RFP for Long Term Agreement - Global Infrastructure Services in English, Spanish, French, Russian, Ukrainian, Portuguese, and Arabic

New clarification added: Q131: Could UNOPS please provide, as an annex to the tender documents, a template or standard form of commitment letter to be completed and signed by the proposed subconsultants? This would help bidders ensure that the submitted commitment letters comply with UNOPS’ required format and expectations.A131: Bidders must use Schedule 0.6 (Statement of Exclusivity and Availability), which is the  standardized template provided in the tender package.Each proposed expert provided by a sub-consultant firm (or freelancer) must individually complete and sign Schedule 0.6 to formally confirm their exclusivity, availability, and commitment for the LTA.Any general corporate relationship or sub-consultant management framework should be described directly within your Method Statement rather than a separate letter.

New clarification added: Q130: We understand that the LTA Coordinator and LTA Director are key individuals who are expected to belong to the Bidder’s own organization. Although subcontracting of certain key personnel appears to be contemplated in some Lots, given the nature of the responsibilities assigned to the LTA Coordinator and LTA Director, our understanding is that these positions should be filled by personnel directly associated with the Bidder.In this regard, could UNOPS please confirm whether, provided that smooth and effective communication can be ensured—for example, through the support of a qualified interpreter or translator—the LTA Coordinator and LTA Director may be exempted from the requirement to speak the specific language applicable to each Lot?We believe that, as long as effective communication with UNOPS and all relevant stakeholders can be guaranteed, the use of language support should be considered acceptable.A130: To ensure effective communication among all stakeholders, the LTA Director and LTA Coordinator must be proficient in both English and the language of services in the applicable lot. However, for example, the LTA Director and LTA Coordinator may vary between two lots that the Bidder is bidding for.

New clarification added: Q129: Could you please consider extending the deadline for the submission of bids, taking into account the complexity of the tender and the need to identify and coordinate with different partners in order to adequately meet the requirements of the various lots?An extension of the deadline would allow bidders to prepare more complete and competitive proposals, while ensuring proper coordination among all parties involved.A129: The tender submission deadline has already been extended by a few weeks; we are not prepared to extend it further at this time. 

New clarification added: Q128: Could you please confirm whether it is permitted to subcontract a State Enterprise to provide part of the required personnel?A128: You may subcontract a State-Owned Enterprise for personnel, provided it meets UN eligibility rules.  Requirements: Submit a signed Schedule 0.6 and Schedule 0.5 CV for each expert, and detail your management of the entity in your Method Statement.  Conflicts of interest will be checked at the Call-Off Order (COO) stage. If the SOE is linked to the government entity acting as the project beneficiary for a specific COO, a conflict of interest will arise, preventing participation in that task order.  

New clarification added: Q127: We refer to 6. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 4.1 Fees and Reimbursment -Amendment 1.xlsx.Category 3 is stated as optional to quote. Kindly clarify whether the price for Category 3 disciplines and CVs will form part of the financial evaluation, and whether bidders are required to provide a price for this category.A127: Category 3 disciplines are optional, not required to be priced, and will not form part of the financial evaluation. However, the key personnel section of the technical evaluation will award points for the range and breadth of offered services. Bidders that offer only the minimum required services may be evaluated lower on this section than Bidders who can provide a wider range of services. 

New clarification added: Q126: It has been noted in clarifications that Schedule 4.6 Subconsultants will be removed and the related information should be submitted under methodology (per Q/A#50). However this schedule is still listed on the Documents upload page for the submission - please reconfirm the seperate schedule is nolonger required and the upload checklist will be amended. A126: This is consistent with Question 50. Standalone Schedule 4.6 was removed through the tender amendment from the returnable schedules package. You do not need to create or submit a separate Schedule 4.6 form.If the eSourcing upload checklist still displays a dedicated slot for "Schedule 4.6", simply upload blank document into that field to satisfy the system requirements. 

New clarification added: Q125: The RFP evaluation criteria refer to Schedule 4.1A (Breakdown of the Fees and Reimbursable Cost) and Schedule 4.1B (Daily Rate Schedule), indicating that Schedule 4.1A will be used for financial evaluation while Schedule 4.1B will be used for assessment of price reasonableness only.However, the only Schedule 4.1 document included in the RFP package is the workbook "4.1 Fees and Reimbursement - Amendment 1", which contains daily rate schedules by discipline and experience level. In addition, the eSourcing portal appears to provide a single mandatory upload field labelled "Schedule 4.1.A [Breakdown of the Fees and Reimbursable cost]".Could the Client please confirm:Whether any separate Schedule 4.1B is required to be submitted; andWhether completion and submission of the provided Schedule 4.1 workbook constitutes the entirety of the required financial proposal.A125: As per the latest tinder amendment 5, bidders are not required to submit a separate document for Schedule 4.1B. Completing and uploading the provided Excel workbook, "4.1 Fees and Reimbursement - Amendment 1", into the designated Schedule 4.1.A upload slot in eSourcing constitutes the entirety of your financial proposal. 

New clarification added: Q124: For the "Mandatory core disciplines" is it requested only to provide prices for all the 6 disciplines (Structural Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Civil Engineer, Architect, Cost Estimator).Or is it also requested to provide the CVs for all the 6 disciplines and the three Levels? I.e. What if we do not have CVs for 3 levels of discicpline "Mechanical Engineer"? Can we only prices the three levels or we cannot apply at allA124:Price alone is not enough. To offer a discipline, Bidders must submit prices, named personnel, and CVs for all three experience levels.However, the required years of experience are minimums. An expert with more experience can be proposed for a lower level. 

New clarification added: Q123: We request a final, definitive confirmation on whether copies of educational diplomas and professional certificates must be submitted alongside the CVs (Schedule 0.5) for proposed Key Personnel.The published clarifications give conflicting answers on this point:• Confirming certificates ARE required: Q34, Q41(a), Q64, Q102• Confirming certificates are NOT required: Q56, Q62, Q82Could you please confirm, in a single definitive answer, which position governs:1. Are educational diplomas/professional certificates a mandatory attachment to the CV package at proposal stage; or2. Is it sufficient to summarize qualifications within the Schedule 0.5 CV template itself, with supporting documents provided only if requested for verification?A123: We regret the lack of consistent clarity on this point. To confirm, it is sufficient to list the qualifications and cite all educational diplomas and professional certificates within the Schedule 0.5 CV template. Attaching supporting documents is not required at this stage but must be furnished for verification on request. Alternatively, If you attach supporting documents with the bid submission, this is also okay.  

New clarification added: Q121: If an offeror is a JOINT VENTURE (JV), should schedule 0.2 be completed in addition to schedule 0.3?A121: If bidding as a Joint Venture, you must complete both Schedule 0.2 and Schedule 0.3. Schedule 0.2 (Offeror's Information): Completed by the Lead Partner on behalf of the JV to provide overall entity details, UNGM registration, and main contact information. Schedule 0.3 (Offeror's Information - Joint Venture): Completed to detail the specific JV structure, individual partner roles, equity shares, and required legal information for each member entity of the JV.Q122: your revised document checklist in the e-sourcing portal has indicated Schedule 4.6 as a mandatory document. However, item "5. Consultant_services_RFP_section_VI_Returnable schedules-Amendment 1" does not contain Schedule 4.6pls are we expected to create a separate document and title it "Schedule 4.6?"A122: This question was previously addressed in the Tender Clarification Log. Please refer to the Question 50 

New clarification added: Q120: in completing schedule 0.3_offerors Information _JOINT VENTURE, Ps should we attach copies of the Joint Venture agreement and any other document related to the joint ventureship to this schedule or these additional JV documents should be part of schedule 0.1_PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DECLARATION?A120: Attach the joint Venture Agreement (or Letter of Intent to form a JV) and any supporting JV authorization documents directly to Schedule 0.3 [Offeror's Information] Schedule 0.1 Purpose: Schedule 0.1 (Proposal Submission Declaration) is strictly the signed legal declaration confirming your acceptance of the tender conditions. While it must be signed by the Lead Partner on behalf of the JV, supporting JV agreements should be kept with Schedule 0.3. 

New clarification added: Q119: Could you please provide further clarification regarding the geographic scope of each of the seven lots? Specifically, for each lot, we would appreciate confirmation of the countries or regions where the services are expected to be performed. We would also be very grateful if UNOPS could kindly consider granting an additional one-week extension to the submission deadline as we finalize all requirements. A119: The Lots are arranged by language requirements, and there are no geographic restrictions; services may be requested globally for all Lots. The selection of a specific language Lot for a Call-Off Order is based on the language required for service delivery, contractual deliverables, and local stakeholder engagement, rather than by geographical boundaries.Regarding your request for an extension, the tender submission deadline has already been extended by a few weeks and we are not prepared to extend it further. 

New clarification added: Q118: Do we need to submit a CV of a Project Leader too? in additional for the LTA Director and LTA cordinator? What should be his qualifications? Please clarify.A118: Please refer to the questions 48, 80 and 99 and its answers 

New clarification added: Q117: Will all Call-Off Orders (COOs) under the LTA require the execution of the necessary works during standard workdays or regular workweek? Or should Offerors account for a share of the work to be carried out during weekends?A117: The expected duration and total number of working days will be defined in the employer’s requirements for each individual Call-Off Order (COO). UNOPS does not prescribe or manage the specific daily or weekly working schedule of the Consultant's personnel; it is the responsibility of the LTA holder to manage its resources and work schedule to ensure all deliverables and milestones stipulated in the COO are met. 

New clarification added: Q116: There is no any schedule as schedule 4.6 - sub consultants in returnable schedules.  Could you please clarify this?A116: Please refer to the Q question and answer 111. 

New clarification added: Q115: Can we add sub consultants too while we bidding as a joint venture? Is 0.6 Stataement of exclusity and availabilty is filling only the sub consultants?A115: A Joint Venture serves to enable two companies to combine to meet the eligibility and qualification criteria. The statement of exclusivity and availability is for individuals who are not directly employed by a single Bidder or either of the Joint Venture partners, but who will be used to supplement the Bidder’s or Joint Venture partners’ personnel.    

New clarification added: Q 113: Query: availability confirmationSchedule 0.6 requires each proposed expert to declare:"I confirm that I am not engaged with other projects in a position that will require my services during the time periods in which my services are required under this RFP."We respectfully request clarification of the intended scope of this confirmation, for the following reasons:This procurement establishes a Long-Term Agreement of three years (extendable by a further two years) with no guaranteed volume of work. Assignments are issued at UNOPS' discretion through individual Call‑off Orders. Accordingly, at the time of signing Schedule 0.6, neither the offeror nor the expert can know the dates, duration or frequency of the services that will be required, and in some cases an expert named in the proposal may never be called upon at all during the term of the LTA.Read literally, the confirmation appears to require that a named expert not be engaged on any other project throughout the LTA period. That reading would oblige experienced professionals to remain unengaged and unremunerated for up to five years against the possibility of a call‑off that may never materialise. No qualified expert could reasonably provide such an undertaking, and requiring it would materially restrict the pool of specialists available to UNOPS under the LTA.We understand the intent of the clause to be that an expert must not hold a commitment that would prevent them from mobilising and performing when actually called upon under a Call‑off Order. We would be grateful if UNOPS would confirm that this is the correct interpretation, i.e. that the declaration:(a) applies only to the specific periods during which the expert's services are in fact required under an issued Call‑off Order or assignment, as notified by UNOPS; and(b) does not preclude the expert from undertaking other engagements during periods in which no services are required of them under this LTA, provided such engagements do not conflict with, or impair their availability for, services requested under the LTA.A113: This is correct: the declaration applies to the expert’s availability for specific periods when the services are requested and they do not prevent the expert from undertaking other engagements outside of these periods.

New clarification added: Q114: Buenos dias! por temas internos se nos hace imposible continuar con el proceso, hemos tratado de declinar en la seccion de lotes pero no me lo permiten, me podrian por favor ayudar?A114: If you cannot decline directly through the individual lot tabs in the eSourcing portal, you can resolve this using the following options:Decline via Main Tab: Go to the main project page (Main Tender / Vendor Submission) in UNGM/eSourcing and click the general "Decline" or "No wish to bid" button located at the top of the summary view.Do Nothing: Simply taking no action will not penalize your firm. If you do not submit a proposal by the deadline, your application is automatically treated as non-participating with no negative impact on future UN/UNOPS bids.Please refer to the eSourcing guidance in the UNGM page for further technical issues. https://esourcing.unops.org/#/Help/Guides

New clarification added: Q112:1. Please confirm that for Category 3 disciplines to be considered as offered, bidders are required to provide only the price for each of the three experience levels.2. Please confirm that the specified years of professional experience for each level are considered minimum requirements, and that personnel with longer professional experience may be considered for a lower level with a lower years-of-experience requirement.A112: 1: Price alone is not enough. To offer a Category 3 discipline, you must submit prices, named personnel, and CVs for all three experience levels.2: Yes. The required years of experience are minimums. An expert with more experience can be proposed for a lower level.

New clarification added: Q111: We would appreciate your clarification regarding the use of a sub-consulting company for the provision of technical experts under the LTA.In particular, Question 6 of the Pre-Bid Meeting Minutes expressly states:“Bidders may propose employees, freelancers, or sub-consultants who are not directly employed by the bidder. If freelancers or sub-consultants are proposed, bidders must submit a signed Schedule 0.6 (Statement of Exclusivity and Availability) for those experts.”On this basis, we understand that a bidder may propose experts who are not directly employed by the bidder, including those provided through a sub-consulting company, provided that the corresponding Schedule 0.6 is submitted for each expert.In our case:The bidder independently meets all corporate qualification requirements —including firm experience, financial capacity and turnover— without relying on the qualifications of the sub-consulting company.The sub-consulting company would act solely as a contractual provider of certain technical experts, who would be evaluated based on their individual qualifications and CVs, with the corresponding Schedule 0.6 submitted for each expert.This arrangement would also be addressed under Technical Evaluation Criterion 4.5 – Management of Subconsultants.This interpretation also appears consistent with Article 88 of Section V, which defines a sub-consultant as an independent contractor, person or entity, engaged by the Consultant to perform services.In light of the above, could UNOPS please confirm that it is acceptable to subcontract a company for the provision of technical experts without the need to form a Joint Venture (JV), provided that the bidder independently meets all corporate qualification requirements and does not rely on the sub-consultant’s corporate qualifications to meet the LTA requirements?A111: It is not required to form a Joint Venture (JV) if your firm independently satisfies all corporate eligibility criteria (minimum turnover, working capital, legal existence, corporate project history, etc) and is not relying on the sub-consultant firm's corporate credentials to meet those baseline requirements.Each proposed expert from the sub-consulting firm must be included in the Key Personnel Matrix (Schedule 0.5 Excel) and submit a completed UNOPS CV (Schedule 0.5).A completed and signed Schedule 0.6 must be submitted for each expert confirming their commitment to serve under your firm's roster.The experts will be evaluated strictly on their individual CV credentials, education, language skills, and experience. There is no direct scoring penalty for using sub-consultant personnel, though your overall technical narrative should demonstrate robust administrative control and risk management over the external personnel. 

