New amendment added #3: Dear Bidders,Amendment 3 has been issued to;Share minutes of the Non - Mandatory Prebid Session held on 19 August 2026. The minutes labelled as Pre-bid Meeting Minutes - RFP_2026_63139 can be acessed in the ''Documents tab''This shall form part of the official solicitation documents. Please be guided accordingly.Thank you.

New clarification added: Question 37: Are there any security clearance, or access requirements that UNOPS will need to facilitate for evaluators ?Response:Any security clearances should be borne by the contractor and UNOPS/Cities Alliance will not request for such clearances. However UNOPS can support the coordination roles between the contractor and the relevant stakeholders to ensure the contractor gets clearances that will support the execution of the assignment.

New clarification added: Question 36: Are any of the activities in Somalia targeting Arabic-speaking communities (for example, refugees from Sudan) ? Response:Arabic- speaking communities are supported by the action and any actions proposed to support collection of reliable information is highly appreciated.

New clarification added: Question 35: We wanted to follow up on a response during yesterday's Q&A session. We had asked about the budget for the assignment and were told that the days/level of effort had been included in the ToR as guidance for the indicative budget per deliverable. We checked the ToR but were unable to find any reference to days or LoE, could you please clarify how many days are expected per phase/deliverable?Response: Based on the bidder's understanding of the ToR, we highly recommend bidders to propose the LoE of the proposed team. Cities Alliance has provided flexibility for the bidders to estimate the LoE  of each team member to ensure attainment of intended results and quality.  LoE has been highlighted on SECTION 6: CONTRACT PHASES & TIMELINE of the TOR.Bidders are reminded to review revision 1 of the TOR that was published on 2026-07-17. The revision 1 of the TOR can be accessed in the documents tab in the esourcing portal labelled as “RFP_Section_II_Schedule of Requirements - RFP - 2026 -63139- Revised 01” . This shall form part of the official solicitation documents 

New clarification added: Question 34: Could UNOPS please clarify the expectations for data collection in Sudan, as Atbara is part of the programme but is not a direct municipal grant recipient, unlike the other eight cities, and given the operating context? Response:Atbara remains fully within the scope of the SUIDAC evaluation, irrespective of the specific grant modality, and relevant stakeholders should be included in the programme-wide assessment. Given the operating context in Sudan, the TOR allows flexibility where security or access constraints prevent in-person engagement. Bidders should therefore propose an appropriate and feasible approach to collecting evidence from Atbara, which may include remote interviews and other alternative data collection methods, and justify this approach in the Inception Report.  

New clarification added: Question 33: Are there specific regulations regarding the use of AI in the evaluation process. The analysis of the high number of qualitative surveys (25*6=150 KIIs) in particular could be aided through the use of AI. Without AI support of coding and thematic analysis, this may be challenging within the suggested 150 days LOE.Response: The TOR does not prohibit the use of AI-supported tools as part of the evaluation process. Bidders may propose the use of appropriate tools to support activities such as qualitative coding and thematic analysis, provided their use is consistent with the TOR requirements on confidentiality, data protection, ethics and quality assurance. The evaluation firm remains fully responsible for the analysis, interpretation and verification of findings and for ensuring that evaluation conclusions and recommendations are evidence-based. Any use of AI involving evaluation data must ensure that confidential, personal or identifiable information is appropriately protected and is not shared with third-party systems in a manner inconsistent with applicable data-protection requirements. The proposed analytical approach, including any use of AI-supported tools, should be clearly described in the methodology and further detailed in the Inception Report.

