Programme Background section, point 4, page 5, it states that the …duration will be 7.25 years…” (which equates to 87 months) and in the Programme Timing section, point 30, page 14, states that the programme “…will be for 7.25 years (87 months)…”. Would UNOPS please confirm the programme duration? Will it be for 84 or 87 months?   A28: The Programme duration shall be 87 months.

New clarification added: Q26: The limitation of total subcontractor budget to 30% is leading many partner organisations to feel they have no option but to reluctantly arrange a joint venture. Most providers would prefer a consortium (prime-subcontractor) relationship, as a joint venture creates significant additional administrative burden and corporate risk for all organisations and disproportionately for smaller organisations. Joint ventures also significantly reduce flexibility and agility of partnerships as they necessarily lead to many decisions being made ‘by committee’. These disadvantages for the SSJP programme are presumably unintended by UNOPS, but they can detrimentally affect programme governance and effectiveness, and in our considered opinion outweigh any advantages of the 30% cap, and as such we humbly request that UNOPS reconsider and remove the cap.   A26: By definition, a Joint Venture is an entity that may be formed between two or more parties to undertake economic activities together. The parties may agree to create a new entity by contributing equity and sharing the revenues, expenses, and control of the enterprise. The venture can be also only for a specific project, involve no equity stake by the participants and be a much less rigid arrangement. In a Consortium arrangement however, each participant retains its separate legal status and a consortium is formed by contract, which delineates the rights and obligations of each member. Since SSJP2 is designed to be a dynamic and adaptive programme, such delineation of rights and obligations of each member of a Consortium from the outset may create obstacles for the effective and efficient programme implementation, as those contracts between the Prime and various Subs may be subject to revision every time there is a modification in the plans and activities due to programme adaptation. To conclude, one way or the other, either option entails associated expenses for the management of relations within the JV or the Consortium. But the JV option is more inclusive and provides better opportunity to the Programme’s Senior Leadership for maintaining direct relationship with the smaller specialised organisations, which is not really possible under a Consortium arrangement.

New clarification added: Q27: There are pros and cons of forming joint ventures for SSJP. The disadvantages are significant: additional administrative cost, loss of flexibility / adaptability / agility, smaller organisations sign up for joint liability but ultimately larger organisations will in practice be much more likely to be liable for financial claims, much greater risk through relying significantly more on partner organisations who may not be as well known. And the advantage of greater donor engagement and capacity building for national organisations, which we fully and actively support, can easily be achieved through other means, which we are committed to. Bearing these factors in mind, we ask UNOPS to confirm that offerors who opt for a consortium approach will not be at a disadvantage in comparison with those who form joint ventures.   A27: We hereby confirm that in case of receiving proposals from JVs and Consortiums, one shall not be favoured over the other. Each proposal shall be evaluated based on its own merits against the criteria published in the RFP.

New clarification added: Q25: There doesn’t seem to be a specific place in the ‘Document checklist’ section to upload the following: (i) DRiVE: Supplier Sustainability Questionnaire, (ii) Form I: Statement of Exclusivity and Availability, (iii) Pro-forma_costing_template_RFP-2021-25215. Should these be uploaded in the ‘Document name: Other evidences and documents supporting the statements made in Form D - Technical Proposal Form’ section?   A25: This shall be rectified through RFP Amendment and there will be a specific section under the Document checklist to upload these documents.

New clarification added: Q23: Please note that on the Pro-forma costing template excel sheet, column P & R amount are not adding on the Total cost Column S? Please advise.   A23: Offerors are at full liberty to amend and fix every formula in the Pro-forma Costing template as they deem necessary.

New clarification added: Q23: On the Pro-forma costing template excel sheet, please confirm what fees is the bidder required to breakdown by % from Column I to R? Is it the Fee (USD) amount added on the Column F?   A23: The % under the “Deliverables” mentioned in Columns I to R shall represent the proportion that the cost of a given Deliverable has on the total cost of the Inception Phase, e.g., if the cost of Deliverable 1 is USD 100 and the total cost of the Inception Phase is USD 1,000, then % indicated under Deliverable 1 shall be equal to 10%.

New clarification added: Q22: On the Pro-forma costing template excel sheet, if required can we add extra rows on each of the functions?   A22: Yes, you can.

New clarification added: Q21: Please confirm if the bidder is required to submit both the Form C & Pro-forma costing template excel sheet.   A21: The Offerors are required to submit Form C in PDF format fully signed and stamped and the Pro-forma costing template in Excel format.

