RFP for Development and implementation of the Case Management System for General Jurisdiction Prosecution Office in Albania

New amendment added #6: Upload of missing Form G: Statement of Exclusivity and Availability through RFP_2026_61528_Section IV_Returnable bidding forms - Case management system for GPO - Updated

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question: With reference to the clarification published on 07/05/2026 regarding the requirement concerning the “Exclusivity and Availability Statements” for the proposed Key Personnel, we would like to point out that the document referred to in the clarification response (“RFP_2026_61528_Section IV_Returnable bidding forms - Case management system for GPO – Updated”) does not currently appear to be available on the portal nor among the tender documents accessible to bidders.Furthermore, please note that among the forms currently available, “Form G” corresponds to the “Self Disclosure Form” and not to the “Statement of Exclusivity and Availability” mentioned in the clarification.We would therefore kindly request you to:provide/upload the template “Form G: Statement of Exclusivity and Availability” referenced in the clarification; orconfirm whether bidders may autonomously prepare such declaration, provided that it complies with the requirements set out in Article 11 of Section I.Clarification: Please note that the changes like upload of new documents, etc in the E-sourcing system requires a certain path of approvals. RFP_2026_61528_Section IV_Returnable bidding forms - Case management system for GPO – Updated was uploaded yesterday and will be visible during the day today.As the file will be vivid today, there is no need the bidders may autonomously prepare such declaration.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification for your question:We kindly request clarification regarding the following requirement stated in the tender documents: “The proposed Key Personnel have signed Exclusivity and Availability Statements in accordance with Article 11 of Section I.” After reviewing the tender dossier, we were unable to identify a specific template or form for the Exclusivity and Availability Statements. Could you please clarify whether:a standard template is available and should be used, orbidders may submit their own format, provided that it includes all required declarations in accordance with Article 11 of Section I?Your guidance will help ensure full compliance with the tender requirements. Clarification: Please be kindly informed that the UNOPS Template Form G: Statement of Exclusivity and Availability is uploaded Form G: Statement of Exclusivity and Availability is uploaded through RFP_2026_61528_Section IV_Returnable bidding forms - Case management system for GPO – Updated. Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification for your question:We would like to clarify if in the Form F, in the column Value of Order, it is not specified if it needs to be with or without VAT. Normally our invoices are with VAT and the contracts usually refer to the value with VAT as Value of the contract or Value of Order. Please, kindly let us know what value should we put, or if we can add some additional information to the document such as a Note at the bottom of the table to specify if the values are with or without VAT? Clarification: As it is indicated in the tender Particulars “All Proposals shall be submitted net of any direct taxes  (customs duties and indirect taxes, such as sales taxes, VAT, taxes on commodities such as fuel).  UNOPS has VAT free status in Albania”.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New amendment added #5: Tender deadline extension based the potential bidders request

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:We would kindly request a clarification regarding Section 3.1 of the document “RFP_2026_61528_Section II – Evaluation Criteria – Case Management System for GPO” (Key Experts), specifically concerning the numbers indicated in brackets (e.g. Business Analysis & Process Experts (2), Senior Software Developers (4)).Could you please clarify the intended meaning of these numbers in brackets?Clarification: The number in brackets indicates the possible number of experts involved in the assignment implementation.Thanks and regardsUNOPS procurement Team 

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please be kindly informed that the tender deadline was extended already one and we are only able to extend the tender for 2 additional days COB May 13, 206.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please be kindly informed that the tender deadline was extended already one and we are only able to extend the tender for 2 days additional COB May 13, 206.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:We would appreciate clarification on whether the CISSP/CSSLP certification must be held by the Lead System/Database Architect, or if it can be fulfilled by a dedicated security specialist within the team, with the architect collaborating on security aspects.Clarification: Dedicated security specialist is possible; however, this role should be clearly shown in the suggested team structure.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:We would appreciate your clarification regarding the requirements for the QA/Test Engineer role, specifically under criterion (c):“Experience in manual testing for enterprise-level or government systems, including performance, load, and security penetration testing.”. For security penetration testing must be fulfilled directly by that role, or if it can be covered by a dedicated security specialist within the team, with the QA/Test Engineer responsible for coordination and integration of results within the QA process?Clarification: Penetration testing can be done by a dedicated security specialist; however, this role should be clearly shown in the suggested team structure.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:In RFP_2026_61528_Section IV_Returnable bidding forms - Case management system for GPO, Sesion 1.2 Regarding the requirement “experience in conducting trainings and helpdesk implementation,” could you please clarify whether this refers to the implementation of a helpdesk system/platform, the provision of helpdesk support services, or both? Additionally, are there any restrictions regarding the hosting of the helpdesk platform (e.g., whether it must be deployed on the client’s infrastructure or can be provided and hosted by the service provider).Clarification: The wider the Bidder's experience, the better.  