New clarification added: Question 32: We would like clarification on whether organizational entities joining as consortium members and/or subcontractors can be part of more than one bid, or whether there is exclusivity to participating in only one bid.Response: No, As highlighted in RFP Section I: Instructions to Offeror under 4. OFFEROR ELIGIBILITY.  Participation of the Offeror (and all its parties such as JV, consortium/Association members) in more than one bid will be considered  as conflict of interest as “An Offeror (and all its parties) will be perceived to have an interest in other Offerors, for the same procurement activity, including when they have common ownership and/or management. Offerors (and all its parties) shall not submit more than one bid. This will result in the disqualification of all bids in which the Offeror(and all its parties) are involved in. This includes situations where a firm is the Offeror (and all its parties) in one bid and a sub-contractor on another; however, this does not limit the inclusion of a firm as a sub-contractor in more than one bid".Bidders are responsible for ensuring that their members comply with this requirement.

New clarification added: Question 25: Should the financial proposal budget enumerators, interpreters, translators, and local field support as separate cost lines outside the 150-day evaluation-team LOE? We assume the 150 days is for the core evaluation team. (see p11)Response: Yes, all financial estimates for the entire assignment should be presented and you can have different budget lines for each cost outside the LOE including travel costs as well.Question 26.: The ToR indicates an expected assignment duration of 20 weeks. Is this a fixed contractual requirement, or may bidders propose a longer implementation period where justified by the scale of multi-country fieldwork, data collection, analysis, and validation requirements? (see p11)Response: The assignment is expected to be completed within 20 weeks from the date of contract signature, in accordance with the timeline set out in the TOR. Bidders should propose an appropriate methodology, team composition, allocation of effort and sequencing of activities that enables all required fieldwork, analysis and deliverables to be completed within this timeframe. The TOR provides flexibility in how the evaluation team is structured and deployed. Question 27:  Scope and sampling frame: Please confirm that the structured household survey should represent households residing in SUIDAC priority intervention neighbourhoods/areas, rather than the city population at large. Within these areas, should the survey cover all resident households, a defined mix of displacement-affected and host-community households, direct programme participants, or a combination of these groups? Indicative guidance on sampling would help to judge the existence of suitable sampling data to conduct, for example, a stratified sample. (mostly p9)Response 27;The TOR does not prescribe a specific household sampling frame. Bidders should propose and justify an appropriate sampling approach that reflects the programme's target populations and intervention areas and enables the evaluation to address the relevant evaluation questions and selected indicators. The sample should appropriately capture relevant DAC groups and host communities and enable disaggregated analysis where feasible. The final sampling approach will be agreed during inception. Question 28: Is there an indicative minimum sample size (or margin of error) for quantitative surveys, overall or per selected fieldwork city, that Cities Alliance expects bidders to cost for? (see p9)Please also clarify the expected degree of comparability with the feasibility-phase perception surveys: should the evaluation seek to replicate the prior sampling design and core questionnaire modules where feasible, or is directional comparison using a revised but harmonised instrument sufficient? (p9 refers to directional comparison)Response :We are flexible on this and we currently do not have a minimum sample size for quantitative surveys. The TOR does not prescribe a minimum sample size or margin of error. Bidders should propose and justify a proportionate sample sufficient to support credible descriptive findings and selected indicator measurement; the survey is not intended to support experimental impact attribution. Exact replication of the feasibility-phase sampling design or questionnaire is not required, although existing tools and datasets should be used where useful to enable directional comparison with feasibility-phase perception data where possible. Question 29: The ToR requires Cities Alliance approval of informed-consent and safeguarding procedures. Please confirm whether any additional formal ethics review or approval is required, either centrally or in individual programme countries, and whether Cities Alliance will facilitate any required local permissions. (Section 5.5 p10)Response: The TOR does not specify a requirement for a separate formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics review. The evaluation must comply with UNEG Ethical Guidelines, including appropriate informed consent and safeguarding procedures, which will be reviewed and approved by Cities Alliance prior to data collection. Bidders are responsible for identifying and complying with any additional ethical, regulatory or local approval requirements applicable to their proposed methodology and the countries in which data collection will take place. Cities Alliance will facilitate initial engagement with relevant programme stakeholders and municipalities, including through introductory letters where required; however, the contractor will remain responsible for securing any specific approvals or permissions required for its data collection activities. Question 30. Is direct qualitative engagement with minors (e.g., FGDs or interviews with adolescent girls/boys) expected, or should findings on children be captured only through caregiver/guardian accounts and survey data? (see p7, while p10 refers to consent but not assent for minors)Response : Direct engagement with minors is not a specific requirement of the TOR. Where a bidder considers engagement with children or adolescents methodologically necessary and appropriate, the proposed approach must comply with applicable safeguarding and ethical requirements, including appropriate consent and assent procedures, and must be clearly justified in the methodology and agreed during inception. Bidders may also propose appropriate alternative methods for capturing children's experiences and perspectives. Question 31:Which categories are expected to be covered under 'vulnerable or marginalized groups' for FGD stratification (e.g., persons with disabilities, GBV survivors, female-headed households)? Does Cities Alliance have a specific requirement or is this to be defined in the inception report? (pp7 and 9 refer to vulnerable groups in the sample)Response: Vulnerable groups include the following.RefugeesReturneesAsylum SeekersMigrantsIDPsHost community​Based on the above groups, the bidder can include a range of persons including but not limited to PWDs, GBV survivors etc