New clarification added: Q20: On returnable Form C, there are no subcontractor lines for Phase 1 & Phase 2, please confirm whether bidder can add the rows, if required.   A20: Yes. This is confirmed.

New clarification added: Q19: Please can UNOPS provide the returnable Form C in excel with the formulas?  A19: UNOPS shall not be providing Form C in Excel format. You can use the “Pro-forma costing template” instead.

New clarification added: Q18: Where will SSJP II Programme HQ be located?   A18: Mogadishu, Somalia.

New clarification added: Q17: To ensure greater partnership and coherence of decision-making is there a scope for the TAP Facility provider to be part of the SSJPII Senior Management Team?   A17: Programme governance arrangements will be finalised during the Inception Phase and a strong emphasis placed on reinforcing partnership and coherence of decision making. A Programme Steering Committee (SC), chaired by UNOPS Director of Security and Justice and including senior representatives of Supplier organisations – including the TAP Facility provider – and donor agencies will provide strategic oversight of the programme. Additionally, UNOPS and Suppliers will agree (as part of Inception) an Adaptive Management Plan, which includes a framework for agreeing changes to approach, budget prioritisation and management of risk.

New clarification added: Q16: Could UNOPS please confirm which TAP core team roles will be co-located in UNOPS offices?   A16: At a minimum, the TAP Facility Lead will be expected to be co-located in the SSJP-II Programme HQ. Additional Core Staff responsible for delivering technical, external engagement, capacity development and programme management functions may be located elsewhere if this is judged by the Offeror to support implementation of the TAP Facility and to offer value for money. UNOPS will assess the structure and responsibilities of the Core Team, including the location of key members, during the technical evaluation process.

New clarification added: Q15: Could UNOPS please indicate what budget suppliers should ringfence for the Flexible Fund? Requiring all suppliers to ringfence the same amount of money for the fund will allow for financial proposals to be compared like-for-like.   A15: The Offeror will propose reasonable budget for the implementation of organizational Learning and Capacity Development Plan and the detailed breakdown will be finalized during the inception period. Disbursement/spending shall be based on prior approval of Contractor’s plan and the corresponding budget by UNOPS.

New clarification added: Q14: We note that the bank guarantee required for the proposal can only be provided by "any bank or other financial institution with a minimum Long Term Credit Rating of BBB- with Standard and Poor’s, a minimum Long Term Credit Rating of Baa3 with Moody Investor Services, or a minimum Long Term Credit Rating of BBB- with Fitch Ratings." As a resident company using Somalia based banks/financial institutions, we'd like to clarify if International Bank of Somalia (IBS) has been or can be screened by UNOPS on whether it meets the bank/financial institution requirements specified in the RFP. If not, please also provide the names of other Somalia based banks/financial institutions which have previously provided bank guarantees and met the requirements specified in this RFP.   A14:  UNOPS Somalia Country Office confirms that it has worked with the IBS in the past and shall accept a bid security from this bank.

New clarification added: Q13: We note UNOPS preference for JVs. Please clarify that the cap on one proposal from an organisation in a JV - applicable at the time of the EOI - does not apply to the RFP stage. In other words, are organisations free to submit more than one proposal in this component with different partners in a JV structure provided they are not the lead in the JV. Please note the removal of this limitation would be helpful in allowing organizations with unique and specialist capabilities to offer their services to UNOPS without having to be limited to a subcontractor role.   A13: Please refer to RFP Section I – Instruction to Offerors – Article 4. Offeror Eligibility. An Offeror (be it a stand-alone firm or a JV) cannot submit more than one proposal for the requirement. You can be part of more than one proposal only in a subcontractor role. This limitation cannot be modified.

New clarification added: Q12: At the EOI stage UNOPS required joint ventures to be exclusive agreements between partners (i.e., each organisation could only join one joint venture for each component). Could UNOPS please confirm if this is still the case?   A12: Yes, this is still the case. Please refer to RFP Section I – Instruction to Offerors – Article 4. Offeror Eligibility.

New clarification added: Q11: Will the definition of a subcontractor apply and the 30% rule apply to security, logistics and other support services contracted in Somalia for a consortium?   A11: The definition of a subcontractor applies to duty of care services, which include, among others, security, logistics and other support services in the country of services. However, as defined in the evaluation criteria, 30% limitation does not apply on duty of care services.

New clarification added: Q10: Can a prime contractor have multiple subcontractors that across the subcontractors total more than 30% of the workload if not a Joint Venture?   A10: No, the cumulative value of subcontracts excluding those providing duty of care services cannot exceed 30% of the total Offer value.