Ultimate goal of submission is to illustrate Bidder's capacity not only to provide helpdesk services during the system implementation and warranty period but also its ability to provide sustainable helpdesk solution, including rollout of dedicated helpdesk system.At the moment there are no direct restrictions on hosting the helpdesk platform as long as it remains isolated from the CMS production environment.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder, Please find the below clarifications to your questions: Q1. Splitting percentages within a phase - In Table 1 (Cost breakdown per deliverable/output), is it acceptable to further split the percentage and relevant price allocated to a project phase across its individual deliverables (e.g., assigning specific percentages and prices to items 1.1–1.5), provided that the total percentage for the phase remains unchanged?Clarification: The % distribution in Form C - Financial proposal form is tentative and can be adjusted according to the bidder proposal.Q2. Warranty inclusion - Should the warranty period (36 months) be included within Table 1 as a separate deliverable/output as an additional row under Phase 5 or a new phase, or is it expected to be embedded within the existing deliverables and total lump sum?Clarification: Warranty is expected to be embedded within the existing deliverables and total lump sum as it goes beyond the project timeline.Q3. Percentage calculation basis - If warranty is to be priced explicitly In case the warranty is included as a separate cost component, should the percentage distribution in Table 1 be calculated based on: the total price including the warranty, or only the implementation phases (excluding warranty)?Clarification:  Warranty is not to be priced explicitly.  Best regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dears,Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarifications to your questions:Question 1 - We would kindly appreciate your clarification on the following point:The RFP_2026_61528_Section III_Schedule of Requirements refers to compliance with ISO 13008:2012 – Digital Records Migration, while the RFP_2026_61528_Section III_Annex A – GPO CMS Business Requirements indicates that migration of historical data is not required and that the CMS will operate only with new data.In this context, we would be grateful if you could clarify whether digital records migration is expected to be part of the scope of this procedure. If not, we would also appreciate guidance on how compliance with ISO 13008:2012 is expected to be addressed within the project scope?Clarification: At the moment no direct migration of historical data is planned. However, this need may arise based on the technical specifications document and/or changing or business requirements by stakeholder.Thus compliance with  ISO 13008:2012 is foreseen if and when applicable. Question 2- We kindly appreciate further guidance on how  warranty durance should be reflected in the overall timeline, given that Phase 6 (Warranty) is currently indicated from Q4 2028 to Q4 2030. Would it be appropriate for the warranty period to commence from the system acceptance phase (e.g., from Q1 2028 to Q4 2030), or should the additional 12 months be considered as an extension beyond the currently defined timeline?Clarification: The three-year warranty period should be calculated from the date of full CMS acceptance by UNOPS/GPOBest regardsUNOPS procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear bidder,Please find the below clarification to your questions:Question 1: In the document RFP_2026_61528_Section III_Schedule of Requirements – Case Management System for GPO, Session 5 pg 10 indicates that Phase 6: Warranty is scheduled from Q4 2028 to Q4 2030, which corresponds to a 24-month period. However, the RFP also refers to a 36-month warranty duration. Could you please clarify whether the intended warranty period is 24 months (as per the timeline) or 36 months, and if 36 months is required, whether the timeline should be extended accordingly?Clarification: Warranty period should be 36 monthsQuestion 2: In document RFP_2026_61528_Section III_Schedule of Requirements– Case Management System for GPO. Session 7, pg 12 Regarding the planned trainings for all system users, we would appreciate further clarification on several organizational and logistical aspects:Is it required to define all logistical details in advance, such as the locations where the trainings will be conducted and all the equipment?Who will be responsible for providing the necessary training equipment such as straining room, screens, projectors, etc...?Are the trainings expected to be delivered across different regions of Albania, or will they be conducted only at the GPO offices?Clarification: a) It is not required to define all trainings' logistical details in advanceb) Some training facilities are available at GPO premises; however, the Bidder holds the ultimate responsibility for securing the necessary training environment, as per the proposed training plan.c) Train-the-trainer trainings are planned for Tirana; however, regional trainings are possible if proposed by the BidderThanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification for your question:Question: We are preparing our proposal in response to RFP/2026/61528 — Section III, Annex A — GPO CMS Business Requirements, and we kindly request a clarification on the scope of the hardware to be supplied by the Economic Operator.Reference: Section 8.1 “Hardware Requirements” (page 151) states:  “It is expected that the physical infrastructure will be located in two different sites to support HA/DR functioning mode. The primary physical infrastructure of servers and storage devices will be located in the server room of the General Prosecution Office, while the physical infrastructure for backup/disaster recovery will be located in the server room of the Prosecutor’s Office near the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction in Tirana.”The same section also states that “the hardware requirements and specifications for underlying infrastructure (such as servers and storage) should be proposed” and that “the estimated cost of the proposed hardware solution will be taken into consideration and evaluated together with the proposed cost of CMS development.”Question:Shall the Economic Operator include in its