Request For Proposal For Development and Delivery of a Blended Learning Course: Responsible Negotiation for Senior Leaders

New amendment added #3: The RFP has been amended as below:I. The RFP  Submission  deadline has been extended from  17 January 2025  to 24 January 2025 1100 hours UTC.

New amendment added #2: RFP has been amended to:1. Include the pre bid minutes2. Returnable Bidding Forms have been amended to include a line for the cost of additional requirements.

New clarification added: Question 22: Items 3-8 in Table 1 of Form C for the Financial Proposal indicates that certain tranches of payment will be released on the completion of courses in across locations. Is this list meant to indicate the preferred order of deliveries? This will be an important consideration for members of our trainer team who may have prior commitments at various points in the year.UNOPS Response: Funds will be made available upon completion of specific parts of the contract. GELI operates on a voluntary contribution basis and funds are made available at different times of the year. GELI makes every effort as soon as funds are available to plan the next trainings. Trainings can not be confirmed unless resources are available.Question 23: Form D for the Technical Proposal asks that 'The Offeror’s proposal must be organized to follow the format of this Technical Proposal Form.' In addition, the format of the following tables for sections 1, 2 and 3 is inconsistent with respect to how it recommends the bidder put in data. Do you want responses in the table provided format in Form D itself as one of returnable bidding forms, OR as a separate proposal document with a structure that follows the specification of requirements in Form D?UNOPS Response: Please feel free to include it in the format that is most suitable for your organization.Question 24: If the latter, should the embedded table in 3.1 be left in place or transferred to a separate document?UNOPS Response: Kindly  include it in the format that is most suitable for your organization.Question 25: Is there a maximum word-count for any of the sections, in Form D or otherwise?UNOPS Response: There is no maximum word count.Question 26: Can we include relevant links and/or PDFs demonstrating key points in our response?UNOPS Response: This is acceptable.​Question 27: Would you accept a coordinated response, with a broad-based trainer team, but a single subject-matter expert assigned the roles of Project manager/Team Leader, primary Course Designer, and Lead Trainer? This approach makes the most sense to us, but we want to check with reference to the separation of roles as embedded in table 3.1 on Form D.UNOPS Response: We will be looking at continuity and consistency of the training delivery across regions. We do not want to see a separate team in each regional hub. From past experience we are able to fine tune every time the training content is based on feedback from participants. Consistency of quality of the program delivered across all regions is essential.

New clarification added: Question 15:To ensure our proposed monitoring and evaluation framework fully aligns with GELI's needs, could you elaborate on:Key performance indicators and metrics of particular importance to GELI?Any preferred data collection methods and frequency?How success will be measured at individual, cohort, and program levels?UNOPS Response:The program provider should establish a benchmark based on an evaluation of the participants on their knowledge on the training topics. This will be done prior to the training. Upon completion of the training, a second evaluation should take place to be able to measure progress of the participants knowledge on negotiations. Success will be measured by the ability of the individual leaders who attend the training to be able to apply the knowledge and hopefully have a positive impact on negotiations that affect the lives of the people served by humanitarian organizations. We are looking at impact of the trining on operations and results for the people served.Question 16:What are the evaluation criteria for the remaining 20 points in the proposal, given the following breakdown?Section 1: Offeror’s qualification, capacity, and expertise – 20 pointsSection 2: Proposed Methodology, Approach, and Implementation Plan – 40 pointsSection 3: Key Personnel Proposed – 20 pointsTotal Technical Proposal Points – 80 pointsUNOPS Response: The weighted points for the technical proposal is 80 whereas the weighted points for the financial is 20.Question 17:The RFP outlines a core blended learning solution along with four additional requirements (“Responsible Negotiations Alumni Peer Support Network,” “Applied Research,” “Capture Human Interest Stories on Negotiations from Participants,” and “Two-Day Version of the Negotiations Training”). Are bidders required and/or expected to submit proposals for all components, or may organizations submit proposals for selected components where they have demonstrated expertise? We note that the RFP requests separate cost estimates for each additional activity and would appreciate clarity on whether these are intended to be severable requirements.UNOPS Response: The bidder is requested to include a proposal for all components. Each additional activity needs to be costed separately. Question 18:Could you clarify how proposals will be evaluated if an organization bids on the core blended learning solution but not all additional requirements? Specifically, we'd like to understand whether the technical evaluation criteria (80 points) applies primarily to capabilities related to the core training program, or whether capabilities across all components (including the additional requirements) will factor into the scoring.UNOPS Response:We are looking across all components of the request, including the additional.Question 19:Regarding the two-day condensed version of the training program, could you provide additional context about:The intended participant profile and selection criteriaSpecific learning objectives and how they align with or differ from the full programWhether participants might later participate in the full programHow this condensed version fits into GELI's broader capacity building strategyUNOPS Response:The profile of the participants is the same as in the core training. Senior level leaders working in the humanitarian sector.They are the same learning objectives as in the core program.Participants in the short program are not expected to participate in the regular programThe shorter version is for busy leaders in situations where they are unable to attend the longer version of the program.Question 20: Noting that in Form D: Technical Proposal Form, only two sections (2.2 and 3.1) contain bracketed instructions for input, we seek further clarification on how to structure our response here. Should our response to each section be included in the provided (word) template, e.g. for section 1 subsection 1.1 we provide our response in this table, or is an annex organized to follow the format of the Technical Proposal Form, e.g. in Powerpoint, acceptable?UNOPS Response:Please include it in the template and follow the technical proposal form, under any additional item.Question 21: We would like to re-state our confusion as to where we should indicate the pricing of the Additional Requirements in Form C for the Financial Proposal. We are keen to carry them out, and believe we are able to do so, subject to costs, logistics and budgetary availability. However, the extra costs incurred for these parts of the specification must be both vague and substantial, since the full scale of the requirements seem to be flexible and undefined, but occupying significant resources, time and effort. Given these complicating factors, We would like to know if it impossible to omit the Additional Requirements from Table 1 and Table 2, which should be equivalent, especially given that a component for the Additional Requirements is absent in these tables. We would prefer to submit additional estimated costs separately if possible.UNOPS Response: The returnable bidding form has been amended to include cost of additional requirements. Kindly submit what is right for your organisation. 