New clarification added: Clarifications received during prebid meeting;Question 14: Would like to know if we can cover with household survey in 4 countries and 6 six cities, and limit activities in the fifth country to field visits and focus groups. (4 countries, 6 six cities; and deal with the fifth country remotely ​)Response 14: Our expectation is to cover household surveys in all countries where direct field data collection will be conducted (preferred minimum of 6 cities representing at least 4 countries) and for the rest where possible we can have virtual interviews with key respondents to get an understanding of city specific results.Question 15: The RFP includes an exclusivity form to be signed by the team members whose CVs are shared. Could you clarify whether exclusivity is required for consortium members and subcontractors? Response 15: Yes, filled and signed exclusivity form will be required for the team members/key experts whose CVs are shared. If an individual in the consortium or subcontractor is considered a key expert their exclusivity form should be submitted alongside their CV. CVs are to be shared as per Form E: Format for Resume of Proposed Key PersonnelQuestion 16: Would CA want the surveys to be with the same respondents as baseline (i.e. constructed as a panel)? Or would they be recipients from area-based random walk selection? Response 16: No,  There is flexibility here and we do not look at having panel data. The TOR leaves sampling design to bidders.Question 17; could you kindly confirm the cities for which Baseline data is available.Response 17 : We have the perception surveys / baseline information/data for all the 9 cities/municipalities where SUIDAC is being implemented.Question 18: You mentioned disaggregation of results by age, sex and DAC category. Are you seeking for this disaggregation in each city where data collection comes from? This will impact the necessary quant sample size. Building on this, is there a margin of error you have in mind for reporting? I note that the feasibility studies had 400 in each cityResponse 18: The TOR does not prescribe a minimum quantitative sample size or margin of error. Bidders should propose and justify a sample size and sampling approach proportional to the evaluation scope, resources and security context and sufficient to support credible descriptive findings and selected indicator measurement. Sex, age and vulnerability-disaggregated analysis should be undertaken where feasible; the TOR does not require samples to be statistically powered for inference for each subgroup in each city. The bidder is also allowed to estimate a representative sample size not necessarily the 400 households used at baseline.Question 19: Are audited accounts indispensableResponse 19: Yes, Provision/Submission of Audited balance sheets covering the last 2 exercises. (2024, 2025) is mandatory and will be evaluated as Pass/Fail. As indicated in the Qualification criteria Liquidity: the ratio Average Current assets / Current liabilities over the last 2 years must be equal or greater than 1. Question 20: Can we have a list of neighborhoods by muncipality that were selected during the baseline for the survey? Response 20:Cities Alliance has maps of the municipalities where the baseline data was collected. The maps also show the neighbourhood localities and these will be shared to the successful bidder.Question 21: Are assumptions from the result framework being monitored (context monitoring) and if so, in what form is that data? Response 21:Yes, these are monitored bi-annually and updated regularly based on the risks identified. The data formats are in a qualitative format but regularly updated as needed to ensure relevancy of the program assumptions.Question 22: The TOR mentions vulnerable groups. Are there specific groups you have in mind here?Also , do you expect a full IRB to be obtained prior to data collection? This would be potentially challenging in the given 20 week timeline is DAC= Vulnerable Response 22: The TOR defines Displacement Affected Communities (DACs) as including migrants, returnees, IDPs, asylum seekers, refugees and host communities. It does not prescribe a fixed list of vulnerable groups. The evaluation should apply a gender-responsive and inclusive approach, with attention to the differentiated experiences of women, men, girls, boys, youth, host communities and vulnerable or marginalised displacement-affected groups. Bidders should identify relevant dimensions of vulnerability in the different programme contexts and reflect these appropriately in the proposed sampling and methodology, to be further refined during inception.The TOR does not specify a requirement for a formal Institutional Review Board (IRB) process. It does require compliance with UNEG Ethical Guidelines, informed consent, safeguarding and applicable data-protection requirements.Question 23: How will operations be managed for this services ie contact information, stakeholders etcResponse 23: Cities Alliance will provide “stakeholder lists and contact information relevant to the evaluation in addition to providing an introductory letter to the contractor. Cities Alliance also has field based staff who will support the coordination of proposed activities. However, for independence of the assignments, Cities Alliance staff will not engage in the normal processes of the evaluation.Question 24:  should the stated minimum of 25–30 KIIs and 4–6 FGDs be understood as applying separately to each selected city? Response 24: The proposed 25-30 KII and 4-6 FGDs will be for each city as specified in the ToR. The following categories were highlighted for inclusion in KIIs.                          Municipal leadership and technical staff;Technical Implementing Partners (ACAV, AVSI, IOM, OWDA, IRC, TAAKULO) and Grantees (Danish Refugee Council);Representatives of DAC groups (migrants, returnees, IDPs, asylum seekers, refugees, host communities) and refugee-led organisations;Local service providers;Civil society actors;Relevant private sector actors where applicable;Relevant UN organizations and NGO where applicable;Service users and participants in the SUIDAC programme;and other relevant stakeholders

