Source: Save The Children
|
Ref. # |
Bidders Questions |
SCI Response |
|
1 |
Given that you have indicated that the work needs to be completed in 5 months we wanted to ask why the contract period is listed as 24 month? |
Given the potential for unforeseen circumstances that might delay the process (i.e., weather or civil unrest), it is SCI procurement policy to include a 24-month contract period as buffer to account for any changes to time frame. |
|
2 |
We note that the tender is divided into 2 Lots, are bidders able to bid on one Lot or do you require bids for including both Lots?
|
SC prefers applications focused on Lots 1&2 to minimise management and coordination issues, while increasing accountability. |
|
3 |
Will Save the Children be providing Gender and ESS experts for this project?
|
If bidders applying have the ability to contract their own experienced Gender / ESS and EFA associates this would be ideal for ease of contracting, project managing and accountability. However, if not, then yes, we will contract the Gender/ESS and EFA consultant separately and require them to work with lot 1&2 consultants to complete the task.
|
|
4 |
For Lot 2, could you please clarify what is meant by “financial systems” analysis? It is our understanding that this will be separate to a financial and economic analysis is this current. If it is, will save the Children be providing a financial and economic specialist?
|
An EFA is different to Lot 2 requirements. EFA is based on the project’s costings analysis of tangible interventions. In terms of contracting for the EFA, see response to question 4 above. Lot 2 requires analysis on government partners and their abilities to manage project finances and governance. |
|
5 |
Will a mission be required? If yes how many missions would you be expecting?
|
Missions should be considered as part of the application since additional face-to-face meetings are expected when involving stakeholders including government representatives. Scheduling and timing for those should be considered as part of the application by bidders, however based on existing experience one can consider a minimum of 2 in-country missions. |
|
6 |
Should all the points in the section be presented in the format of the table in Section 2 or should the offer include and address these points in the technical and financial proposal format of the participating organisation? |
From the evaluation team’s perspective it would be useful to see a clear response to the needs and deliverables as outlined in the tender documents. It is not necessary to duplicate information by presenting it in the table in Section 2 as well as the technical and financial proposal. Providing the information in the technical and financial bids is sufficient. |
|
7 |
Section 2 requires to complete all the sections of the table. It is however unclear what are the expectations of the answer. Does the Bid should provide a methodology for every point in the same template table? Or is it the past and relevant experiences? Or is there any other information the bidder should provide (i.e. workplan, the information of the organisations, etc)? |
See the response above. An approach/methodology to each of the deliverables would be useful. Past and relevant experiences should form part of the technical proposal. Workplans and team configuration are usually standard pieces within bids and are expected to be shared within the technical proposal. |
|
8 |
Are Evaluation Criterias from 1 to 13 belonging to Lot 1? |
Yes Lot 1 comprises deliverables 1 to 13. |
|
9 |
The Capability Criteria Description is noted on 180%. Could you bring us more clarification on this point? |
Thank you for pointing this out. The Capability Criteria makes up 50% of the bid score as outlined on page 3 of the ITT. Therefore the score out of the 180% will be prorated down to represent 50% of the overall bid evaluation. |
|
10 |
The Sustainability Criteria Description only describes the criteria on the location of the organization which is noted on 5%, but the template specifies that the minimum Weighting is 10%. Could you bring us more clarification on this point? |
Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, the weighting of the sustainability criteria overall will prorated up to 10%, and will be based on demonstrated environmental, local economy and community/social impact of the organisation. To be clear, weighting is as outlined on page 3 of the ITT, as presented below: 3.2 SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA (10%) Criteria used to evaluate the impact a supplier has on the environment, local economy and community. Bids will be evaluated against the same pre-agreed Criteria. 3.3 CAPABILITY CRITERIA (50%)Criteria used to evaluate the bidders ability, skill and experience in relation to the requirements. Bids will be evaluated against the same pre-agreed Criteria. 3.4 COMMERCIAL CRITERIA (40%)Criteria used to evaluate the commercial competitiveness of a bid. Bids will be evaluated against the same pre-agreed Criteria. |
|
11 |
How should the bid detail the costs of the project: per activities? Per deliverables? Per days working? |
The bidder may design the budget based on day rates per deliverable. |
|
12 |
Is there any budget limit or days working limit that you could communicate? |
There is no budget or day limit to communicate. Bids are competitively evaluated and awarded based on merit against the evaluation criteria. The ITT documents outline an interest by Save the Children in the possibility of aiming for a GCF B.38 approval of the Funding Proposal. All Funding Proposal packs must be submitted 6-months in advance of any GCF board meeting. |