New clarification added: Q110: I hope this message finds you well. We would appreciate your clarification regarding the eligibility and potential participation of young, locally established companies under this LTA. Our company, INFRAXON Engineering Consultancy Services, is an Afghan engineering and consulting firm established in 2020 and based in Kabul, Afghanistan. While we have the technical capacity and access to qualified experts to mobilize and undertake small-scale assignments, as a relatively young company, we may not fully meet certain evaluation criteria, particularly those related to minimum financial capacity and the required level of corporate experience.In this regard, we would appreciate your clarification on the following:Eligibility for Shortlisting: Can a young local company that does not fully meet the stated financial capability and/or experience requirements still submit an application and be considered for shortlisting under the LTA?Small-Scale Assignments: If shortlisted, would such a company be eligible to receive or participate in small-scale Task Orders (TOs) or Purchase Orders (POs) that are commensurate with its demonstrated technical capacity and ability to mobilize the required expertise?Afghanistan-Specific Assignments: Is there any possibility under the LTA for locally established companies to be considered specifically for assignments in Afghanistan, particularly where local presence, knowledge, and rapid mobilization may be advantageous?We would be grateful for your guidance on whether it would be appropriate for us to submit our application despite the above limitations, particularly given our ability to mobilize qualified technical expertise and deliver small-scale assignments effectively.A110: Qualification criteria are mandatory pass/fail requirements that must be met. To address potential gaps, you may submit as a Joint Venture, allowing combined experience and financial capacity to meet the thresholds. Once qualified as an LTA holder, you are eligible for all relevant Call-Off Orders, regardless of assignment scale. 

New clarification added: Q109: Nous n'avons pas reçu de réponse à notre demande de clarification du  Août . Pour le lot N°3, pourrions nous soumettre une proposition en Français? Si oui, nous souhaitons obtenir la version Française des documents de soumission.A109: While lot 3 is for technical services in French, each lot has English language requirements and the submission must be made in English. 

New clarification added: Q108: For qualification criterion 4 (Experience), when the Offeror's assignment covered a specific discipline (e.g., mechanical or electrical systems) within a larger construction project, should the 'construction cost exceeding USD 1,000,000' refer to (a) the total construction cost of the overall project, or (b) the construction cost specifically attributable to the discipline/scope performed by the Offeror?A108: The USD1,000,000 value refers to the total construction cost of the overall project, not the value of services provided by the Offeror.  

New clarification added: Q107: For avoidance of doubt, where a returnable schedule/template itself was not revised under Amendment No. 5, but a previously signed copy contains the former submission date of 7 August 2026, may that signed copy still be submitted together with Schedule 0.11, or must it nevertheless be re-dated and re-signed?A107: The returnable schedule template was updated as part of Amendment 5 You must re-populate, re-sign, and submit the new, revised version of that specific schedule. Using an outdated schedule template may lead to disqualification. 

New clarification added: Q106: Where an Expert Level 2 position is defined as requiring 10–15 years of relevant professional experience, may an expert with more than 15 years of relevant experience, who otherwise satisfies all qualification and language requirements, be nominated for the Level 2 position? Or must the nominated Level 2 expert strictly fall within the stated 10–15 year experience range?A106: A Bidder may use personnel with more experience to satisfy the requirement for a lower level of experience (e.g. a Level 3 expert may serve to satisfy a Level 2 requirement). 

New clarification added: Q105:1. Are OFFERORS expected to fill in the highlighted blank spaces in the COO template?2. are offerors expected to fill in the highlighted blank spaces in the Consultant _services_2 GCC-contract -for- works template?3. in the statement of exclusivity and availability, can you provide us the information on the period for commencement and end of services as per the table indicated thereincheersA105: 1. No. Do not fill in the COO template now. It is a draft template for future individual assignments.2. No. Do not fill in the legal contract template. Signing Schedule 0.1 (Proposal Submission Declaration) confirms your acceptance of these terms.3. Enter "Duration of LTA Framework (2026–2029)" or "TBD per Call-Off Order" for the service period, and list the Lot Number/RFP/2026/61246 for the assignment.

New clarification added: Q104: Regarding the Gender Mainstreaming criterion, according to the document “4. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_II - 4. TECHNICAL CRITERIA - Detailed Criteria”, the scoring appears to be based on the percentage of women within the total proposed personnel and the Expert Level 3 personnel.Could UNOPS please confirm whether, in order to demonstrate compliance with this criterion, it is sufficient to submit a table showing the team composition and the corresponding percentages, supported by the CVs, or whether a specific narrative on Gender Mainstreaming is also required?If such a narrative is required, we would appreciate clarification on the specific aspects that are expected to be addressed.A104: The gender mainstreaming criterion is evaluated purely objectively, based on the percentage of women within the total proposed personnel and the Expert Level 3 personnel. Bidders may submit a table showing the team composition to demonstrate compliance. No narrative component is required. However, the social dimensions of the bidder’s methodology, including gender mainstreaming, may be evaluated as part of the the criteria for universal design and sustainability.   

New clarification added: Q103: In the document “3. Consultant_Services_RFP_ Section_II_III_IV_V”, the evaluation criteria indicate the following: 4.4 Quality Management – Quality Management Plan; 4.5 Management of subconsultants – Schedule 4.6 [Sub-consultants]; 4.6 Sustainability, resource efficiency, green design, etc. – Method Statement; 4.7 Gender Mainstreaming – Method Statement; and 4.8 Universal Design – Method Statement.However, on the electronic submission platform, we note that there are specific sections for uploading documentation corresponding to items 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, but there does not appear to be a specific section for 4.8 – Universal Design.At the same time, the platform includes a separate section entitled “4.3 Method Statement”.Additionally, in the document “4. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_II - 4. TECHNICAL CRITERIA - Detailed Criteria”, under Part 3, we have not identified any specific description of the content or scope to be covered by the Method Statement.We would therefore appreciate your clarification on the following points:What content should specifically be included in the “4.3 Method Statement” section of the platform?Should the Method Statement under section 4.3 be understood as covering criteria 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 collectively?If so, what documentation should then be uploaded in the separate 4.6 and 4.7 sections available on the platform?Where should the documentation corresponding to criterion 4.8 – Universal Design be uploaded, given that there is no specific 4.8 section on the platform?Should a single consolidated Method Statement covering criteria 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 be submitted, or should separate documents be prepared for each of these criteria?We would appreciate your confirmation of the correct submission structure in order to ensure that all evaluation criteria are properly addressed and uploaded in the appropriate sections.A103: The “4.3 Method Statement” section is the designated upload slot for your free-format narrative, which should cover your technical approach, quality management, management of sub-consultants, operational workflows, Sustainability (4.6), Gender Mainstreaming (4.7), and Universal Design (4.8).You may choose to organize your submission as either one consolidated file or separate files for each criterion, provided that the content is clearly labeled to ensure it is captured for evaluation. 

New clarification added: Q102: Key Personnel Requirements: With reference to the roster of Key Personnel, it was clarified that the Bidders are required to submit named experts, CVs, and educational diplomas/certificates for all three levels (Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3) for each discipline choosed to be quoted and that a discipline can be considered as offered, only if Bidders provide prices for all three experience levels.Considering what above, We kindly ask UNOPS to confirm if the three levels expertises must be strictly respected for all disciplines quoted or if the Bidder can also submit named experts with experience levels higher than those required.Just for istance, for a specific discipline, the Bidder could propose in the key personnel roster, one Level 3 expert and two Level 2 experts – and therefore not to include a Level 1 expert, even if it will provide prices for all three experience levels? A102: Bidders must provide prices for all three experience levels but the minimum experience levels may be exceeded. Therefore, a Bidder may use personnel with more experience to satisfy the requirement for a lower level of experience (e.g. a Level 2 expert to satisfy a Level 1 requirement).  

New clarification added: Q101: line of credit: as per the requirement of the RFP, offerors are expected to include in their bid  ' LINE OF CREDIT' from a financial institution or bank in the amount of USD 500,000.we would like to know if the amount on the line of credit can be denominated in the country of the offeror. we have observed that our bankers are not willing to issue the LOC in USD and is taking a toll on our preparationsA101: A bank letter or Line of Credit is used to supplement your financial application if your audited financial reports do not fully meet the working capital or cash flow requirements.  It does not replace the mandatory requirement to submit formal audited financial statements for the last three years for all bidding entities/JV partners.The Line of Credit (or bank overdraft/credit facility letter) can be denominated in your local/national currency. You are not required to submit a document denominated specifically in USD if your local financial institution cannot issue it in foreign currency.  

New clarification added: Q100: Section 5 ("Roles and responsibilities") identifies the LTA Director as the person with authority to approve the overarching LTA contract and Call Off Orders on behalf of the Consultancy Firm. The Call-off process further notes that COOs must be signed by the applicable authorities specified in the LTA.Please confirm that the Consultant may nominate different authorised signatories for the overarching LTA agreement and for subsequent Call Off Orders, provided each signatory has the appropriate authority to execute the relevant contractual instrument on behalf of the Consultant. This approach is consistent with arrangements that have been accepted under previous UNOPS contracts.A100: The individuals with delegated signatory responsibilities for COOs will be identified within the LTA agreement and will reflect the successful LTA holder’s internal governance and operation; UNOPS has no position on the corporate governance of the LTA holder.  

New clarification added: Q99: Section 5 ("Roles and responsibilities") states that the LTA Director is the person with authority to approve the overarching LTA contract and Call Off Orders on behalf of the Consultancy Firm. It is common for consultancy firms to have separate corporate signatories who are authorised to execute contracts, while day-to-day management, oversight and accountability for framework delivery is assigned to operational leads.Please confirm that the requirement for the LTA Director is appropriate authority and experience to accept responsibility for oversight, management and administration of the LTA; whilst the contract may be signed by an authorised representative of the Consultant, who may or may not be the proposed LTA Director.A99: For the purposes of this LTA, the LTA Director is expected to have the necessary authority to act as the primary point of contact for the overall management of the LTA. The individuals with delegated signatory responsibilities for COOs will be identified within the LTA agreement and will reflect the successful LTA holder’s internal governance and operation; UNOPS has no position on the corporate governance of the LTA holder.

New clarification added: Q98: If subcontractors are to be involved, what information and documentation must be provided in relation to them, and in which section of the tender submission should this information be included?A98: If you intend to rely on the corporate qualifications of another entity to meet the LTA criteria, you must formally submit your proposal as a Joint Venture (JV). A company may not be identified as a subcontractor without a formal agreement.

New clarification added: Q97: With regard to the possibility of subcontracting certain services under the different lots, we would appreciate clarification on the following points:If subcontracting is envisaged, is it necessary to submit, together with the tender, a commitment letter signed by each subcontractor?May a company identified as a key subcontractor, in turn, engage another company to subcontract part of the services assigned to it? If so, is a commitment letter between both companies required?A97: Please be advised that if individual freelancers or sub-consultants are proposed, you are required to submit Statements of 0.6 Statement of Exclusivity and Availability. If you intend to rely on the corporate qualifications of another entity to meet the criteria, you must formally submit your proposal as a Joint Venture (JV). A company may not be identified as a subcontractor without a formal relationship. 

New clarification added: Q96: Amendment No. 5 (published 29 July 2026) extended the tender submission deadline from 7 August 2026 to 31 August 2026, 10:00 UTC. Some of our returnable schedules and supporting documents were finalized and signed prior to this amendment and therefore bear the original 7 August 2026 date in their text.Could UNOPS confirm:Whether such documents remain valid for submission as signed, provided Schedule 0.11 (Acknowledgement of the Addenda) is completed to confirm the Offeror's acknowledgement of Amendment No. 5 and all other amendments; orWhether any documents referencing the original 7 August 2026 date must be re-executed/re-dated to reflect the extended deadline before submissionA96: You must submit your proposal using the latest revised returnable schedules and forms downloaded from eSourcing. Using outdated forms may lead to disqualification.  Transfer all project data, CV details, and financial entries onto the updated templates.  Acknowledge Addenda: Submit Schedule 0.11 confirming your receipt and incorporation of all amendments 

New clarification added: Q95: Can you please adjust the turnover requirement to be 250,000 in any of the last three years? This will give a better opportunity for more companies to participate, considering local exchange ratesA95: The procurement criteria remain unchanged. However, the solicitation permits Joint Venture configurations to satisfy specific criteria on a cumulative basis. 

New clarification added: Q94: Pourrions nous avoir la version française des document?A94: UNOPS does not provideFrench translation for the core solicitation documents of RFP/2026/61246.   

