CANCELLED Long Term Agreements (LTAs) for the provision of IT consulting services

Tender cancelled on 2024-06-12 17:22 UTC. Dear bidders,We would like to thank you for the time and effort spent in submitting your offer. We regret to inform you that this tender has been cancelled.We assure you that this occasion will not affect any offers you may make in any other procurement process with UNOPS in the future.We encourage you to regularly review the procurement notices published on the UNOPS website and the United Nations Global Marketplace (www.ungm.org) for procurement opportunities with UNOPS and other United Nations organizations.Best regards,UNOPS procurement. For any inquiries, please contact Eaint Soe Sandar Myint. Email: eaintsoesandarm@unops.org, Phone: Denmark 0

New clarification added: QUESTION:In document "Section IV_returnable Bidding Forms", in Form A - we have to fill in the name of city/country for the proposal. Does UNOPS have any thought on what is to be filled in here? Is it best to put Denmark, since HQ is located in Copenhagen?UNOPS' REPLY: Yes you can fill it with Copenhagen, Denmark. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Having conducted projects in several countries, the evidence of our projects are not always in English. Do you accept evidence, such a newspaper articles and contracts in local languages?UNOPS' REPLY: Documentation should be whenever possible in English, so please prioritize projects that were done in English. If English is not a possibility, then French or Spanish could be accepted. 

New clarification added: QUESTIONS: For Question - Offerors must demonstrate knowledge and experience of providing services in the environment in which UNOPS (or similar organisation) operates, as well as understanding of the constraints of working in a developing-world environment. – We wanted to confirm if our understanding is correct, we are working with a project team in a developing country. For response, we are providing a project artefact – Project related document, contract and a writeup on how we are executing the project under working practice – We wanted to confirm if this will be considered a valid response. We do not understand your question, could you please rephrase? For Question - Offerors must demonstrate experience developing software as part of a distributed team using source control systems, especially in an open-source environment – For this response due to confidentiality and multiple teams (Both client and supplier) involvement, we won’t be able to provide actual project artefact but will be providing a description of how the project is executed under working practice – we wanted to confirm if this would be a valid response. As indicated in the Returnable Bidding Forms, for this criteria, "Examples of accepted evidence: artefacts from previous projects ; examples of working practices".From earlier clarifications from UNOPS – The terms of reference are valid evidence along with contract documents in case the contract documents do not have complete clarity on project technologies, we wanted to reconfirm as Terms of References are shared by client organizations, could we also share the redacted solution documents, case studies as an additional attachment along with the contracts to provide additional clarity? In case the contract is not specific about the project you delivered, we recommend that you share the terms of reference as they are usually the technical annex of the contract. UNOPS' REPLIES: See above in Bold. 

New clarification added: QUESTION:Based on the Q&As, it has been clearly stated that the financial evaluation will be assessed per lot, regardless of the regions involved. However, it is important to note that evaluating bids solely based on lots and not considering regions could have negative implications for UNOPS in establishing Long-Term Agreements (LTAs) that can be sustained over time and cover a wide range of regions.If a vendor intentionally avoids bidding on high-income regions and instead focuses on lower-income regions, it creates an incentive for vendors to prioritize cheaper delivery modalities, such as offshore (which is one of the mandatory delivery modalities and can be chosen). This could lead to a situation where high-income regions are neglected. Consequently, the average financial offer of such a vendor will be considerably lower than vendors who offer services across all regions, potentially undermining fair competition.To illustrate this point, let's consider the hypothetical example of Vendor A bidding only for offshore (e.g., India) and Africa. In the technical evaluation, this would result in a deduction of 8 points out of 100, and assuming all other technical criteria receive maximum points, the cumulative technical score would be 73.6 out of 80. For the financial evaluation, the average income in India is estimated to be $8.5 per day, while in Africa, it is $8 per day (based on World Bank data, using non-ICT-related income for simplicity). The average financial offer for Vendor A's bid would be $8.25 (8.25 + 5.5 / 2). This would result in a score of 93.8 when combined with the technical evaluation (20 points + 73.6).Now, let's compare this to Vendor B, who bids for offshore (India as well), Africa, and Europe. Although Vendor B would receive one point more than Vendor A in the technical evaluation (93/100, resulting in a cumulative score of 74.4 out of 80), the average income in Europe is $172 per day. By bidding for all three regions, the average financial offer for Vendor B's bid would be $90.125 (172 + 8.25 + 5.5 / 3). According to the Step III financial evaluation criteria, Vendor B would receive a score of 1.83 out of 20 ([Maximum number of points for the Financial Proposal] x [Lowest price] / [Price of proposal being evaluated] = [20 * 8.25 / 90.125]). The total score for Vendor B would be 74.4 + 1.83 = 75.83.LTAs will be granted consecutively per lot (and not region) based on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd cumulative scores. Vendor A has a cumulative score of 93.8, while Vendor B has a score of 75.83. Vendor A will be awarded primarily due to avoiding high-income delivery modalities. Therefore, vendors will only need to avoid high-income countries to be granted as 1st, 2nd or 3rd chosen companies; and UNOPS will not be able to cover all the regions that are requesting.This example highlights how evaluating bids solely based on lots without considering regions may incentivize vendors to prioritize lower-income regions, potentially undermining the objective of achieving broader coverage across region.UNOPS' REPLY: The tender has been amended and the evaluation will now be conducted individually for each combination of lot and delivery modality. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: In form D, Performance Statement, we are asked for personal contact details for the reference projects. Given the close submission deadline we will have difficulties confirming that personal contact details can be shared before the deadline. For those project references where we have not yet received a confirmation from the customer we would like to use the company/organisation's contact details in the reference contact details column". Is this acceptable?UNOPS' REPLY: As much as possible, we would like to have the contact details in Form D as part of your submission. If you cannot get approval before the deadline, you may enter only the organization name for now, but you will need to provide the contact details as soon as possible. Please note that a reference will only be validated if you provide the evidence documents (contract, PO, ...). Also, UNOPS will need to contact your references during the mandatory background checks so the contact details will be required as well during that stage. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: In the Vendor Submission tab under Financial Offer Details,  how do we arrive at the - Total financial offer ?, could you please give us an example ?UNOPS' REPLY: There is no need to fill in this section. If the system prompts you to fill it as a mandatory field, please enter any value as this section will not be used for the purpose of this evaluation. Your financial offer will be evaluated based on the day rates and volume discounts you will provide in the Excel file "Section IV - Form B _ Price Schedule Form (daily fees and volume discounts)".

New clarification added: QUESTION: Based on the 12/06/2023 amendment, "The requirement of "offerors must have a local office in the Region they are bidding for" applies only to the onsite delivery modalities". Our understanding is that this requirement refers only to the several regions and that we do not need an office in Copenhagen for bidding for the HQ onsite, as the services will be delivered at UNOPS' premises. Could you please confirm our understanding or clarify further?UNOPS' REPLY: Services for the HQ onsite modality may be delivered at UNOPS HQ location in Copenhagen or from an office nearby (in case UNOPS does not have the space to accommodate the LTA holder personnel in its offices for example). The important thing is that the LTA holder personnel be available for face-to-face meetings if need be at UNOPS HQ. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Question regarding Q&A published 2023-05-05;Joint ventures including between sister companies are not accepted. The mother company can bid on its own name and specify in the bid that its subsidiaries will also be delivering the services under their responsibility. In such case, they may present documents from their subsidiaries (such as certificates, or others). The relationship between the mother company and its subsidiaries needs to be evidenced by legal documents (to submit in the bid).Such an overview would fit in an offer letter. Where should we upload such a document?UNOPS' REPLY: You can provide the offer letter with the certificate of incorporation. You have the possibility to upload several documents for this placeholder.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Should it be possible to postpone the deadline for answer to 23/06?UNOPS' REPLY: The tender has been extended until June 19th due to an amendment.