financial and technical proposal the supply, delivery, installation and configuration of the hardware (servers and storage) for BOTH the primary site (GPO) and the secondary backup/disaster recovery site (Prosecutor’s Office near the Court of First Instance of General Jurisdiction in Tirana), or is the hardware for the backup/DR site to be provided separately by the Contracting Authority?A clear confirmation will allow us to size the Bill of Materials and price our offer accordingly, ensuring that the proposed HA/DR architecture, RTO of 4 hours and RPO of 1 hour (Section 6.5) are fully met.Clarification: The Bidder is NOT required to include the supply, delivery, and installation of the physical hardware (servers and storage devices) in its  Proposal for either the primary site or the secondary backup/DR site. The actual procurement of the physical server infrastructure will be handled separately by the UNOPS based on the HW specifications agreed with the winning bidder.What you must provide: As stated in BRD and ToR, you are required to provide the following within your Technical Proposal estimated specifications of hardware infrastructure required for proper CMS functioning (servers, storage, end users workstations, other equipment); Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification for your question:Question: For key personnel who have worked so far only our company or that previous comapnies they worked for do not exist anymore and it is impossible to get updated contacts of the supervisors, can we put as reference contacts from the people who worked for clients mentioned in the projects/contracts they have worked for? Clarification: If there is a possibility to get the updated contact of previous supervisors, please provide. Otherwise, provide the contact info of the proposed personnel supervisors within your company.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification of your question:Question: Regarding the 'References' section in Form E (Format for Resume of Proposed Key Personnel), could you please clarify the primary purpose of these references? Is it acceptable to provide contact information for collegues representatives from the expert's previous employers as references? Can we list our direct clients from the projects the expert has successfully delivered while working at our firm?Clarification: In case of references for Key personnel, please provide contact information of the supervisors from previous similar jobs or services. The information is requested to check the references I case of need.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification of your question:Question: Under the particulars of this tender, we noticed that we need to submit all the documents in English language. Please kindly inform us, do you need noterized copies or a normal english translation done by us is enough?Clarification: The official documentation like document of incorporation, financial statements, references, etc should be provided with the official translation and notarization. As for company profile, etc can be translated by you.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New amendment added #4: Tender deadline extension based on the complexity of scope and the potential bidder request

New clarification added: Dear bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:Question: We would appreciate your clarification regarding the expected level of detail for responses within the Technical Proposal Form (Form D). Specifically, could you please confirm whether it is acceptable for the Bidder to provide concise, structured summaries directly within the form, supported by more detailed explanations and documentation in annexes or supporting documents (e.g. detailed project plans, technical specifications, presentation file).Clarification: Yes, it is possible for the Bidder to provide detailed explanations and documentation in annexes under conditions they are clearly referenced. Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Unit

New clarification added: Dear bidder,Please find the below clarifications:Q1. Joint Venture – Qualification Criterion 2: Similar Project ReferencesCould you please confirm whether Qualification Criterion 2, requiring a minimum of three (3) completed projects of similar nature each with a value of at least USD 500,000, may be demonstrated on a combined basis across all Joint Venture members, subject to the leading partner independently meeting at least one (1) qualifying project. As currently drafted, this criterion must be met solely by the leading partner, whereas Qualification Criterion 1 (minimum annual turnover) expressly permits combined JV capacity. This inconsistency renders the JV mechanism ineffective for the purpose of meeting the experience threshold, and may limit competition contrary to UNOPS procurement principles.Clarification: As indicated in the evaluation criteria and the pre-bid conference meeting presentation: “Qualification criteria such as specific experience requirements and turnover requirement refer to all joint venture partners combined, whilst eligibility criteria are per each joint venture partner (non-inclusion in ineligibility lists, etc.).”Q2. Extension of Proposal Submission DeadlineGiven the complexity and scope of the requirements across the RFP, Annex A, and Annex B, and pending clarifications that may materially affect the composition of the bidding entity, we kindly request that the proposal submission deadline be extended by a minimum of two (2) weeks. We hope our request will be taken into consideration.Clarification: Can you please specify which clarifications are pending as we provided responses to all clarifications received?We understand the complexity of the RFP scope and we can extend the tender deadline for one week till May 11, 2026.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team 