New clarification added: Q93: Regarding the experts which we plan to propose for mandatory core disciplines, preferred disciplines and optional disciplines respectively: Please clarify if these experts need to be present employed staffers at the bidders company, or if these experts may also be freelancers or part of subconsultant firms (particularly for mandatory core disciplines). In case freelancers or subconsultants are allowed, please advise if directly employed staff will receive higher scoring in the technical evaluation. A93: Freelancers and Sub-consultants Allowed: Experts do not need to be direct employees; freelancers and sub-consultants can be proposed for any discipline.: If freelancers or sub-consultants are proposed, a signed Schedule 0.6 (Statement of Exclusivity and Availability) must be submitted for each expert. There is no direct point preference or higher score given for directly employed staff. Technical points are based on qualifications and experience. However, heavy reliance on external staff may be considered when evaluating overall capacity and sub-consultant management risk 

New clarification added: Q92: We kindly request a clarification regarding the preparation of the Financial Proposal (maximum daily rates) in relation to the Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance requirements.The Tender Regulations state that:Daily rates for "design services" must INCLUDE professional indemnity coverage for design.Daily rates for "design review services" must EXCLUDE professional indemnity coverage.However, the provided Financial Proposal template does not differentiate between "design" and "design review" activities, requesting only a single, unified maximum daily rate per position.Could you please clarify how Tenderers should submit their financial proposal in this case? Specifically:Should we duplicate the rows  in the Financial Proposal template to provide two distinct daily rates (one rate including PI for design services, and another rate excluding PI for design review services)?A92: Do not duplicate rows or modify the standard structure of the Financial Proposal Schedule (Schedule 4.1). Offerors must submit a single, unified maximum daily rate per position/discipline as requested by the template.The quoted maximum daily unit rates represent the ceiling fees for technical services across all assignments (design, design review, and other engineering advisory services). Because the daily rate serves as a maximum cap for all potential tasks under a discipline, bidders must embed all general corporate overheads, administrative costs, and baseline Professional Indemnity (PI) insurance coverage directly across their proposed daily unit rates.Reimbursable expenses (such as travel, DSA, or localized site costs) must not be included in the daily rates; these will be priced separately during individual Call-Off Orders. If a specific Call-Off Order requires a distinct scope or specialized risk profile, the final agreed rates for that assignment will be negotiated/submitted during secondary bidding using the LTA's submitted daily rates as maximum ceilings. 

New clarification added: Q91: Insurance Requirements for Consultant Services:With reference to the insurance requirements listed under Schedule 4.8 – Insurance Details and Insurances, we kindly request clarification regarding the applicability of certain insurance policies for consultancy and design services performed entirely off‑site.Our company will provide architectural and engineering design services, without performing any construction works, site supervision, or activities involving physical presence on the construction site. Under Italian legislation, for this type of professional service:Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) is mandatory and fully in place.Public Liability Insurance (Responsabilità Civile verso Terzi) is not legally required for consultancy activities performed off‑site.Workers Compensation / Employer’s Liability Insurance is mandatory only for personnel physically exposed to operational risks or present on construction sites. Our personnel will not access the site nor perform any activity involving operational exposure.We therefore kindly ask UNOPS to confirm whether the following documentation is acceptable for compliance with Schedule 4.8:Professional Indemnity Insurance covering the full scope of design services required under the RFP.A formal declaration stating that: • Public Liability Insurance is not required under Italian law for consultancy/design services performed off site. • Workers Compensation / Employer’s Liability Insurance is not applicable, as our personnel will not be deployed on site nor exposed to construction‑related risksA91: At this proposal submission stage, full active project-specific insurance policies (including Public Liability or Employer's Liability) are not required to be active. Bidders are only required to complete and submit Schedule 0.13 [Insurance Details] confirming their corporate capacity and commitment to adhere to required insurance limits.Your proposed approach is acceptable for the proposal evaluation stage. Submitting your active Professional Indemnity Insurance policy alongside a formal Declaration/Letter of Explanation detailing your legal frame and operational scope satisfies the proposal stage requirements. Additionally, you may inlude a formal Letter of Intent / Commitment Letter from an accredited insurance broker confirming that your firm is insurable and capable of securing any required policies should a specific assignment demand them.The overarching framework requires consultants to maintain Professional Indemnity, Public Liability, and Employer's Liability insurance as agreed with UNOPS based on the specific nature and risk profile of each assignment. Because services are frequently performed remotely without site presence, any specific insurance adjustments, waivers, or localized policy requirements will be explicitly agreed upon during secondary bidding / issuance of individual Call-Off Orders based on the actual scope of work. 

New clarification added: Q90: Role 3.12 Rule of law Planner: We understand from the Terms of Reference (Table 1 – Infrastructure Sectors) that "Rule of Law" refers to an infrastructure sector comprising prisons, courthouses, detention centres, border facilities and police stations. On this basis, we understand this role relates to the planning and design of justice- and security-related infrastructure, rather than to a legal/juridical profession. Could UNOPS please confirm:a) the expected professional background and area of experience for the "Rule of law Planner" role; andb) whether an Architect (or an urban/infrastructure planner) with relevant experience in this type of facility would be accepted for this role.A90: Similarly, we do not provide pre-approval for specific degree titles but the function of the role is the design and planning of rule of law facilities. Personnel will be considered on the basis of years of relevant experience and/or educational background in this area, not a particular degree.   

New clarification added: Q89: With reference to the Category 3 (Optional) disciplines listed in document "6. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 4.1 Fees and Reimbursment - Amendment 1", we kindly request the following clarifications regarding the professional background required for certain roles.Roles titled as "Engineer" (3.10, 3.15) and 3.21 Circular Economy Manager:Several of these roles are titled as "Engineer" (for example, 3.10 Acoustic Engineer and 3.15 Planning Engineer). We would like to know whether the profession for these roles is strictly restricted to a qualified "Engineer", or whether other professions that also perform these functions in practice — such as an Architect — would be accepted, provided the proposed individual holds the relevant academic background and professional experience. Specifically, we would appreciate confirmation on whether an Architect may be proposed for:3.10 Acoustic Engineer3.15 Planning Engineer3.21 Circular Economy ManagerA89: UNOPS evaluates the technical suitability of proposed personnel based on the individual’s demonstrated ability to perform the functions of the assigned role. We do not provide pre-approval for specific degree titles. If you intend to propose an Architect for a role titled “Engineer,” you must ensure the proposal clearly articulates how the proposed individual’s academic background, professional licensing/certification, and relevant professional experience directly map to the technical competencies required for that specific role. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror to demonstrate that the professional’s qualifications are equivalent and sufficient to execute the functions of the discipline. 

New clarification added: Q88: In view of the complexity of this tender and considering that we are in the middle of the Summer Vacation period, we would appreciate your extending the deadline for submission of proposals until early September.A88. The deadline has already been extended . Please refer to the revised deadline.  

New clarification added: Q87: Could you please clarify whether, if a bidder chooses to propose personnel for an optional discipline (Category 3), it is mandatory to provide personnel and submit CVs for all three experience levels (Levels 1, 2, and 3), or whether it is acceptable to propose personnel and submit CVs for only one or two of the experience levels?A87: For a discipline to be considered as offered, bidders must provide prices, personnel, and CVs for all three experience levels. 

New clarification added: Q86: Returnable Schedule 0.2 "Offeror´s Infomation" requires Offerors to anwer if they are an "UNGM registered vendor" as well as an "UNOPS vendor". Does an Offeror qualify as a "vendor" if they are registered in the UNGM platform and have submited a registration to UNOPS? or does the Offeror must have been awarded a contract to qualify as a vendor?A86: An Offeror qualifies as an "UNGM registered vendor" simply by completing the registration process on the United Nations Global Marketplace (UNGM) website and possessing an active UNGM Registration Number. You do not need to have been awarded a contract previously to be considered a registered UNGM vendor. An Offeror qualifies as a "UNOPS vendor" if they have an active UNGM registration profile that has been linked/submitted to UNOPS or if they have an established vendor record within UNOPS's vendor database.  

New clarification added: Q85: Given that the specific terms for the provision of Services are to be agreed by the Parties through individual Call-Off Orders, could UNOPS please confirm whether project-specific legal and contractual provisions may be discussed and mutually agreed between the Parties after the issuance of the Employer’s Requirements and prior to the execution of the relevant Call-Off Order?A85: The Long-Term Agreement (LTA) establishes the overarching legal framework and general conditions of contract governing all services. Individual Call-Off Orders (COOs) are the mechanism to define assignment-specific requirements, such as scope, timeline, budget, and specific operational or project-based conditions (e.g., insurance, security, or site-specific provisions). While the foundational legal terms are fixed at the time of the LTA, the technical and operational conditions necessary for a specific assignment will be confirmed within the Employer’s Requirements for that COO.  

New clarification added: Q84: With reference to the evaluation criterion "4.7 Gender Mainstreaming", we understand that 3 points are awarded if 20% of the total proposed personnel are women OR 20% of the Expert Level 3 personnel are women, and 5 points if both conditions are met simultaneously.We request clarification regarding the personnel base to be considered in this evaluation, given that the percentage of women is measured against "the total proposed personnel". When submitting additional disciplines beyond the minimum required, the total proposed personnel increases, which could dilute the proportion of women and, consequently, reduce the score obtained under this criterion.Specifically, we request that UNOPS confirm:Whether the proportion of women is calculated against the entirety of the personnel proposed by the offeror (including all quoted disciplines — mandatory, preferred, and optional), or only against a specific subset.Whether quoting additional disciplines beyond the minimum required could negatively affect the gender score, and if so, whether UNOPS envisages any mechanism to ensure that the voluntary inclusion of additional disciplines does not penalize the offeror under this criterion.A84: The gender criteria is applied to all quoted disciplines, regardless of the category. We consider 20% to be an achievable threshold to reach, even in optional disciplines.   

New clarification added: Q83: With reference to Article 20 [Format and Signing of Proposals] and Article 11 [Content of Proposal Submissions], and considering that the proposal is submitted electronically through the eSourcing system, we kindly request confirmation on how UNOPS expects the following documents to be signed:The documents that must be signed by the offeror's legal representative (for example, the Returnable Schedules).The CVs of the proposed professionals under Schedule 0.5 [Proposed Key Personnel] (Matrix 02).We understand that, given the electronic nature of the submission, the person's signature inserted as an image on the document would be sufficient to satisfy the signing requirement. Could you please confirm whether this interpretation is correct, or whether a different signing format is required instead (for example, a printed document, hand-signed and scanned, or an electronic signature with a certificate)?A83: For all returnable schedules, CVs, and official proposal documents submitted through the eSourcing platform, UNOPS accepts any of the following signature formats:A person’s signature inserted as an image directly onto the document.A document printed, hand-signed, and scanned into PDF format.A standard digital signature or certified electronic signature.All returnable schedules, legal declarations, and corporate forms must be signed using one of the above methods by the Offeror’s authorized representative (or the Lead Partner's authorized representative in the case of a Joint Venture).individual CVs (Schedule 0.5) and Statements of Exclusivity and Availability (Schedule 0.6) must carry the personal signature of each proposed expert. 

New clarification added: Q82: With reference to the pre-bid meeting, kindly confirm our understanding that educational certificates are not required to be submitted at this stage.A82: This is correct. 

New clarification added: Q81. With reference to Clarification Q24/A24, and in relation to Section II: Terms of Reference (document '2. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_Schedule_2 - Schedule of requirements'), paragraph '5. Other requirements – Insurances', which states that "The Consultant is required to have Professional Indemnity, Public Liability, and Employer's Liability insurance in accordance with local laws and as agreed with UNOPS based on the nature and value of the assignment in the individual Call Off Order."In relation to this point, we kindly request confirmation of the following:1. Whether, at this proposal stage, we are required to submit the three insurances indicated in the Terms of Reference: Professional Indemnity, Public Liability, and Employer's Liability.2. If the answer to the previous point is affirmative, please confirm whether we should use the "4.8 Insurance Details and Insurances" format from the Call-Off Order template (given that it does not appear among the Returnable Schedules).3. If the answer to point 1 is affirmative, please confirm in which eSourcing field we should upload this information and its supporting documentation.A81: At this stage, bidders do not have to submit the insurances requested. Bidders/JV lead partners are only required to confirm their adherence to the insurance requirements, ensuring that all related costs are fully embedded within their proposed bid prices. Bidders may optionally submit supporting documentation, such as evidence of their firm's current corporate insurance capacity or a Letter of Intent / Commitment Letter from an accredited insurance broker.

New clarification added: Q80.l. Please confirm whether Returnable Schedule 0.5 – Proposed Key Personnel: Format for Resume of Proposed Key Personnel may be signed by the authorized representative of the consortium, or whether it must be signed by each proposed Key Personnel. If the latter is not required, please confirm whether there are any other documents that must be signed by the proposed Key Personnel.A80.l. While the Lead Representative signs the overarching proposal submission forms on behalf of the consortium/JV, all individual CVs (Schedule 0.5) and Statements of Exclusivity and Availability (Schedule 0.6) must carry the personal signatures of the nominated experts themselves. Q80.m. In the UNOPS eSourcing platform, under the Document Checklist tab, there are upload fields only for Schedules 0.11 and 0.12. We kindly request clarification on where the remaining Returnable Schedules and the other proposal documents should be uploaded.A80.m. All necessary upload fields are available in the checklist tab. Please verify this again.

