Provision for Consultancy Services for Pico/Micro‑Hydropower Pilot Feasibility Studies in Sierra Leone

New clarification added: Question: Could you please define the power range of the plants to be studied (pico/micro hydro)?Answer: For the pico/micro hydro past studies indicate that the available sites have a power range roughly between 100 kW and 10,000 kW (or 10 MW) of capacity in Sierra Leone.

New clarification added: Questions:1. With this date now moved to 13 May, please can you clarify the key dates for the contract commencement, deliverables, Gates 1 & 2 and the end of the contract2.We have noted that the requirement for a local partner in Sierra Leone has been removed, which now allows us to submit a response. However, given the very short timeframe of only nine days, it is difficult for us to prepare a proposal under optimal conditions. Would it be possible to consider an extension of at least seven days? This would allow us to develop a complete and high-quality proposal.Answers: 1. Contract award is anticipated for late May or early June, with work expected to commence in mid-June.While the total duration of the assignment remains unchanged, the overall programme schedule will be shifted back by about one month.2. Please note that the deadline has been extended to 13 May 2026; this means you have 13 days left to prepare your bid.As the project deadlines are very tight, we are unable to extend the submission deadline any further. Please do your utmost to meet this deadline. 

New amendment added #1: Notice of Amendment:To all prospective Bidders,Kindly note the following updates to the procurement process:The deadline for bid submission has been moved to May 13, 2026 12:00 AM UTC.The period for seeking clarifications has been extended until May 5, 2026 12:00 AM UTC.The bidder eligibility and qualification criteria is updated (The company must be a legally registered and incorporated company or a Joint venture of any nationality, but must demonstrate a willingness and plan to hire local competencies). Please consider to the amended documentation, specifically (2. RFP_2026_62056_Section_II_Evaluation Criteria_v1 and 3. RFP_2026_62056_Section_III_Schedule_of_Requirements_v1).Best regards, 

New clarification added: Important notice: All potential bidders are hereby notified that the tender deadline will be extended to allow them sufficient time to prepare their bids.