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:Question: Our LOE/cost breakdown does not fully align with the predefined percentage distribution outlined in the payment schedule. Would it be acceptable to adjust the percentages in Cost Table 1 to more accurately reflect our actual LOE/cost distribution? We would include a statement confirming that the predefined percentages for the payment schedule remain acceptable as specified.Clarification: As the provided percentage distribution is tentative, the bidders are allowed to propose the adjusted or their own percentage distribution. Please note that the quantity of deliverables should not be changed.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:Question:  We need your clarification regarding the evaluation methodology for roles where multiple experts are proposed under the same profile. In particular, could you please confirm how the scoring is applied in cases where more than one expert is proposed for a given role (example 4 senior developers). If one or more proposed experts do not fully meet the specified criteria, is the scoring:·         applied individually and averaged across all proposed experts; or·         applied at role level, where non-compliance of any proposed expert may result in zero scoring for that criterion?Clarification: Please be kindly informed that we consider one key expert per position though in case the bidders propose more than one expert, we will evaluate the experts individually and average across all proposed experts.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:Question: We would appreciate your clarification regarding the following question in the submission form:“Has your firm/organization been contracted by UNOPS in the past?”“If yes, please provide details here.”Could you please clarify what specific details you expect to be provided in this field?We would appreciate your guidance so that we can complete this section in the format expected.Clarification: Please provide the following information: the subject of the contract, value of the contract, date of completion of delivery, location, any other information.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team 

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:Question: We would appreciate your clarification regarding the requirement to submit copies of certified financial statements or tax certificates proving an annual sales turnover of at least USD 2 million in any one of the last three years.According to the legislation of the country where our company is registered, we are not subject to a mandatory statutory audit of our financial statements. In this regard, we would be grateful if you could confirm whether non-audited financial statements, together with the relevant tax certificates and/or other official financial documents issued in accordance with the applicable national legislation, would be accepted as sufficient evidence of compliance with this requirement.Clarification: In case you have the internal audit, you can provide the copies of certified financial statements or tax certificates proving an annual sales turnover of at least USD 2 million certified by the company internal audit. If not, the financial statements provided should be proved by the relevant certificates from the tax office and the bank.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarifications to your questions:Q1. How fully must the submitted references and case studies match the subject and scope of this tender in order to be considered relevant? For example, if a project was delivered for a government institution but its subject was different from the scope of this tender, would such a project still be considered relevant?Clarification: The relevance of submitted reference projects is evaluated across two phases: Pass/Fail Qualification and Cumulative Technical Evaluation. A project for a government institution with a different subject matter may pass the basic qualification threshold but will score lower during the technical evaluation.Q2. Would a reference project still be considered acceptable and relevant if we are unable to disclose the client’s name due to a strict NDA, while still being able to describe the project scope, services provided, technologies used, and results achieved?Clarification: A reference project described without the client's identifying information would not be sufficient to meet the minimum qualification requirements.Q3. In your assessment, which type of reference would be considered more relevant:a project where the client can be fully disclosed, but the scope overlaps with only a smaller part of the tender scope; ora project that is more closely aligned with the tender scope, but where the client’s name cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality restrictions?Clarification: The relevance of submitted reference projects is evaluated across two phases: Pass/Fail Qualification and Cumulative Technical Evaluation. A project for a government institution with a different subject matter may pass the basic qualification threshold but will score lower during the technical evaluation.Q4. May an ongoing project implemented for UNOPS be used as a reference case under this tender, provided that it is relevant to the required scope?Clarification: Only completed projects can be used as references Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarifications to your questions:Q1. For the role of "Lead System/Database Architect", there is a request for relevant certification "Relevant certifications will be considered as an advantage: TOGAF ; Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) or CSSLP". Does it mean that to get 0,5 points, that the person covering the role has to present both certificates? In our opinion CISSP and CSSLP are very different from TOGAF, and CISSP is related to Security and System/Database Architecture. WE want to point this out if there is a human mistake asking a security certificate for a system architect. Clarification: One certificate is enough. Q2. For the role of "Tech Writing Specialist" there is no request such as experience, diploma, etc. What do we have to submit for the person covering this role in order to make it eligible. Also as far as we understood, there is no point for a person who covers this role, even if the bidder does not submit a person for this role will not lose any points? Clarification: For the tech writing specialist a CV describing past projects and experience will be enough.  There is no dedicated point for this specific role however there are points for team structure.