New clarification added: Q80.a. In the document "3. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_II_III_IV_V", it is stated that the documents to demonstrate the experience of the LTA Director, LTA Coordinator, and the Technical Leads for the mandatory disciplines are Schedule 0.4 [Capacity and Experience] and Schedule 0.7 [Performance Statement]..We kindly request confirmation as to whether this is an inadvertent error, as these schedules appear to be intended for demonstrating the experience of the Offeror, rather than the qualifications and experience of the proposed Key Personnel.       A80.a. The qualifications, education, certifications, and project experience of individual Key Personnel (LTA Director, LTA Coordinator, and Technical Leads) must be presented in Schedule 0.5 (Proposed Key Personnel Matrix) and the individual UNOPS CV Templates (Schedule 0.5). This will be reflected in the amended documents.Q80.b. Article 21 of the Instructions to Offerors states that proposals shall be submitted in the language specified in the Particulars. However, we have been unable to identify this information in the solicitation documents.Could UNOPS please confirm whether the proposal must be submitted exclusively in English or whether submission in another language is permitted?.A80.b. Language of proposals is mentioned under the "particular" tab in eSourcing. The proposal must be submitted in English Language.A80.b. Language of proposals is mentioned under the "particular" tab in eSourcing. The proposal must be submitted in English Language.Q80.c. We kindly request clarification as to whether the cumulative years of experience required for the proposed Key Personnel refer exclusively to experience in design services and/or design review services, or whether experience gained in other types of infrastructure consultancy services may also be considered.A80.c. Cumulative years of experience for Key Personnel are evaluated based on professional technical engineering or architectural services matching their nominated discipline. While core design and design-review experience is primary, relevant experience gained in other related technical infrastructure consultancy services (such as feasibility studies, technical assessments, construction supervision, or master planning) may also be considered.Q80.d. We kindly request clarification regarding the evaluation criterion "Technical capacity, expertise, and experience for the required sectors (20 points)."Could UNOPS please confirm whether the five (5) required projects must include experience in buildings, transport, water and sanitation, and energy, or whether it is acceptable to submit projects from only some of these sectors (for example, two transport projects and three water and sanitation projects)?A80.d. The five projects to meet the qualification requirements may come from any sector. However, please note that the technical evaluation criteria will award points for demonstrated ability to deliver services across a range of technical and strategic areas.  Please consult the technical evaluation criteria to understand the award of points at this stage.Q80.e. We kindly request clarification what the requirements are for evaluating the experience of the LTA director and the LTA coordinator, apart from language skills.A80.e. There are no additional requirements for the LTA Director and the LTA Coordinator. These roles will serve as responsible focal points for the administration of the LTA. Q80.f. In the document "3. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_II_III_IV_V", under "4. Technical Criteria", it is stated that the documents to establish compliance with the criteria are all schedules under Schedule 4 [Contract Schedules from the Offeror], except Schedule 4.1.A [Breakdown of the Fees and Reimbursable Cost], Schedule 4.1.B [Daily Rate Schedule], and any other price-related documents. As these Schedule 4 documents are listed under the Call-Off Order Template, we kindly request clarification on how these schedules relate to the information required to be submitted as part of the proposal.A80.f. Bidders that pass the qualification criteria will be evaluated on the cumulative analysis methodology: 70% technical, 30% financial. The purpose of the note that you refer to is to indicate that the financial offer is not considered for the purposes of technical evaluation. All other schedules under Schedule 4 will form part of the evaluation of the technical proposal (70%). The two schedules 4.1.A and 4.1.B will be considered to evaluate the financial proposal (30%).Q80.g. We would also appreciate it if UNOPS could provide a complete list of all the forms and schedules that are required to be submitted with the proposal.A80.g. The full list of required submission documents can be found within the checklist tab. Bidders may also provide any additional documents deemed relevant for the evaluation process under the "other document" tab.Q80.h. We respectfully ask UNOPS to consider extending the submission deadline by three (3) weeks.This request is based on the size and complexity of this procurement. Preparing a compliant proposal requires the coordination and validation of a large multidisciplinary team, the preparation of technical and financial submissions. As this is a global long-term agreement covering multiple technical disciplines and language lots, we believe that additional time will allow offerors to submit more complete and higher-quality proposals.A80.h. The proposal submission deadline was already extendedQ80.i. We respectfully ask UNOPS to consider extending the submission deadline by three (3) weeks.This request is based on the size and complexity of this procurement. Preparing a compliant proposal requires the coordination and validation of a large multidisciplinary team, the preparation of technical and financial submissions. As this is a global long-term agreement covering multiple technical disciplines and language lots, we believe that additional time will allow offerors to submit more complete and higher-quality proposals.A80.i. The proposal submission deadline was already extendedQ80.j. Regarding Section VI: Returnable Schedules, we kindly request clarification on the following:Please confirm that all Returnable Schedules are required to be submitted, except for Schedules 0.6 and 0.8.A80.j. All returnable schedules to be submitted together with additional documents required for the evaluation (except documents are listed as not applicable). Please follow the checklist tab for the submission. Q80.k. Please clarify which Returnable Schedules must be completed and signed by each consortium member, and which must be completed and signed by the lead consortium representative.A80.k. Returnable schedule 0.3 must be completed and submitted by each member of the joint venture. All remaining tender documentation should be signed exclusively by the lead entity. 

New clarification added: Q79: In the Terms of Reference, page 10, it is stated that “For Expert Level 1, Expert Level 2, Expert Level 3 categories, a Master’s Degree in engineering/architecture discipline may be substituted for 2 years of professional experience.” We kindly ask that you confirm our interpretation, that an individual with a Master’s Degree can add two years of experience to his/her professional career for the purpose of complying with the Expert Level requirements.A79: This interpretation is correct.

New clarification added: Q78: In Section II “EVALUATION METHOD AND CRITERIA”, table 3. “QUALIFICATION CRITERIA”, criteria number 4. “Experience”, the offeror is required, as a Pass/Fail criteria, to “…have successfully completed at least five (5) infrastructure design or design review assignments within the last five (5) years, each with a construction cost exceeding USD 1,000,000...”. However, the document titled “4. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_II - 4. TECHNICAL CRITERIA - Detailed Criteria”, Part 1 “Consultant’s capacity and expertise”, does not specifically mention the 5-year rule for experience presented by the offeror. Our questions are:Will UNOPS consider – provided the offeror presents the minimum experience to pass the Pass/Fail requirement – the submission of additional experience, older than 5 years, for the purpose of presenting a full overview of our capability and to secure all the points available for this evaluation category?Will UNOPS accept – for the Pass/Fail requirement as well as for the experience presented for evaluation and the award of points – contracts that are still ongoing? Some of our more relevant experiences involve full-scope services that include design or design review that has been completed, along with a PMO or supervision component that is still in execution.A78: Qualification Criteria (Table 3 — Pass/Fail Baseline): Qualification Criterion 4 is an objective, mandatory baseline requirement. To achieve a "Pass", the Offeror must demonstrate that it has successfully completed at least five (5) infrastructure design or design review assignments within the last five (5) years (each with a construction value exceeding USD 1,000,000). Projects older than 5 years cannot be counted to meet this baseline threshold.Technical Criteria (Part 1 — Scored Points out of 20): The Technical Evaluation under Part 1 (Consultant’s Capacity and Expertise) is a separate evaluation stage designed to assess the quality, technical complexity, sector breadth, and diversity of the firm's experience. For this scored technical section:Bidders may submit additional flagship corporate references older than 5 years to showcase comprehensive capability and maximize technical points.An ongoing contract are not considered for both criteria.

New clarification added: Q77: For disciplines submitted under Category 3 (Optional Disciplines), please clarify whether a discipline must include all three experience levels (Expert Level 1, Expert Level 2 and Expert Level 3) in order to be considered as offered. Alternatively, can an optional discipline be considered as offered if only one or two experience levels are proposed for that discipline?A77: For a discipline to be considered as offered, bidders must provide prices for all three experience levels. 

New clarification added: Q76: Are we allowed to refuse to submit a quote after receiving a demand of COO? Thus, if a COO concerns a country that is subject to international sanctions or a country that does not comply with our company's compliance requirements, would we, in such a case, be able to refuse that COO?Such countries are currently Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Ecuador, Iran, Mali, Myanmar, Russia (Russian Federation), Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria (Syrian Arab Republic), Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen. And Crimea, as well as all or part of the oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.This list of countries is for reference only, as it is subject to change at any time.It goes without saying that we would then provide you with all supporting documentation, as well as the necessary details to substantiate and justify our decision.A76: Following consultation with our Legal Group, we can confirm that the LTAs will exclude the standard language that requires LTA holders to “must accept and honour COOs issued by UNOPS from any of its offices in any country, worldwide”. LTA holders may decline to bid on an opportunity after receipt of the Employer’s Requirements. 

New clarification added: Q75: Could you kindly confirm which contractual documents will govern the services upon award?We note that the Long Term Agreement template refers to various sets of UNOPS General Conditions of Contract and, given the nature of the procurement, we understand that the General Conditions of Contract for the Provision of Services (Rev.: Sept. 2024)  would apply together with the Call-off Order Template included in the tender documents.However, Section III also includes a separate contract template together with General Conditions for Works. We would appreciate your confirmation as to which contract form and corresponding General Conditions will ultimately govern the provision of the awarded services.A75: The COOs under the LTA are aligned to and governed in accordance with the Consultant Services Contract for Works. Upon award, the contractual relationship will be governed by the UNOPS LTA Framework Agreement, incorporating the UNOPS General Conditions of Contract for Works. The UNOPS General Conditions of Contract for Works along with the corresponding contract templates provided in Section III of the solicitation documents will serve as the overarching legal terms governing both the Framework Agreement and any subsequent Call-Off Orders issued under it. 

New clarification added: Q73: There is a no schedule name "Schedule 4.8 [Insurance Details and Insurances]" in Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules. Q74: In vendor submission tab there is no any place to upload Insurance details.  Does we need to submit this?A73 and A74: 0.13 Insurance details returnable schedule has been included in the document “5. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_VI_ReturnableSchedules - Amendment 1”. Bidders are required to confirm their adherence to the insurance requirements, ensuring that all related costs are fully embedded within their proposed bid prices. Additionally, bidders may optionally submit supporting documentation, such as evidence of their firm's current corporate insurance capacity or a Letter of Intent / Commitment Letter from an accredited insurance broker. 

New clarification added: Q72: En relación con las narrativas correspondientes a los apartados “Quality Management” y “Management of Subconsultants”, agradeceríamos que confirmaran si un único documento será válido para todos los lotes a los que se presente oferta, sin necesidad de entregar un documento independiente para cada lote. Es decir, tendríamos la misma puntuación para todos los lotes. Asimismo, agradeceríamos que confirmaran si la información complementaria para “Management of Subconsultants” debe incluirse en el Anexo 4.6.A72: Each lot needs to update separate documents. If the quality management and management of subconsultants are the same for all lots, it is sufficient to provide the same for all lots. 

New amendment added #5: Amendment No 51. The solicitation deadline and clarification deadline are hereby made to the Solicitation Document:The solicitation deadline is extended to 31 August 2026, 10:00 UTC.The Deadline for Submission of Clarification Requests is extended to 24 August 2026, 10:00 UTC.2. The expected contract award date is extended to 01 January 2027 under the Particular tab3. Document tab - The document “2. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_Schedule 2 - Schedule of requirements” is replaced with “2. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_V- Schedule of requirements - Amendment 1”.Changes are highlighted in yellow in the document 4. Document tab - The document “3. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_II_III_IV_V” is replaced with “3. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_II_III_IV_V-Amendment 1”.Changes are highlighted in yellow under the evaluation criteria5. Document tab - The document “5.Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules” is replaced with “5.Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - Amendment 1”.The following changes are included in the revised document and highlighted in yellow in the documentIncluded the form “0.6 Statement of Exclusivity and Availability” as a returnable scheduleIncluded the form “0.13 Insurance Details” as a mandatory returnable schedule6. Document tab - The document "5.1. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 0.4 Capacity and Experience" is renamed as "5.1. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_VI_ReturnableSchedules - 0.4 Capacity and Experience"7. Document tab - The document "5.2. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 0.5 Proposed Key Personnel" is renamed as "5.2. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_VI_ReturnableSchedules - 0.5 Proposed Key Personnel"8. The following checklists are added to the Checklist of documents to be submitted by vendors under the checklist tabSchedule 0.13 Insurance DetailsSchedule 0.6 Statement of Exclusivity and Availability 9. Minutes of the pre-bid meeting is uploaded under the document tab. All other terms and conditions of the Solicitation Document shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 

New clarification added: Q71: Based on our previous question, should UNOPS confirm that the Returnable Schedule 0.7 “Performance Statement” needs to be filled and signed by a former or current client, we ask that you provide an alternative method to fulfil this requirement for services provided to Governments and Public Institutions, as the public officials who oversaw the execution of the services rendered may no longer be holding office. In our experience, new officials are seldom willing to sign a performance statement for contracts they did not supervise directly.A71: Returnable Schedule 0.7 (Performance Statement) must be filled out and signed directly by the Offeror’s (bidder’s) authorized representative. 

New clarification added: Q70: Returnable Schedule 0.7 has to be filled and signed by past/current clients? Or may the offeror fill and sign them directly, reporting the information from existing completions certificates, provided they are attached as evidence?A70: Returnable Schedule 0.7 (Performance Statement) must be filled out and signed directly by the Offeror’s (bidder’s) authorized representative. Past or current clients do not need to sign this form. The Offeror self-reports the project details in the form and attaches the corresponding client completion certificates, contracts, or reference letters as supporting evidence. UNOPS may contact the listed client references directly to verify the accuracy of the provided information.

New clarification added: Q69: With reference to the pre-bid meeting, kindly confirm our understanding that educational certificates are not required to be submitted at this stage.A69: Returnable Schedule 0.7 (Performance Statement) must be filled out and signed directly by the Offeror’s (bidder’s) authorized representative. Past or current clients do not need to sign this form. The Offeror self-reports the project details in the form and attaches the corresponding client completion certificates, contracts, or reference letters as supporting evidence. UNOPS may contact the listed client references directly to verify the accuracy of the provided information. 

New clarification added: Q68: Regarding Schedule "0.4 Capacity and Experience", the instruction in the Word form (document "5. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules") mentions the same document name twice, which raises doubts as to where the company's experience should be entered.We understand that these are two different documents: the Schedule 0.4 in Word (cover page: RFP reference, name of offeror, date, and signature) and the Excel file "0.4 Capacity and Experience" (Matrix 01), where the experience is detailed project by project.Could you please confirm that the experience and project references should be entered in the Excel file (Matrix 01) —and not in the Word table— and that both documents must be submitted together?A68: The repetitive naming in the Word instruction document is a minor administrative typo. Where to Enter Project Experience: Company project experience must be entered into Matrix 1 (References of projects) within the Schedule 0.4 Excel file (Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules.xlsx).Detailed Project Descriptions: For expanded project details corresponding to the entries in Matrix 1, bidders should complete Schedule 0.7 (Performance Statement) by adding extra rows directly to that template sheet. 

