New clarification added: QUESTION: Considering the size of the cadastral parcel and the established building lines, the outdoor area measuring 30 x 60 m can only be positioned within one zone of the site, on the western (left-hand) side. Consequently, some classrooms would necessarily have to be oriented towards the outdoor area, whereas the Project Brief states that classrooms should be located on the opposite side of the outdoor area due to noise and other considerations.As it is not possible to comply with this requirement for all teaching spaces under the given site constraints, could you please clarify whether this limitation will be taken into consideration during the evaluation of the proposed design solutions?ANSWER: The provision in the Terms of Reference (ToR) stating that the outdoor sports field should be located on the opposite side of classrooms represents an architectural and functional guideline intended to minimize noise disruption to teaching spaces. Where full physical separation of all classrooms from the sports field is not entirely possible due to plot geometry and building lines, Offerors are expected to present a well-justified spatial organization. This may include noise-mitigation measures such as positioning non-teaching functions facing the sports field, utilizing green landscape buffers, or applying appropriate acoustic facade treatments.Please be informed that the physical and urban planning limitations of the site will be fully taken into consideration during the technical evaluation of the Conceptual Solution.

New clarification added: QUESTION: With reference to a similar/same clarification previously requested in another procurement procedure of comparable scope and nature, and considering that the present procurement procedure contains requirements that are substantially similar to those included in the ongoing school infrastructure procurement procedure titled Provision of services for Development of Technical Design (Concept Design and Final Design) of New Elementary School in Stari Aerodrom, Podgorica in Montenegro (UNOPS-ESIM-2026-S-004) – RFP/2026/63273, we kindly request clarification on the following two matters in order to avoid any ambiguity in the preparation of our Proposal and to ensure full consistency with the RFP requirements, the applicable national legislation and the intended Joint Venture structure:2.    With reference to the above question concerning the licensing requirements under Section II – Evaluation Method and Criteria, we kindly request one additional clarification specifically concerning the documentation to be submitted at the Proposal Submission Stage by a foreign JV Member established outside Montenegro.Our potential foreign JV Member is established outside Montenegro. We understand that, under the legal framework of certain countries, professional design licenses may be issued primarily to individual licensed architects and engineers, while the legal entitlement of a company to provide architectural, engineering and design-related services may be demonstrated through its registered business activities and, where applicable, through the engagement of appropriately licensed professionals, rather than through a single corporate license equivalent in form to the Montenegrin company license.Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, could you please confirm what documentation would be considered acceptable at the Proposal Submission Stage as a “valid company license or equivalent document” for a foreign JV Member established outside Montenegro, in cases where a corporate professional license equivalent in form to the Montenegrin company license is not issued or is not required under the legislation of the foreign JV Member’s country of establishment? In particular, please confirm whether the following documents would be acceptable and sufficient for that purpose:an official extract from the competent commercial/business register in the foreign JV Member’s country of establishment, confirming the foreign JV Member’s legal registration and registered business activities covering architectural, engineering, design and/or technical consultancy services;copies of valid individual professional licenses of the foreign JV Member’s licensed architects/engineers issued by the competent professional authority/chamber in the foreign JV Member’s country of establishment, where applicable;where applicable, an extract from the relevant law or regulation of the foreign JV Member’s country of establishment, or a statement/explanation supported by publicly available official sources, confirming the manner in which legal entities in that country are entitled to provide design/engineering services;This clarification is important in order to ensure that the documentation submitted for a foreign JV Member established outside Montenegro at the Proposal Submission Stage is fully aligned with the RFP requirements, clarifications, the legal framework of the foreign JV Member’s country of establishment and the applicable Montenegrin legislation.ANSWER 2:In cases where the legislation of the foreign JV Member's country of establishment does not issue corporate professional design licenses to legal entities, the submission of alternative documentation to establish the entity's legal entitlement and capacity to provide design services is acceptable at the Proposal Submission Stage.Specifically, the combination of:An official extract from the competent commercial/business register in the foreign JV Member's country of establishment, confirming the entity’s legal registration and registered business activities covering architectural and engineering design services;Copies of valid individual professional licenses of the foreign JV Member’s key architects/engineers, issued by the competent professional authority/chamber in their country of establishment; andAn extract from the relevant national legislation (or a detailed statement/explanation supported by official, publicly available sources) confirming that corporate professional design licenses are not issued or required for legal entities in that jurisdiction;will be considered sufficient as an "equivalent document" to satisfy the qualification criteria at the Proposal Submission Stage.However, please be advised of the following strict conditions:Responsibility for Proof: It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to provide clear, verified, and complete documentation within their Proposal to demonstrate and substantiate this legal equivalence under their home country's jurisdiction. UNOPS will evaluate the submitted documentation on a case-by-case basis during the technical evaluation but will not perform independent legal assessments or interpretations of foreign legislation.Montenegrin Licensing (Critical Deadline): Regardless of the regulatory framework in the foreign JV Member’s home country, all proposed individual Key and Non-Key Experts (engineers and architects) who will actively prepare, sign, or assume statutory responsibility for the design documentation in Montenegro must obtain and submit valid individual professional design licenses issued by the Montenegrin Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property no later than 15 October 2026. Proposing any expert who fails to meet this licensing requirement by the deadline will result in the disqualification of the entire Proposal. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: With reference to a similar/same clarification previously requested in another procurement procedure of comparable scope and nature, and considering that the present procurement procedure contains requirements that are substantially similar to those included in the ongoing school infrastructure procurement procedure titled Provision of services for Development of Technical Design (Concept Design and Final Design) of New Elementary School in Stari Aerodrom, Podgorica in Montenegro (UNOPS-ESIM-2026-S-004) – RFP/2026/63273, we kindly request clarification on the following two matters in order to avoid any ambiguity in the preparation of our Proposal and to ensure full consistency with the RFP requirements, the applicable national legislation and the intended Joint Venture structure:1.    With reference to the licensing requirements under Section II – Evaluation Method and Criteria, we kindly request one additional clarification in order to properly structure a potential Joint Venture arrangement and ensure full compliance with both the RFP requirements and the applicable Montenegrin legislation.We understand that:at the proposal submission stage, a foreign JV Member must submit a valid company license or equivalent document issued by the competent authority in its home country, confirming its authorization to prepare technical documentation and execute works, in accordance with the legal framework of that country;all professionals who will prepare and sign design documentation must hold the required Montenegrin licenses issued by the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property of Montenegro no later than 15 October 2026;legal entities and professionals formally preparing, signing, or assuming statutory responsibility for design documentation in Montenegro must be duly licensed/authorized in accordance with the Law on Construction of Structures of Montenegro.For the avoidance of doubt, could you please clarify whether the requirement to provide a valid company license issued by the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property of Montenegro by 15 October 2026 applies to each and every JV Member as a legal entity, irrespective of its actual role in the JV, or only to those JV Members/legal entities that will formally act as designers in Montenegro, i.e. prepare, sign and assume statutory responsibility for the design documentation or any part thereof?More specifically, if a foreign JV Member does not formally prepare or sign any part of the technical/design documentation in Montenegro and does not assume statutory responsibility as a designer under Montenegrin law, but contributes only through international reference experience, technical advisory input, methodology, QA/QC review, know-how transfer, and internal expirinece support to the licensed Montenegrin JV Member, would such foreign JV Member still be required to obtain a Montenegrin company license by 15 October 2026?In such a scenario, the formal preparation, signing and statutory responsibility for the design documentation in Montenegro would remain with the duly licensed Montenegrin JV Member and/or other duly licensed legal entities and proposed witnin the Proposal Montenegrin professionals/experts engaged for the relevant design disciplines, in full compliance with Montenegrin legislation.We would appreciate your confirmation, as this clarification is important for final defining the JV structure, the division of responsibilities between JV Members, and the licensing approach to be reflected in the JV Agreement and the technical proposal.ANSWER 1:It is confirmed that the requirement to provide a valid company license issued by the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property of Montenegro by 15 October 2026 applies strictly to the Joint Venture Member(s) that will formally act as designers, i.e., prepare, sign, and assume statutory responsibility for the design documentation (or any part thereof) in Montenegro, in line with the relevant Montenegrin legislation.If a JV Member not licensed in Montenegro does not formally prepare or sign any part of the technical documentation in Montenegro, and does not assume statutory responsibility as a designer under Montenegrin law, such JV Member is not required to obtain a Montenegrin company license by 15 October 2026.However, the Offeror must strictly comply with the following mandatory conditions:At the Proposal Submission Stage: The JV Member not licensed in Montenegro must still submit a copy of a valid company license (or equivalent document) for the preparation of technical documentation issued by the competent authority in their home country, in order to establish their eligibility and legal status.Company References: Qualification criteria that refer to the company's reference projects will be evaluated based on the Joint Venture members combined. Therefore, reference projects from the JV Member not licensed in Montenegro can be utilized to satisfy the company qualification and technical scoring requirements.Individual Professional Licenses (CRITICAL REMINDER): Notwithstanding the company-level licensing, please be advised that all proposed individual Key and Non-Key Experts (engineers and architects) who will be actively involved in preparing and signing the design documentation must hold and provide their individual valid professional design licenses issued by the Montenegrin Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property no later than 15 October 2026. Proposing any expert (regardless of their international experience and references) who fails to obtain and submit their individual Montenegrin professional license by this deadline will result in the disqualification of the entire Proposal. 