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarifications to your questions:Q1: With reference to Section III (Schedule of Requirements), Section 12, we understand that the Bidder is expected to provide a table indicating commitment / non-commitment / deviation / suggestion for the features and functionalities described in the BRD. Kindly confirm if this understanding is correct.Furthermore, we understand that detailed narrative responses for each individual requirement may not be required, and that responses can be provided at a summarized level addressing the key functional and non-functional areas outlined in the evaluation criteria. Kindly confirm if this approach is acceptable.Clarification: Confirmed Q2: Could you please clarify whether, in case of a Joint Venture, a Letter of Intent between the parties is sufficient at the proposal submission stage?Clarification: Letter of Intent is sufficient, however all parties should provide relevant references of past experience and staff CVs Q3: For Job Aids and Quick Reference Guides -are these expected to be printed/digital role-specific reference cards summarising key workflows, or something broader in scope?Clarification: Short guides describing role-specific workflowsQ4: For eLearning (Simulation/Sandbox) -is this expected to be a fully developed interactive eLearning module with a dedicated simulation environment, or would a training sandbox instance of the live system  be considered sufficient?Clarification: Approach is up to Bidders consideration. Not less than  training sandbox instance with user guides is expectedQ5: In terms of the business processes and workflows, could you please clarify whether there are any regional or office-specific differences in workflows?Clarification: No major differences in  regional or office-specific  workflows were identified during the business analysis process. Q6: Regarding data migration, what is the expected scope for migrating data from systems like PRESTO, IMPRO, and SVHOPGJP? And are there any defined requirements for data cleansing?Clarification: Please referer to BRD section 7.2.1 Legacy System ConsolidationQ7: In terms of reporting and BI, could you please clarify whether the expectation is to have an embedded solution or to integrate with an external BI tool?Also, what is the expected data refresh frequency?And is there any possibility to replace BI reports with embedded system reports where appropriate?Clarification: Please refer to BRD section 4. Reporting and Business Intelligence Requirements. It is expected that GPO CMS will have both built-in embedded reporting (for 'default/basic' reports) and external BI tool (for ad-hoc, complex reports and data analysis) Q8: In terms of integrations, could you please clarify whether integrations are expected to be real-time or batch-based? Also, should the system support bidirectional integrations, meaning both sending and receiving data from external systems?Clarification: Please refer to BRD Appendix E: Integration Specifications. Type of integration depends on the integration party, it is mostly real-time, however, a batch-based approach can be used for sending case files.Q9: The CMS shall implement the "once-only" principle where data is entered once at its official source and automatically reused across prosecution offices and integrated systems. - Could you please clarify to which data domains this statement applies. For example, whether it is limited to person data and crime history, or also extends to other types of metadata?Clarification: The "once-only" principle is not limited to person data and criminal history. It applies comprehensively to all data domains and metadata where an authoritative, external "single source of truth" exists, as well as to internal workflows across the case lifecycle.  Instead of manually typing information into the CMS, prosecutors and administrative staff are expected to retrieve data directly from state registries. Within the CMS itself, the principle means that data entered at one stage of the judicial process must automatically populate subsequent stages. You should design the system's data model and UI/UX to ensure that whenever a data entity belongs to an integrated external registry or has already been captured upstream in the case lifecycle, the user is presented with a search/pull function or auto-populated fields, rather than blank text-entry boxes.Q10: "Directory services (e.g MS Active Directory), for identity management, access management, group management, single sign-on (SSO), MFA and permissions management." - Does this mean that the CMS should not have its own access management and group management?Clarification: Please refer to BRD Table 2: Function Description and Features - Section 5: system security.  CMS should have its own access and group management.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification to your question:Question: We kindly request clarification regarding the educational requirement for the Business Analysis & Process Expert role, specifically the criterion “Bachelor degree in Computer Science or similar qualification in a relevant field.” Could you please clarify how “similar qualification in a relevant field” should be interpreted? In particular, would bachelor degree in fields such as Economics, Business Administration, Finance or other related disciplines—potentially complemented by postgraduate studies be considered as meeting this requirement?Clarification: Other related disciplines will be considered as meeting education requirement when supported by relevant working experience in the  Business Analysis & Process Expert roleThanks and regards​UNOPS Procurement Team

New amendment added #3: Question and relevant clarificaitons file upload

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the clarifications below:1: Is it strict to deploy the whole solution on-premises? Or can we use a hybrid solution where the processing and integration software is moved to the cloud, while all data, documents, evidence, or other sensitive information is kept secure on-premises?  Please refer to BRD 8.1 Hardware Requirements: The CMS will be hosted on premises as per the GPO’s explicit request, no public cloud solutions are allowed.2: To proceed with the system design and ensure proper access control implementation, detailed information regarding user roles is required. Specifically, it is necessary to define and describe all roles within the system, including their responsibilities, permissions, and scope of access. This should cover different levels of access (e.g., read, write, edit, approve, administrative rights) as well as access boundaries across modules, data types, and case-related information. Please refer to BRD and 3.3 User Profiles Specification and Appendix D: User Role Access Table3: Please share the list of integrations. For each integration mentioned (courts, police, NAIS, etc.), please clarify.Please refer to BRD 7.2.2.1 Most critical integrations and Appendix E: Integration Specifications. First priority integrations are Police, Courts and NAIS4: Does the external system expose APIs? If yes, please provide specifications or samples.  