New clarification added: Q 67: In relation to the Returnable Schedules (document "5. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules"), we note that the following forms and sections are marked with the label "Not Applicable":1. Schedule "0.6 Statement of Exclusivity and Availability".2. Schedule "0.8 Form for Proposal Security".3. Within Schedule "0.4 Capacity and Experience", the sections: "All current contracts underway", "All contracts committed to start", and "Assets".We kindly request UNOPS to confirm that these forms and sections do not apply and, therefore, are not required to be completed or submitted at this proposal stage.A67: Please note that Schedule 0.6 (Statement of Exclusivity and Availability) is now a mandatory submission document for this tender.Schedule 0.8 (Form for Proposal Security) and the sub-sections under Schedule 0.4 ("All current contracts underway", "All contracts committed to start", and "Assets") remain Not Applicable and do not need to be submitted. 

New clarification added: Q66: we were unable to participate in the pre-bid meeting. can you mshare the minutes of the m eeting or share the presentationsA66: The minutes from the pre-bid meeting will be uploaded to the documents section of the solicitation.

New clarification added: Q65: From the document checklist, we would appreciate your clarification on the difference between the following two document upload fields:05. Schedule 0.5 – Format for Resume of Proposed Key Personnel07. Schedule 0.5 – Proposed Key PersonnelWe have noted that the document category for both fields is stated as "Key Personnel CVsA65: 05. Schedule 0.5 – Format for Resume of Proposed Key Personnel is for uploading of CV and supporting documents of proposed personnel07. Schedule 0.5 – Proposed Key Personnel is for uploading of list of proposed key personnel (excel version)

New clarification added: Q64: As we understand it, each CV must be accompanied by copies of the relevant academic and professional certificates.Could you please clarify whether we should combine all the CVs and their respective certificates into a single document for uploading, or whether each expert's CV and supporting certificates should be compiled and uploaded as separate documents?A64: Bidders must use the standard UNOPS CV template provided in Schedule 0.5 for all proposed experts. For submission, bidders may either combine all completed CVs and their corresponding certificates into a single consolidated file, or upload each expert's CV package as a separate document in the relevant eSourcing checklist tab both formats are fully acceptable.

New clarification added: Q63: We would like to ask UNOPS to clarify the exact location of Sections described in SECTION I: INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS to make sure we are considering all the guidelines relevant to this RFP. Based solely on the titles within the documents – not the names of the files – there appear to be some sections missing. For instance, In Section I, Article 1, "Scope of Proposal," it is stated that bidders shall submit their service proposal in accordance with the requirements specified in Section V: "Requirements." However, we were unable to locate a matching title for said section within a specific document. Additionally, we would appreciate it you could confirm whether Section IV exists and, if so, provide it or indicate where it can be found.A63: Section V (Requirements) is located in the document titled 2. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_V- Schedule of requirements - Amendment 1, which contains the full Terms of Reference (TOR) and technical specifications for this tender. Section IV (Returnable Schedules) corresponds to the downloadable submission forms provided in the Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules Excel workbook and related files. 

New clarification added: Q62: With regard to the proposed personnel, please clarify whether any personal experience certificates or supporting documents are required to substantiate the experience declared in the CVs. In addition, regarding the “References” section of the CV template, please clarify whether the requested references should correspond to employers/companies where the proposed personnel have worked, or to specific projects in which the proposed personnel have participated.A62: You are not required to submit copies of academic diplomas, professional certificates, membership certificates, or reference letters for proposed personnel at the proposal stage. It is sufficient to provide the relevant information within Schedule 0.5 and the UNOPS CV template. Note, however, that UNOPS reserves the right to verify any information provided in your submission. The contact details provided in the "References" section of the CV template must correspond to specific key projects/assignments where the proposed expert performed design or design-review services (e.g., project managers, client representatives, or supervising leads).

New clarification added: Q61: With regard to the Mechanical Engineer and Electrical Engineer positions required under the tender documents, we would appreciate your confirmation as to whether it would be acceptable to nominate an Industrial Engineer qualified in Spain, considering that, under the applicable Spanish regulations and professional attributions, this degree provides the qualifications and technical competencies typically associated with these engineering disciplines.The proposed professional also has extensive experience in the relevant field, having performed duties and responsibilities directly related to the required specialty. We would therefore appreciate confirmation as to whether this qualification may be considered equivalent and acceptable for the purpose of complying with the personnel requirements established under the tender.A61: UNOPS cannot validate specific candidates or assess compliance for individual professionals prior to the formal evaluation of proposals, and we do not provide pre-approval for specific degree titles.However, UNOPS evaluates compliance based on the requirements explicitly set out in the tender documentation. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to demonstrate in the proposal how the proposed personnel meet the required education, professional certifications, and experience levels for the specific discipline.If you believe the Industrial Engineer’s qualification provides the necessary technical competency, please ensure the submission clearly articulates this equivalence within the CV and supporting documentation, demonstrating how their academic background and professional experience directly map to the requirements for the Mechanical/Electrical Engineer roles. All proposed personnel will be evaluated against the criteria established in the RFP during the formal assessment phase. A person may occupy more than one role as long as they meet the applicable requirements for both and are clearly identified as fulfilling both roles. 

New clarification added: Q60: Form 0.7  Performance Statement has space to enter only two contracts. If we want to include more than two contracts, should we complete and sign additional copies of the same form, or can we add more rows to the existing form and sign it only once for all the contracts?A60: Bidders should use Form 0.7 (Performance Statement) to provide the expanded, detailed information for the relevant projects listed in Form 0.4 (Capacity and Experience).To accommodate all listed projects, bidders are advised to add extra rows directly to the table in the Form 0.7 sheet.  

New clarification added: Q59: a): Is there any required format for naming the files before uploading them?b): In Returnable Schedule 0.4 (Capacity and Experience – Matrix 1), the drop-down arrow for Type of Services, Language, and Reference Letter Attached (Yes/No) is not working. Please advise how we should complete these fields.c): In the CV template, there are fields at the bottom for Name, Position, and Signature. Please confirm who should sign the CV – the person whose CV it is (the proposed expert) or the authorised person who signs the other tender documents?d): Should all documents, including the matrix documents, be uploaded in PDF format?A59:a) There is no strict, mandatory formula required for file names, but bidders are strongly advised to use clear, standardized names that include the Schedule Number and Company b) You can manually type the entries into those cellsc). The CVs must be signed by the proposed expert/person whose CV it is, confirming the accuracy of their experience and their availability for the assignment.d). All documents are not necessary to submit in PDF. We encourage you to submit documents related to signatures required in PDF. For other documents, you can submit in JPG, Excel, Word, or a preferred format supported by the system,  

New clarification added: Q58: Could you kindly confirm the country and currency from which payments for services performed under the Long Term Agreement and subsequent Call-off Orders will be made? In particular, we would appreciate clarification on whether payments will be processed centrally by UNOPS Headquarters or by the respective UNOPS country office issuing each Call-off Order, and whether the payment terms, banking arrangements, and applicable currency may vary depending on the country of implementation of the assignment. This information is important for assessing financial, tax, and administrative implications associated with the provision of services under the framework agreement.A58: Payments are carried out by the responsible project office that engages the services. While USD is almost always used, the payments are made in the currency stated in Schedule 1 of the COO and will be made known to the LTA holders prior to secondary bidding.

New clarification added: Q58: Could you kindly confirm the country and currency from which payments for services performed under the Long Term Agreement and subsequent Call-off Orders will be made? In particular, we would appreciate clarification on whether payments will be processed centrally by UNOPS Headquarters or by the respective UNOPS country office issuing each Call-off Order, and whether the payment terms, banking arrangements, and applicable currency may vary depending on the country of implementation of the assignment. This information is important for assessing financial, tax, and administrative implications associated with the provision of services under the framework agreement.A58: Payments are carried out by the responsible project office that engages the services. While USD is almost always used, the payments are made in the currency stated in Schedule 1 of the COO and will be made known to the LTA holders prior to secondary bidding.

New clarification added: Q54: With respect to the corporate experience requirements under this tender, we would appreciate clarification on the supporting documents that will be accepted as evidence of the experience declared.Specifically, please confirm whether contracts, service orders, invoices, or similar documents may be used to substantiate the experience presented when client reference letters or completion certificates are not available.As clients in some countries do not routinely issue such certificates or reference letters for consultancy services, we kindly request confirmation that alternative supporting documentation will be accepted.A54: Yes, alternative supporting documentation is acceptable when official client reference letters or completion certificates are unavailable. You may submit copies of contracts, service orders, or invoices to substantiate the project experience declared in your submission. Please attach these documents alongside the required returnable schedules (e.g., Schedule 0.7 or Schedule 0.4) to assist in the verification of the experience presented.Q55: Schedule 0.5 – Proposed Key Personnel (Matrix 02) includes a dedicated column, “CV provided (Yes/No)”, which indicates that a CV must be submitted for each proposed professional. At the same time, the tender documents include the UNOPS CV template under Schedule 0.5.Based on this, we understand that each proposed professional must be included in the Schedule 0.5 matrix and that an individual CV must be submitted using the UNOPS-provided CV template. Is our understanding correct that the completion and submission of the UNOPS CV template is sufficient to satisfy the CV requirement, and that no additional CV in a separate format is required for the proposed personnel?A55: The completion and submission of the provided UNOPS CV template under Schedule 0.5 for each proposed professional along with their inclusion in the Key Personnel Matrix is fully sufficient to satisfy the CV requirement. Bidders are not required to submit additional CVs in company-specific or alternative formats. As long as all required fields in the UNOPS template are accurately completed and accompanied by the necessary supporting educational diplomas/certificates, your submission will meet the compliance criteria.Q56: With respect to the personnel documentation requirements, is our understanding correct that there is no requirement to submit copies of academic diplomas, professional certificates, professional membership certificates, or reference letters for the proposed personnel at the proposal stage, and that providing the relevant information within Schedule 0.5 and the UNOPS CV template will be sufficient?A56: You are not required to submit copies of academic diplomas, professional certificates, membership certificates, or reference letters for proposed personnel at the proposal stage. It is sufficient to provide the relevant information within Schedule 0.5 and the UNOPS CV template. Note, however, that UNOPS reserves the right to verify any information provided in your submission.Q57: We note that Schedule 0.6 – Statement of Exclusivity and Availability is marked as “Not Applicable” in the solicitation documents. Based on this, we understand that no signed commitment, exclusivity, availability, or letter of intent is required from the proposed personnel at the proposal stage. Is our understanding correct?A57: Bidders must demonstrate they have secured the necessary personnel whether they are employees, freelancers, or sub-consultants and that these individuals meet the language, professional, and experience requirements. Please be advised that if freelancers or sub-consultants are proposed, you are required to submit Statements of 0.6 Statement of Exclusivity and Availability. 

New clarification added: Q53: Could you please clarify how many projects must be submitted in order to obtain the maximum score under the experience evaluation criteriaA53: Scores are not awarded based on an aggregate number of projects but the breadth of services demonstrated in the project examples. The established criteria evaluates a supplier’s demonstrated ability to deliver high-quality infrastructure services across a range of technical and strategic domains across five types of infrastructure:Experience with core capabilities in buildings, transport, water and sanitation, energy projects. Experience with non-standard, technically challenging assignments such as seismic retrofitting, biomedical/health engineering, sustainable design, etc.Experience with strategic infrastructure planning and advisory in national or regional infrastructure master planning, climate vulnerability assessments, policy development, etc.Geographical scope. Portfolio demonstrates ability to successfully deliver projects in geographically and operationally diverse contexts.Climate adaptation and resilient design. Portfolio demonstrates experience with designs that are climate resilient and adaptive to climate change.To obtain the maximum score, please submit a portfolio of projects that cover the above areas. Consideration will be given to the quality of evidence provided.

New clarification added: Q52: We kindly request that the eligible experience period be extended from the last five (5) years to the last ten (10) years.This request is based on the fact that the five-year period includes the years affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which numerous projects were suspended, delayed, or canceled, limiting consulting firms' ability to demonstrate recent experienceA52: For the provision of global infrastructure services, we believe that five projects in the most recent five years provides an appropriate minimum baseline. 

New clarification added: Q51: There is a no schedule name "Schedule 4.3 Method Statement" in Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules. A51: There is no specific schedule for the Method Statement. The Method Statement (which includes your approach, management of sub-consultants, quality management, and operational workflows) must be submitted as a free-format narrative document (e.g., PDF or Word document). Bidders should upload their Method Statement document directly into the designated slot on the eSourcing checklist for each respective lot for which a proposal is submitted.

New clarification added: Q50:There is a no schedule name "Schedule 4.6 [Sub-consultants]" in Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules. A50: Please note that Schedule 4.6 has been removed from the returnable schedules package for this tender. Bidders are not required to complete a standalone Schedule 4.6 form. Instead, bidders must describe their methodology and management framework for sub-consultants directly within their Method Statement (or overall Technical Proposal narrative). Within your Method Statement, please detail your corporate processes for vetting, selecting, managing, and ensuring quality control and performance oversight over all proposed sub-consultants.

New clarification added: Q49: For Matrix 01 (Capacity and Experience), may the Offeror include projects where the primary service was Design Management or Project Management, provided that the assignment included responsibility for managing and coordinating the design process and reviewing design deliverables, or are only projects involving direct design production and/or formal design review considered eligible?A49:  The services under the RFP are technical engineering services. Accordingly, we are seeking proof of projects where suppliers were directly responsible for the technical services.

New clarification added: Q48: Did we need to submit 3 CVs for 3 experience levels (Level 1,2 and 3)  for LTA Director and LTA Cordinators also? 2. Are these LTA directors and LTA cordinators can substitute for mandatory personal CVs?A48: Format for Resume of Proposed Key Personnel are required for all personnel, including LTA Director and LTA Coordinator. Individuals may serve multiple roles but they must be clearly identified as such, and their qualifications must demonstrate relevant education and experience for each role.