New amendment added #3: Extension of the deadline for offer submission until 30 September 2026, 12:00h (noon), Podgorica time.

New clarification added: QUESTION: We respectfully request UNOPS to consider extending the deadline for submission of proposals for the above-mentioned tender.Due to the complexity and scope of the tender requirements, additional time would be highly beneficial to ensure that our proposal is fully compliant, comprehensive, and of the highest possible quality. In particular, the preparation of the submission requires substantial coordination among several technical and administrative teams, as well as the collection, verification, and consolidation of the required supporting documentation.Furthermore, additional time would allow us to conduct the necessary internal technical reviews and ensure that all aspects of the proposal, including the methodology, work plan, resource allocation, and financial offer, are carefully assessed and aligned with the requirements of the tender documents.We believe that a reasonable extension of the submission deadline would contribute to a more competitive and better-prepared procurement process, allowing all interested bidders sufficient time to submit complete and carefully considered proposals, while also reducing the risk of omissions or administrative inconsistencies.In view of the above, we kindly request UNOPS to consider extending the current submission deadline by [7/10/14] calendar days, or for such additional period as UNOPS may deem appropriate.We highly appreciate your consideration of this request and remain fully committed to submitting a strong and compliant proposal within the revised deadline.Thank you for your time and consideration.ANSWER: Dear bidder, please note that the deadline for offer submission will be extended. The new deadline for offer submission will be 30 September 2026, 12:00h (noon), Podgorica time.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Can students enter and exit the cluster through the cloakroom area, continuing directly into the shared multifunctional space and classrooms, without the need for a separate corridor or additional circulation route?ANSWER: Please find below the official clarification regarding the design, positioning, and circulation flow of the cluster cloakrooms:Primary Circulation Route: No, it is not permitted for students to use the cloakroom itself as the primary or sole transit corridor to enter and exit the cluster. In accordance with Section 2.5.1.5 (Cloakrooms) of the Terms of Reference (ToR), cloakrooms must be designed as enclosed spaces that can be locked for safety, security, and fire protection reasons. Consequently, the cloakroom cannot function as an open circulation area or a mandatory walkthrough zone, as locking it would block the primary entrance and evacuation route of the cluster.Functional and Circulation Requirements:Central Zone Access: Direct access to the cloakroom from the central communication area (e.g., the main staircase) is not mandatory, but represents a functional advantage.Main Cluster Entrance: It is acceptable to provide direct entry/exit to the cloakroom from the central communication zone, leading into the cluster. However, the main entrance to the cluster must remain separate and clearly defined, as it serves not only students but also teaching staff and visitors.Spatial Differentiation: Physical barriers (such as partition walls) between the circulation/communication paths and the multifunctional areas of the cluster are generally not desirable.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Clarification Request – Engagement of Key Expert No. 2 as an Individual Sub-consultantWith reference to Section II – Qualification Criteria, which states that sub-consulting/sub-contracting is allowed and that the Offeror may engage “any company or individual” as a sub-consultant, please confirm that Key Expert No. 2 – Structural/Civil Engineer may be proposed as an individual sub-consultant who is not employed by any member of the Joint Venture at the time of proposal submission.In such case, please confirm whether it is acceptable for the proposed expert to be included in Schedule 4.4 – Key Personnel, Schedule 4.5 – Organizational Structure and Schedule 4.6 – Sub-consultants, supported by the required CV, diploma, licence, references and a duly signed Form 0.6 – Statement of Exclusivity and Availability, while the formal individual consultancy/sub-consultancy agreement would be concluded upon contract award.Please also confirm whether any additional commitment letter or contractual document between the Offeror and the proposed individual expert is required at proposal submission stage.ANSWER: At the Proposal Submission Stage (Tender Stage):Yes, it is permitted to propose Key Expert No. 2 (Structural/Civil Engineer) as an individual expert who is not currently employed by the Offeror or any member of the Joint Venture at the time of proposal submission.In this case, it is fully acceptable and required to list the expert in Schedule 4.4 (Key Personnel) and Schedule 4.5 (Organizational Structure). If the expert is proposed as an independent consultant, they should also be listed in Schedule 4.6 (Sub-consultants).The proposal must be supported by the expert’s CV, university diploma, valid personal professional license, reference letters, and a duly signed Form 0.6 (Statement of Exclusivity and Availability) all in accordance with the tender requirements.No additional commitment letter or formal contractual agreement between the Offeror and the proposed individual expert is required at the proposal submission stage. Form 0.6 serves as the official commitment of availability and exclusivity for this tender.At the Contract Implementation Stage:Offerors are strongly reminded of the strict licensing and employment requirements under the Montenegrin Law on Construction of Structures (Zakon o izgradnji objekata, Official Gazette of Montenegro, No. 019/25 and subsequent amendments).Pursuant to Articles 76 and 107 of the Law, the preparation, signing, and stamping of technical documentation can only be executed by a licensed design company. A corporate license is granted and maintained by the Ministry strictly on the basis of having the relevant licensed engineer employed on a full-time, indefinite basis. An individual physical person (fizičko lice) cannot legally sign or stamp design documents independently without being backed by a licensed corporate entity.Consequently, upon contract award, the selected Consultant must ensure that Key Expert No. 2 is engaged in accordance with relevant Montenegrin legislation.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Subject: Follow-up clarification request regarding language and translation requirements for Company and Personnel reference supporting evidenceQuestion:We highly appreciate your previous clarification stating that official supporting documents (corporate registry extracts, financial statements, diplomas, and engineering licenses) originally issued in local regional languages (Montenegrin/Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian/Macedonian) do not require translation.To ensure absolute compliance, could you please clarify if this same rule applies to the supporting evidence submitted alongside the Template of reference letter for both the Company and the proposed Experts? Specifically, are copies of reference letters issued by clients, completion certificates, contracts, or invoices that were originally issued in Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, or Macedonian also fully accepted without any English translation?ANSWER: Yes, the same applies to copies of reference letters issued by clients, completion certificates, contracts, or invoices that were originally issued in Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, or Macedonian, and they will be accepted without any English translation. For other foreign companies and languages, the bidder's standard, non-certified English translation (internal company translation) is acceptable, along with copies of the original documents.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Subject: Clarification request regarding language requirements and official translation certification for supporting documentsQuestion:Regarding the submission of legal, financial, and professional supporting documents (such as corporate registry extracts, financial statements, diplomas, and engineering licenses) that are originally issued in the local language (Montenegrin/Serbian), could you please clarify the exact translation requirements:Is it mandatory for all official supporting documents to be accompanied by a certified translation into English stamped and signed by an official sworn court translator (sudski tumač)?Alternatively, is it acceptable for the bidding company to provide a standard, non-certified English translation (internal company translation) along with the copies of the original local documetANSWER: Regarding the submission of legal, financial, and professional supporting documents (such as corporate registry extracts, financial statements, diplomas, and engineering licenses) that are originally issued in the local language (Montenegrin/Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian/Macedonian), translation is not required. For other foreign companies and languages, the bidder's standard non-certified English translation (internal company translation) is acceptable, along with copies of the original local documents.

New clarification added: QUESTION: In accordance with the requirements stating that the bidder is responsible for providing additional aerial imagery, we would like to ask whether any higher-resolution photographs from your documentation are available and, if so, whether you could kindly share them with us.We are referring to the file “ToR_Blok 35-36 Primary School.Rev.2.”ANSWER: Photographs are available in the “Site photos” section of the ToR. Additional photographs are available at this link:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ufGBSSATgkj5d_zU2ZIRI16fhOlAKZp4 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Considering that Annex 3 defines that the construction of basement levels is permitted, provided that they do not rise above the relevant 0.00 m ground level, is it permitted to design a sports hall/gymnasium with the floor level located at -1 level, with a minimum clear height of 7.00 m, resulting in the sports hall volume rising above the relevant ground level?If this is permitted, should Level -1 in such a case be considered and designated as a basement or a semi-basement?ANSWER: The sports hall can be designed as a double-height volume starting at Level -1, as the restriction on basement levels strictly applies to the structural ceiling slab of the rest of the basement floorplate, which must remain at or below the 0.00 m level.Additionally, if the sports hall is positioned at Level -1 (basement), only its double-height air space (void) is present on Level 0 (ground floor). Consequently, the floor area of the sports hall is calculated and accounted for strictly within the floor area of Level -1 (basement), with no area duplicated or calculated on Level 0.Since the primary structural ceiling of the level remains at or below the 0.00 m level, the entire story legally retains its designation as a basement under local spatial planning regulations.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Could you please clarify what documentation and qualifications are required for the fire protection specialist and the surveyor under this tender?Specifically, we would appreciate it if you could provide details on the required certificates, licenses, professional qualifications, experience, and any other supporting documentation that must be submitted for each position.ANSWER: As per Section II, 2. Qualification Criteria (Article 7. Staffing) of this RFP, the positions of Fire Protection Specialist and Surveyor are NOT requested, will not be evaluated, or scored.Bidders are required to submit resumes and qualification documents strictly for the following four (4) designated profiles evaluated under the tender:Key Expert No. 1: Lead Architect (KE1),Key Expert No. 2: Structural/Civil Engineer (KE2),Non-Key Expert No. 1: Electrical Engineer-High Voltage Installations(NKE1),Non-Key Expert No. 2: Mechanical Engineer (NKE2).