Question is not clear - what is called 'external system'? Detailed specifications of integration counterparts mentioned in BRD 7.2.21 will be shared with winning bidder during the Technical Specifications preparation stage5: What integration pattern is expected (synchronous API, asynchronous messaging, file exchange)?  While synchronous API is expected to be the major usage scenario, file exchange also may be in use. 6: What are the expected data exchange scenarios (create/update/query)?  All 3 scenarios are possible for different integration counterparts7: What are the expected volumes and frequency of data exchange?  During 2024, the prosecution body handled 61,091 reporting materials, of which 24,921 are registered criminal proceedings, and 179 reinitiated criminal proceedings. Average case size is around 400 paper pages. 8: What authentication and security mechanisms are required?  Not available yet, to be developed by the winning bidder during the Technical Specifications preparation stage 9: Are test environments available for integration development?  Yes 10: Who is responsible for coordination and support on the external system side?  Question is not clear - what is called 'external system'? Integration partner have their respective development teams in charge of integration API support11: What administrative capabilities are expected (user management, role configuration, system settings, audit management)? Should these be provided via a dedicated administrative interface? Yes. Dedicated System and user management module is required as mentioned in BRD 3.2, 3.412: Is English speaking staff sufficient for the support team? Significant part of GPO staff have limited knowledge of English. Ongoing Helpdesk/Support team should possess the means and tools to work with non-English speaking users.13: Should backup management be a part of proposal? If so - what are the legal requirements for backup retention duration? Regarding backup management please refer to BRD 6.1.5 Backup and recovery; 6.4.2 Documentation and ToR 4. Scope of Work (SoW): " A disaster recovery plan must be developed and maintained to ensure the system will be restored within defined recovery timeframes in the event of a disaster.  The plan must include procedures for activating the disaster recovery site, restoring system data and modules, testing and validating the restored system, and returning to the primary site. The disaster recovery plan must be regularly tested and updated to ensure its effectiveness. Vendor must provide Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plan: Documented and tested plans defining Recovery Point Objectives (RPO) and Recovery Time Objectives (RTO).As per legal requirements archive cases retention is between 20 years and indefinitely, depending on the applicable law.14: Is there SIEM system which will get information from the new system? At the moment there is no SIEM system in place 15: Which source code repository system is already in use (GitHub or GitLab)?  At the moment there is no coderepository owned by GPO 16: What are the requirements for the operating systems on the server hosts (Ubuntu, CentOS, etc.)?  There is no strictly mandated, proprietary "IT roadmap" (e.g., a hard requirement to use Oracle, Microsoft SQL, or specific servers OS ) that you must follow. However, consider that the resulting infrastructure will be hosted by the government agency, which has limited support and maintenance capabilities. Your proposed infrastructure should therefore be standard, easy to maintain, highly virtualized  and capable of running in an isolated, on-premise government environment without requiring constant external "call-home" internet access for license validation.17: Are there any restrictions or preferences regarding configuration management and deployment tools? We prefer to use Ansible as the configuration management system. Would that be acceptable for you? No restrictions 18:  Does GPO have an indicative annual budget or expected cost range for post-warranty maintenance and support services, and licenses? Yes, GPO has annual budget for IT support services however it cannot be disclosed at the moment. Reasonable post-warrranty budget amendment is possible based on the system and infrastructure needs.19: What is the expected number of users (by role) and concurrent users? Please refer to BRD 6.5 Performance Requirements. Currently up to 1000 concurrent  users are expected in the system with the possibility of organic growth and scaling.20: What are the expected transaction volumes (cases per day, document uploads, queries)? During 2024, the prosecution body handled 61,091 reporting materials, of which 24,921 are registered criminal proceedings, and 179 reinitiated criminal proceedings. Average case size is around 400 paper pages. Exact size of transaction volumes is hard to estimate at the moment and to be defined during the Technical Specifications preparation stage 21: What is the expected volume of data (initial and projected growth)? GPO's current primary data center storage shows 15TB data used, however it is not clear which part of data is case-related.22: What is the average size of a case including documents and evidence? GPO operates on paper. Average size of a case is around 400 pp. Arounrd 60% of cases have digital evidences attached such as photos and videos recording.  Unfortunately, the space for response is limited. The separate file for Q&A will be uploaded.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarification below:clarification: Through the requirement "Offeror should be in continuous business of supplying similar services as specified in the Schedule of requirements for the last 5 years with minimum three (3) projects of similar nature in the area of enterprise software development, the development of Case Management Systems, Judicial Information Records, or High-Security Government Registries each with a value of at least $500,000 USD.", please can you spcify if the value of the contract should or not include the VAT? For the contracts in other currencies, the exhange rate of each date should be used?Clarification: Preferably the value of the implemented projects should be excluding VAT. As for the exchange rate, the currency will be calculated considering the UNOPS exchange rate for the respective period.