New clarification added: Q44; Its mentioned as offeror should have  USD 500,000  turn over. If we bid as a joint venture, if all the parties’ total turnover is USD 500,000 hope we are eligible for the tender?A44: You are eligible if the combined turnover of all JV parties equals or exceeds USD 500,000. The annual turnover criteria are evaluated on a cumulative basis across the members of the Joint Venture.Q45: Is it need to take credit or bank overdraft or other financial means to meet a working capital/cash flow requirement from a bank letter rather than submitting all the joint ventures audited reports? Please clarify. Or the bank letters should provide if we are selected? As its mentioned like that. Please clarifyA45: You cannot submit a bank letter in place of the audited financial reports at the proposal stage. Every member of the Joint Venture must still submit their own audited financial statements to verify the baseline financial capacity criteria. However, if your audited reports do not fully meet the working capital or cash flow thresholds, you can include a bank letter demonstrating a credit line or overdraft facility to supplement your application. Q46: In vendor submission under the main tender there are some documents to upload ( such as : Audited Financial Statements, BR, Proposal Submission Declaration, Dispute Details, Acknowledgement of the Addenda, Self-disclosure, Insurance Details and Insurances) If we are going as a joint venture all the joint venture party details should attach for the above requested documents? Please clarify.A46: Yes, when submitting as a Joint Venture, both the Lead Partner and all JV Member Entities must attach their details for the requested documents under the main tender section. Specifically, individual supporting documents such as Audited Financial Statements, Business Registrations, Dispute Details, and Self-Disclosure declarations must be provided for every individual JV partner to satisfy legal and financial eligibility checks. You can merge these partner-specific documents into a single organized PDF per slot or upload them jointly under the respective checklist item. Conversely, framework-level documents such as the Proposal Submission Declaration, Acknowledgement of Addenda, and Insurance Details are submitted as a single unified package for the entire Joint Venture, provided they are formally signed by the authorized Lead Partner or all JV membersQ47: UNOPS's clarification A7 states that, unlike turnover, liquidity, and experience criteria, insurance requirements for Joint Venture bids apply "to each member individually" rather than on a combined basis. At the same time, A24 and A30(9) confirm that full, active insurance policies are project-specific and only required at Call-Off Order stage, not at proposal stage.Could UNOPS confirm whether Schedule 4.8 at proposal stage may be submitted reflecting only the lead Offeror's insurance coverage (given the lead Offeror's joint and several liability for the Contract), or whether each Joint Venture partner must individually submit its own Schedule 4.8 details at this stage?A47: A signed form 4.8 by the lead partner in the Lead Partner's name satisfies the proposal stage requirements. Bidder/JV lead partner are required to confirm their adherence to the insurance requirements, ensuring that all related costs are fully embedded within their proposed bid prices. Additionally, bidders may optionally submit supporting documentation, such as evidence of their firm's current corporate insurance capacity or a Letter of Intent / Commitment Letter from an accredited insurance broker.

New clarification added: Q43: If we bidding as a joint venture, lead party plus all the other joint ventures should require to submit insurances, past experiences, dispute details and all other requested details in the submission tab? (As separate sheets) Please clarify.A43: When submitting as a Joint Venture, compliance criteria (such as past experience, turnover, and technical capacity) are evaluated on a combined basis, allowing JV partners to submit their supporting documents jointly or as a merged package. However, individual legal and eligibility items such as business registrations, dispute details, self-disclosures, and audited financials must still be provided for each JV member individually. 

New clarification added: Q42: If the 2025 financial period is under review by external auditors and the estimated issuance date of the audited financial statements occurs after the required document submission date, is this requirement satisfiable by providing the non-audited financial statement along with a document signed by the external auditors certifying that the financial information is under review?A42: You must submit formal, fully audited financial statements for the last three consecutive completed years. If your final 2025 audited statements are genuinely unavailable because they are still being processed by an external Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm, you must satisfy the "last three years" mandate by submitting your fully completed, signed, and audited financial statements for the immediate preceding three-year cycle—specifically 2022, 2023, and 2024. You should still include the unissued 2025 draft statements alongside the certification letter from your external auditors stating the document is under review.  

New clarification added: Q41:a). Regarding 5.2. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 0.5 Proposed Key Personnel, we kindly request clarification regarding the required experts for the different experience levels. In the RFP documentation, it is stated that for each discipline quoted, the Offeror must provide prices for all three experience levels: Expert Level 1, Expert Level 2 and Expert Level 3. Please confirm whether the Offeror is required to submit named experts, CVs and educational diplomas/certificates for all three levels — Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 — for each discipline quoted, or whether at the proposal submission stage only Level 3 Technical Leads are mandatory, while Level 1 and Level 2 represent only pricing/daily rate categories.b). Additionally, regarding Category 2, we kindly request clarification on the minimum number of disciplines that must be quoted. In the Excel document “6. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 4.1 Fees and Reimbursment”, it is stated: “Minimum 4 disciplines shall quote” for Category 2. However, in the document “2. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_Schedule 2 - Schedule of requirements”, it is stated that Offerors may submit quotations/prices for a minimum of two (2) disciplines under Category 2, and that Offerors are not required to quote for all disciplines listed under Category 2. Please confirm whether, for compliance purposes, it is sufficient to quote a minimum of two (2) Category 2 disciplines, as stated in the Schedule of requirements, or whether the Offeror is required to quote four (4) Category 2 disciplines, as stated in the Excel document 4.1 Fees and Reimbursment.A41:a ). Yes, you are required to submit named experts, CVs, and educational diplomas/certificates for all three levels (Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3) for each discipline you choose to quote.b). Please always refer to the latest amendments to the tender document. The requirement is modified.

New clarification added: Q40:a) With regard to the narratives for the “Quality Management” and “Management of Subconsultants” sections, we would be grateful if you could confirm whether a single document will be valid for all the lots for which a bid is submitted, without the need to provide a separate document for each lot. In other words, please confirm whether the same score would apply across all lots.b) We would also appreciate confirmation as to whether the supplementary information relating to “Management of Subconsultants” should be included in Annex 4.6.#A40:a) Following the latest revisions to the eSourcing platform, the submission checklists have been updated to accommodate lot-wise submissions. The system has been modified from a single global upload to a lot-specific checklist to better support complex bidding scenarios, such as varying Joint Venture structures per lot. If your firm utilizes different operational workflows or distinct quality management narratives tailored to specific lots, you are now permitted to submit different, lot-specific documents within each respective lot checklist. If you maintain a single, unified Quality Management Plan or corporate narrative that applies across all regions and scopes, you can simply upload the exact same document into the checklist for each individual lot you are contesting. The evaluation and scoring will be done lotwise.b). The supplementary information could be included and submitted in conjunction with Schedule 4.6 [Sub-consultants].  Any additional detailed narrative describing your precise methodology for vetting, managing, and ensuring quality control over those subconsultants should be appended directly to Schedule 4.6 as a supplementary text or attachment.

New clarification added: Q39: With regard to the section “Part 1: Consultant’s Capacity and Expertise”, we would be grateful if you could confirm whether it is necessary to submit an additional portfolio of previous projects or assignments. Our understanding is that submitting Annex 0.4 – Capacity and Experience and the Excel file “Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules – 0.4 Capacity and Experience”, together with the corresponding certificates of satisfactory performance supporting the experience listed, would be sufficient. We would therefore appreciate confirmation that no separate portfolio is required and that, even without submitting a portfolio, bidders will still be eligible to obtain the full number of points available under this criterion.A39: Submitting the completed Schedule 0.4 [Capacity and Experience] Excel workbook, alongside Schedule 0.7 [Performance Statement] and its supporting third-party certificates of satisfactory performance or reference letters, is fully sufficient to fulfill the submission requirements for this section.Bidders will remain fully eligible to obtain the maximum number of points available (20 points) under the "Technical capacity, expertise, and experience" criterion without a separate portfolio, provided that the details logged in the mandatory schedules are thoroughly completed, verifiable, and comprehensively demonstrate the required depth of experience across the listed infrastructure sectors

New clarification added: Q35: Can you please extend the dedline?Q36: Considering the numerous clarifications provided during yesterday's pre-bid meeting, as well as the additional explanations regarding the submission requirements for each lot, we kindly request a two-week extension of the tender submission deadline. The additional information and clarifications are essential for the proper preparation of a comprehensive, responsive, and competitive proposal. Granting this extension would provide all interested bidders with sufficient time to adequately address the clarified requirements and incorporate the newly provided information into their submissions. We appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to your response.Q37: Considering the extensive documentation requirements, the recent clarification process, and the preparation of separate submissions for the individual Lots, we would like to kindly ask whether UNOPS would consider granting a 2 weeks extension of the proposal submission deadline.Q38: The current summer holiday period makes discussions and validations with our teams more complex. To ensure the full mobilization of the stakeholders concerned and to submit a comprehensive proposal of the highest possible quality, we would appreciate having additional time. Would it be possible to postpone the proposal submission date to the end of August? This deadline would allow us to finalize our submission under the best possible conditions, once all stakeholders have returned.A35, A36, A37, A38: Both the clarification deadline and the tender submission deadline will be extended, with official notification to be provided via an upcoming amendment.

New amendment added #4: Amendment No.4The following amendments are hereby made to the Solicitation Document:The checklist tab was revised to reflect the different scenarios for lot submissions.Added a questionnaire under the Questionnaire tabAll other terms and conditions of the Solicitation Document shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

New clarification added: Q31: Evidence of Key Personnel ExperienceThe RFP requires Offerors to provide information regarding the experience of the proposed Key Personnel. Could the Client please clarify whether references, certificates of completion, client confirmations, or any other supporting documents evidencing the experience of the proposed Key Personnel are required to be submitted together with the proposal?A31: The primary requirement is the submission of the CV using the provided template, which must contain details of the personnel’s roles, responsibilities, and experience. While you are not required to attach individual client references for every project, UNOPS reserves the right to verify any claims made. Please ensure all CVs are accurate and self-contained.Q32: Evidence of Construction Cost of Reference ProjectsOne of the qualification requirements requires the Offeror to demonstrate experience on infrastructure design or design review assignments with a construction cost exceeding USD 1,000,000. In practice, during the design phase or design review, the final construction cost is often determined only after completion of the design and procurement process. Consequently, this information is frequently not included in client performance certificates or reference letters.Could the Client please clarify whether, for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with this requirement, it would be acceptable for the Offeror to submit its own signed statement or project description indicating the construction cost of the reference project, together with the relevant supporting project information?Alternatively, is a confirmation issued by the Client/Employer explicitly stating the construction cost of the project mandatory?A32: Yes, it is acceptable for the Offeror to submit its own detailed project description and signed statement indicating the construction cost, provided it is supported by relevant project information.  Filling Out Schedule 0.4: Bidders must formally log these construction values directly inside the mandatory Schedule 0.4 [Capacity and Experience] (Matrix 01) workbook, where the project parameters are evaluated. For design or design review assignments where a final construction contract value was not yet finalized during your period of performance, you may use the Engineers' Estimate, Detailed Cost Estimate, or approved Project Budget established during that design phase to demonstrate that the project size exceeded the USD 1,000,000 threshold.  While a self-signed statement or internal project description sheet is acceptable for the core submission, it should ideally be backed up by appending any related documentation you possess (such as pages from the design report executive summary, client-approved budget sheets, or public procurement notices).Q33: Where a Consultant prices all three experience levels for a discipline, is the Consultant required to include named personnel with CVs at all three levels in Schedule 0.5, or is a CV required only for the Level 3 technical lead?A33: CVs are required for all proposed personnel.Q34: Schedule 0.5 Proposed Key Personnel requires Offerors to identify all proposed Key Personnel supplemented with CVs, but does not define which positions are considered "Key Personnel".  Additionally, the Schedule 0.5 instructions state that CVs and educational diplomas/certificates must be provided using the CV template provided. Can UNOPS please define which positions it considers to be "Key", and clarify whether resumes and educational certificates should be submitted for every individual identified in the proposed personnel roster (including all Levels 1, 2, and 3), or only for those personnel designated as "Key Personnel" (e.g., LTA Director, LTA Coordinator, and Level 3 Mandatory technical experts)?A34: Key Personnel refers to all individuals nominated in the proposal to deliver the services udner the LTA, including the LTA Director, LTA Coordinator, and all technical experts (Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3) for each of the disciplines proposed. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the team’s qualifications and technical capacity, CVs, educational diplomas, and professional certificates must be submitted for every individual identified proposed.

New clarification added: Q30: 1. Can the daily rate be ajusted in time?2. For the proposal, can we use the CVs and project references of our affiliated companies (inside the same Group), or are we required to formally establish a joint venture (JV) between the companies in order to be able to present these CVs and references?3. During the contract life, are we allowed to subcontract to entity inside the same Group?4. Will the individual project be paid in a lump sum or time based?5. Where will the payments originate from?6. Based on the (reference documents), we understand that our services must be priced exclusive of tax, regardless from where they are provided?7. Are we allowed to refuse to submit a quote after receiving a demand of COO? For what reasons?8. Are the services expect to be made remotely or in situ?9. What are the expected specials conditions for regular project (Limit of liability, penalty, insurance etc.)?A30: 1. The submitted maximum daily rates are fixed ceilings for the duration of the LTA. Rates in a Call-Off Order may not exceed these maximums. If an LTA is renewed after the initial duration, the maximum daily rates may be adjusted in line with the UNOPS Procurement Manual.2. No, you cannot use the project references of your affiliated companies without a formal legal agreement (such as a Joint Venture).  In UN and UNOPS procurement, companies within the same corporate group (parent companies, subsidiaries, or sister entities) are treated as separate legal entities.  If you submit your proposal as a single legal entity (a sole bidder), you may only present project references and corporate experience that belong directly to that specific bidding entity. You cannot "borrow" or rely on the corporate qualifications or past project performance of your affiliates to meet the pass/fail eligibility or evaluation criteria. 3. Subcontracting is governed by the General Conditions of Contract. While internal group arrangements may be permissible, they generally require disclosure and prior written approval from UNOPS in accordance with the contract terms.4. The method of payment is generally lump-sum, but may be specified otherwise in the employer’s requirements of an individual Call-Off Order.5. Payments originate from the specific project funding source assigned to the Call-Off Order. This information is project-specific and is not predetermined at the LTA level.6. Please refer to the duties and taxes under the particular tab7. By signing the overarching LTA framework, the Contractor formally represents that it has the requisite experience, expertise, and resources to perform the services within the sectors it has priced. Entering into the agreement represents a formal commitment to perform services as and when requested by UNOPS. While UNOPS does not generally exercise this right when the Consultant is—for whatever reason—not able to meet a request for services, UNOPS does reserve its right to do so under the terms of the LTA. 8. Services are often performed remotely. Any requirement for local presence or site visits will be explicitly defined in the Employer’s Requirements at the time of each specific Call-Off Order.9. Special conditions (e.g., liability limits, penalties, specific insurance requirements) are project-specific. They will be defined by the requesting unit within the Employer’s Requirements at the time of the individual Call-Off Order.