New clarification added: Question:With reference to RFP/2026/63341 – Newly Built Elementary School in Blok 35–36, Podgorica, and the current proposal submission deadline of 21 September 2026, we kindly request UNOPS to consider a further extension of the submission deadline by two weeks, until 5 October 2026.We highly appreciate the previous extension of the submission deadline. However, after the current submission deadline of 21 September 2026 had already been established, UNOPS issued additional clarifications and revised tender documents which materially affect the basis on which the Technical Proposal, and particularly the required Conceptual Solution, must be finalized.These subsequent clarifications and revisions concern, among other matters:the applicable design and regulatory requirements reflected in the revised Terms of Reference;revisions and clarifications concerning the School Premises Programme, spatial requirements and functional parameters; andfurther clarification of requirements directly affecting the organization, development and verification of the architectural and site-planning solution.In particular, the subsequently issued revised Terms of Reference and revised School Premises Programme, together with the additional clarifications published during the tender procedure, require Offerors to reassess and coordinate several interrelated aspects of the proposed Conceptual Solution.This is particularly relevant considering the significance of the Conceptual Solution within the evaluation methodology. Under the RFP, the Proposed Methodology, Approach and Implementation Plan carries 42 technical points, of which 40 points relate directly to the Conceptual Solution itself. Its evaluation covers, among other aspects, the architectural concept and functional organization, pedagogical and cluster requirements, materialization, sustainability, investment cost estimate, urban integration, detailed site organization, landscape and open-space design, floor plans, sections and elevations, visualizations, and verification of spatial and programme compliance.Furthermore, the required submission is substantial in scope and includes detailed site and landscape plans, floor plans of all designed levels, sections, elevations, area schedules, 3D visualizations and photomontage, as well as DWG files overlaid on the provided geodetic baseline for verification of spatial dimensions, urban planning parameters and compliance with the School Premises Programme.Consequently, subsequent changes and clarifications affecting the spatial programme, functional requirements, site organization and applicable design parameters may require corresponding review and adjustment of several mutually dependent elements of the Conceptual Solution, rather than merely administrative amendments to the proposal documentation.Considering the cumulative effect of the revisions and clarifications issued after the current submission deadline had already been established, we believe that an additional period would allow all interested Offerors to properly incorporate the latest requirements and finalize coordinated, technically mature and fully compliant Conceptual Solutions.We also believe that providing this additional period would be in the best interest of the procurement process itself, as it would enable all participating Offerors to further develop, coordinate and refine their Conceptual Solutions against the latest clarified requirements. In our view, this would result in higher-quality Technical Proposals and stronger architectural solutions across the competition as a whole, thereby providing the Evaluation Committee with a better basis for a meaningful comparison of the submitted proposals and ultimately supporting the selection of the solution that best meets the functional, technical and architectural objectives of the Project.Such an extension would therefore support not only fair competition, but also the overall quality of the procurement outcome, particularly considering the substantial weight assigned to the Conceptual Solution in the technical evaluation.We therefore kindly request UNOPS to consider extending the proposal submission deadline from:21 September 2026to:5 October 2026.We believe that the requested two-week extension is reasonable and proportionate to the scope and complexity of the required Conceptual Solution and the cumulative impact of the subsequent revisions and clarifications, while still maintaining sufficient time before the anticipated commencement of the assignment.We would highly appreciate UNOPS's consideration of this request.Answer:Thank you for your formal request and for sharing your comprehensive feedback regarding the proposal submission deadline and the cumulative impact of the subsequent tender revisions and clarifications.We fully understand the technical and coordination efforts required to finalize a high-quality Conceptual Solution in accordance with the updated Terms of Reference and School Premises Programme.Please be advised that your request for a deadline extension is currently being taken into consideration and is under formal review by the UNOPS management and evaluation team.In line with our principles of transparency and equal treatment of all bidders, any official decision regarding the extension of the deadline will be formally communicated to all registered participants through the UNOPS eSourcing and UNGM portals. Should the deadline be extended, the system will be officially updated with the new submission date.We kindly ask for your patience during this brief review process, and we advise all bidders to closely monitor the UNOPS eSourcing and UNGM portals for the official notification and any forthcoming amendments.

New clarification added: Question:Under Section II, Schedule 4.8 (Insurance Details) on page 28, the bidding documents state that the Offeror must submit either a copy of a valid insurance policy OR a confirmation letter.Could you please officially confirm that submitting a Confirmation Letter on the Offeror's memorandum—stating that the required Professional Indemnity Insurance policy will be obtained and provided upon contract award—is fully sufficient and compliant at the bid submission stage, and that no actual insurance policy needs to be enclosed with the technical proposal ?Answer:As stated in the tender criterion, the bidders should provide either a copy of a valid insurance policy OR a Confirmation Letter on the Offeror's memorandum, stating that the required Professional Indemnity Insurance policy will be obtained and provided upon contract award. The bidders are requested to provide one of the requested options.

New clarification added: Questions:1. Following the requirements stipulated under Section II, 2. Qualification Criteria and Part 3 (Key Personnel Proposed), we would like to request clarification on the acceptable legal frameworks for engaging the required engineering experts:Acceptability of Service Contracts (Ugovor o delu): Is it fully acceptable under this tender for the Offeror to engage the required engineers (e.g., Structural, Mechanical, and Electrical Engineers) as individual physical persons via Service Contracts / Authorship Contracts (Ugovor o delu / Ugovor o autorskom delu) in accordance with the local labor and civil laws?2. Contracting Authority of the Local Branch Office: If individual engineers are engaged via Service Contracts (Ugovor o delu), is it acceptable for these contracts to be legally concluded and signed by the Offeror’s registered Branch Office in Montenegro (Ogranak/Dio stranog društva)?3. Requirements for Subcontracting Companies: Alternatively, if the Offeror decides to engage these experts through a Subcontracting Company (Sub-consultant) that officially provides its employed staff to the Offeror's team, is that subcontracting company strictly required to submit documents to satisfy the formal and qualification criteria (such as company financial turnover, tax clearance certificates, or corporate background checks) ? Or are such qualification checks applied exclusively to the main Offeror, while the sub-consulting firm is evaluated solely based on the CVs and professional licenses of the proposed experts?Answer (for items 1 & 2):Regarding the acceptable legal frameworks for engaging engineering experts and the legal authority of registered Branch Offices in Montenegro, please be advised that UNOPS, as the Contracting Authority, cannot provide definitive or binding legal interpretations of Montenegrin national legislation.Please adhere to relevant Montenegrin legislation and seek formal guidance from the competent national authorities (such as the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property or the Professional Engineering Chambers of Montenegro). The Offeror bears the sole responsibility to ensure that their proposed Joint Venture and staffing setup fully comply with these national regulations.Answer (for item 3):Under this RFP, corporate qualification criteria (such as minimum company financial turnover, years of continuous registration, and company reference projects) apply strictly to the Offeror (or JV partners combined, where applicable). Subcontracting companies (sub-consultants) proposed are not required to submit corporate financial statements, tax clearance certificates, or satisfy these corporate qualification thresholds.However, please be advised of the following requirements regarding sub-consultants:Licencing: In accordance with relevant national legislation, the legal entity's license must also be regulated and, in accordance with tender criteria, obtained by October 15, 2026.Eligibility Compliance: In accordance with Section 6.5.3.5 of the UNOPS Procurement Manual, any proposed sub-consultant company must satisfy the standard eligibility criteria (e.g., must not have any conflict of interest, must not be on any UN/UNOPS ineligibility or suspension list).Declaration: The sub-consultant company must be formally declared in Schedule 4.6 [Sub-consultants].Expert Evaluation: The experts provided by the sub-consultant company will be evaluated and scored strictly based on tender criteria, their individual CVs, professional reference projects, and the mandatory requirement to obtain and submit valid individual Montenegrin professional design licenses by the deadline of 15 October 2026.