New clarification added: Question 13: Referring to Section I of the RFP, which indicates that minutes of the information meeting will be posted on the UNOPS procurement platform, could you please confirm whether the minutes and any related presentation materials from the information session held on 19 August 2026 will be shared with all interested bidders?Unfortunately, we were unable to attend the online session and would like to ensure that we have access to the same information provided during the meeting.Response 13: The minutes , questions and answers received during the prebid meeting will be shared in documents tab and published in esourcing; thus all interested bidder will have acess to the same information

New clarification added: Question 12: Form A: Joint Venture Partner Information Form:Please confirm whether this is also required in case of sub-contracting local firms for data collection activities in respective countries. The technical proposal form (Form D) already has a section on adding the sub-contractor details i.e. “Section 4: List of sub-contractors or suppliers”. Our understanding is that in case of sub-contracting, only the lead firm is liable to UNOPS for the fulfillment of the provisions of the Contract and hence Form A is not required in this case.Please also note that this Form A is marked as “optional” on the submission portal.Response 12: FORM A is not required for subcontractors however all subcontractors must be listed in FORM D as the eligibility conditions for the Offeror under Article 4, (stated in RFP_Section_I_Instructions to Offerors) also apply to any sub-contractor and this will be verified during the evaluation stage.FORM A is optional as some firms/organisations may opt to participate alone without JV / Consortium/ Association. Thus, FORM A is required/mandatory if JV / Consortium/ Association is applicable to the bidder.