New clarification added: Q29: If the Offeror holds supporting documents equivalent to Schedule 0.7 [Performance Statement] — such as performance certificates or reference letters that contain all of the information requested in that Schedule (contract number, client details, contract date, description of the scope of services, contract value, contractual vs. actual completion dates, and remarks on performance) — but presented in a different TEMPLATE, may these be accepted in place of the prescribed Schedule 0.7 form?A29:Schedule 0.7 [Performance Statement] is listed as a mandatory returnable document in the tender checklist. Bidders must complete and submit the official, standardized Schedule 0.7 template provided in the solicitation documents to ensure conformity and ease of evaluation. You are highly encouraged to attach your equivalent supporting documents such as official performance certificates, reference letters, or client sign-offs as attachments directly to the completed Schedule 0.7 tab in the checklist.

New clarification added: Q28: Are Tenderers permitted to delete the blue colored instructions and guidance notes provided by the Employer in the templates prior to submission?For example, in the form "0.4 Capacity and Experience" (using the document “Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 0.4 Capacity and Experience”)?A28: Bidders are advised not to modify the provided formats, except to supply the details and information required for their bid submission.

New clarification added: Q27: In which section of the tender documentation should the Tenderer present the specialists' project experience and the works performed, in accordance with the technical and professional requirements set out in the Tender Regulations? Should this information (description of works, project description, volumes/scope, and the specialist's role and responsibilities) be included in the "References" section of the specialist's CV, or should these details be presented in a separate experience list (such as the Tender Regulations Annex "Proposed Key Personnel" or similar)?What information must be included in the references section of the specialist's CV? Is it sufficient to provide only the contact details of the previous clients and the name of the associated project, or should this section also include a detailed description of the works performed and the results achieved by the specialist in the respective project?A27: You must present your specialists' experience in both the CVs and the specified Excel/Word schedules, as they serve different purposes in the evaluation:In the CV (Schedule 0.5 - Format for Resume of Proposed Key Personnel): The detailed, project-by-project narrative of the specialist's experience—including a description of works, project description, volumes/scope, and the specialist's specific role and responsibilities must be included directly within the CV template itself. The CV is the primary document used to score the individual qualifications and credentials of your proposed roster.In the Proposed Key Personnel Matrix (Schedule 0.5 - Proposed Key Personnel Excel): You must simultaneously list these proposed specialists in the companion Excel spreadsheet (Matrix 02). This matrix acts as a structured summary roster linking each specialist to their nominated LTA role, experience level, and languages. It does not replace the need for detailed CVs. 

New clarification added: Q26: We'd like to ask about the "Main tender" section of the document checklist. It requires a single upload of the Audited Financial Statement, Company Registration Certificate, and Quality Management Plan, with no separate slot for each Lot, whereas Schedules 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 4.5 are each uploaded separately per Lot. We're planning to bid for several Lots, using the same lead entity throughout but a different Joint Venture partner for each Lot.Could you confirm whether the single "Main tender" Audited Financial Statement, Company Registration Certificate, and Quality Management Plan should just reflect the lead entity, with each Lot's specific partner covered through that Lot's own Schedule 0.2/0.3/0.4/4.5 submission, or whether you need a combined submission covering every partner across all the Lots we're bidding for?More broadly, could UNOPS confirm that an Offeror may use a different Joint Venture partner for each Lot bid, with the same entity acting as lead partner throughout, given that each Lot is submitted and evaluated separately?A26: The submission checklist will be revised to accommodate the various joint venture scenarios. 

New clarification added: Q25: Under Table 5.2-key personnel. under the columns "education" and " certification" pls kindly explain to us rhe information  you are requestingA25: Education Column - You are required to state the academic degrees/masters obtained by the nominated personnel.  The degree/master must be explicitly "in the area of technical specialty" matching the specific engineering or architectural discipline they are being nominated for (e.g., a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering for a structural role)Certification Column - You are required to state any formal, active professional credentials or licenses held by the nominated personnel.   

New amendment added #3: Amendment No. 3The following amendments are hereby made to the Solicitation Document:Clarifications/Pre-bid meeting date and time is amended to 20 July 2026, 12:00 UTC.All other terms and conditions of the Solicitation Document shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

New clarification added: Q24: Regarding the insurance requirements outlined in the tender documents (Professional Indemnity Insurance, Public Liability, etc.), could UNOPS please confirm if Offerors must possess these active policies at the time of proposal submission? Alternatively, is it acceptable for evaluation purposes to submit a formal commitment or a Letter of Intent from an insurance broker stating that the required policies will be secured upon contract award and prior to contract signature?A24: It is not necessary to have the final, active project-specific policies fully active at the time of proposal submission.For the evaluation stage, you must submit Schedule 4.8 [Insurance Details and Insurances] along with evidence of your firm's existing corporate insurance capacities or a formal Letter of Intent / Commitment Letter from an accredited insurance broker. This letter must explicitly confirm that your firm is fully insurable and that the required coverage limits will be successfully issued and activated upon contract award.If your firm is selected for an award, the complete, active insurance policies must be fully secured and certificates of insurance must be provided to UNOPS prior to contract signature or before the commencement of any services under individual Call-Off Orders 

New clarification added: Q23. Regarding Section II (Evaluation Method and Criteria) - 3. Qualification Criteria, under "Financial Capacity" (Annual Turnover and Liquidity Ratio):Could UNOPS please clarify the exact criteria or baseline standard required for the financial statements to be considered "audited"? Specifically, if an Offeror submits financial statements for the years 2023, 2024, and 2025 accompanied by an Independent Auditor's Report / Audit Opinion issued by an external, independent Certified Public Accounting firm (independent studio), does this fully satisfy the requirement for "audited financial statements" under this solicitation?A23: Financial statements accompanied by an Independent Auditor's Report or Audit Opinion issued by an external, independent Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm fully satisfy the requirement. To be considered "audited" under this solicitation, the financial statements for the last three years (2023, 2024, and 2025) must be reviewed by an autonomous external professional body. Certified financial reports that include a formal, independent audit opinion confirming the statements fairly present the firm's financial position in accordance with applicable accounting frameworks meet the standard.

New amendment added #2: Amendment No. 2 The following amendments are hereby made to the Solicitation Document:The financials tab in the eSourcing - Financial offer details in vendor submission is changed from “Unit prices” to “Not required” The Particular tab - Additional information - under category 2 - The wording “Offerers may submit quotations for a minimum of two (2) disciplines under Category 2” is changed to “Offerers must submit quotations for a minimum of two (2) disciplines under Category 2” Document tab - The document “6. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 4.1 Fees and Reimbursment” is replaced with “6. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 4.1 Fees and Reimbursment - Amendment 1”.The change in the document is that the wording “Offerers may submit quotations for a minimum of two (2) disciplines under Category 2” is changed to “Offerers must submit quotations for a minimum of two (2) disciplines under Category 2” All other terms and conditions of the Solicitation Document shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

New clarification added: Q22. For suppliers bidding for multiple language Lots, could UNOPS clarify whether awards will result in:a) separate LTAs for each awarded Lot; orb) a single LTA covering all Lots awarded to that supplier?If (b) applies, could UNOPS also clarify:i. whether the LTA Director and LTA Coordinator are intended to be appointed separately for each Lot, or at supplier level across all Lots awarded to that supplier; andii. if appointed at supplier level, whether the LTA Director and LTA Coordinator would be expected to demonstrate proficiency in all awarded Lot languages, or whether proficiency in English alone would be sufficient for the overarching framework management roles, with language-specific capability provided through the relevant Lot Director/Coordinator and technical personnel.A22. Separate LTAs will be awarded for each language lot. The LTA Director and LTA Coordinator can be different across language lots, or the same individuals perform these functions for multiple language lots, as long as they meet the language requirements. For instance, an LTA Director who speaks English, French, and Spanish can serve in the function for the English, French, and Spanish language lots, but she would not be able to serve in the same function for the Arabic language lot.

New clarification added: Q21. In "TABLE 1. Infrastructure Sectors for LTA Services" of "Section II. Terms of Reference", there is a list of sectors for which the services will be requested.Will Offerors be required to provide services for the totality of sectors of TABLE 1 in order to qualify? Are Offerors allowed to bid for specific sectors only?In the same line of thought, "Section II. Terms of Reference" identifies the following scopes for services:●       Infrastructure design services: Encompassing all stages of design, from preliminary concepts to detailed technical documentation.●       Infrastructure design review services: Providing third-party review and verification of existing infrastructure designs.●       Other engineering services: Feasibility studies, social and environmental assessments, construction supervision, strategic infrastructure planning, and other technical tasks related to engineering and infrastructure projects.Will Offerors be allowed to bid for a selection of the scopes described above, or will they be required to offer for the whole range?A21.There are three categories are listed in the document “6. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules - 4.1 Fees and Reimbursment - Amendment 1.xlsx “. Please refer to the notes/instruction of the document. To summarize:All mandatory disciplines (category 1) must be bid for.Two preferred disciplines (category 2) must be bid for.No optional disciplines (category 3) must be bid for, but we encourage consultants to bid for as many disciplines as they are able to provide.  For every discipline that a Consultant bids for, it warrants that it is able to provide design, design review, and other services related to the discipline. 

New clarification added: Q20. The Schedule of Requirements states that "all key personnel must be proficient in the language of the relevant language lot". Could UNOPS please clarify what is meant by "key personnel" for the purposes of this requirement? Specifically, does this requirement apply to:a) all personnel nominated in the proposal for the relevant lot; orb) only the LTA Director, LTA Coordinator and required discipline leads identified in the qualification criteria?Alternatively, if a different definition of "key personnel" is intended, could UNOPS please clarify which proposed personnel must demonstrate proficiency in the relevant lot language?A20. All personnel in the proposal must be able to provide services in the language lot. For instance, for the Portuguese language lot, all personnel in the proposal must be proficient in Portuguese. Additionally, the LTA Director, the LTA Coordinator, and at least one Expert Level 3 (15+ years of experience) per discipline must be proficient in English. For the Portuguese language lot, then, the LTA Director, the LTA Coordinator, and at least one Expert Level 3 in all of the mandatory disciplines—structural; mechanical; electrical; civil engineering; architecture; cost estimation—plus two preferred disciplines must be proficient in English as well as Portuguese.  

New clarification added: Q19.a) The RFP states that the seven Lots differ only by language requirements and that the scope of services is otherwise identical. Could UNOPS please clarify how future Call-Off Orders will be assigned to a particular language Lot? Specifically:Is the language Lot selection based primarily on the language required for service delivery and stakeholder engagement, or is it also intended to reflect the geography of the assignment?b) For assignments in countries where multiple languages may be relevant, or where international expertise is required, can Call-Off Orders be competed among LTA holders from more than one language Lot?c). Would suppliers that are not appointed to a particular language Lot potentially be excluded from opportunities in countries where that language is commonly used?d). To assist bidders in determining the appropriate language Lots to pursue, can UNOPS provide any indication of the expected or historical distribution of assignments across the seven language Lots?A19.a)The selection of a specific language Lot for a Call-Off Order (COO) is based primarily on the language required for service delivery, contractual deliverables, and local stakeholder engagement. While the geographic setting often influences this (e.g., a project in Latin America requiring Spanish deliverables), the binding mechanism is the language specified by the requesting project unit, not the geographical boundaries themselves. b). For projects where multiple operational languages are relevant or where global, multi-lingual coordination is required, UNOPS project teams have the flexibility to look across appropriate lots. For design services projects with an estimated value exceeding USD 100,000, a mandatory secondary bidding process is conducted among the LTA holders. If the requesting unit determines that multiple languages are required for delivery, qualifying LTA holders from more than one language Lot may be invited to competec). If a supplier is not appointed to a specific language Lot, they will only be excluded from assignments that strictly mandate deliverables and technical leads fluent in that language. For example, a supplier holding an LTA only in the English Lot can still bid on assignments in any country globally, provided the specific project's Employer’s Requirements specify English as the language of delivery and communication. Bidders are strongly encouraged to apply for all Lots where they possess the verified language and technical lead capacity to maximize their opportunity pool. d).UNOPS makes no structural commitments regarding the definitive volume or precise percentage distribution of assignments across the seven individual language Lots, as all call-offs are generated dynamically on a rapid, as-needed basis by decentralized country portfolios

New clarification added: Q18. Relationship Between Generic LTA Qualification Levels and Call-off Order-Specific Personnel RequirementsThe LTA qualification criteria define Expert Levels 1-3 solely by years of experience, a Bachelor's degree "in the area of technical specialty," and, for Level 3, a professional licence/certification in the relevant engineering/architecture discipline. By contrast, the Call-off Order template's Schedule 3.7 [Key Personnel Requirements] includes "Required qualification" and "Area of experience required" fields that may specify a narrower or more detailed technical standard per assignment than the generic Level 1-3 criteria (solely by years of experience) used to qualify the LTA.Since the Terms of Reference confirm that Employer's Requirements, including personnel requirements, are developed and issued by the requesting unit at the time of each Call-off Order (Section 8, "Typical process for engaging LTA holders"), the Consultant may nominate different personnel for each Call-off Order rather than only those named at LTA proposal stage. The risk, therefore, is not that a specific named individual is later found non-compliant, but that the qualification standard itself, as defined per Call-off Order, may be narrower or more specialized than the generic Level 1-3/discipline categories against which daily rates were fixed as ceiling rates for three years in Schedule 4.1. Could UNOPS clarify:(a) whether the "Required qualification" and "Area of experience required" fields in a specific Call-off Order's Employer's Requirements may impose a narrower technical standard than the generic Level 1-3 criteria (solely by years of experience) used to qualify the LTA, and if so, how the Consultant is expected to demonstrate compliance where no candidate within its available pool meets both the narrower criteria and the fixed ceiling rate for that Level/discipline;(b) whether the Consultant may decline a Call-off Order, particularly one valued below USD 100,000 and directly engaged without secondary bidding, where the Employer's Requirements demand a level of specialization not reflected in the generic Level 1-3 definitions (solely by years of experience) used for the financial evaluation, without this affecting the Consultant's ranking or standing for future direct engagements; and(c) whether any mechanism exists for a rate adjustment or additional negotiation where a specific Call-off Order's personnel requirements materially exceed the generic Level 1-3 definitions (solely by years of experience) used for the financial evaluation?A18. (a) Yes, an individual call-off order may require a more specific set of key personnel requirements than is being required at this stage of the RFP. The RFP seeks to establish generally qualified companies to provide engineering services; the call-off orders may be very specific in the requirements for a particular task. If an LTA holder cannot satisfy the key personnel requirements of a particular call-off order, such an offer would be considered non-compliant with the requirements of that specific call-off order.(b) For opportunities below USD 100,000, UNOPS may engage LTA holders through secondary bidding or directly based on the ranking that has been established during cumulative evaluation of the bids (first offering the opportunity to the top-ranked vendor). By signing the overarching LTA framework, the Contractor formally represents that it has the requisite experience, expertise, and resources to perform the infrastructure design and review services within the sectors it has priced. Entering into the agreement represents a formal commitment to perform services as and when requested by UNOPS. While UNOPS does not generally exercise this right when the Consultant is—for whatever reason—not able to meet a request for services, UNOPS does reserve its right to do so under the terms of the LTA. (c) The rates in a call-off order may not exceed the maximum daily rates set out in the consultant’s submitted Schedule of Rates.