New clarification added: Question: Signing Authority for Templates: Who is the required signing and stamping authority for the Template of reference letter for Consultant_Company and the Template of reference letter for Key personnel? Must these specific templates be signed/stamped by the end-client/investor, or are they intended to be filled out and signed by the Offeror (bidding company) as a summary schedule?ANSWER: Please find the requested clarification regarding the signing and stamping authority for the reference templates below:Template of reference letter for Consultant_Company: This template is to be signed and stamped by the authorized representative of the bidding company (Offeror).Template of reference letter for Key personnel: This template is to be signed by the individual expert to whom the references relate.Mandatory Supporting Proof: Please be advised that regardless of whether the reference is submitted for the company or for an individual expert, the completed templates alone are not sufficient to establish compliance. Bidders must attach independent supporting documentation (proof) certified/issued by the end-client (investor or employer) for whom the reference project was executed.As specified in the tender documentation, acceptable supporting proof includes any of the following:A copy of the contract for the preparation of technical documentation, ORA copy of an invoice, ORA separate reference letter issued and signed by the client/investor, ORA positive report of the reviewer (izvještaj revidenta).Therefore, while the templates themselves are signed by the bidding company's representative or the expert respectively, they must be accompanied by client-certified/issued proofs for each project listed.Question: Acceptability of Existing Client Certificates as Supporting Evidence: If the Offeror already possess a standard Reference Letter / Certificate of Completion issued, signed, and stamped by the Client/Investor after project completion—which explicitly contains all relevant project data (such as project scope, exact role, dates, and Gross Floor Area - GFA)—is such a document fully acceptable as valid proof alongside the Template of reference letter for Consultant Company?ANSWER: We confirm that the reference templates (both Template of reference letter for Consultant_Company and Template of reference letter for Key personnel) serve as standardized summary tables designed to consolidate all claimed reference projects and their key parameters (such as Gross Floor Area, exact roles, and timelines) in one place for the evaluation team.However, the completed templates alone are not sufficient. Bidders must submit both the completed, signed template and the mandatory supporting documentation (proof) to verify the claims made in the summary table.As specified in the "Acceptable proof" section at the bottom of both templates, the supporting documentation is mandatory and can be any of the following:A copy of the contract for the preparation of technical documentation, ORA copy of an invoice, ORA separate reference letter/certificate issued, signed, and stamped by the client/investor, ORA positive report of the reviewer (izvještaj revidenta).Therefore, submitting an existing standard reference letter issued by your client is fully acceptable as the required supporting proof, but it must accompany the completed and signed UNOPS template. Both documents must be provided to establish compliance.Question: Mandatory Supporting Evidence for Key and Non-Key Experts: We note that the Template of reference letter is required for both Key and Non-Key Experts. However, unlike the Company section, the bidding documents do not explicitly list what additional supporting evidence (e.g., copies of contracts, invoices, or client reference letters) must accompany the Template of reference letter for Key personnel. Could you please clarify if a signed and stamped Reference Letter from the end-client/investor is strictly mandatory for all Experts, or is it sufficient to submit only the completed template and the CV with verifiable client contact details?ANSWER: We confirm that submitting only the completed Template of reference letter and the CV with client contact details is not sufficient.Just like the Company section, the completed Template of reference letter for Key personnel must be accompanied by valid, independent supporting evidence (proof) to verify the references claimed in the summary table.In accordance with the "Acceptable proof" section at the bottom of the Template of reference letter for Key personnel, bidders must submit at least one of the following documents for each claimed project to establish compliance:A copy of the contract for the preparation of technical documentation, ORA copy of an invoice, ORA separate reference letter issued, signed, and stamped by the client/investor, ORA positive report of the reviewer (izvještaj revidenta).Please be advised that the submitted supporting documentation must clearly and explicitly demonstrate the proposed expert's individual role and personal involvement in the referenced project, in strict alignment with the required technical criteria (e.g., leading the preparation of technical documentation as Lead Architect, structural design as Responsible Engineer, etc.).The supporting proof itself must clearly identify the proposed expert by name and surname and confirm their specific professional capacity and leading role in the preparation of that technical documentation.The relationship between the expert, their specific role, and the project must be easily legible and directly verifiable by the Evaluation Commission. Supporting documents that do not explicitly link the individual expert to the specified role on the project will not be considered compliant. 

New clarification added: Question: 1. Subject: Clarification request regarding Technical Criteria, Part 1 (Offeror’s capacity and expertise)Under Technical Criteria, Part 1, there is a note stating: "One reference can be used for multiple criteria elements." Could you please confirm if this means that a single reference project can be submitted and evaluated simultaneously under multiple sub-criteria within Part 1, provided that the project meets the individual requirements of each sub-criteria section?ANSWER: We confirm that your interpretation is correct. In accordance with the tender documentation under Technical Criteria, Part 1 (Offeror’s capacity and expertise), specifically within sub-criterion 1.2, it is noted that "One reference can be used for multiple criteria elements".This means that a single reference project may indeed be submitted and evaluated simultaneously under multiple sub-criteria within Part 1 (such as sub-criterion 1.1 and sub-criterion 1.2), provided that the reference project fully meets the specific and individual requirements of each respective sub-criteria section.2. Clarification request regarding Technical Criteria, Part 3 (Key personnel proposed)Under Technical Criteria, Part 3, there is a note stating: "One reference CANNOT be used for multiple criteria elements." Could you please clarify if this means that an expert must provide entirely separate and distinct reference projects for each sub-criteria element within Part 3 to achieve the maximum points, meaning that no single project can score points in more than one sub-criteria category for that specific expert?ANSWER: We confirm that your interpretation is correct.Under Technical Criteria, Part 3 (Key personnel proposed), specifically within sub-criterion 3.1 for Key Expert No. 1 - Lead Architect, the note stating "One reference CANNOT be used for multiple criteria elements" means that a single reference project cannot be evaluated or used to score points under more than one sub-criteria category (element) for that specific expert.The sub-criteria elements under sub-criterion 3.1 include:Newly constructed educational facility with GFA less than 2,000 m²,Newly constructed educational facility with GFA over 2,000 m²,Adaptation or Reconstruction of an educational facility with GFA over 2,000 m²,High-rise buildings with GFA over 2,000 m².A single reference project (for example, a newly constructed school of 3,500 m²) cannot be used to obtain points under Category 2 (educational facility over 2,000 m²) and simultaneously under Category 4 (high-rise building over 2,000 m²), even though it technically meets the definition of both. Bidders must allocate each reference project to only one specific category under which it will be evaluated and scored.Therefore, to achieve the maximum points under Part 3, entirely separate and distinct reference projects must be provided for each individual sub-criteria element. No single project can score points in more than one category for that specific expert.Question 3: Clarification request regarding the cross-use of reference projects between Company Capacity and Key PersonnelCould you please clarify whether a reference project submitted to demonstrate the Company’s capacity and expertise under Part 1 can also be used as a reference project to score points for Key Personnel under Part 3, provided that the proposed expert held the required role on that project? Or is it required that the reference projects for the Company and the Key Personnel be entirely distinct from one another?ANSWER: We confirm that bidders are permitted to utilize the same reference project to demonstrate both the Company’s capacity and expertise (under Part 1) and the experience of a proposed Key Expert (under Part 3), provided that all individual requirements for both sections are fully satisfied.Question 4: Clarification request regarding the reuse of reference projects between Qualification Criteria and Technical CriteriaCould you please clarify whether a reference project submitted to meet the mandatory Qualification Criteria (pass/fail elimination requirements) can also be reused and evaluated under the Technical Criteria to score points? Or must the projects used to satisfy the mandatory qualification requirements be completely separate from the projects used for technical evaluation and scoring?ANSWER: Whether a reference project used to meet the mandatory Qualification Criteria (pass/fail) can be reused under the Technical Criteria to score points depends on the specific rules established for each evaluation section.For Company Capacity and Experience (Technical Criteria, Part 1):Under sub-criterion 1.1, points are awarded only for "each subsequent Final Design". Therefore, the specific reference project submitted to meet the mandatory Qualification Criteria (the baseline pass/fail requirement of at least one project) cannot be reused to score points under sub-criterion 1.1.However, that same project may be reused to score points under sub-criterion 1.2 (Specific experience of the company for Public/Educational facilities)., provided it meets the parameters of that sub-criterion. This is compliant with the note under Part 1 which states: "One reference can be used for multiple criteria elements".For Proposed Key Personnel (Technical Criteria, Part 3):Under sub-criterion 3.1 (Key Expert No. 1 - Lead Architect), additional points are awarded only for "each additional newly constructed educational facility". Therefore, the reference project submitted to satisfy the mandatory minimum qualification requirement for the Lead Architect cannot be reused to score points in this category. Bidders must demonstrate experience beyond the mandatory baseline to receive additional technical points.Additionally, in accordance with the strict instructions under Part 3, "One reference CANNOT be used for multiple criteria elements". This means that a single reference project cannot be split, double-counted, or evaluated across different technical scoring categories for the proposed expert.Question 5: Clarification request regarding Corporate and Professional Licenses for Sub-consultantsAccording to Amendment No. 4, sub-contracting is allowed for all positions except Key Expert No. 1, and all engineers must provide valid licenses issued by the Ministry of Montenegro no later than 15 October 2026. Could you please clarify if a sub-consulting company, whose individual experts are nominated for the project, must also possess a valid corporate design license issued by the Montenegrin Ministry?ANSWER: Yes, we confirm that any sub-consulting company whose individual experts are nominated to perform design services for this project must also possess a valid company design license (license for the preparation of technical documentation) issued by the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property of Montenegro.The following must be provided by the established deadline (no later than 15 October 2026).