New clarification added: Question 10: What are the business objectives and overarching business drivers for this initiative?UNOPS Response:The goal is to provide senior leaders in field locations tools, skills, knowledge to become better negotiators. Negotiation skills is vital in the humanitarian and development sector and we use these skills everyday. Issues of values and principal are central in the program.Question 11:In the current learning model please can you highlight elements that are working well and would like to retain as well as elements that are not working well and would like to change?UNOPS Response:What works well is the strong practical experiential simulations and exercises, inspired from real life situations from the current humanitarian system, reflecting the complexity and challenges faced. Participants appreciate “learning by doing” and ensuring this is the biggest part of the program.What does not work well is a purely theoretical approach. Given that the participants are leaders  with 15-20 years of experience this approach may not be suitable. Additionally,  off the shelf programs on negotiations are not suitable for the level of participants. Geli is interested in a tailor made training program that is bespoke for our sector.Question 12: What will success look like for you in the first 1-3 years? How will you measure it?UNOPS Response: Success is when graduates from the Negotiations GELI program apply the knowledge acquired in the daily negotiations with positive results, on behalf of the people they serve.Question 13 Are there any specific budget parameters or constraints that we should be aware of when developing our proposal, or are you declining to share budget information at this time?UNOPS Response:As this is a request for proposal, the budget cannot be shared and the bidders will provide a financial proposal based on the requirements and their proposals. Additionally, the financial proposal is part of the evaluation and the financial proposal carries 20 points as highlighted in the tender. We are looking for a cost effective proposal that can be sustained. Question 14:The RFP specifies a custom program design. We would like to clarify whether GELI would consider a blended approach that combines:Custom-developed content addressing GELI's specific context and needsSelect high-quality existing content from our course catalogue where it precisely matches GELI's requirementsUNOPS Response:GELI is looking for a totally bespoke program that fits the content of the clients, senior leaders based in field situations. It has to be inspired from current challenges and be relevant to the participants. 