New clarification added: Q9: Would you please clarify if a Joint Venture represents a legal entity to UNOPS? Would a formal agreement between companies represent the same and qualify as a Joint Venture?   A9: At the proposal submission stage it will suffice if you sign and submit Form A: Joint Venture Partner Information Form. If a JV Offeror is found to be successful, members of the JV will have to sign a formal agreement between them to either form a new legal entity or appoint one of the existing parties as JV representative, which can represent the JV and sign the Contract on behalf of the JV.

New clarification added: Q8: We will appreciate if you could please indicate the maximum economic ceiling allocated to the TAP Project or any additional threshold (i.e. security costs but also others that should be considered) that should be taken into account in the financial offer.   A8:  Please refer to Pre-bid minutes, Q&A Section, answer 8, where it is stated: “Per the provisions of UNOPS Procurement Manual budgets for services cannot be disclosed”.

New clarification added: Q7: After reading the different documents uploaded on the system, we would like to request more detailed information on the particular conditions that apply to this contract.   A7: Please see RFP Section IV – Contract Forms, where you can find a contract template along with the link to the UNOPS General Conditions of Contract for Professional Services.

New clarification added: Q6: We wanted clarification regarding the Expression of Interest that was submitted by potential vendors in June.  We received an email with a link to the RFP by UNOPS. Does this mean our EOI was successful? Are only successful EOIs invited to respond to the RFP?   A6: All RFPs for SSJP2 are being conducted on open international competition basis and any firm/organisation can participate in them regardless of whether or not they had submitted an EOI for the subject services. All the firms/organisations that had submitted an EOI have received feedback form UNOPS by now, which should help them to better respond to these RFPs.

New clarification added: Q5: Could UNOPS please confirm if suppliers are expected to provide responses to the technical proposal question in the tables included in the Returnable Bidding Forms? Can suppliers submit their responses in a separate document to allow for better presentation and readability of the technical response?   A5: You may include not only a narrative in the response boxes of the Form D – Technical Proposal Form, but also references to annexes that you may attach to your proposal under "Other evidences and documents supporting the statements made in Form D - Technical Proposal Form". To be noted that the contents and format of the Returnable Bidding forms must be retained even if you copy-paste them into your letterhead or another document.

New clarification added: Q4: Could UNOPS please confirm which core team experts on the TAP component need to sign an exclusivity statement?   A4: Please refer to RFP Particulars’ section, where it is stated that “Exclusivity and availability statement shall be required for TAP Facility Lead only.”

New clarification added: Q3: Could UNOPS please confirm if subcontractors/bidders on the MERL Component tender are eligible to bid as subcontractors on the TAP component? Are only prime/lead MERL contractors conflicted out of other procurements or is it all suppliers bidding for that component?   A3: 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 are the same or share the same subcontractor for the services that would constitute a conflict of interest, the selected Offeror (if same for both MERL and TAP) or one of the selected Offerors (if they share the same subcontractor for the services that would constitute a conflict of interest) shall be declared ineligible for one of the components (either MERL or TAP) at the discretion of UNOPS.

New clarification added: Q2: Could UNOPS please indicate a maximum budget ceiling for the TAP Component? Providing a budget ceiling to the market would make it possible to compare financial proposals like-for-like.   A2: Please refer to Pre-bid minutes, Q&A Section, answer 8, where it is stated: “Per the provisions of UNOPS Procurement Manual budgets for services cannot be disclosed”.

New clarification added: Q1: Could UNOPS please confirm if there is a word/page limit for technical proposal responses?   A1: UNOPS expects the Offeror's responses to these questions shall be short, concise and to the point. Wherever necessary, references shall be made to other relevant documents and those required documents shall be attached to the proposal separately. 

New clarification added: Q1: Could UNOPS please confirm if there is a word/page limit for technical proposal responses?   A1: UNOPS expects the Offeror's responses to these questions shall be short, concise and to the point. Wherever necessary, references shall be made to other relevant documents and those required documents shall be attached to the proposal separately. 

New amendment added #1: The RFP is amended as follows:   Document titled “Section_I-A_Description_of_Eval_Criteria_&_Scoring” has been replaced with document titled “RFP-25215_Section_I-A_Eval_Criteria_&_Scoring_Methodology_Rev1”;   Minutes of the pre-bid clarification meeting conducted on 16 August 2021 have been uploaded in the document upload section.