New clarification added: Question: Could you please confirm whether the greenery on the flat roofs above the upper floors can also be included in the calculation of the required total percentage of green areas on the plot (40%)?ANSWER: For the preparation of the design, it is sufficient for the bidder to ensure that a minimum of 40% greenery is achieved within the boundaries of the urban parcel. The administration does not wish to restrict the designer’s professional scope by predetermining the exact layout of the green spaces, nor will we dictate on which specific parts of the roofs or terraces the ground-level greenery deficit should be compensated.However, please be advised of the following mandatory guidelines:- The green areas must be designed in strict accordance with the issued Urban-Technical Conditions (UTU), the Detailed Urban Plan (DUP) "Blok 35-36", and the valid national legal regulations. This is essential as the final Concept Design (Idejno rješenje) must obtain official consent from the Chief State Architect.- When designing the landscape, bidders must carefully consider the economic viability and long-term maintenance of the facility. Therefore, it is highly recommended to achieve the largest possible percentage of greenery directly on the ground (natural soil), to avoid unnecessary inflation of the investment cost due to the implementation of expensive, high-maintenance intensive green roofs.

New clarification added: QUESTION: Under the Qualification Criteria, it is stated that a "Copy of Certificate of Incorporation/Business Registration" must be submitted.Could you please clarify which specific document you require? Do you mean:the company registration certificate,the tax identification number (TIN) certificate, oran extract from the Central Register of Business Entities?ANSWER: Bidder should provide a copy of the company registration certificate issued by the relevant Business registration agency of the respective country. (document where could be seen the date of establishment of the company, address, PIB, VAT number...

New clarification added: QUESTION: We kindly request clarification regarding the submission requirements for educational diplomas and professional certificates for the proposed Key Personnel, as the responses published in the latest clarification document appear to be inconsistent.Specifically:Answer A41 states that bidders are required to submit named experts, CVs, and educational diplomas/certificates for all three experience levels (Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3).Answers A56 and A62 state that copies of academic diplomas, professional certificates, membership certificates, and reference letters are not required at the proposal stage, and that completion of Schedule 0.5 and the UNOPS CV template is sufficient.Answer A64 further states that bidders may combine all completed CVs and their corresponding certificates into a single file or upload each expert's CV package separately, which again implies that certificates should accompany the CVs.In view of these contradictory responses, we would appreciate your confirmation of the following:At the proposal submission stage, are bidders required to submit copies of the academic diplomas and professional certificates of the proposed Key Personnel, or is the completed UNOPS CV template (Schedule 0.5) sufficient, with UNOPS reserving the right to verify qualifications during the evaluation process?We would appreciate a definitive clarification so that all bidders can prepare compliant and consistent submissions.Thank you for your clarification.ANSWER: Please note that your observation and questions regarding the stipulated answers and "Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3" experience levels do not apply to this specific Request for Proposal (RFP). We would like to clarify that the requirements for the submission of documentation for proposed personnel are strictly defined in the tender documentation.At the proposal submission stage, the completed CV alone is not sufficient. Bidders are strictly required to submit all supporting documentation for all proposed Key and Non-Key Experts (Lead Architect, Structural/Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, and Mechanical Engineer).According to Section II: Evaluation Method and Criteria, within both the Qualification Criteria table and Part 3: Key personnel proposed, the following documents must be submitted to establish compliance for each proposed expert:Copy of diploma of University degree.CV, clearly demonstrating relevant professional experience in line with the requirements of the ToR.Copy of the Valid license (or equivalent document) for the preparation of technical documentation and execution of works, issued by the relevant institution.Template of reference letter for Key personnel, demonstrating the required experience and projects.Form 0.6. - Statement of Exclusivity and Availability.Therefore, you must submit copies of the academic diplomas, professional certificates/licenses, and reference letters alongside the CVs in your proposal submission to be considered substantially compliant. 

New amendment added #2: 1. ToR_Blok 35-36 Primary School_Rev1.- In Article 1 Applicable Regulations, Codes and Standards, the following was added: "Rulebook on the Method of Preparation and Content of Technical Documentation (“Official Gazette of Montenegro”, No. 084/26 from 16.06.2026)"- In Article 3 Design Proposals, 1.1. Subject of the ToR, the following was added: "Rulebook on Detailed Conditions for the Establishment of Institutions in the Field of Education and Upbringing ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro", No. 40/06 of June 22, 2006, "Official Gazette of Montenegro", No. 42/26 of March 25, 2026, No. 95/2026 of 11.07.2026.)" AND "Rulebook on the Method of Preparation and Content of Technical Documentation for the Construction of Structures ("Official Gazette of Montenegro", No. 084/26 from 16.06.2026.)"- In Article 3 Design Proposals, 1.2. Goal and Purpose of Developing the Technical Documentation, the following was added: "As part of the final design, the designer is obliged to prepare all textual, graphic, and numerical documentation with the necessary content from which the dimensions of all elements, applied materials, structural system, structural protection elements, static and dynamic stability, and safety of the building can be clearly understood, all in accordance with the Rulebook on the Method of Preparation and Content of Technical Documentation for the Construction of Structures ("Official Gazette of Montenegro", No. 19/25, No. 084/26 from 16.06.2026.)."- In Article 3 Design Proposals, 1.3. Baseline Documentation for the Technical Documentation Provided by the Investor, the following was added: "Rulebook on Detailed Conditions for the Establishment of Institutions in the Field of Education and Upbringing ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro", No. 40/06 of June 22, 2006, "Official Gazette of Montenegro", No. 42/26 of March 25, 2026, No. 95/2026 of 11.07.2026.),"- In Article 3 Design Proposals, 2.4. Functional Aspects, 2.4.2. Teaching Space in Relation to Pedagogical Concept and Cluster System, the following was added: "NOTE: While 60 m² is the legal minimum for homeroom classrooms, applying 65 m² is highly preferable. It is strongly encouraged to use the 65 m² area during design development in order to achieve the optimal spatial, functional, and pedagogical standard specifically intended for this facility."2. Annex 4 - School premises program Blok 35-36_Rev.1.- In School Premises program tab, the following was added: "NOTE: While 60 m² is the legal minimum for homeroom classrooms, applying 65 m² is highly preferable. It is strongly encouraged to use the 65 m² area during design development in order to achieve the optimal spatial, functional, and pedagogical standard specifically intended for this facility."3. To avoid any confusion and ensure consistency in the documents, homebase and homeroom present the same room and, as of now, will be titled homeroom in the documents. ToR_Blok 35-36 Primary School_Rev.2. and Annex 4 - School premises program Blok 35-36_Rev.2. documents have been uploaded in the tender "Documents" section. All changes in the revised documents are marked in RED.  