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarificaiton to your questions:Question: Could you please clarify how many files are expected to be processed in a year and what the average number of pages per file is?Clarificaiton: During 2024, the prosecution body handled 61,091 reporting materials, of which 24,921 are registered criminal proceedings, and 179 reinitiated criminal proceedings. Average case size is around 400 paper pages. Thanks and regardsUNOPS Prourement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the clarifications below: Question 1. Can you accept a platform solution based on source code escrow for our basis platform and full delivery of all customized services in xml?  Clarification: The solution built on a proprietary basis platform supported by a Source Code Escrow agreement is acceptable and will not be disqualified as long as it fulfil requirements listed in BRD and ToR. However, please note the following evaluation conditions:1.      While the 'basis platform' code may be held in escrow, the source code for all custom configurations, integrations, and modules specifically developed for the GPO CMS under this contract must be fully handed over to the contracting authority without restriction.2.      As per the BRD (Section 8.2), the usage of open-source architecture is explicitly encouraged and considered a benefit. While a proprietary platform with an escrow agreement mitigates disaster-recovery risk, it still involves inherent vendor lock-in and potential ongoing licensing fees. Therefore, during the technical evaluation (specifically regarding Architecture, Total Cost of Ownership, and Long-Term Maintainability), we may score a proprietary basis platform considering relevant criteria.3.       Any financial costs associated with establishing and maintaining the source code escrow agreement during the warranty and maintenance periods must be borne by the vendor and clearly factored into the financial proposal. Question 2. Our platform is tech agnostic with regards to required infrastructure - but the specific server and data base choices have financial consequences. Is there a preferred technical IT roadmap around which we can design the supporting infrastructure? Clarification: There is no strictly mandated, proprietary "IT roadmap" (e.g., a hard requirement to use Oracle, Microsoft SQL, or specific proprietary servers) that you must follow. However, consider that the resulting infrastructure will be hosted by the government agency, which has limited support and maintenance capabilities. Your proposed infrastructure should therefore be standard, highly virtualized and capable of running in an isolated, on-premise government environment without requiring constant external "call-home" internet access for license validation. Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear bidder,Please be kindly informed that the pre-bid conference presentation and minutes of meeting of RFP/2026/61528 are uploaded in the section Documents.Thanks and regardsUNOPS procurement Team 

New amendment added #2: Pre-bid meeting minutes and presentation upload

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please note that we admitted all bidders that wanted to join the meeting. Sorry there was no one in the waiting line.Thanks and regardsUNOPS procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarifications to your questions:Question 1:  In section 8.1 Hardware Requirements it is stated:"The estimated cost of the proposed hardware solution will be taken into consideration and evaluated together with the proposed cost of CMS development." - Our question is "Will it be taken into consideration in the total points of the technical proposal or financial proposal? How will the points be calculated?"Clarification: The estimated cost of the hardware solution is considered as a part of Technical Proposal evaluation. The evaluation framework is designed to assess the architectural efficiency and the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Specifically, the scoring rubric considers solutions that suggest the "usage of unreasonably complex or costly hardware without proper justification" (which would score 40% or Satisfactory). Also it rewards solutions that achieve "better long-term maintainability or significantly lower hardware specifications" (which can score up to 100% or Outstanding). Therefore, the hardware estimate is used to qualitatively score the viability, efficiency, and maintenance risk of your proposed technical architecture.Question 2: In section 8.2 Licenses Requirements, it is stated: "The CMS is expected to require several licenses based on the software architecture that it will use (this may include Operating System licences, Database Licences, Application Licences and BI Engine). Usage of open source code software when possible is encouraged and considered as a benefit."- Our question is "Does that mean that Licenses of OS, Database, etc, must be provided by the vendor within this offer?" Clarification: If your solution relies on commercial software, the licenses required for the CMS to function must be factored into your proposed solution and priced specifically within your financial offer (as part of the overall software development and implementation cost).  Question 3: In the Evaluation criteria, can one person hold 2 or more roles if he/she fulfills all the requirements for those roles?Clarification: Assigning one person for implementation of  two or more key roles  carries significant risk. Given the scale of this system, core roles like the Senior Project Manager, Lead System/Database Architect, and Lead QA/Test Engineer demand dedicated focus. Proposing a single individual to cover multiple key roles may be evaluated as a capacity and implementation risk, which could impact score under Section 3 (Key Personnel proposed) and Section 1.1 (Provision of a mechanism for securing external niche short-term specialist expertise and a capacity to spike increase of development team headcount). Any proposed alternative structure is subject to strict review and acceptance Thanks and regardsUNOPS procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Sorry for misleading you. The meeting link and the updated communication sent to the potential bidders indicate the start of the pre-bi meeting at 1.00 p.m Vienna time.Sorry for confusion and hope you will be able to join the meeting.Thanks and regardsUNOPS procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Thank you for your clarification request.All BRD Appendixes and documents mentioned by you will be combined in one file and will be uploaded in the tender Documents section in the earliest future.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Thank you for your clarification request.All BRD Appendixes and documents mentioned by you will be combined in one file and will be uploaded in the tender Documents section in the earliest future.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Thank you for your clarification request.All BRD Appendixes and documents mentioned by you will be combined in one file and will be uploaded in the tender Documents section in the earliest future.Thanks and regardsUNOPS Procurement Team