New clarification added: PART 1 Questions :CARES Group would like to submit the following list of clarifications:​Answers:Instructions to offerors is a PDF document attached under Documents section in e-sourcing.4 May is a tentative date but will definitely be reviewed internally if needed.These informations are not available yet but the successful bidder will have to respect the timeframe for the assignment.Any deviation would be discussed an addressed with the contractor in time.The drive questionnaire is to be filled directly in e-sourcing.The submission documents can be signed electronically.The indelible ink only applied for offline process which is not the case for this tender.The Form F should be filled with all relevant information for this tender and should be provided for every key personnel.The certificates should also be provided.We envisage a longlist of approximately 20–30 candidate reaches/sites for the GIS longlist. For the verification by site visits and local verification (Task 4) we envisage approximately 6 to 10 sites in total, comprising the 3-5 shortlisted sites plus a small number of high-ranked alternatives to maintain flexibility. For task 6, we envisage 2 backup sites in addition to the 3-5 shortlisted ones.Overall, we expect hydrometric coverage is patchy and uneven (historic, project-based and location-specific rather than a dense national network), and bidders should therefore plan for a data-scarce hydrology approach supplemented by gridded climate products and local verification.We recognise that the rainy season (May to Oct), particularly July to August, brings intense rainfall and can materially affect access to remote communities and river sites (roads, crossings, safety). Consequently, the TOR’s intent is that Task 4 verification is implemented primarily through local verification teams operating opportunistically and safely, complemented by remote sensing and desktop hydrology. The Consultant should therefore first prioritise verification of the most critical candidate sites earlier in the period where feasible (May to June windows and all-season access routes), two, use conservative assumptions and explicit uncertainty bounds where direct measurements are not feasible, and three, adopt a safety-first verification protocol (including the option to defer measurement-heavy activities in hazardous conditions and rely on geo-tagged photo/video evidence and structured local informant interviews). This approach is consistent with the expectation that Sierra Leone hydrometric monitoring is not comprehensive nationwide and project-based datasets may need to be combined with modelling and targeted verification.Roles in validating assumptions and enabling verification teams.The PMU (SOGREA/UNOPS project team), under the direction of the Team Lead and Senior Project Manager (SPM), serves as contract manager and coordinator. It is responsible for convening review meetings, consolidating comments, confirming decision-gate schedules, and facilitating access to Government counterparts, data, and local stakeholders. The ESG (Expert Steering Group) provides technical oversight and validation: it reviews and challenges key assumptions (hydrology, demand, costing, risks), validates the screening/scoring framework, and endorses the Consultant’s recommendations at each gate for escalation to the Programme Board (PB). GoSL ministries/agencies enable delivery by nominating focal points, facilitating letters of access/introduction, supporting data access, clarifying permitting/licensing pathways, and enabling the work of local verification teams (e.g., approvals to access sites, coordination with district councils and local authorities, and support for safety and logistics where needed).Timing and impact of Gate 1 (A) on subsequent activities.Gate 1 (A) (late Jun / early Jul 2026) is intended to confirm the preferred site(s) and the direction for the pilot configuration to proceed into full feasibility and procurement-ready design. The expectation is that site-specific full feasibility work for the preferred site(s) (Task 7) should not be finalised until Gate 1 (A) confirms the preferred site(s)/configuration. However, the assignment should not “stop” entirely pending the Gate 1 (A) decision: the Consultant is expected to continue with no-regrets work during the review window, such as refining national technology/market assessment outputs, developing standard templates/toolkit components, advancing permitting roadmaps, and progressing design approaches that are not dependent on the final site choice (e.g., standard drawings/specifications, protection schemes, governance/O&M model analysis).Review and approval duration assumption.For planning purposes, bidders should assume approximately 10–15 working days from submission of the Gate 1 (A) package to receipt of formal gate confirmation, depending on stakeholder availability. The PMU will aim to streamline review by scheduling ESG review sessions in advance and consolidating a single set of comments.End of contract (submission vs PB approval).The contract end point is the submission and acceptance (by the PMU/ESG) of the finalised feasibility deliverables and the concise PB decision pack and presentation materials, including the templates and replication toolkit, in a form that is ready for PB submission. Achieving formal PB approval at Gate 2 (B) is a governance outcome that is not fully within the Consultant’s control; however, the Consultant is expected to support the PB presentation and respond to reasonable clarification questions and minor revisions within the contract period and agreed scope.Yes. Task 1 should include storage options and multi-purpose uses, where they are relevant and feasible at pico/micro-hydro scale in Sierra Leone.The technology review should cover storage/pondage possibilities (small regulating ponds or limited pondage for daily smoothing, where topography and safeguards allow) and should assess the practicality, cost, environmental/social implications, and operational complexity of such options. The review should also consider hybridisation with batteries (and/or PV) as a form of “storage” to manage seasonal variability and improve reliability, particularly during low-flow periods.The review may also include multi-purpose use opportunities, such as integration with water supply, small-scale irrigation support, or other community co-benefits, provided these do not compromise downstream water users, environmental safeguards, or the primary objective of reliable energy service. The Consultant should present these as options with clear trade-offs, rather than assumed design requirements, and should only recommend them where they strengthen overall sustainability and implementability of the pilot(s). 