New clarification added: QUESTION: We kindly request clarification regarding the required classroom area.The ToR specifies that classrooms should have an area of 60 m², while Annex 4, in the table, indicates an area of 65 m².Could you please advise which area should be used when preparing the conceptual design? Additionally, please clarify whether a classroom area within the range of 60–65 m² would be considered acceptable, or whether one of the specified values should be applied.Thank you in advance for your clarification.ANSWER: As per relevant Montenegrin legislation, minimum classroom area is 60 m². The proposed classroom area within the range of 60-65 m² is acceptable and will be considered compliant with tender requirements.However, please note that while 60 m² is the legal minimum, applying 65 m² is highly preferable. Bidders are strongly encouraged to use the 65 m² area when preparing their conceptual design in order to achieve the optimal spatial, functional, and pedagogical standard specifically intended for this facility.As previously clarified, any variations in room sizes must be functionally justified, consider the economic efficiency of the investment, and must not cause the overall building to exceed the maximum permitted Gross Building Area (BRGP).ToR_Blok 35-36 Primary School.Rev.1 and Annex 4 - School premises program_Blok 35-36  will be changed by adding a special note to confirm the above answer and ToR_Blok 35-36 Primary School.Rev.2. and Annex 4 - School premises program_Blok 35-36_Rev. 2 documents will be uploaded in the tender Documents section. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: The revised Annex 4 (School Premises Programme) indicates that the values shown in blue are input data that may be changed. Please confirm the extent to which the individual room areas may be adjusted, for example, may the competitor increase or decrease the net areas of individual spaces relative to those stated in Annex 4 or should they be followed exactly as they are, for example, enlarging a cluster's multifunctional area beyond the scheduled figure, where this improves the spatial and functional organisation of the design?ANSWER: The values shown in blue in Annex 4 (School Premises Programme) represent the minimum required net areas for individual spaces, which correspond directly to the functional and pedagogical requirements set out in the Terms of Reference (ToR).Therefore, you may not decrease the net areas of individual spaces below the figures stated in Annex 4.While you are permitted to increase the net areas of specific spaces (such as enlarging a cluster's multifunctional area) if it is functionally justified, you must carefully consider the economic efficiency of the investment, as well as the planned overall net and gross building areas. Significant deviations from the target areas defined in Annex 4 could negatively impact the economic viability of the project and lead to the creation of unnecessary spatial capacities.Therefore, although increasing the area of individual spaces is allowed when it improves the spatial and functional organization of your design, as a rule, significant enlargements are neither necessary nor desirable. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: Considering that in one of the previous responses it was stated that cadastral parcel KP 4533/2 is NOT part of the site designated for the design and construction of the school building, we kindly request clarification on the following:Is it permitted to construct the building up to the parcel boundary (i.e., the boundary between parcels KP 4533/1 and KP 4533/2), or is it necessary to set the building line back 5 meters from the boundary of parcel KP 4533/2?ANSWER: Since the Terms of Reference (ToR) strictly limit your conceptual solution exclusively to cadastral parcel KP 4533/1, your building footprint must simultaneously respect the following spatial and safety constraints:It must not exceed the official Building Line (GL1).It must remain entirely within the boundaries of cadastral parcel KP 4533/1.It must provide sufficient space between the newly designed building and the boundary of the adjacent cadastral parcel KP 4533/2 (which is currently not in Ministry’s ownership) to accommodate a fire access road and allow the unhindered passage of fire engines.Therefore, in the areas towards the front edge where the official GL1 falls outside of your designated location and crosses into KP 4533/2, the cadastral boundary of KP 4533/1 acts as the strict absolute limit for your design scope. However, instead of positioning the building right up to the boundary of KP 4533/1 in that area, you must ensure an adequate setback from the boundary of KP 4533/2 to leave room for the mandatory fire access route. You must not cross the cadastral boundary, nor may you place any architectural elements or access roads on KP 4533/2.

New clarification added: Question regarding the location: The school building is being built on cadastral plot 4533/1, in this regard we are working on the project only on part of UP4, while cadastral plot 4533/2 is not part of our location. W are loseing part of the plot, on which it is possible to build, due to the setting of the construction line in the planning document. As was the agreement at the meeting, this part will be checked and we will get an answer as to whether it is the final parcelling, and whether we should continue with the project only on k.p. 4533/1, or k.p. 4533/2 will also be included. Until we receive this information, it is impossible to start with the project, because it is crucial for all further development of the conceptual solution.ANSWER: As established in the tender documentation and recently clarified in the amendments, the location intended for the planning of the newly designed school is defined by the Terms of Reference and consists exclusively of a part of the urban parcel UP 4, which is made up of cadastral parcel KP 4533/1.Please be advised that cadastral parcel KP 4533/2 is NOT part of the location intended for the planning of the newly designed object under this call. As previously noted, KP 4533/2 may eventually be annexed to the school complex as a schoolyard in the future, but only after the clarification of property-legal relations.Therefore, this is the final parcelling for the purpose of this tender. You should not wait for further information regarding KP 4533/2. You must proceed with the development of your conceptual solution and all further project design exclusively on cadastral plot KP 4533/1, applying the urban planning parameters and construction lines valid for that specific subject plot.  

New clarification added: QUESTION: Is it possible to provide a service entrance from the newly planned Ulica 4, on the south side of the plot, and to cross part of the plot 4533/2 (if it does not belong to our location, to request permission for access)ANSWER: Please refer to our previous clarification regarding vehicular access. The binding conditions issued by the Secretariat for Traffic (Act No. UPI 11-341/25-1526), which are an integral part of the Urban-Technical Conditions (UTU), strictly mandate that the design documentation must show the traffic connection to the contact public road of the secondary network. As established, all vehicular access to the plot, including service and delivery, must be organized exclusively from Ulica 1.

New clarification added: Question:  Governing outdoor-area standardPlease confirm the governing minimum outdoor-area standard among the ToR (≥12 m²/student), Rulebook 40/2006 Art. 76 (≥20 m²/student) and the DUP dense central-zone allowance (10–15 m²/student). The plot provides ~5,991 m² of free area (~13.3 m²/student for 450). Please also confirm whether rooftop courtyards may be counted toward this requirement, and if so additively or within the per-student total.ANSWER: An amendment to the Rulebook is currently underway, whereby the minimum school yard area will be defined as 12 m² per student. Useful areas of flat roofs intended for student activities and leisure may also be included in the calculation of the school yard area. It is necessary to ensure that the planned design solution does not exceed the maximum permitted gross building area of the facility.Question — Maximum gross building areaPlease confirm the binding maximum gross building area: the ToR states 8,454.60 m² (including usable roof areas) while the UTU/DUP state 9,678 m². Please confirm whether usable rooftop courtyards count toward the cap, and whether basement technical/plant areas are excluded from GFA (per Annex 4 item 11.14).ANSWER: Technical and mechanical rooms in the basement are excluded from the calculation of the gross building area.Useful roof courtyards are included in the maximum permitted gross building area.The permitted gross building area for the entire urban plot UP 4, which amounts to 9,678.00 m², is not relevant for the subject of this newly designed school.Given that only a part of urban plot UP 4, specifically cadastral plot number 4533/1, is owned by the Capital City of Podgorica and transferred to the Ministry of Education, Science and Innovation, the school complex should be designed exclusively on that part of the plot, applying the urban planning parameters valid for the subject cadastral plot. The maximum gross building area of the structures, which includes terraces and useful flat roofs, amounts to 8,454.60 m². 

New amendment added #1: 1. Site Visit / Pre-bid clarification meeting minutes held 01 July 2026 uploaded.2. Extension of deadline for offer submission until 21 September 2026.3. ToR_Blok 35-36 Primary School:- Article 1. Summary, 1.1 Context and background,the following was added "Specifically, the school complex should be designed exclusively on the part of the plot which is made up of cadastral parcel KP 4533/1. Cadastral parcel KP 4533/2 is NOT part of the location intended for the planning of the newly designed object. The total area of the urban parcel is 8,052 m²."- Article 3.1.1. Location and general characteristics the following was added: The school complex should be designed exclusively on the part of the plot which is made up of cadastral parcel KP 4533/1. Cadastral parcel KP 4533/2 is NOT part of the location intended for the planning of the newly designed object. The total area of the urban parcel is 8,052 m².- Article 3.6 LEGAL, the following was added:  However, the current scope of the design is limited exclusively to cadastral parcel KP 4533/1.- Article 3 DESIGN PRPOPSAL, 2.  Terms of reference (ToR) FOR THE MAIN ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING DESIGN , 2.1. Location Description: The following was added: Cadastral parcel KP 4533/2 is NOT part of the location intended for the planning of the newly designed object and may eventually, after the clarification of property-legal relations, be annexed to the school complex as a schoolyard.- Article 2.3.1. Primary School Yard Landscaping  “, with a minimum length of 110 m, and a free zone of a minimum width of 3 m around the tracks.” replaced with “. Given the physical constraints of the plot, a reduced lane length (e.g., a 60m or 80m sprint track…”- Article 2.4.1. Overview of Primary School Rooms with a Focus on the Pedagogical Concept , The following was changed: Teaching Spaces – Cluster (The school contains a total of 3 clusters) , Storage room 3 instead of 4 , Outdoor classroom 3 instead of 4, Physical Education Hall 1 instead of 2. ToR_Blok 35-36 Primary School.Rev.1 document is uploaded.4. Document 2 Section II, III, IV, V has been chanded by following: Formal and Eligibility Criteria: Insted of Letter of confirmation from the Bank it is needed to submit  free-form confirmation letter signed by the Offeror that in case the Offeror is selected a performance guarantee will be provided in the amount of 10% of the total contract amount. Qualification Criteria: The following was added: Sub consulting/sub-contracting is allowed, and the Offeror can engage as a sub-consultant any company or individual if there is a need for their services and expertise. It is not allowed to subcontract/ subconsultant only the Key Expert No. 1 - Lead Architect; Offeror must provide valid licenses issued by the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property of Montenegro, which allows them to prepare and sign the design documents, not later than 15 October 2026; Non-Key Expert No. 1 – Electrical Engineer (High Voltage Installations) is required and will be evaluated, Electrical Engineer (Low Voltage Installations) is also required to be in a team but will not be evaluated; All engineers must provide valid licenses issued by the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property of Montenegro, which allows them to prepare and sign the design documents, no later than 15 October 2026. Schedule 1 CONTRACT DETAILS: The expected commencement date is 10 November 2026; Currencies of Payment -United States dollars (USD) Only ; Proportions of Currencies 100 % in USD. ​Document 2 Section II, III, IV, V_Rev.1 has been uploaded.5. Annex 4 - School premises program Blok 35-36,  Line 12. Usable Outdoor Areas - Outdoor Classroom  4 has been deleted. Annex 4 - School premises program Blok 35-36_Rev.1. document is uploaded.6. Tender Checklist is expanded, allowing additional space for uploading the Conceptual solution filesAll changes in revised documents are marked with RED.                      