New clarification added: Dear Bidder,Please find the below clarifications to your questions:1. Open-Source Integration ToolsPlease confirm that the requirement stating “the Vendor must ensure that all tools used for integrations are open source and provided at no additional cost to the GPO” refers exclusively to auxiliary integration components (e.g. middleware, ESB, message brokers, adapters), and does not apply to the core application platform itself, where integration capabilities (such as REST/SOAP APIs) are provided as native features of the proposed solution.Clarification: Confirmed  2. API Exposure – Scope and ExpectationsPlease clarify which system components are expected to expose APIs (e.g., case data, document metadata, reporting, reference data), and whether API exposure is required only for explicitly identified external systems or also for future, currently unspecified consumers.Clarification: Specific list of required endpoints to be identified during Phase 1 as a part of Tech Specs preparation.  It's envisaged but not limited that case, documents and evidences may require dedicated API endpoints.The system is expected to expose APIs for both explicitly identified external systems and for future, currently unspecified consumers.  The architecture must be designed with readiness for future integrations - particularly with EU judicial cooperation systems without requiring fundamental system redesign.  3. API Security and Identity ManagementPlease clarify whether the solution is expected to integrate with an existing Identity Provider (e.g., Active Directory, national IAM) for API authentication and authorization, or whether API security mechanisms (authentication, authorization, token management) are expected to be fully managed within the proposed solution.Clarification: The proposed solution is expected to integrate with existing Identity Providers rather than fully managing security mechanisms and identity entirely within the solution. The system must support LDAP/LDAPS protocols for primary user authentication against the GPO's central Directory Service, such as Microsoft Active Directory or another IAM solution. The solution must also support user electronic identification via the e-Albania platform. For integrations routed through the NAIS Government Gateway, the system will leverage the gateway's centralized security and authentication protocols. 4. Process Definition and Level of DetailWhile the RfP and BRD describe the case lifecycle and key business processes at a functional level, please confirm that detailed process definitions (e.g., BPMN flows, branching, exceptions, parallel activities, escalation logic) are expected to be finalized during Phase 1 as part of the Validated BRD and Technical Specifications deliverables. Clarification: Confirmed, detailed process definitions are to be prepared during Phase 1 5. On-Premise Infrastructure ResponsibilitiesPlease clarify whether the provisioning of on-premise infrastructure components (servers, virtualization, operating systems) will be the responsibility of UNOPS/GPO, or whether these activities are expected to be supplied, installed and configured by the Vendor as part of the project scope.Clarification: Procurement and installation of on-premise infrastructure components will be done by UNOPS in line with specifications and recommendations by the Vendor. Configuration of the procured equipment to be done by Vendor. 6. Document Management CapabilitiesPlease confirm whether an existing Document Management System is in place and must be integrated with the CMS, or whether the Vendor is expected to provide a complete document management capability as part of the proposed solution.Clarification: At the moment there is no existing Document Management System in place. Vendor is expected to provide document management capability in line with BRD requirements.   7. Post Go-Live Support and MaintenancePlease clarify whether post go-live support and maintenance services are expected to be included within the scope of this RfP, and if so, for what duration and under which service level expectations. Clarification: Post go-live support and maintenance are explicitly included within the scope of the RfP and are structured across two key phases:Hypercare Support: The vendor must provide intensive "hypercare" support immediately post-Go-Live to ensure a smooth transition and rapid resolution of any initial issuesWarranty Period: Following the final system acceptance, the vendor must provide a 36-month (3-year) warranty period for all software, products, and services provided. This warranty service must include bug fixes, security patches, and performance tuning. The support and warranty services will be governed by a Service Level Agreement (SLA) accordingly to response and resolution times for critical, high, and medium-priority issues proposed by the Vendor as a part of RfP submission. 8. Licensing and Total Cost of OwnershipPlease clarify UNOPS/GPO expectations regarding the licensing model of the proposed solution. In particular, please confirm whether:a) all platform and third‑party licensing costs are expected to be included in the Financial Proposal for a defined initial period, orb) recurring platform licensing costs (where applicable) may be managed separately (e.g., through a direct contract between GPO and the software vendor).Clarification: All licensing costs to be included in the Financial Proposal and to be indicated separately. Recurring licensing costs, which may be required after the contract period ends, should clearly state so.Thanks and regards​UNOPS Procurement Team

New amendment added #1: Update of the tender name and deadline