|
13 |
In which currency should the bid express? |
USD is preferrable as this is the same currency adopted by the GCF and outlined in our CNs and FPs. |
|
14 |
As we do not see a section on partners in the template, does the project allow for a consortium or can only one organisation participate? |
A consortium can indeed bid for the tender. |
|
15 |
Are International Travel can be included as a charge for the missions? |
Please see response 5 above and on the tender website here: https://www.savethechildren.net/green-climate-fund-mali-funding-proposal-design-package-0# Yes, international travel and associated components should be detailed in the financial proposal. |
|
16 |
Primary Data & Security: We understand that primary data collection in the focus regions of the project (Gao, Timbuktu, Mopti, Segou, Koulikoro), will be an important part of this engagement. We also understand that there are security risks posed to persons travelling in some of these regions (in particular Gao, Timbuktu and Mopti). We would like to understand whether Save the Children International (SCI) has any preference for how these security challenges are managed during the engagement? One option is to conduct some remote/virtual primary research (e.g. phone or online surveys and consultations). However, limited connectivity in Gao and Timbuktu means that this approach may also face some limitations. |
There are security constraints including in Tombouctou, Gao, and Mopti. Options to mitigate these can include:
|
|
17 |
We noted that there was a change in the targeted regions between the GCF concept note and the ToR for the “Mali Funding Proposal Design” (Sikasso was removed and Koulikoro was added). We wanted to confirm that these regions had indeed been changed, and wondered if you could provide some context behind the change? |
Sikasso region has been removed and replaced with Koulikoro region. The reason for this change is in response to GCF feedback of the final approved CN for the design of the FP. GCF requested a re-examination of the targeted geographic regions based on a clearer and more evidence based climate rationale linked to adaptation solutions. Further examination by the team on agriculture and climate risks analysis showed that Koulikoro has a large agricultural area and is more climatically vulnerable than Sikasso. Hence the change in regional focus. |
|
18 |
PPF facility: We understand that SCI applied for Project Preparation Funding from the GCF. We would like to understand if SCI received this funding, and if so whether it pertains to a specific component of the proposal to the GCF? In addition, would you be able to offer any guidance on the approximate budget envelope available for this engagement? |
The PPF has not been accessed for this project. We are unable to offer guidance on an expected budget for this project but would encourage responses to put together a budget that comprehensively responds to the needs and deliverables outlined in the tender documents. |
|
19 |
Engagement Start Date: Regarding the start date of the engagement, we would like to confirm what is meant by “IIT + 5 weeks”. Does IIT stand for “invitation to tender” or does it refer to a separate acronym? We are currently working on the assumption that the engagement would need to start by April 2023 or sooner, based on our understanding of the timelines – is that correct? This is on the basis that the engagement lasts 5 months and will need to be finished 6 months in advance of the 38th board meeting, if it is likely to occur around March 2024 |
ITT does stand for Invitation to Tender. The idea of “ITT + 5 weeks” is that within 5 weeks following the submission deadline (January 15 2023) we would hope to have a signed contract in place with the successful bidder. We would hope to start the engagement with the consultant therefore no later than by March 2023. We expect the FP design to take at least 5 months and yes, we hope to make the GCF Board Meeting of B.38 which is yet to be scheduled but would likely fall in Q1 2024. |
|
20 |
SCI Collaboration: We note that this engagement will be collaborative in nature, involving consultation and collaboration with SCI staff, any other consultants employed, as well as many other stakeholders. Regarding the collaboration with SCI staff in particular, please could you provide further detail on the expected nature of the collaboration (in addition to the weekly hour-long progress update meetings and the weekly progress reports)? a. In addition to the Gender Technical Advisors and their contribution to the GESI assessment, what areas do SCI’s technical experts cover and what deliverables would they be most likely to contribute to? |
SCI collaboration involves the country office of Mali, the Save the Children Member (USA Save the Children) and the AE (Save the Children Australia). Consultants such as EFA and ESS experts can be contracted separately by Save the Children. Alternatively, if a bidder has this inhouse capability and can provide a fuller service (like a one stop shop) for the full Funding Proposal, this would be preferable. Weekly meetings with a standing agenda set by the consultant would take place with the Save the Children design team to look at the status of deliverables, timelines and necessary collaborations/decisions to progress the work. Weekly progress reports may therefore be provided verbally as part of these meetings as opposed to drafted reports, unless otherwise requested. |
|
21 |
Could you provide further details on the expertise and involvement of the “design team” referred to in the ToR in the generation of deliverables for Lot 1?