New clarification added: Q17. eSourcing Portal — Mandatory “Unit Price” Field on the Financial Offer Details TabThe eSourcing portal’s Financial Offer Details tab requires a single mandatory “Unit price” entry and a mandatory “Currency” selection per Lot before submission, in addition to the separate mandatory upload of Schedule 4.1.A [Breakdown of the Fees and Reimbursable Cost] under Financial envelope documents.Could UNOPS clarify what value offerors are expected to enter in the portal’s mandatory “Unit price” field for each Lot, given that the substantive financial evaluation will be conducted on the basis of the uploaded Schedule 4.1.A rather than this single portal field?A17. Bidders do not need to enter a value in the Financial Offer Details tab of the eSourcing portal. This will be amended within the eSourcing platform.

New clarification added: Q16. Site Office Support and Local Ground Transportation for Supervision Assignments. The Terms of Reference state that reimbursable expenses will be “agreed in advance and outlined in the Call Off Order” and may include “travel costs based on actual reimbursement” and “general daily expenses not exceeding UN standard DSA rates,” but do not specify whether this covers local ground transportation for repeated site-supervision travel (for example, site visits in the 30–100 km range from a base location) or whether any site office or facility is provided by UNOPS or the requesting unit for construction-supervision or design-review assignments requiring a physical presence. Could UNOPS confirm:(a) whether local/in-country ground transportation for site supervision is reimbursable under the Call-off Order mechanism described above, or is expected to be covered within the Consultant’s daily rate; and(b) whether any site office, workspace, or facility is provided by UNOPS/the requesting unit for supervision assignments, or whether this must be established and funded by the Consultant?A16: (a) Call-off orders include two aspects of the price: the fee for engineering services and reimbursable costs. Reimbursable costs are those costs that are necessary to complete the services but which are not certain at the outset. In this RFP, please provide the daily rates for the fee for services only. The daily fees should not include reimbursable costs. Applicable reimbursable costs are specified at the time of the call-off order.(b) Any necessary provisions of this nature are specific to individual opportunities and will be detailed in individual call-off orders.

New clarification added: Q13. UNGM Registration for Joint Venture Partners: Schedule 0.2 and Article 32 refer to UNGM registration requirements for “the offeror” in the singular. For a proposal submitted as a Joint Venture, could UNOPS confirm whether every individual Joint Venture partner must hold their own UNGM registration (at proposal stage and/or prior to Contract signature), or whether registration of the lead/authorized signatory partner alone is sufficient for the Joint Venture as a whole?A13. Every individual member of a Joint Venture must hold their own registration on the United Nations Global Marketplace (UNGM).  Proposal Stage: It is highly desired that all partners complete their registration on the UNGM website and provide their registration numbers in their submission documents prior to the deadline.  Prior to Contract Signature: If the Joint Venture is selected for the contract award, each individual member must be successfully registered on UNGM before the final Contract can be signed. Registration of the lead partner alone is not sufficient. Q14. Local Registration for Call-off Orders in Countries Outside the Consultant’s/Joint Venture’s Registered Jurisdictions: Given the Lots are global in scope (“Beneficiary Country: All countries”) and Call-off Orders may be issued in countries where neither the lead offeror nor its Joint Venture partners are legally registered, could UNOPS confirm whether local/in-country registration is a precondition for executing a Call-off Order in a given beneficiary country, or whether the Consultant Services Contract for Works framework operates without such a requirement?A14. Services are often carried out remotely and do not require legal registration in the ultimate beneficiary country. Where local presence is necessary for the services, this requirement will be specified in the employer’s requirements of an individual call-off order before it is offered to LTA holders for secondary bidding. Q15. Field Presence / High-Risk or Conflict-Affected Duty Stations: The Site visit/inspection field in the Tender Particulars indicates “Not applicable” for this solicitation, we understand this refers to the proposal stage only. Could UNOPS confirm whether any Call-off Orders under this LTA (for example, in conflict-affected or high-risk contexts) are expected to require in-person site visits, field presence, or on-site supervision by the Consultant’s personnel during implementation, and if so, what security, insurance, or duty-of-care provisions would apply at that stage?A15. Where local presence is necessary for the services, including in conflict-affected areas, this requirement will be specified in the employer’s requirements of an individual call-off order before it is offered to LTA holders for secondary bidding. All relevant considerations, including those related to security, will be specific to the project and supplied by the project team seeking the services at the time of the call-off order.

New clarification added: Q11. Can the same individual be proposed for the same role across multiple language lots, provided that the individual meets the language, experience and availability requirements for each lot?A11. Yes, the same individual can serve multiple functions (including across language lots), as long as they meet the specific requirements per lot.Q12. The RFP states that, to effectively provide the required services, all Key Personnel must be proficient in the language of the relevant lot: English, Spanish, French, Russian, Ukrainian, Portuguese or Arabic, depending on the lot. Could UNOPS confirm whether Optional Personnel may be proposed without proficiency in the relevant lot language, provided that all client-facing communication, coordination, and deliverables are managed, reviewed and validated by the LTA Director, LTA Coordinator, Project Leader and/or Mandatory Personnel leads who are proficient in the relevant lot language?A12. Optional personnel must be proficient in the language of service delivery within a lot.

New clarification added: Q10: We would appreciate your clarification regarding the submission of corporate references for bidders applying for more than one language lot. If an Offeror submits proposals for multiple language lots, may the same corporate project references and performance references be used across all selected language lots, provided they satisfy the qualification and evaluation requirements? Or does UNOPS expect or prefer that the references submitted for each language lot demonstrate experience specifically related to the respective language or geographic context?A10: Yes, you may use the same corporate project references and performance references across all selected language lots, provided they satisfy the technical evaluation and qualification requirements. No specific language or geographic alignment is required for the corporate references. UNOPS evaluates the firm's baseline capacity and project history uniformly across all lots.

New clarification added: Q9: The Financial Proposal Schedule requires bidders to provide rates for Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 for each mandatory core discipline. At the same time, the Qualification Criteria explicitly refer to the LTA Director, LTA Coordinator and the Level 3 Technical Leads, while the Key Personnel Schedule includes Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 personnel.Could you kindly confirm whether bidders are expected to:provide financial rates for all three experience levels (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3) for each mandatory core discipline; andnominate personnel and submit CVs for all three experience levels for each mandatory core discipline at proposal submission, or only for the LTA Director, LTA Coordinator and the Level 3 Technical Leads, with Level 1 and Level 2 personnel to be proposed at a later stage (e.g. contract award or individual Call-Off Orders)?A9: The Financial Proposal Schedule is strictly designed to price the maximum daily fees for Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 technical personnel who will directly execute task orders.  The roles of the LTA Director and LTA Coordinator are primarily dedicated to overarching LTA-level management, coordination, and reporting. Their administrative time is not priced as separate line items in the Financial Proposal Schedule. Instead, any corporate or operational costs associated with these two roles must be treated as an organizational indirect/overhead cost and embedded across the proposed daily unit rates of the technical consultants. Once individual Call-Off Orders (COOs) are placed, the LTA Director and LTA Coordinator are not required for day-to-day contract management or project-specific communication. A dedicated Project Leader will be identified for each specific assignment to manage the actual services under that localized agreement.  Both the LTA Director and LTA Coordinator must be proficient in English and the language of service delivery.  

New clarification added: Q8: Technical issue with the returnable schedule "6_5.1._Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_IV_ReturnableSchedules-0.4_Capacity_and_Experience".The drop-down menus within the workbook do not appear to be functioning, which prevents us from selecting the required options in the relevant fields.Could you kindly verify whether there is an issue with the file and, if necessary, provide a corrected version of the workbookA8: The dropdown box of the file is disabled. For the submissionType the lot number in the row 4 and provide project details from row 6 onwardsIf you are submitting proposal more than 1 lot, make a copy of this file and mention lot number and do separate submissions.

New clarification added: Q7: Must all members of a joint venture have more than 5 years of existence?A7: No, not all members of a joint venture are required individually to have more than 5 years of existence. According to the evaluation rules for this RFP, all joint venture members combined must meet the criteria, except for Vendor Ineligibility, Suspension Status, and Conflict of Interest, Eligibility and formal criteria and any other insurance requirements (which apply to each member individually). Therefore, the 5-year legal registration and operational requirement (continuous business registered in 2021 or earlier) will be assessed on a cumulative/combined basis across the members of the Joint Venture.

New clarification added: Q2: We would to enquire about the expected volume of services under this LTA over the 3 years period or on an annual basis (either as engineering services or equivalent construction cost). This is important to determine our financial strategy and dedicated resources to be planned.A2: UNOPS can make no commitments about the volume of services to be offered under the LTA. The LTAs are made available to project teams, which may or may not elect to employ them. However, for reference, over the preceding 3 years, current LTA holders have provided services in excess of $8M USD.Q3: Regarding the evaluation criteria below, would it be possible to share a breakdown of points to better understand the marking and ensure transparency and fairness of the process:20 Points: Technical capacity, expertise, and experience for the required sectors - This section evaluates the firm's demonstrated ability to deliver high-quality infrastructure services across a range of technical and strategic domains. Bidders will be assessed on the quality of evidence provided, not just claims of experience17 Points: Key personnel - This section evaluates the team that will be assigned to service the framework agreement. The evaluation will focus on the qualifications and relevant experience of the individuals and the scope of services provided.A3: For a detailed breakdown of the scoring of the technical criteria, please see document 4. Consultant_Services_RFP_Section_II - 4. TECHNICAL CRITERIA - Detailed Criteria.Q4: We understand the financial evaluation will be based on: Average price  =  [( average price of category 1+ average price of category 2) ] /2. Under Cat2, Offerors can submit 2 or more disciplines. Will the evaluation be based on the lowest 2 disciplines quoted ? We suggest to specify the minimum 2 disciplines (for example: Geotechnical Engineer and Bridge Engineer) and that the evaluation is limited to these 2 disciplines to ensure that offers are compared based on the same criteria.A4: No, the evaluation will not be based on the lowest two disciplines quoted, nor will it be limited to specific pre-defined disciplines. The financial evaluation is done on the basis of the average price for services under Category 1 and the average price for services under Category 2. As stated in the tender documents, offerors must quote for all disciplines under Category 1 and must quote for a minimum of two (2) up to all seven (7) disciplines listed under Category 2. The Category 2 Average Price will be calculated as the mean of all the disciplines that the offeror chooses to quote within that category. This Category 2 average will then be combined with the Category 1 average to determine the final evaluated price using the formula.Q5: Based on the qualification criteria, it appears that this RFP will attract regional and national level companies while the scope is global. We would like to enquire about the expected number of companies to be awarded under this RFP.A5: UNOPS intends to establish non-exclusive Long Term Agreements (LTAs) with more than one vendor per Lot. A maximum of 7 LTAs will be awarded per Lot. Since the RFP consists of 7 distinct Lots divided by language requirements, a maximum of 7 vendors will be selected to hold an LTA for each individual Lot.Q6: Based on the global scope, we would like to kindly suggest to increase the minimum financial requirements and to increase the 20 points allocated for Technical capacity, expertise and experience.A6: The qualification criteria, including the minimum annual turnover of USD 500,000 and the liquidity ratio/working capital requirement, are set as strict, objective Pass/Fail criteria to establish baseline eligibility across all lots. These criteria cannot be altered for individual submissions. The allocation of 20 points for Technical capacity, expertise, and experience for the required sectors is fixed as part of the evaluation framework established for this tender.

New clarification added: Q1: However, considering the scope, details, and technical requirements of the Project, we notice that the deadline is quite limited to submit a complete and highest-quality proposal. In order to prepare the most appropriate and comprehensive proposal for the project, we request a 3-week extension of the current submission deadline.A1: The tender closing deadline was extended to 07 August 2026. Please also refer to the revised clarification deadline and pre-bid meeting date in the eSourcing

New amendment added #1: Amendment No. 1 The following amendments are hereby made to the Solicitation Document:Solicitation DeadlineChanged from 14 July 2026, 10:00 UTC to 07 August 2026, 10:00 UTC.Deadline for Submission of Clarification RequestsChanged from 08 July 2026, 10:00 UTC to 30 July 2026, 10:00 UTC.Pre-Bid MeetingChanged from 01 July 2026, 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. to 20 July 2026, 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.All other terms and conditions of the Solicitation Document shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.