New clarification added: Question 1:Is English the only language of delivery that you envisage being needed? UNOPS Response: Yes English is the language of delivery Question 2: Where do we provide the separate pricing for the Additional Requirements listed in the Schedule of Requirements, as a dedicated are to input this value does not appear to be on Form C? UNOPS Response:Yes please provide a separate itemized per item pricing for the additional requirements.The form C under : Table 2: Cost breakdown per component provides for bidders to include all relevant personnel and non personnel costs.As mentioned in the documents, The Financial Proposal must be filled in in both Tables 1 and 2 below (for which the total amount should match), including provision of a detailed cost breakdown. Question 3:We are currently engaged in procuring the necessary expertise and developing the theroetical and practical resources to enable to compete in this tender to an adequate standard. We are a multinational organisation with experience of servicing the UN and other clients around the world in a wide variety of training, and have entrusting the project oversight to an internal employee with a PhD in modern African History with expertise in Genocide Studies to ensure rigour. Given the complexities of these tasks, the specislisation involved in the assignment, and our processes for internal quality assurance, we humbly request that the deadline for this tender be extended into January 2025. UNOPS Response: This has been considered and the  Tender has been extended to 17 January 2025 as per the RFP amendment.Question 4: Can you specify which stakeholders you wish to emphasise as the imagined negotiation partner(s) in the training scenarios?UNOPS Response:The objective of the course is to  Equip leaders with tools to be able to make a contextual analysis and problem analysis and design strategies to negotiate with key stakeholders (governments, non-state actors, donors, partners) on critical issues and operational matters; Facilitate transformative leadership to enhance their ability to support effective humanitarian and development assistance.Question 5 :Would you be open to a proposal that included self-paced e-learning as part of the online component of the course? The e-learning platform that our organisation uses is interactive, secure and can track usage data for project managers to survey on our client portal. It can also host the  other multimedia mentioned UNOPS Response: No  This is a course for senior leaders and therefore we place emphasis on face to face training.Question 6 :  We note that the IP from this assignment would vest in UNOPS/GELI. While are potentially open to accepting this provision insofar as it can be used to deliver training to senior leaders, we note two points. First, that the outputs potentially far exceed the limits of this goal, and there is a high risk that the contributiions of our organisation and the personnel assigned to deliver this project may be unjustly erased or otherwise uncredited in further developments. Second, that this point might significantly raise the price, especially given the originality and high level of expertise envisioned. In short, we fear that the demand might severely compromise the recruitment of suitable candidates. Can this provision in particular be negotiated after contract award?UNOPS Response:IP remains with UNOPS/ GELI. This is a requirement in this contract.Question 7 : While mindful of the Tender Particulars in their current form, we would appreciate a pre-bid meeting for the reasons given above.UNOPS Response: This noted and included in the RFP amendment as per below details:Pre Bid Meeting-Request For Proposal-Development and Delivery of a Blended Learning Course: Responsible Negotiation for Senior Leaders Thursday, December 12 · 2:00 – 3:00pmTime zone: Europe/ZurichGoogle Meet joining infoVideo call link: https://meet.google.com/ose-dvac-gkyOr dial: ‪(CH) +41 31 560 24 00‬ PIN: ‪793 968 563 9463‬#More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/ose-dvac-gky?pin=7939685639463Question 8 : .Following advice from our legal team, we would like to make you aware of some clauses in the contract draft that we would like changed if awarded the opportunity. Please let us know your response to these points.1.      Clause 5.1- liability should be capped at contract value2.      Clause 6.1- We cannot be held liable for property damage or loss3.      Clause 6.3- Our insurance policy does not contain “cross-liability” clause4.      Clause 6.5.1- We cannot name UNOPS as additional insured5.      Clause 6.5.2- Our  insurance policy does not contain subrogation clause6.      Clause 9.2, Clause 13.3.5 - Any license in IPRs will come at a substantial additional cost.8.      Clause 13.6- Our liability must be capped at contract value9.      Clause 18.2- UNOPS cannot deduct any sum without taking our approval10.  Clause 20.1- 7 days’ written notice must be given in order to conduct audit    Clause 35, 36- we cannot submit performance security, bank guarantee11.      Clause 37- We will not pay liquidated damages12.    Clause 42- 7 days’ written notice must be given in order to conduct auditUNOPS Response:Kindly note that these are standard conditions for UNOPS contracts. In the event of a Contract, the following General Conditions of Contract will apply: UNOPSGeneralConditions of Contract for the provision of Services The conditions are available at: https://www.unops.org/business-opportunities/how-we-procureAdditionally, As per the tender criteria, acceptance of UNOPS terms is an eligibility criteria.Question 9:Your Schedule of Requirements refers at several points to the budget and funding of the project, including on GELI's Operation and Flexibility, as well as under the 'Project Scope' on Continuation. It would be immensely helpful to us if you could give us an indicatrion of the budget for the first 12 months of this project, so we can adjust the proposed content of our offer accordingly. Please could you provide these figures?UNOPS Response:As this is a request for proposal, the budget cannot be shared and the bidders will provide a financial proposal based on the requirements. Additionally, the financial proposal is part of the evaluation and the financial proposal carries 20 points as highlighted in the tender. 

New amendment added #1: The RFP has been amended as below:I. The RFP  Clarification deadline has been extended from 10 December  2024 to 10 January 2025, 1100 hours UTC.II. The RFP  Submission  deadline has been extended from 17 December  2024  to 17 January 2025 1100 hours UTC.III. The Expected contract award date has been extended to  28 February  2025.IV. A pre bid meeting has been included as per below details:Pre Bid Meeting-Request For Proposal-Development and Delivery of a Blended Learning Course: Responsible Negotiation for Senior Leaders Thursday, December 12 · 2:00 – 3:00pmTime zone: Europe/ZurichGoogle Meet joining infoVideo call link: https://meet.google.com/ose-dvac-gkyOr dial: ‪(CH) +41 31 560 24 00‬ PIN: ‪793 968 563 9463‬#More phone numbers: https://tel.meet/ose-dvac-gky?pin=7939685639463