New clarification added: Question 7: Can the Cities Alliance confirm whether the perception surveys undertaken during the feasibility phase applied a consistent survey instrument and sampling frame across all participating cities? We would be grateful for the same confirmation in respect of the baseline data collected against Strategic Objectives 1.1 and 1.2.Response 7: Yes, the perception survey adopted a consistent survey instrument and a simple purposive sampling frame was applied across all implementing cities. This was applied for the baseline data collected against SO 1.1 and 1.2. However cities were able to incorporate additional survey questions and utilize this data if required. In some cities the sample size was either slightly increased or reduced because of the desire by many stakeholders to take part in the sessions or non-response issues by some respondents.Question 8: Will Cities Alliance facilitate the municipal authorisations required to enable primary data collection in each city?Response 8: We shall provide introductory sessions between the consultants and the cities/municipalities/TIPs benefiting from the program. An introductory letter will also be issued and we believe this will be a key document that should be used by the consultant to request for authorisation to enable primary data collection processesQuestion 9: Could Cities Alliance provide an indicative budget for this assignment? This would materially inform the proposed methodology, in particular the scale of the evidence base, field visits, surveys, and the number of key informant interviews and focus group discussions.Response 9: In the interest of maintaining fairness, and acquiring the best competitive cost for this service the organisation is not able to share an indicative or budget ceiling for this assignment.The Level of Effort (LoE) specified in the TOR is intended to provide bidders with an indication of the anticipated scale and level of resources required for the assignment. Bidders are therefore expected to use the TOR, including the stated LoE, scope, deliverables, and requirements, to develop a methodology and work plan that they consider appropriate and proportionate to achieving the assignment objectives.The Organisation recognises that the proposed methodology may influence the scale of the evidence base, field visits, surveys, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Bidders should therefore propose the level and mix of activities they consider necessary to deliver the required outputs within the stipulated LoE, and reflect the associated costs in their financial proposal.For clarity, no additional budget information will be provided beyond what is contained in the tender documents, and all bidders should base their technical and financial proposals on the same information provided in the TOR and solicitation documents.Question 10: Given the mid-term nature of the evaluation, we would welcome clarification on whether the household survey is a mandatory requirement or is left to the discretion of bidders. The value of the survey turns on the extent to which it can meaningfully capture the impacts and benefits of interventions that are substantially complete, or whether it may be premature to assess these at this stage. For reference, in our regional experience a household survey of sufficient rigour to yield useful results typically costs in the order of USD 25,000–40,000 to execute.Response 10:Yes. The TOR requires structured household surveys in the selected fieldwork cities, where feasible. However, the TOR does not prescribe the survey sample size or detailed design. Bidders should propose and justify a proportionate sampling methodology and sample size that supports credible descriptive findings, directional comparison with feasibility-phase data where possible, and measurement of selected indicators. The survey is not intended to support experimental impact attribution Question 11: Three of the city feasibility studies do not appear to be available online. Could these be made available to bidders?Question 11: These are currently in the final stages of review and we are sure these will be shared once the review is completed.

New clarification added: Question 6: Regarding Form D Technical Proposal:Are there any recommended or maximum word or page limits for the answers under the different sections of the form?Response 6: No, we are open and very much aware this will depend on the proposed methodology by the bidding firm.If the space in FORM D seems inadequate Bidders are allowed to provide the detailed responses in a separately prepared and clearly structured PDF document following the same numbering and sequence as Form D. Submission of filled and signed FORM D is mandatory since the form also contains the list of subcontractors if applicable.As indicated in esourcing checklist bidder must attach filled and signed FORM D and supporting documents in the pocket indicated  “Form D: Technical Proposal Form and Supporting Documents/Information relating to Section C:Technical Criteria”

New clarification added: Question 5: Regarding fieldwork logistics:Will UNOPS and/or Cities Alliance support invitation letters and visa arrangements required for field visits, or should these be managed entirely by the evaluation team?Response 5 : We can provide an introductory letter to the contracted firm which can be used as a supporting document to request for visas, have sessions with project stakeholders including benefiting cities and Technical Implementing Partners. We do not process visas for contractors and therefore this must entirely be borne by the contracted firm. Other field collection tools including informed consent forms must be developed by the contracted firm and reviewed by Cities Alliance.