New amendment added #6: Amendment to :modify the award methodology from maximum 3 LTAs per lot, to maximum 3 LTAs per lot AND per delivery modality. The technical evaluation is still done overall for all lots and delivery modalities however, the financial evaluation will be done individually for each combination of delivery modality AND lot. add the following mention "IMPORTANT: The field "Partial Proposal" in the Particulars tab should read "Offerors are allowed to offer for any lots and delivery modalities, as per the minimum requirements of the tender. Evaluation will be done per lot AND delivery modality." to the field Additional Information in the Particulars tab.extend the deadline for clarifications until June 15th and the deadline for submission until June 19th.clarify that the latest version of the eSourcing guide for vendors can be found online at https://esourcing.unops.org/#/Help/Guidesclarify criteria 2.4 :The requirement of "offerors must have a local office in the Region they are bidding for" applies only to the onsite delivery modalities. For offshore and nearshore, the office that will be delivering the services can be located anywhere as long as meeting the requirements detailed in the Schedule of Requirements. Offerors are however still required, for nearshore and offshore, to specify from which office those services will be delivered and how.The requirement of "When offering for a delivery modality, Offerors MUST propose it for ALL the lots they are offering services for." does not apply to qualify for the tender anymore.Criteria 2.4 conditions remain unchanged. For each delivery modality, 1 point will be given to offerors ONLY IF all the following conditions are met for a given delivery modality: 1) Offerors have proposed the delivery modality for ALL offered lots ; 2) Offerors have described how the services for that delivery modality will be organized and controlled as per the criteria requirements ; 3) Offerors must have a local office in the Region they are bidding for" (when bidding for the onsite delivery modalities) ;  and 4) Offerors are able to deliver the services in the required language of the delivery modality.The tender documents have been amended to align with the above amendments / clarifications. The documents that have been modified have the mention "amendment of June 11th" in the title. All changes appear in the documents in red highlighted in yellow. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: We have the skills to bid for all lots in all regions. Understandably every region has a different pricing. Looking at the way you intend to judge the pricing in your tab TOTAL EVALUATION SCENARIO AMOUNT it is likely that submitting all regions will lead to a higher price than only submitting off-shore and head-quarter, and we are therefore inclined to provide you with all regions.Could you please advise, whether you will compare prices per regions per competitors, like in the Consulting UNOPS LTA or look at the overall pricing only, UNOPS' REPLY: The financial evaluation scenario is indeed based on averages across all delivery modalities and profiles. As per technical criteria 2.4, bidders who offer for more delivery modalities will receive more technical points and therefore will be more likely to meet the technical threshold. Financial offers will be opened ONLY for offers that are technically compliant (meet the technical threshold). This technical criteria is on 10 points and therefore has an important weight in the technical evaluation, therefore inciting bidders to bid for as many delivery modalities as possible.

New clarification added: QUESTIONS: We are working hard to put together a good offer for you. We see that time is short, and therefore want to request if the deadline could be postponed by 1 week. The deadline is currently set for June 12th and it is not planned to extend it further.There's a mention of "Section I: RFP Particulars" document in the shared RFP documents. Is it possible we can receive that file? "Section I: RFP Particulars" doesn't refer to a document but to the Particulars tab content in eSourcing.UNOPS' REPLIES: See above in Bold. 

New clarification added: QUESTION:We have noticed that in the 'Mandatory roles per lot' section, the role of Agile Coach (both 13a and 13b) is not listed as mandatory for any lot. Could you please confirm whether this was intentional or if it was a clerical error? UNOPS' REPLY: This is not an error. The agile coach is not a mandatory role. That being said, we encourage bidders to offer for as many roles as possible. The mandatory roles are just the minimum requirement.

New clarification added: QUESTIONS: According to the Q&A published on 2023-05-16, it states that "the Total Financial Offer for each lot is calculated automatically using formulas, offeros have nothing to fill on this tab and should not alter it in any way." We kindly request clarification on whether this means that the financial evaluation will be conducted on a lot-by-lot basis, considering the average of all the delivery modalities for which the vendors are bidding as a whole. The evaluation will be conducted on a lot-by-lot basis, taking into account as financial offer for each lot the average day rate (across all delivery modalities and profiles, applying to it the average discount rate) for that lot. Section III indicates that "Offerors shall demonstrate their specialized knowledge by submitting at least two (2) similar experiences per technology Category/Lot of previously delivered projects from the past 5 years.(0.5 point per similar experience, for a maximum of 1 point per lot)" Is it correct to assume that if we submit more than two references per lot, we increase our chances of obtaining the maximum score in case any of the submitted similar experiences do not receive the maximum score? Therefore, it is highly recommended to submit more than two references. Incorrect, as indicated in the criteria, the maximum number of point per lot is 1 point. Considering that each similar experience gets you 0.5 point, submitting more than 2 will not give you more than 1 point. Please note that UNOPS evaluation team will ONLY be looking at the first 2 experiences submitted for each lot. Submitting more than 2 experiences per lot is therefore a waste of time. We encourage vendors to submit only the 2 most relevant experiences for each lot. UNOPS' REPLIES: See above in Bold. 

New amendment added #5: Amendment to :Specify which roles are mandatory for each lot. An Excel file "Mandatory roles per lot" has been added to the Documents tab to specify which roles are mandatory for each lot. Other solicitation documents have been modified accordingly and changes are mentioned in red (Section II: Evaluation Criteria - amendment 3, and Section III: Schedule of Requirements - amendment 1). Eligibility and formal criteria number 4 has been updated accordingly.Extend the tender deadline until June 12thExtend the clarifications deadline until June 8th

New clarification added: QUESTIONS: We kindly request a comprehensive explanation of your understanding of the term "subcontracting." We would greatly appreciate a detailed description to ensure we share the same understanding. Subcontracting means that you are using another person (not an employee of your organization) or firm to complete all or part of the work contracted to you by UNOPS. For any project contracted under this LTA, the resources assigned to it must all be legal employees of the LTA holder. Under this definition, freelancers for example are considered as subcontractors. To confirm, are LTAs with other United Nations agencies, along with the corresponding contract (provided they are for the same services as those presented in the lot), considered valid references? The LTA in itself, no because it is just a framework agreement. However, the call-off orders for specific projects under a UN LTA would be acceptable references. Again, we want to assess your capability to deliver an IT project through actual experiences.You clearly indicate in Annex D that valid evidence can be contracts for ongoing projects, but for closed projects, certificates or "other documentary evidence" are acceptable. We understand that contracts and purchase orders (POs) are also considered "other documentary evidence" for closed projects. Please note that, for example, the United Nations agency WHO does not generally issue certificates of good performance. Therefore, if we cannot provide contracts or POs, we would be missing specialized references in technology and knowledge of the United Nations. Contracts or POs are accepted as well for closed projects. Regarding question 2.3, if we understand correctly, we see two distinct parts. The first question would be answered with a list/summary of our corporate software and hardware, while the second part would be a summary of our capabilities in GSuite (for instance, number of projects, number of people with knowledge, etc.). And the response to these two parts should not exceed one page. Could you please confirm if our understanding is correct? Not exactly. The first part asks for a list of your corporate software or hardware that you think would help efficiently on the scope of this LTA. Here no need to list everything, just what is relevant and specific to the LTA (for example, "we have 50 developers equipped with GitHub Copilot"). Regarding the second part, UNOPS is fully using Gsuite and Google Cloud Services, and therefore wants to make sure that the LTA holders will be able to collaborate seamlessly with UNOPS's teams using Google products. UNOPS' REPLIES: See above in Bold 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Can we sign a contract with UNOPS India entity? UNOPS' REPLY: For this tender, the LTA contract will be signed with UNOPS HQ (Copenhagen, Denmark). It cannot be signed with UNOPS India. 