|
The Save the Children design team overseeing the Funding Proposal (Lots 1 and 2), will consist of a core team comprising representatives from the Country Office of Mali, the member (USA) and the AE. Apart from this, Save the Children technicians will be drawn in at relevant times – for example, gender expert, conflict expert. |
|
22 |
Do you have any further information on what type of collaboration (if any) will occur with the SCI team working on the Albarka project? |
The collaboration with Albarka is still being fine-tuned. Albarka has synergies with the GCF complementarity matching at Component 1, Component 2 (Activities 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) and Component 4 (Activities 4.1.1 and 4.1.3). We are expecting a full report on the status of Albarka shortly and can share this and other plans with the selected consultant in due course. |
|
23 |
GCF Feedback: Item 1.13 in the Terms of Reference refers to “Response to GCF Secretariat Feedback”, as the final deliverable of the engagement but we also note that, according to the timeline table, it will be offered in months 2 or 3 of the engagement. Please could you provide further detail about the feedback cycle you anticipate? For example, have you agreed any provisional dates for feedback submission, is this the only GCF feedback you anticipate during the engagement, and will the feedback be specifically focussed on any one area?
|
Thank you for pointing this out. Deliverable 1.13 “Response to GCF Secretariat Feedback” would be required just prior to and possibly following submission of the FP as opposed to months 2 and 3. Therefore, we’d expect this task to be conducted around months 5,6,7. It’s difficult to put exact timing on this as it sits outside of Save the Children’s control and is highly dependent on the GCF’s turn around times and extent of feedback. There are no agreed provisional dates for feedback with the GCF. Feedback may cover any area of the full Funding Proposal. |
|
24 |
Coverage of the ToR vs GCF proposal requirements: Regarding the coverage of the Terms of Reference as they relate to the GCF’s proposal guidelines: a. We note that “budget” and “annex 4” is referred to multiple times in the ToR but it is not listed as a separate deliverable for the engagement. Please could you confirm whether “Annex 4: Detailed budget plan”, as defined by the GCF, is expected to be an output for Lot 1?
|
Annex 4 is a mandatory piece of the full funding proposal required by the GCF. However, the Country Office, Member and AE will develop the project budget, it is not expected that the selected consultant will deliver this Annex under Lot 1. |
|
25 |
Similarly, we noted that deliverable 1.11 is described as “detailed costing and procurement summary”. However, the description does not explicitly link it to a specific GCF annex. Please could you confirm whether 1.11 is a general procurement and costing report, or whether it will be expected to align with the requirements of GCF defined “Annex 10: Procurement plan” and/or GCF defined “Annex 4: Detailed Budget Plan”? |
Deliverable 1.11 represents the GCF required Annex 10 Procurement Plan. The selected consultant will deliver the Procurement Plan with close collaboration and direct inputs from Save the Children. |
|
26 |
We noted that “Annex 6: E&S document corresponding to the E&S category” as defined by GCF was not mentioned in the ToR. We also noted that on the SCI website, it is disclosed that an additional ESS consultant may be contracted. Please could you confirm whether this Annex will be undertaken by the consultancy completing lot 1 or 2, SCI or a separate contractor? |
If bidders have the ability to contract their own experienced Gender / ESS and EFA associates for GCF compliant Annexes, this would be ideal for ease of contracting, project managing and accountability. However, if not, then yes, we will contract the Gender/ESS and EFA consultant separately and require them to work with the selected consultants to complete the task. |
|
27 |
We noted that “Annex 22 – GHG emissions reductions estimates” (as defined by the GCF) was not mentioned in the ToR. Please could you confirm whether this will be undertaken by the consultancy, SCI or another 3rd party? |
Thank you for pointing this oversight out. Yes, indeed the bid should also cover service provision for Annex 22 GHG emissions reduction estimates. |
|
28 |
CN changes and GCF endorsement: On the concept note and any changes since it was submitted (12/2021) – has the Concept Note been endorsed by GCF already (incl ESS Category C), and is the TOR, therefore, updated based on feedback on the CN from GCF? |
The CN has been updated and endorsed since the original submission. ESS category C remains correct and aligned with our accreditation status |
|
29 |
Submissions deadline: Is January 15th 2023 still the submissions deadline? |
Yes. SUBMISSION DEADLINE: 17:00 hrs GMT on January 15th , 2023 |