New clarification added: QUESTION:  In the file upload fields on the portal, specifically field no. 3 “Conceptual Solution prepared in line with the ToR, article 5.2.1 Technical Proposal Requirements”, the maximum allowed file size is 20MB. Considering that the tender requires submission of working files in DWG format and that the design report may contain technical drawings and visualizations, please clarify whether additional upload capacity will be provided in case the documentation exceeds the current size limit.ANSWER: Please note that the tender will be amended and the Tender Checklist section will be expanded allowing more space so you can upload alll documents. 

New clarification added: QUESTION:  Previously, we asked whether the conceptual design should comply with the requirements set out in the Urban Technical Conditions (UTU), which specify the provision of 12 parking spaces for teaching staff, or with the Terms of Reference (ToR), which state that no parking spaces are required due to the planned construction of a new access road. Also, question 2: Section 2.5.3 of the Terms of Reference (ToR) states that the sports hall should accommodate handball matches, while at the same time specifying hall dimensions of 27 × 15 m. As a standard handball court requires a playing area of 40 × 20 m, these requirements appear to be inconsistent. Could you please clarify which of these requirements should be considered the governing requirement for the conceptual design? We would appreciate it if you could confirm which requirement should be considered the governing requirement for the preparation of the conceptual design.ANSWER: Governing requirement for parking: The requirements set out in the Terms of Reference (ToR) are the governing requirements for the preparation of your conceptual design. As explicitly stated in ToR Section 2.3.2 (Recommendations for the Traffic Solution): "Given the planned public parking areas in the immediate surroundings, it is not necessary to provide parking spaces within the urban plot itself". Therefore, you are not required to design or provide parking spaces on the plot.Sports hall dimensions vs. handball court: The governing requirement for the conceptual design is the specified hall dimension of 27 × 15 m (405 m²), as defined in the room schedule in ToR Section 2.4.1. The requirement mentioned in ToR Section 2.5.3 to accommodate standard professional handball matches (which would require a 40 × 20 m playing area) is a typographical inconsistency in the text and should be disregarded. The planned dimension of 27 × 15 m fully complies with the national Rulebook on Detailed Conditions for the Establishment of Institutions in the Field of Education and Upbringing.

New clarification added: QUESTION: The schedule lists 11 homebase + 4 subject classrooms (15 general teaching rooms), plus 7 specialised classrooms and 6 group rooms. Please confirm which of these are counted as "classrooms" for the programme, and if the intended figure is 17, specify which rooms make up that count, as it does not match any single category in the schedule?ANSWER: The figure of 17 refers to the total number of class-groups (odjeljenja) per shift, not the number of physical general classrooms. The planning parameters confirm a target class-group size of 26-28 students, which totals 34 class-groups across 9 grades to accommodate the two-shift capacity of 900 students.The room distribution listed in the schedule, 11 homebase classrooms and 4 subject-specific classrooms (totaling 15 general teaching rooms), corresponds to this intended class structure.To accommodate the 17 class-groups simultaneously during a single shift, the school's daily timetable utilizes these 15 general teaching rooms in combination with the specialized classrooms (such as Science, Art, Music, etc.) and the physical education facilities. It is a standard pedagogical and scheduling practice that at any given time, while 15 class-groups are occupying the general teaching rooms, the remaining class-groups are attending specialized subjects or physical education.Additionally, because the oldest age groups operate partially under a departmental system and predominantly utilize specialized classrooms, they do not require a dedicated home classroom. 

New clarification added: QUESTION: We would appreciate your clarification regarding the preparation of the conceptual design as requested.Could you please confirm whether we should follow the requirements set out in the Urban Technical Conditions (UTU), which specify the provision of 12 parking spaces for teaching staff, or the requirements stated in the Terms of Reference (ToR), which indicate that no parking spaces are required due to the planned construction of a new access road?We would appreciate your guidance to ensure that the conceptual design is prepared in accordance with your expectations.ANSWER: Please follow the requirements stipulated in the Terms of Reference (ToR), no parking spaces are required due to the planned construction of a new access road.

New clarification added: Question 9:  — Sports sanitary and changing rooms per hallPlease confirm the sanitary and changing provision for the two physical-education halls: that each hall (divisible into two exercise spaces) is served by two gender-separated changing rooms each with a shower (four changing rooms and four showers across the two halls), with a single shared gender-divided sanitary block plus accessible WC for the sports zone, and one 60 m² equipment store per hall with direct hall access.ANSWER 9: Here, it is primarily necessary to fulfil the spatial capacities specified in section "06. Sports and Motor Skills Development" from the "Annex 4 - School premises program" document.The physical education hall, with an area of 405 m², must have two changing rooms, divided by gender, with associated shower facilities. Additionally, the hall must include one sports equipment storage room of 60 m², with direct access from the hall.The gymnastics hall is intended for younger age groups and must be directly connected to a changing room, without gender division and without shower facilities, as well as to a storage room.It is necessary to design one gender-segregated sanitary block with one toilet for persons with disabilities.QUESTION 10: — Library areaAnnex 4 (07.06) lists the library at 100 m², while the ToR specifies a minimum of 0.34 m²/student (≈153 m² for 450). Please confirm the governing figure. (We note the parallel Stari Aerodrom tender also lists 100 m².)Send if the channel allows — confirmations and administrativeANSWER 10: Spatial capacities must be planned in accordance with the requirements defined in the "Annex 4 - School premises program". The planned area of the library is 100 m².QUESTION 11:  — Technical/plant and server sizing, and basement GFA exclusionThe technical/energy plant (11.14) and server/security room (11.15) are undimensioned ("dimensioned relative to capacity"). Please confirm these are to be sized by the competitor's M&E concept, are located in the basement, and are excluded from the gross floor area.ANSWER 11:These rooms need to be sized in accordance with the mechanical and electrical installation concept proposed by the design team. If they are located in the basement, their area is not included in the gross building area of the facility.QUESTION 12:  — Competition deliverables and area-calculation methodPlease confirm the required submission deliverables (drawing list, scales, board format and count, physical/3D model and renders), the submission language, and whether area calculations must follow a specified method (e.g. MEST EN 15221-6, referenced in the UTU).ANSWER 12: Within the framework of the conceptual design, it is necessary to submit all graphical attachments provided for in the tender documentation. The documentation shall be submitted in English, and the calculation of areas must be performed in accordance with valid regulations and applicable technical standards. 

New clarification added: QUESTION 5:  — 110 m athletic lanes (geometry)The four 110 m straight athletic lanes with a 3 m surrounding free zone require ~116 m of clear length; the plot's longest dimension is ~110 m, so the lanes cannot be placed orthogonally clear of the building footprint. Please advise the acceptable resolution (diagonal alignment, reduced lane length or number, or relaxation of the length/free-zone requirement).ANSWER 5: We acknowledge the physical constraints of the urban plot UP 4, as the plot's maximum dimension makes it physically impossible to fit the required clear length orthogonally. Therefore, the requirement specified in ToR Section 2.3.1 (Primary School Yard Landscaping) for the four straight athletic lanes with a minimum length of 110 m and a 3 m surrounding free zone is formally relaxed.Bidders and designers are advised that a reduced lane length (e.g., a 60m or 80m sprint track) that safely fits within the plot boundaries is a fully acceptable resolution. Alternatively, you may propose integrating the lanes into the landscape design while relaxing the strict 3 m free-zone requirement, provided that the athletic lanes avoid any conflict with the building footprint and maintain the overall safety and functional integrity of the outdoor sports area.QUESTION 6 — Extended-day care: dedicated rooms vs. shared spacesToR 2.5.6.3 states that, given two-shift operation in Montenegro, extended-day care may be accommodated within the cluster multifunctional areas and other shared common spaces, which would avoid dedicated rooms. However, the same section and Annex 4 (block 09) require a dedicated extended-day zone with a main room of 100–130 m² plus locker, toilet and storage. Please confirm whether a dedicated extended-day care zone (≈130 m² + ancillaries) must be provided in addition to the cluster multifunctional areas, or whether the cluster shared spaces are intended to satisfy this requirement. If both are required, please clarify their relationship and whether the dedicated zone is the one later convertible to a public-events hall.ANSWER 6: Yes, a dedicated extended-day care zone (featuring a main room of 130 m² plus ancillaries such as lockers, toilets, and storage) must be provided in addition to the cluster multifunctional areas.Regarding spatial capacities, i.e., the planned rooms and their net areas, the only relevant table is Annex 4 - School premises program, which is part of the mandatory tender documentation that the Bidder must fill out.According to ToR Section 2.5.6.3, the school is planned using a transitional model to accommodate the current two-shift system in Montenegro. In this two-shift regime, the dedicated extended-day care zone is a firm requirement to accommodate students before or after their regular shift (e.g., morning shift students use the space in the afternoon and vice versa). At the same time, the cluster's multifunctional areas are intended to be utilized intensively for organized and creative activities during the students' regular shift hours. Therefore, both spaces serve distinct and necessary roles in the current operational model.Furthermore, we confirm that this dedicated extended-day care space is exactly the zone intended to be adapted into a permanent multifunctional hall for public events in the future. Once the school eventually transitions to a single-shift, all-day operational model, the daily care function will be fully integrated into the cluster system, freeing up these dedicated rooms to be consolidated into the public-events hall.For this reason, as explicitly stated in the ToR, you must give careful consideration to the clear height and acoustics of this dedicated extended-day care space to support its future conversion.