New amendment added #4: Amendment to correct a typo in the document "Section II: Evaluation Criteria - amended". The document has been replaced by "Section II: Evaluation Criteria - amendment 2"

New clarification added: QUESTION: As per latest corrigendum on evaluaution criteria, it states 'To be substantially compliant, Offerors must obtain a minimum threshold of 80% of the technical proposal points ie 56 points.". As per this statement either minimum threshhold should be 70% to arrive at 56 points. Kindly confirmUNOPS' REPLY: As indicated under the Particulars tab / Evaluation method details, "A Proposal shall be deemed not substantially compliant at this stage if it does not achieve the minimum technical threshold of 70% of the maximum number of points assigned for the Technical Proposal, ie 56 points (70% of the maximum 80 points).". In document "Section II: Evaluation Criteria - amended", the mention "To be substantially compliant, Offerors must obtain a minimum threshold of 80% of the technical proposal points ie 56 points. " is incorrect and should read "To be substantially compliant, Offerors must obtain a minimum threshold of 70% of the technical proposal points ie 56 points. ". 70% of 80 points = 56 points. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Can you please confirm whether renewals are mandatory for vendors?UNOPS' REPLY: This question was answered on May 23rd. As per clause 2.1 of the sample LTA contract shared under the Documents tab, renewals are not mandatory but subject to mutual agreement between the 2 parties. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: is it possible for you to sign a NDA for this proposal as some clients would require it in order to provide you with the quals.Can you please confirm that the information you recieve will be treated highly confidential?UNOPS' REPLY: Please note that as per our Procurement Policy, only the evaluation team will have access to your bid (and only after the closing of the tender). Each member has to sign an affidavit that includes confidentiality before accessing any bid. The information you would share would be used only for evaluation purposes to assess your capability. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: We would like to kindly request the following clarification on section 1.3 from you please. As per the instructions in section 1.3, we are required to fill out relevant experiences per Lot within Form D (2 per Lot) and attach the relevant Evidence Documents for each of the noted experiences in eSourcing under the 1.3 section designated for each LOT (Ex: Attach 2 Evidence Documents within LOT 1 / Attach 2 Evidence Documents for LOT 2).Our understanding is that section 1.3 does not require us to provide more relevant experiences in addition to what is already provided on Form D, but is rather instructions for how to fill out Form D and upload the relevant Evidence Documents to eSourcingCan you please confirm if our understanding is correct ?UNOPS' REPLY: As per the instructions on the document "Form C: Technical Proposal Form" for criteria 1.3, I confirm that you are only required to fill "Form D: Performance Statement Form" and attach the evidence documents in eSourcing in the proper space. It is not expected that you will provide a response in Form C for that criteria.  

New clarification added: QUESTION: When using onsite consultants based on onsite modality rates, can there be any restrictions with travel costs reimbursement depending on where the consultant travels from (example: “North America onsite” rate card used and consultant from India traveling to the US, would cost of India-US travel get reimbursed)?UNOPS' REPLY: From UNOPS point of view, the origin of the consultant is the supplier's responsibility. If the project is in North America, then the North America rate will apply. Travel costs will be reimbursed from the North American office the person is from to the destination based on UNOPS travel policy. We will not be reimbursing travel costs from outside the region. If the supplier chooses to bring a consultant from India, then only the travel costs from the North American office to the destination will be reimbursable, not the travel costs from India to North America. This case is exactly the reason why UNOPS requires bidders to have an office in the region, the idea is that you would be servicing the region from that office. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: For Questions 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9 we are considering to provide as evidence Specifications/ Terms of Reference from projects/contracts awarded to and executed by our firm, clearly stating that our client demands compliance with requirements similar to this RFP (e.g. WCAG2.0 adherence, Prince2 utilisation, etc.). The provided evidence will relate to the projects we will provide under question 1.3, so evidence demonstrating that we indeed executed the project (certificate from clients, contracts, etc.) will also be submitted with our response under section 1.3.Could you please confirm that you would accept Specifications/ Terms of Reference from past projects as evidence for these questions?UNOPS' REPLY: Terms of Reference can be provided in addition to project artefacts but cannot be the main evidence document. It needs to be an artefact from a project you actually  delivered and the artefact needs to be something you produced/authored.Terms of Reference are authored by the client and state what the client expects but is in no way a testament to what was actually delivered. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: We are writing to request an extension of at least two weeks for the submission deadline of our proposal. We believe that with additional time, we will be able to provide you with a technical and financial proposal that fully meets your requirements.UNOPS' REPLY: The tender and clarifications deadline have been extended by 3 days.  QUESTION: Just to comfirm, it is mandatory for the vendors to accept the renewal of the contract. UNOPS' REPLY: As per clause 2.1 of the sample LTA contract shared under the Documents tab, renewals are not mandatory but subject to mutual agreement between the 2 parties. 

New amendment added #3: Change in the Weightage of technical and financial proposals, from 70%-30% to 80%-20%. The tab "Particulars" and the document "Evaluation Criteria" were updated accordingly. Extension of the clarifications deadline by 3 days and the tender deadline by 3 days. The new clarifications deadline is May 26th and the new tender deadline is June 2nd. 

New amendment added #3: Change in the Weightage of technical and financial proposals, from 70%-30% to 80%-20%. The tab "Particulars" and the document "Evaluation Criteria" were updated accordingly. Extension of the clarifications deadline by 3 days and the tender deadline by 3 days. The new clarifications deadline is May 26th and the new tender deadline is June 2nd. 

New amendment added #3: Change in the Weightage of technical and financial proposals, from 70%-30% to 80%-20%. The tab "Particulars" and the document "Evaluation Criteria" were updated accordingly. Extension of the clarifications deadline by 3 days and the tender deadline by 3 days. The new clarifications deadline is May 26th and the new tender deadline is June 2nd. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Just to clarify: Q&A 2023-05-18 regarding the possibility of providing anonymized artifacts didn't refer to the evidence in the references (1.3), which clearly states that it needs to be identifiable for the projects. It is related to, for example, 1.2, where it is suggested to include "artifacts from previous projects, specifying the relevant sections," or in 1.4, where accepted evidence is mentioned. We are able to provide artifacts from projects, but sometimes they contain sensitive information. We are asking if we can provide the artifacts with the sensitive information deleted.UNOPS' REPLY: Criteria 1.2 asks for evidence of adherence to recognised IT project management approaches, both Agile (such as Scrum, XP etc.) and Waterfall (such as Prince2, PMP etc.). The criteria mentions indeed that artifacts from previous projects can be accepted as evidence documents. You may redact the sensitive information part as this is not the point of the criteria, but the document needs to remain readable and understandable. We need to be able to judge your capacity to deliver Agile or Waterfall projects. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Onsite rates to be quoted for all locations except HQ are exclusive of travel costs.Can you kindly provide further information about the UN Daily Subsistence Allowance rates? The provided link leads to the relevant page of ICSC website, but the access to the rate table is restricted to registered users only.UNOPS' REPLY: There is no login required to access the DSA rates. Please follow the below instructions:Go to https://icsc.un.org/Home/DailySubsistenceClick on the blue button Interactive Data MapType the country you wish to see the DSA for, then EnterClick on the Daily Subsistence Allowance tab (the second one)

New clarification added: QUESTION: I am writing to kindly request a one-week extension in order to obtain consent from our clients for sharing their contact details and acquiring reference letters. The additional time would greatly assist us in ensuring that we complete this process thoroughly and in compliance with all necessary requirements.By granting us this extension, we will have adequate time to reach out to our clients, explain the purpose of consent, and gather the necessary documentation to support our references.UNOPS' REPLY: Unfortunately, it will not be possible to grant an extension.  