New clarification added: Question 4: Regarding Qualifications and Experience of Proposed Personnel: Will CVs of national consultants also need to be submitted as part of the proposal? Response 4: Yes, we require all the CVs of the proposed team members attached and submitted as part of the proposal. Bidders must ensure all CVs are submitted as per Form E: Format for Resume of Proposed Key Personnel contained in RFP_Section_III_Returnable Bidding Forms

New clarification added: Question 3: Regarding Fieldwork, Sampling and Data Collection Plan:The TOR mentions fieldwork in at least six cities across at least four countries. For the remaining SUIDAC cities that are not included in field visits, does UNOPS expect these to be assessed as part of the evaluation through desk review, or should the analysis focus exclusively on the selected fieldwork cities?Response 3: The evaluation covers all nine SUIDAC cities. Cities not selected for in-person fieldwork should therefore remain within the scope of the evaluation through desk review and other appropriate methods, including remote interviews or consultations where relevant. Bidders should propose an appropriate approach for ensuring sufficient programme-wide coverage while meeting the fieldwork requirements set out in the TOR. 

New clarification added: Question 2: Qualification Criterion 2 requires that the "Offeror must demonstrate at least five (5) years of relevant experience conducting evaluations, performance assessments, strategic reviews, or applied research assignments..."Could UNOPS please clarify how the minimum five (5) years of relevant experience will be assessed and calculated? In particular, should this requirement be understood as the period covered by relevant assignments, or is another methodology applied for assessing years of experience?Response 2:The five-year requirement refers to demonstrated relevant organisational experience in the areas specified under Qualification Criterion 2. This should be evidenced through the Offeror’s relevant assignments and supporting documentation. It is separate from Qualification Criterion 1, which requires the Offeror to have been legally registered/existence and operational for at least three continuous years.

New clarification added: Question 1: Could UNOPS please clarify whether the experience and references of a proposed Team Leader or key expert engaged specifically for this assignment as a subcontractor/associated expert may be used to satisfy:Qualification Criterion 2: "Offeror must demonstrate at least five (5) years of relevant experience conducting evaluations, performance assessments, strategic reviews, or applied research assignments…"Qualification Criterion 3: "Offeror must provide evidence of at least two (2) successfully completed evaluation or assessment assignments of comparable scale, complexity, or thematic relevance completed within the last five years."Specifically, where the proposed Team Leader has personally led and successfully completed such assignments, but these assignments do not form part of the Offeror's own institutional track record, may these assignments and supporting documents be counted towards the above qualification requirements?Response 1: No. Qualification Criteria 2 and 3 relate to the experience and track record of the Offeror, including JV arrangements as specified in the RFP. Experience gained personally by a proposed Team Leader or key expert that does not form part of the Offeror’s institutional track record cannot be used to satisfy these qualification criteria. The qualifications and experience of the Team Leader and other proposed personnel will, however, be assessed separately as part of the technical evaluation under Criterion 3.2

New amendment added #2: Dear Bidders,Amendment 2 has been issued to;1. Share revised RFP_Section_II_Schedule of Requirements - RFP_2026_63139  labelled " Revised 01" .     Bidders are encouraged to take note of the added/updated information highlighted in red on the estimated Level of Effort (LOE) under SECTION 6: CONTRACT PHASES &             TIMELINE and SECTION 8: QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF TEAM COMPOSITION.2.  Extend the Proposal Submission/Closing from 11 September 2026 at 09:00 UTC to 18 September 2026 at 09:00 UTC. (12pm EAT)This shall form part of the official solicitation documents. Please be guided accordingly.Thank you. 

New amendment added #1: Dear Bidders,Amendment 1 has been issued to summarise the "Description" of this RFP.This shall form part of the official solicitation documents. Please be guided accordingly.Thank you