New clarification added: QUESTION 1 — Cluster count (the missing block 04)Annex 4 (School premises programme) lists three clusters (01. Cluster 1, 02. Cluster 2, 03. Cluster 3) and proceeds directly to 05. Specialized Classrooms — block 04 is absent. The 11 homebase and 4 subject classrooms are fully allocated across these three clusters (3 × 640 m²). However, ToR section 2.4.1 states the school "contains a total of 4 clusters." Please confirm whether the school comprises three or four clusters. If four, please issue the missing "04. Cluster 4" programme block (rooms and areas) or specify how the teaching rooms are to be redistributed across four clusters and the resulting area impact.ANSWER 1: The school is designed to contain a total of 3 clusters.While the header in the room schedule table in ToR Section 2.4.1 states that the school "(contains a total of 4 clusters)", please note that this is a typographical error. The correct pedagogical model and spatial distribution for this facility are based on 3 clusters. (ToR will be revised and advertised)As detailed in the exact same table in ToR Section 2.4.1, the total number of general teaching rooms is 15 (11 homebase classrooms and 4 subject-specific classrooms), which functionally distributes into 3 clusters. Furthermore, the table correctly lists the core shared spaces corresponding to this 3-cluster model (e.g., Multifunctional area: 3, Teachers' team room: 3, Cloakroom: 3, Sanitary facilities: 3).Consequently, the quantities for the "Storage room" and "Outdoor classroom", which are listed as 4 in the ToR Section 2.4.1 table, are also typographical errors and must be read as 3 to match the correct number of clusters. Please proceed with your conceptual design and spatial distribution using the 3-cluster programme block.Regarding spatial capacities, i.e., the planned rooms and their net areas, the only relevant table is Annex 4 - School premises program, which is part of the mandatory tender documentation that the Bidder must fill out.QUESTION 2 — Number of physical-education hallsAnnex 4 (06.01) specifies one Physical Education Hall (405 m², 15 × 27 m) plus one Gym room (100 m²), whereas the ToR room schedule (2.4.1) lists the Physical Education Hall as quantity 2 (2 × 405 m²). Please confirm the required number of halls. We note Rulebook 40/2006 Art. 86 requires two halls only for schools exceeding 18 class-groups; please confirm whether the 900-student two-shift capacity is intended to trigger this.ANSWER 2:Number of physical-education halls and regulatory compliance, the correct requirement for the facility is exactly as specified in Annex 4: one (1) Physical Education Hall (405 m², 15 × 27 m) and one (1) Gym room (100 m²). The quantity of 2 for the Physical Education Hall listed in the ToR room schedule (2.4.1) is a typographical error and should be disregarded. (Annex 4 will be revised and advertised) Regarding your reference to the regulatory requirements, please note that the applicable rulebook has been updated. The design must comply with the newly amended Rulebook on Detailed Conditions for the Establishment of Institutions in the Field of Education and Upbringing / Pravilnik o bližim uslovima za osnivanje ustanova u oblasti obrazovanja i vaspitanja ("Official Gazette of the Republic of Montenegro", No. 40/06, and "Official Gazette of Montenegro", No. 42/26).According to Article 86 of this Rulebook, a primary school with more than 18 class-groups (odjeljenja) must have two halls: one larger hall (minimum dimensions 26 m x 15 m) and one smaller hall (60-70 m²) suitable for the curriculum of the first cycle and parts of the other two cycles.Since the planned capacity for this school is 900 students across 34 total class-groups (17 class-groups per shift), the school significantly exceeds the 18 class-group threshold. Therefore, the provision of the 405 m² Physical Education Hall alongside the 100 m² Gym room is specifically intended to trigger and satisfy this regulatory requirement for a two-hall system.QUESTION 3: — Class size and per-grade enrolmentPlease confirm the planning class-group size (25 or 30 students) and the number of class-groups (odjeljenja) per grade for the 450-student single-shift / 900 two-shift capacity. Annex 4 distributes 11 homebase + 4 subject classrooms; please confirm this corresponds to the intended class structure.ANSWER 3: The planning parameters for the school capacities are confirmed as follows: the target class-group size is 26-28 students, and the total number of class-groups (odjeljenja) per shift is 17. This totals 34 class-groups across 9 grades to accommodate the two-shift capacity of 900 students. These exact parameters are explicitly detailed in the derived parameters table in ToR Section 2.2 (Design Elements).Regarding the room distribution, the listed 11 homebase classrooms and 4 subject-specific classrooms (totaling 15 general teaching rooms) perfectly correspond to the intended class structure. To accommodate the 17 class-groups simultaneously during a single shift, the school's daily timetable utilizes these 15 general teaching rooms in combination with the specialized classrooms (Science, Art, Music, etc.) and the physical education facilities. It is standard pedagogical and scheduling practice that at any given time, while 15 class-groups are in general classrooms, the remaining class-groups are attending specialized subjects or physical education.QUESTION 4: — Service/delivery connection streetPlease confirm whether a vehicular service/delivery connection to UP4 (cadastral parcel 4533/1) from Bulevar vojvode Stanka Radonjića is permitted, or whether all vehicular access for service must be taken from Ulica 1, per the secondary-network connection required by the Traffic Secretariat conditions. The referenced traffic infrastructure sheet is not legible at the resolution provided.ANSWER 4: A direct vehicular service/delivery connection to UP 4 from Bulevar Vojvode Stanka Radonjića is not permitted. All vehicular access to the plot, including service and delivery, must be organized exclusively from Ulica 1.While the Terms of Reference (ToR) suggested exploring the Boulevard connection as a potential solution for deliveries, it explicitly mandated verifying whether this is allowed by the DUP "Blok 35-36".According to the DUP "Blok 35-36" (Section 4.3.1. Traffic Infrastructure), Bulevar Vojvode Stanka Radonjića is explicitly classified as the Primary traffic network (Primarna saobraćajna mreža), whereas Ulica 1 is classified as the Secondary traffic network (Sekundarna saobraćajna mreža).Furthermore, the binding conditions issued by the Secretariat for Traffic (Act No. UPI 11-341/25-1526), which are an integral part of the Urban-Technical Conditions (UTU), strictly mandate that the design documentation must show the traffic connection to the contact public road of the secondary network ("saobraćajni priključak na kontaktnu javnu saobraćajnicu sekundarne mreže").Therefore, to comply with both the DUP classifications and the mandatory UTU requirements, all vehicular access for the facility must be taken from the secondary network, which is Ulica 1. Please take into account the importance of avoiding collision between the main and service entrances.

New clarification added: QUESTION: We kindly request if it would be possible to extend the submission deadline for the tender currently set for August 10th. Since this date falls on a Monday, we would greatly appreciate if the deadline could be moved by at least two days. This adjustment would help ensure that the submission does not fall immediately after the weekend, allowing for smoother preparation and timely delivery.ANSWER: Please note that the tender requirements will be revised, and the deadline for offer submission will most likely be extended to 21 September 2026. Extension will be trigered in next few days. 

New clarification added: Question: Can an expert who has already been hired by UNOPS be nominated as a required expert for the preparation of project documentation that is the subject of a tender, i.e. is he/she in a conflict of interest?Answer: We advise that he/she contact the HR department with UNOPS SEEMCO and the Ethics department as soon as possible but before bid submission to receive confirmation that there is no conflict of interest.  

New clarification added: Question: Related to Financial capability, may we kindly ask you to clarify whether, instead of cumulative turnover for 2022, 2023 and 2024, a cumulative turnover for 2023, 2024, 2025 (the last three financial years) can be provided?Answer: The turnover for 2025 will not be considered. As stated in the tender, a copy of three financial statements OR audited reports OR solvency reports for (2022, 2023 or 2024) needs to be submitted.    

New clarification added: Quwqtion:We would appreciate clarification regarding the financial capacity requirement.The solicitation requires a minimum cumulative turnover of EUR 300,000 over the last three years.Could you please confirm whether financial year 2025 will be considered as one of the three years for the purpose of evaluating this requirement, provided that official financial statements for 2025 are available?Thank you for your clarification.Answer: 2025 will not be considered. A stated in te tender, copy of three financial statements OR audited reports OR solvency reports for (2022, 2023 or 2024) needs to be submitted.