New clarification added: QUESTION: Kindly confirm if CMMI, ISO certificates need to be of prime entity or it can be from one of the entities bidding jointly.UNOPS' REPLY: As per the tender documentation, joint ventures are not allowed in this tender. All documentation needs to be in the name of the bidder. 

New clarification added: QUESTION : Dear UNOPS Team,First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for your prompt and iterative responses to our inquiries. Your efficient and thorough approach greatly assists us in gaining a better understanding of your expectations and enables us to prepare more comprehensive and effective responses. Such responsiveness is not commonly encountered in our extensive experience with other United Nations agencies. We are truly grateful for your support. Thank you, this is appreciated. This LTA is very important for UNOPS and we are happy to support all bidders with any questions they may have. Furthermore, we would like to pose a few additional questions:Regarding previous Q&AS:Q&A dated 2023-05-11, question #2: It is clear to us that you are looking for a real-life project and that must be from the 5 past years. Our understanding is therefore somehow related to the projects requested in 1.3 but without contact details or evidence. Could you please confirm our understanding is correct? We are not sure which question exactly you are referring to. If you are referring to the question of May 11 regarding criteria 1.4, as indicated in Form C, evidence documents are required (artefacts from previous projects, examples of working practices, ...). Client contact details are not required for the bid, but UNOPS reserves the right to request them later during the evaluation stage. Q&A dated 2023-05-11, question #3: We have understood your response. However, since we aim to provide a comprehensive and organized proposal that includes all the elements you have listed, would it be acceptable for us to address each delivery modality in a separate document? We would indicate in the table where you can find the corresponding information. Our intention is to present a clear and well-structured proposal, as we believe that presenting all the information in a single table might become visually cluttered. We understand that you are referring to the question of May 11 regarding criteria 2.4, UNOPS requires that you provide your replies in the table proposed and not in other documents. We strongly encourage bidders to provide concise and relevant answers regarding how they plan to organize themselves for each delivery modality. There are no size limits on this question but we are expecting answers of maximum 200 words for each delivery modality. You are welcome to change your form C to a layout format (or just the page with criteria 2.4) if you wish. Q&A dated 2023-05-12: We have received and understood your clarification. However, we kindly insist on our request. While it is true that much of the information is historical and we do possess it, please consider that gathering information on a global and multi-regional scale, as we understand you are seeking a global provider, is a time-consuming process, although not necessarily difficult. Furthermore, the economic exercise is highly complex. Please note that by bidding on all the lots, we are required to propose approximately 30 rates for each one, taking into account the delivery modality, thereby significantly multiplying the complexity. In the meantime, we must conduct a feasible economic assessment since we are not permitted to increase the rate during the first three years, with a subsequent increase of only 10%. Given the current global economic situation, this exercise, which might have been simpler on other occasions, necessitates an analysis of different scenarios to ensure the continued realism and practicality of our rates throughout the duration of the contract.P lease understand that a failure to properly execute this exercise could result in all vendors being unable to sustain the rates throughout the contractual period, ultimately leading to complications for UNOPS. This would potentially require initiating a new bidding process in three years. Therefore, we kindly request a two-week extension to provide you with the best possible technical and economic offer, which will undoubtedly yield greater benefits for UNOPS and the United Nations as a whole. While we understand your arguments, UNOPS is not prepared at this stage to grant an extension of the deadline as we consider that the 5.5 weeks are more than enough to submit bids. ​New Q&As:​We understand and accept the criterion that we must present ourselves as the entity executing the project (meaning we cannot provide evidence or projects, for instance, from our parent company). However, we have a question that we hope you can clarify for us. We have two entities, both properly registered on UNGM. One is our company, while the other is a branch. Typically, we submit our bids as the branch. The branch is not legally obligated to have, for example, annual financial statements, as they are fully incorporated and audited within the company's accounts. Furthermore, as an internal best practice, we submit all United Nations opportunities with an endorsement from the company, guaranteeing that all technical and financial resources are available to the branch. The existence of the branch is simply an internal organizational matter, as the resources are utilized collectively.Based on this reasoning, we understand that we can present ourselves as the branch with the group's endorsement, as we have been doing. However, we would appreciate confirmation from you to avoid any issues in the future. Thank you very much. In this case, we advise that the parent company be the bidder rather than the branch. If you bid as the branch, then you can only refer to your own capabilities and experiences (the only allowance is for the financial statements, where you can present the parent company financial statements in case you do not file on your own). Regarding the evidence requested in different questions:Is it possible to provide anonymized artifacts? Please note that not all clients, even if they are public entities, are willing to share information. By anonymizing certain sensitive parts as per our clients' considerations, we could provide suitable artifacts to you. We are not sure which evidence document you are referring to. If you are asking about contracts (evidence of past similar experience) then UNOPS must be able when reviewing the evidence documents to identify the client, understand the project, your role in it, the date and the amount. Contact details must be provided for the client. When you request internal documentation, for example, could you confirm that business proposals submitted to clients are considered valid documentation? Please note that technical proposals usually include, for instance, the methodology we will employ in the contract, which we understand to be a way of demonstrating that we work with the methodologies you require. We are not sure which criteria you are referring to. For example, for criteria 1.5, internal documentation can be provided as evidence of the bidder having experience developing software as part of a distributed team using source control systems, especially in an open-source environment. In this case, a business proposal would not be an appropriate document. What is expected for this criteria by internal documentation could be: your own SOPs about how to deliver software development projects as part of a distributed team, lessons learned register or best practices register on how to deliver software development projects as part of a distributed team, ...etc 

New clarification added: QUESTION: We will like to find out how many people per lot are required?UNOPS' REPLY: As per the tender documentation, bidders must offer a minimum of 5 roles for each lot they are bidding on. Each role has 2 to 3 seniority levels, when offering for a role, bidders must offer for all its seniority levels. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: With reference to the 4th clarification answered on 2023-05-16, we understand that a project/ contract that started before 2018 (e.g. 2016) and ended in 2022 (or is still ongoing), is an eligible reference, since it demonstrates 4 or more years of experience within the past 5 years. Nevertheless, the evidence document that will accompany the project/ contract description in form D, should have been signed/ published within the past 5 years. Could you please confirm our understanding or clarify further?UNOPS' REPLY: The evidence document to support any experience must be from the past 5 years and refer to an experience that happened in the past 5 years. For example, a reference letter from a client signed in 2020 but relating to a project that was delivered in 2015, would not count as relevant past similar experience. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: We don't have some of the policies due to the nature of our business and the country-specific laws. The ideal response to these should be 'Not Applicable', however, this option is not available as a response. Hence we have to answer as No Policy at the place/ No Procedure in place. Please confirm this will be acceptable and will not affect the evaluation. UNOPS' REPLY: We are supposing that your question refers to the Drive form that bidders need to fill? If this is the case, if you do not have a policy in place, even though it is due to the nature of your business or country-specific laws, please reply No policy / No procedure in place.  

New clarification added: QUESTION: would it be possible to provide you with 3 rates for the off-shore centers as we have the required languages in three different locations with different pricings depending on the location. You would benefit from it if we would split the pricing.If not we can of-course have a blended rate.UNOPS' REPLY: As mentioned in the Schedule of Requirement, English is required for all projects across all delivery modalities. The other language are desirable on top of the required English. The Offshore rate needs to reflect this. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Under Question 1.1. of Form C, you request the bidder to provide the size of the workforce segregated by Technology Category and Region, not including subcontractors / freelancers. Can you kindly clarify whether staff skilled in several technology areas can be counted more than once or only considered under the most relevant area? UNOPS' REPLY: It is not possible to double-count your workforce. Select the most relevant technology category for each employee. 