New clarification added: Answers : PART 2We acknowledge that fully virtual engagement can be challenging in Sierra Leone due to connectivity constraints and power interruptions. The Consultant should therefore propose a practical meeting approach that may include periodic in-person working sessions at a central location (e.g., Freetown or another agreed hub) involving the Consultant’s national staff and available ESG members, complemented by virtual participation where feasible for international experts. The detailed engagement plan (frequency, format, locations) should be presented in the Inception Report for agreement by the PMU/ESG.For clarity, the Consultant will not be responsible for selecting ESG members, nor financing ESG member participation in meetings, including DSAs, fuel costs etc. However the Consultant can facilitate the venue and co-ordination of the event. Regarding costs: the Consultant should include in its Financial Proposal the costs required for participation of the Consultant’s own personnel in ESG-related meetings/workshops (including venue hire, communications costs, and local travel costs for the Consultant’s staff, where relevant to delivery). Costs for ESG members themselves (per diems, transport allowances, airtime/data stipends for GoSL representatives) should not be included in the Consultant’s Financial Proposal unless explicitly stated in an addendum by the Client. The PMU/Team Lead/SPM will advise on any GoSL/ESG participation costs that may be covered by the programme separately, where applicable.Regarding selection of ESG representatives: the Client agrees that an Inception Workshop is an appropriate mechanism to introduce the assignment to stakeholders, confirm the intended role of the ESG, collect feedback, and support nominations/confirmation of ESG representatives. Final confirmation of ESG membership (including Chair and Vice-Chair) will be managed by the SOGREA Team.GIS software currently used across all relevant GoSL ministries/agencies and within SOGREA, as tooling varies by institution and unit, and may include a mix of proprietary and open-source platforms. The PMU will confirm the software environment and constraints (including licensing realities, hosting options, and user capacity) during the Inception phase, based on consultations with the relevant GoSL GIS units and SOGREA implementation partners.Notwithstanding the above, the Client’s preference given the objective of long-term national sustainability is that the Replication Toolkit should be developed in a way that is usable and maintainable with open-source software and open data formats wherever feasible. In practical terms, this means that core analytical workflows, templates, and outputs should be deliverable in QGIS-compatible project formats and widely used open formats (e.g., GeoPackage, GeoJSON, CSV, standard raster formats), with clear documentation and training materials, so that GoSL users are not dependent on ongoing proprietary licensing to use and update the Toolkit.We are open to a “hybrid” Toolkit architecture (for example, a proprietary enterprise geodatabase/backend such as ArcGIS Enterprise with an open-source-oriented workflow and front-end tools such as QGIS), provided that the Consultant clearly justifies the approach and demonstrates that it does not create an unsustainable dependency. Any proposed hybrid solution should explicitly address: long-term licensing and hosting costs, local capacity to administer and maintain the backend, (ioffline usability requirements, and export/interoperability so that the Toolkit remains usable through open-source tools even if enterprise services are unavailable.With respect to the request for a web-based and offline/mobile GUI suitable for expert and non-expert users,we consider this desirable in principle; however, bidders should propose a proportionate and maintainable solution aligned with the time and budget of the feasibility assignment. As a minimum, the Toolkit should include predefined queries, reproducible workflows, and user guidance; any additional interfaces (web dashboards, mobile offline tools) should be proposed as optional enhancements, with clear scope, costs, and sustainability implications to be agreed at inception.While Sierra Leone is planning to implement a NSDI (see here: https://molhcp.gov.sl/directorate-of-gis-and-remote-sensing/), it has not yet been put into effect. As for metadata, the ISO 19115 standard will be used - however, in addition to the nine mandatory fields (i.e. (1) Title, (2) Topic category, (3) Abstract, (4) Language, (5) Responsible party, (6) Metadata date stamp, (7) Geographic extent, (8) Reference system, and (9) Distribution format), the Toolkit will also require optional metadata elements such as (10) Host Institution, (11) Copyright Status, (12) Keywords, and (13) Portrayal information (symbology rules) to be included with generated spatial datasets.The highest resolution publicly available elevation maps for Sierra Leone are at a 30 m resolution, provided by datasets such as NASA’s ASTER GDEM V3, SRTM Global 1 arc‑second (GL1), and ALOS World 3D. Sierra Leone has not yet commissioned a LIDAR-based DEM for the territory, nor does it have a geodesic netowrk of known points or ground repeater stations (CORS) to ensure precision between project sites.

New clarification added: Question:Dear Procurement Team,Could you please share the expected LOE associated with this work or the available budget? This information would enable us to develop a realistic budget.Thank you very much in advance.Answer:Unfortunately, in accordance with our policy, we are not authorized to disclose budget-related information. However, the information provided in the Schedule of requirements should help you establish your budget.

New clarification added: Question:Hello. Would a firm registered in an ECOWAS country without being registerd in Sierra Leona be eligible for this tender? ThanksAnswer:Under this call for bids, no nationality is excluded. However, the bidder must be:A company legally registered and incorporated in Sierra Leone.OrA joint venture. It is essential that at least one member of this joint venture be legally registered and incorporated in Sierra Leone.This means that a company registered within ECOWAS may submit a bid if it is part of a joint venture with a Sierra Leonean company. 

New clarification added: Please find the answer above. 

New clarification added: Question:I am writing in relation to the tender submission deadline. We would like to kindly request an extension of the current deadline, as additional time would allow us to ensure high-quality submission.In addition, we would appreciate your clarification regarding the participation conditions for this project. Specifically, we would like to understand whether involvement in the current phase of the tender would in any way limit or preclude participation in any subsequent phases, such as the implementation or execution stage.Thank you very much for your time. We look forward to your response.Answer: At this stage, we are not planning to extend the submission deadline. We have 15 more days to go, kindly try your utmost to submit your offer by the deadline.No such restriction currently exists.

New clarification added: Question:I am writing in relation to the tender submission deadline. We would like to kindly request an extension of the current deadline, as additional time would allow us to ensure high-quality submission.In addition, we would appreciate your clarification regarding the participation conditions for this project. Specifically, we would like to understand whether involvement in the current phase of the tender would in any way limit or preclude participation in any subsequent phases, such as the implementation or execution stage.Thank you very much for your time. We look forward to your response.Answer: At this stage, we are not planning to extend the submission deadline. We have 15 more days to go, kindly try your utmost to submit your offer by the deadline.No such restriction currently exists.