New clarification added: QUESTIONS: Please find our queries below:If a project started before 2018 and completed after 2018, could we use such a project to showcase our experience? The date of the evidence document submitted will be used to determine whether the experience meets the criteria or not. For example, for a contract, the date of the signature will be considered when evaluating whether or not the experience is within the period required. If the required period is within the last 5 years, we would be expecting the contract submitted as evidence document to have been signed within the last 5 years (2018-2023).Please confirm what should be added in the tab financial offer detail - under Total financial offer* - Our understanding is that the supplier has to only upload the Excel sheet which contains the rates of the profiles as per Form B, please let us know what will be added under total financial offer. As indicated in the instructions (top of the page) of the tab "Total Evaluation Scenario Amount" of the document "Section IV - Form B : Price Schedule Form (daily fees and volume discounts)", the Total Financial Offer for each lot is calculated automatically using formulas, offerors have nothing to fill on this tab and should not alter it in any way. We would like to remind bidders that they are expected to provide the daily rates for each lot (for the same roles and delivery modalities as in the document "Section IV - Form C: Technical Offer Form - ROLES AND SENIORITY by DEVELIVERY MODALITY for each LOT") but also fill the tab "Volume discounts" to complete their financial offer. UNOPS' REPLIES: Please find them above after the questions, in Bold. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Regarding project references, can you please confirm whether you consider acceptable references the following cases?1) Application Management contracts under which significant development in the relevant techonologies have been delivered by the bidder2) Projects delivered within large Framework Contracts for the provision of IT Consultancy services in Time&Means3) Research Projects producing deliverables based on the relevant technologies UNOPS' REPLY: It is not possible for us to evaluate whether these examples meet the requirements or not. The evaluation will ONLY be done after the closing of the tender.In order to be considered an acceptable reference, the project reference needs to be an example of similar services (IT consulting services) in one of 16 technology categories (lots). It needs to have been led and completed by your firm. When you present your references, we need to be able to understand clearly your role in the project, the activities you performed on your own and the deliverables you completed on your own. For example, producing thought leadership or research papers on a specific technology is not part of the scope of this LTA, and therefore past experiences of producting a research paper on one of the technologies could not be considered a similar experience. 

New clarification added: QUESTIONS:is Copenhagen/Denmark HQ location different from the Europe location? why is it under a different column header? Europe onsite and HQ onsite are 2 different delivery modalities and therefore are under 2 different column headers. Europe onsite refer to IT consulting services that could be delivered on site at any of our European locations, except for HQ Copenhagen, and the day rates need to be quoted inclusive of all costs except travel costs. HQ onsite refer to IT consulting services that will be delivered at our headquarters in Copenhagen Denmark, and the day rates need to be quoted inclusive of all costs (meaning rendered in Copenhagen). Could you confirm if we will need an office in Copenhagen/Denmark to bid on the HQ onsite delivery model? You don't need an office in Copenhagen but an office in Europe to be able to quote for the HQ onsite delivery modality. It is the responsibility of the bidder to organize themselves as they see fit to ensure that their personnel is available in Copenhagen for the services once a call-off order has been signed for a specific project. We recently went through a merger and acquisition, we have been in this business for 20+ years, and we have a new incorporation certificate, is it okay if we submit the old and new to showcase that we fulfil the criteria for 5 years in business. Yes, you can submit the 2 incorporation certificate. Please also submit any documentation showing the relationship between the 2 legal entities (previous incorporation and new incorporation). Max 1 doc/experience means we will need to submit 32 pieces of evidence if we are bidding for all Lots, please confirm. Yes, 1 evidence document per experience, and 2 experiences per lot, for 16 lots, 32 evidence documents if you bid on all 16 lots.For the required evidence - We have contractual documents from other UN entities, some of these projects have been implemented on the technologies present in the RFP, but they do not mention any specific project-related terms, they just mention the project names and generic term like - software development consulting, IT consulting services etc. Could we attach a solution design document, FRS, BRD or any such document along with the contract document for better clarity? Please confirm. For the cases as you have described, we strongly recommend that you attach in annex (but as part of the same document) details on the project so that we are able to assess how well the project may qualify or not as a similar past experience. You can annex preferably the detailed terms of reference (or Functional Requirements Specifications or Business Requirements document). If you feel the terms of reference are not sufficient you may annex in addition to the terms of reference, a solution design document. All in one document. “We are a global company with local entities across the world. Will UNOPS provide Work Orders towards our local entities for compliance and ease of administration?” – As an elaboration to our earlier question - As a global company, individual projects may be driven by local entities. For instance, a project in Europe may be driven by our European entity, and a project in the US may be driven by a US entity. In this regard, could UNOPS provide us with project-specific contracts or work orders specifically drafted for the entity that will be executing the project in question, to ensure compliance and streamline administration? The main LTAS could be drafted towards "the bidding entity and its subsidiaries". Please let us know if this can be arranged. UNOPS will usually deal only with the LTA holder and then it is up to the LTA holder to organize themselves to channel the information and coordinate the project so that it is delivered as per the terms of reference. The project-specific contract will be issued to the LTA holder (who has been awarded this tender). That being said, we have the possibility to make payments to the local offices in certain cases (this would be an exception). UNOPS' REPLIES: Please see above in Bold. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Would you please kindly indicate us if the section 1.3 of the Section IV_ Returnable Bidding Forms has only to be filled in for the Lot 1 as indicated in the document checklist section of the vendor submission tab on the esourcing website ?UNOPS' REPLY: In the checklist tab, there is a specific space allocated for each lot (and not only lot 1). You need to confirm your intention to bid on the other lots to see the required documents for the other lots. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: kindly confirm if our understanding is correct concerning availability and mobilization, and please recommend approach to be pursued. With minimum 3 Lots to be proposed and a minimum of 5 profiles to be secured with at least 2 different seniority levels for each (and for any given delivery modality), we require a pool of 30 specialists in order to be able to participate in the tender (or perhaps a little less in case if roles overlap for different Lots). Also, if we understood correctly, the procedural requirement is to mobilize the workforce in maximum 5 days after a decision by UNOPS is reached, following the secondary bidding process. This would mean that in case of contracting, availability of this pool of specialists needs to be secured basically in full continuity for projects that either come or do not come (and this should be done strictly relying on contracted own workforce, without the involvement of potential subcontractors). If our understanding is correct in this sense, we struggle to find a correct approach with appropriate commercial reasonability, as having such a substantial workforce to be on continuous stand-by mode seems close to impossible to guarantee. We see that the business rationale behind submitting a proposal with those circumstances entails significant risks concerning timely commencement of projects – therefore, can you please elaborate on effects and consequences of possible delays beyond 5 days in project launch after winning secondary bidding procedure? UNOPS' REPLY: It is not mandatory for LTA holders to participate to the secondary bidding process. When you receive the requirements, you are usually asked to confirm your intention to bid. You can reply that you don't have availability and opt out of the secondary bidding process. Once you have signed a contract for the specific project with UNOPS, then you are expected to honor the term of the contract. In case of delay, UNOPS may decide to agree on another start date with the LTA holder, or terminate the contract for the specific project and issue a new contract to the second ranked bidder of the secondary bidding process. Please note that UNOPS may also decide to issue an unsatisfactory performance evaluation for the LTA holder that did not abide by the contract terms, which may lead in turn to the termination of the LTA contract. In general, we recommend to not bid to the secondary bidding if you will not be able to deliver the services in a timely manner, and to try as much as possible to communicate with the UNOPS team any issues that might impact the delivery of the specific project. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Can you please confirm that the same project reference can cover several lots?UNOPS' REPLY: This question has already been answered previously, as well as during the prebid meeting (please check the prebid meeting minutes). If it's a big project that included the development of multiple applications that cover multiple lots (for example: an Android app, a website, ...etc), then it makes sense to present that same reference for several lots, because it's kind of a big program with several sub-projects that will cover different lots. That being said, we also want to see that suppliers have a diversified portfolio and we encourage bidders to present different project references when possible.

New clarification added: QUESTION 1: I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request an extension of at least two weeks for the submission deadline of our proposal. As you are aware, the request for a significant amount of evidence and the complexity of the financial offer require careful consideration and attention to detail.We believe that with additional time, we will be able to provide you with a technical and financial proposal that fully meets your requirements. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter, and we remain committed to delivering a proposal of the highest quality.QUESTION 2: We came rather late into qualifying this opportunity and would like to put our best proposal forward. Is there any extension possible? A single or two weeks extension would help greatly. Thanks for your consideration.UNOPS' REPLY: The tender has been advertised since April 20th and closes on May 30th (almost 6 weeks advertisement period). We consider there is sufficient time allocated to receive good-quality bids. Additionally, most of the documentation requested as part of the bid submission is historic documentation that should be immediately available at the bidder's company. There are few sections that require bidders to prepare something specifically for this tender and they are very limited in size. Given all of this, we will not be extending the advertisement period. 

New amendment added #2: Amendment to add the prebid meeting presentation and minutes. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Regarding the request to be received by the selected providers: will some of the TORs be expected to cover just T&Ms services or will all of them be fixed price projects?UNOPS' REPLY: As previously indicated (please see previous Q&A), these LTAs will not cover T&M services, only fixed price projects.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Would it be possible to have a call with the Lead of IT procurement? We would like to respond to your current IT Servies Long-Term-Agreement, however the request to provide client contracts or information that is as detailed as the client contracts, is unfortunately not for most clients, as it contains confidential information. We would be very keen to support UNOPS within this LTA as well, as we believe we have the right skills sets, experience and global reach, and would like to find a solution together, eg. providing client phone numbers, etc.UNOPS' REPLY: It is not possible to have contact with UNOPS employees about this tender outside of the eSourcing platform, please address all and any questions you may have through the eSourcing system. As indicated previously, you can provide contracts from the public sector, letters of reference from clients, ... 

New clarification added: QUESTIONS:Q1.2 states that "accreditations/certifications as well as the number of personnel certified if available" are accepted evidence. Our company does not have a unique report with the requested figures, but we can create a document with the information required.  We understand that this question only accepts evidence, and there is no space to write the answer. Therefore, we want to confirm if it would be acceptable to create a document and attach it as evidence. Our intention is to provide the necessary information without jeopardizing the spirit of the question. Please note that a similar evidence is also requested in Q 1.8. A report created by the offeror showing the number of people certified by type of certification would be accepted as evidence for individual certifications such as Prince2, PMP, ...etc For corporate certifications such as ISO9001, ... we request that you attach the certification document (the type of certificate, the date, the certificate number, the name of the offeror and of the certifying agency need to be clearly visible). Please note that UNOPS may as part of its due diligence process contact the certifying agency to confirm the authenticity of the certificate (or consult the certifying agency online database if available). Q1.4 indicates that "examples of working practices ", and at least one experience should be from " developing low-bandwidth applications in challenging work environments". We believe that this requirement is similar to the project references requested in Q1.3, but without the need to include details such as contact information or evidence of the project. Our focus should be on providing a narrative that explains the challenges, outcomes, lessons learned, etc. on how our company has been able to work on low-bandwidth applications in developing countries. Could you please confirm if our understanding is correct? We want to ensure that our response meets the requirements of the question and provides the necessary information. Please note that we are not looking for a generic description of your approach to these types of projects but a specific example of a real-life project showcasing the offeror's capability to deliver in challenging contexts. As stated in the criteria, the project must have been delivered in the past 5 years. Q2.4 includes a cell to describe how we deliver the services from the delivery modalities. Due to the size of the cell, we feel that you are not expecting a detailed description of how we work from these regions. Could you please provide us an example of what are you expecting there to better answer your requirement? We are indeed expecting a concise description of how you plan to deliver the services for the given delivery modality. For example, for offshore, we expect the offeror to describe the location and facilities from which the services will be offered, the number of people (segregated by qualifications, for example the number of software engineers, ...). If it is from one location for the whole globe or different locations depending on regions, the languages available, the working hours' coverage for different UNOPS regions, any project management and QA methodologies or systems in place to ensure the projects are delivered satisfactorily, ... Basically, we want to understand how you plan to organize yourself to deliver the services for a given delivery modality. Q2.4 requests the address of our local offices. However, as our company has over 50 offices in several delivery modalities, detailing the address of each office in a table format would be ineligible. Our proposal is to provide a list of countries where we have a local presence and then provide the address for at least two offices as an example. We believe that this would be sufficient to demonstrate that we have a local presence in the required countries and comply with the requirement. Could you please confirm if this approach is acceptable? We recommend that you list all the countries where you have an office for each region you offer for. You don't need to provide the addresses of all your offices, but we require that you provide the address for at least one office for each delivery modality.UNOPS' REPLY: Please see responses in Bold above.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Criteria 2.4 "Delivery modalities" weights a maximum of 10 points (1 point for each "Delivery Modality" offered).Is it right to assume that Suppliers will score higher marks the more delivery locations they offer?UNOPS' REPLY: As indicated in the criteria, an offeror can score up to 1 point per delivery modality offered. This means that if an offeror offers 1 delivery modality, they can receive up to 1 point. If they offer 2, they may receive up to 2 points for this criteria. If they offer 3, they may receive up to 3 points. ...etc

New clarification added: QUESTION: What are the countries falling under Asia Onsite?UNOPS' REPLY: UNOPS expects that most of the requirements for the IT consulting services will be coming from HQ using one of the 3 delivery modalities HQ onsite, HQ nearshore or offshore. On occasion, requests may come from country offices. List of country offices can be found online on our website: https://www.unops.org/project-locations.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Looking at the expected deliverables, it looks like "Form D: Performance Statement Form" is the only place to demonstarte expertise / capabilities for each specific lot.Is there any other section where we should be detailing our generic Lot-specific capability, methodology & know-how?UNOPS' REPLY: Please refer to "Form C: Technical Proposal Form", there are various criteria. Criteria 1.3 requires you to fill Form D to demonstrate past experience in the scope of the lot. Criteria 2.1 requires you to describe your approach and methodology. ... etc.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Would you please kindly provide to us the following clarifications for the IT Security lot - 11 ?1-We understand that the UNOPS prefers to employ the Google SIEM and SOAR products, in accordance with Section III: Schedule of Requirements. OR Is UNOPS currently using another product and expecting the vendor to migrate them to the new Google product?Response: UNOPS currently has Chronicle SIEM, but it is awaiting configuration and operationalization as part of in-house SOC implementation later this year.2-Do you currently use any SOC services that a third party offers, or do you have your own in-house SOC? Is UNOPS willing to consider any managed cyber SOC services that the supplier may suggest.Response:UNOPS is in the process of implementing a small SOC internally, and we are considering procuring MSSP services for 24/7 detection capabilities3-Do you anticipate that the target SOAR platform's licenses will be owned by the service provider, or does UNOPS want to keep ownership?Response:This has not been decided yet.4-Does UNOPS has the up to date asset inventory with asset criticality information ?Response:UNOPS is undergoing a data classification and crown jewel assessment to mature its understanding of its data landscape. These deliverables should come online during 2023-2024 timeline.5-Kindly provide the count of log sources integrated to current/required SIEM based on device types (Windows, Linux, Firewall, etc)? How many log sources are hosted in cloud and on-prem?Response:Aside from Google Cloud Platform and Google Workspace, the number of log sources are yet to be determined6-Kindly share the required log retention period? (Online/Offline)Response:UNOPS maintains a minimum 12 month data retention period application logs. However the source application systems can forego this requirement once logs are shipped to a central location (i.e. SIEM) which will then retain logs for 12 months (minimum)7-Could you please describe any cloud native security products that are currently in use?Response:Google Cloud Armor, Google Chronicle (not configured or operationalized), Google Security Command Center 8-Please, describe the number and types of locations/offices and Cloud tenants in scope.For example, what numbers and types of devices exist in each one of the remote offices? How are they interconnected? How do the offices connect to the Internet?Response:UNOPS has a single cloud strategy (Google Cloud) but also employs a range of SaaS applications. In regards to field office networks UNOPS utilises Cisco Meraki cloud network platform to operate its networks. Devices can be either centrally managed or provisioned as BYOD. However UNOPS is implementing Zero Trust in all of its networks and applications and as such relies heavily on identity and user and device context for securing its perimeter, applications, network segments and individual workloads.9-Are you currently collecting and consolidating cloud applications and infrastructure logs in scope for the SOC (Security Operations Centre)? If yes, where and how (high level architecture)? Which method/architecture do you currently use to collect and consolidate Windows Server logs? Agents/WEC/WEF?Response:Yes; Google Chronicle (SIEM) will be the single central log repository in scope of the SoC. In addition some 3rd party SaaS application vendors (for which log shipped is not available) may be in scope.10-Does UNOPS additionally want security operation center services, such as platform management, incident response, and 24*7 security monitoring, or is UNOPS only wanting to adopt Google Chronicle, Cloud Armor, and SOAR solutions?Response:UNOPS is already in the process of implementing a smaller in-house SOC and considering a 24/7 MSSP for detection capabilities.11-Is UNOPS seeking for SOC (Security Operation Centre) services like platform administration, incident response, and 24-7 security monitoring?Response:UNOPS is already in the process of implementing a smaller in-house SOC and considering 24/7 MSSP services for detection capabilities.12-Is there existing integration between UNOPS SIEM and any third-party products, such as Threat Intel, SOAR, ITSM, etc.Response:Not at the moment.13-What is the distribution of log sources and EPS (Event Per Second) by location? Could you kindly share the list of log sources that Google Chronicle (SIEM) will be onboarding?Response:Not available at this time. Pending SOC and SIEM implementation later in the year.14-Is UNOPS using any feeds or platforms for threat intelligence currently? Then which, if any?Response:No intelligence platform is deployed nor operationalized at this time.15-How many "workstations, (Windows, Unix, and others) servers" are there in total?Response:UNOPS PC-type device landscape is mostly based on Windows Devices as present (~4000) with limited Apple Mac and Chrome OS devices deployed. However UNOPS is embarking on a transition to using Chrome OS as its primary PC-type devices when possible.For mobile devices (10.000+) the split between Apple iOS and Android is 50/50 (Mobile devices are currently not under management and are considered BYOD)16-Does UNOPS has expectations for SLAs, or can suppliers offer the Standard SLAs?Response:UNOPS does not have a set of pre-defined SLAs at this time, but expects to be able to negotiate the SLAs with the suppliers for the various services.UNOPS' REPLY: Responses are provided above in Bold. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Sorry, clarification from last question. Even though we have office in Denmark, this is a branch office from our Corporate Limited and not a legal office.UNOPS' REPLY: We are not sure we understand the question. What do you mean by a branch office that is not a Legal office? 

New clarification added: QUESTION: In order to provide you with the most relevant quals from our clients, UN Agencies and large non-profits, we kindly ask you to consider whether documents of proof can be alternatives to contracts,eg:-  published articles-  client statement-  or an overview of what we did, incl. price, client contact etc. put together by usAs you can imagine agencies and other non-profits are not open to share their contracts with another UN agency, specifically for large transformations, so it would be a shame if we cannot provide you with our best quals due to data privacey.UNOPS' REPLY: Published articles and overview put together by the offeror cannot be accepted as evidence documents of past experience. Client statements can be accepted in the sense that it is a reference letter from the client (signed and client letterhead) AND mentions a minima the following information: date, client organization, name of the consulting company, amount, description of the services (cannot be a generic description such as "IT services", we need to be able to understand the project specifics).  

New clarification added: QUESTION: Our global organization has offices in multiples countries. We usually contract with UN agencies from our office in Switzerland but also have office and legal entity in Denmark.Are the following contractual options possible? Any preferred?Our legal entities in Switzerland (with UNOPS Geneva)Our Swiss entity with UNOPS DenmarkBoth entities in DenmarkUNOPS' REPLY: It is up to the bidder to decide from which of their entities to contract. The contract will however be managed by UNOPS HQ (Copenhagen) on our end. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: We are still evaluating our response to this Tender and wanted to confirm if deviations to General Contract will disqualify us since stated at Eligibility Criterria Pass/Fail.If not we intend to to perform a detail legal review and submit only important amendments we would like to consider. Would this be acceptable?UNOPS' REPLY: As indicated in the Particulars tab and in the Contract Forms document, UNOPS will use its standard contract “Long-Term Agreement” along with the UNOPS General Conditions for the provision of services. If an offeror believes that certain additional provisions/deviations are needed in order to perform the services for UNOPS, they should include it in their proposal. UNOPS may evaluate the requested deviations during the evaluation stage. If the requested deviations are acceptable to UNOPS, UNOPS may consider negotiating the requested deviation with the successful offeror(s) before the contract award. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: We are still evaluating our response to this Tender and wanted to confirm if deviations to General Contract will disqualify us since stated at Eligibility Criterria Pass/Fail.If not we intend to to perform a detail legal review and submit only important amendments we would like to consider. Would this be acceptable?UNOPS' REPLY: As indicated in the Particulars tab and in the Contract Forms document, UNOPS will use its standard contract “Long-Term Agreement” along with the UNOPS General Conditions for the provision of services. If an offeror believes that certain additional provisions/deviations are needed in order to perform the services for UNOPS, they should include it in their proposal. UNOPS may evaluate the requested deviations during the evaluation stage. If the requested deviations are acceptable to UNOPS, UNOPS may consider negotiating the requested deviation with the successful offeror(s) before the contract award. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: One Eligibility Criteria stipulates "Offeror accepts UNOPS General Conditions of Contract as specified in Section V: Contract Forms" with a Pass/Fail grade.We have looked at UNOPS General Conditions and would like to submit certain amendments to specific clauses. Would this invalidate our proposal?UNOPS' REPLY: Could you please send us the proposed amendments to the clauses as a clarification question so that our Legal Team can look at them? 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Is it ok to further divide Europe into different regions (eg. 3) in regards to pricing, to provide you with the best rates and capabilities possible?UNOPS' RESPONSE: We do not see a need to subdivide Europe onsite rates into sub-regions. Most of UNOPS needs for IT consulting services will come from HQ (Copenhagen, Denmark) for which we have dedicated rates (HQ onsite, nearshore and offshore). Most of the other operations of UNOPS in Europe are in Eastern Europe. We advise bidders to have a look at which countries UNOPS operates in when setting up their day rates. The information is available on our website: https://www.unops.org/project-locations Please provide pricing in the price schedule form as per the format, do not subdivide Europe onsite rate into several sub-rates as this will invalidate your bid. 

New clarification added: QUESTION:1.    What is the approximate volume of services that will be procured under these LTAs? Does UNOPS have any historical data? We do not have a specific budget for these LTAs. For historic data, please consult our open data platform: https://data.unops.org/index.htm2.    What is the approximate ratio of onsite vs offshore services that might be procured? This is unknown at this stage. 3.    How many vendors does UNOPS plan to empanel under these LTAs? Please consult the tab Particulars, in the field Scope of proposal.4.    What do we need to submit to establish language proficiency in each of the regions we are bidding for? Please follow the instructions on the Criteria tab and the Technical Proposal Returnable Annex. 5.    Our parent organization has operational offices in some of the regions where we do not have our own offices. In such a case can we bid for such regions using the credentials of our parent entity and their delivery capabilities? Please confirm. No.6.    Do we need to add the cost tables provided in section IV_Form B_Price schedule form in the financial proposal form too? No, sign the form and attach the Excel file as per the instructions.7.    We are a global company with local entities across the world. Will UNOPS provide Work Orders towards our local entities for compliance and ease of administration? We do not understand the question, please clarify.UNOPS' RESPONSE: Please see above in bold. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Regarding the nature of the services to be provided, could a staffing services solution interest you for this RFP or are you exclusively looking for IT project management services ? Regarding the nature of the services to be provided, could a staffing services solution interest you for this RFP or are you exclusively looking for IT project management services ?UNOPS' RESPONSE: As part of this LTA, we may request anything from a whole project team to just one developer to support our team for a specific piece of work. During the secondary bidding process, specific terms of reference for a given project will be shared with the LTA holders, the terms of reference will specify the deliverables and the timeline. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: In Section 1 of the document “Section III_Schedule of Requirements” you mention that “Bids submitted by consortiums/joint ventures are not accepted under this tender. Bids submitted including the use of subcontractors / freelancers are not accepted under this tender“. Also, in section “4.Offeror Eligibility” of the document “Section_Instruction to offerors, it is mentioned that “An Offeror has an interest in other Offerors, for the same procurement activity, including when they have common ownership and/or management.We are several companies in different countries with a common ownership. Although, our monther company cannot bid for us all and thus include all of our sisters companies in our offer, for legal reasons. As a resul, our question is : Would a common bid from several of our sisters companies (which are different legal entites) be considered as a joint venture ? If not, could we present an offer with certificates (such as ISO 9001) applying to our sisters companies but not to us ? UNOPS' RESPONSE: Joint Ventures including between sister companies are not accepted.The mother company can bid on its own name and specify in the bid that its subsidiaries will be also delivering the services under their responsibility. In such case, they may present documents from their subsidiaries (such as certificates, or others). The relationship between the mother company and its subsidiaries needs to be evidenced by legal documents (to submit in the bid). If you bid in your company name, the certificates (ISO or other) need to be in the bidder's name. Certificates in the name of another company (including sister companies) cannot be accepted. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Could you please let us know if we correctly understood:- Form A to be filled out: one for all lots- Form B to be filled out: one for all lots + XLS (one for all)- Form C to be filled out one for all lots + XLS (one for all) + powerpoint presentation with methodology & CVs incl. all lots- Form D to be filled out: 16 times, once per lot + evidence as requested with specific namingUNOPS' REPLY: please see our previous reply.

New clarification added: QUESTION:Could you please let us know if we correctly understood:- Form A to be filled out: one for all lots - YES, the Proposal Submission Form is to be filled once for the whole tender (one for all lots). - Form B to be filled out: one for all lots + XLS (one for all) - YES, the Financial Proposal Form and Excel are to be filled once for the whole tender (one for all lots). Please note that for the Excel, bidders are required obviously to fill ONLY the tabs of the lots they are bidding for. The tabs of the lots you are not bidding for, can be left empty or deleted to simplify. - Form C to be filled out: 16 times, once per lot + XLS (one for all) - NO, the Technical Proposal Form and Excel for criteria 2.3 are to be filled once only for the whole tender (one for all lots). Please note that for the Excel, bidders are required obviously to fill ONLY the tabs of the lots they are bidding for. The tabs of the lots you are not bidding for, can be left empty or deleted to simplify. - Form D to be filled out: 16 times, once per lot + evidence as requested with specific naming - NO, one form for ALL lots but you are asked to duplicate the past experiences table for each lot, as per the instructions on the form. Example: if you are submitting to lot 1, 2 and 3, you will submit 1 form D with 3 past experiences tables (one for each lot). Would you like to recieve CVs, if so how? Not at this stage. As indicated in the Schedule of Requirements, CVs will be requested during the secondary bidding process from the LTA holders. The CVs that will be requested will all have to pertain to one of the profiles defined in the present LTA. The day rates offered by the LTA holders will be considered as ceiling prices during the secondary biddings, for the whole duration of the LTA. Do we understand correctly that you do not want to have any methodology in a powerpoint presentation, correct? CORRECT. Bidders MUST follow the instructions in the forms in terms of the format expected for the bids. Where asked to attach a document, please attach the required document mindful of the size limits and naming rules, and attach it in the reserved checklist spot for it. Where asked to provide an answer in full text in one of the forms, please do so mindful of the size limit (anything beyong the limit size will not be taken into consideration). Where asked to provide a response in a table format in one of the forms, please do so in the table without altering the columns or modifying the format in any way. Where asked to provide a response in an Excel, please submit the Excel (no PDF version, only Excel format) filled and without any alterations to the headers.In short, DO NOT CHANGE the format of the returnable forms, including the Excel forms, and respond as per the instructions.UNOPS' REPLY: Has been provided in Bold above. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Could you please confirm that the Forms that must be submitted online are the ones included in the document Section IV_Returnable Bidding Forms and not the forms that are included in document Section_I Instruction to Offerors?UNOPS' REPLY: The document "Instructions to Offerors" has been amended to remove the unnecessary forms. We confirm that the document "Returnable Bidding Forms" contains the forms that need to be submitted as part of the proposals. 

New amendment added #1: Amendment to remove from the document "Instructions to Offerors" the unneccessary forms. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: In Section 1 of the document “Section III_Schedule of Requirements” you mention that “Bids submitted by consortiums/joint ventures are not accepted under this tender. Bids submitted including the use of subcontractors / freelancers are not accepted under this tender“. Also, in section “4.Offeror Eligibility” of the document “Section_Instruction to offerors, it is mentioned that “An Offeror has an interest in other Offerors, for the same procurement activity, including when they have common ownership and/or management”.Our company belongs to a large Group of companies (each group company is a separate entity, all owned by the mother company) with presence in various countries around the globe and deep expertise in most of the tender Lots. We firmly believe that it would be of UNOPS best interest to involve more than one of our group’s companies in this procedure, to allow for wider geographical coverage as per UNOPS’ needs. Nonetheless, we are not sure how this could be achieved as joint ventures and subcontracting are not accepted and our group companies cannot submit separate proposals for the same Lots.Could you please confirm that we could follow at least one of the resolutions below?a) Our Group’s mother company participates in the tender process (for various Lots and various regions), relying on the technical capacities of daughter companies. Each of these daughter companies should provide an endorsemenet letter for participating in the procedure.b) We create a joint venture/ consortium composed of companies of our Group solely.UNOPS' REPLY:We confirm that Joint Ventures are not allowed for the purpose of this tender. However, bids from parent companies are accepted (parent companies can refer to the technical capacities and experience of their subsidiaries) for the purpose of this tender. In which case, the parent company will specify in their bid which subsidiary "owns" the technical capacity or experience, and submit the legal paperwork (legal status, companies organigram, ...etc) evidencing the relationship between the parent companies and its subsidiaries.