RFP for development of sanitation economy frameworks (Lot 1) and menstrual health markets frameworks (Lot 2) for technical assistance (TA) and market sizing estimates - (The Sanitation and Hygiene Fund)

New clarification added: Question: Would the selected bidder be informed of the five countries for market sizing at the time of  signing of the contract ? UNOPS Response: This information will be made available to the awarded bidder after the signing of the contract.Question: For the milestone- Oversight and control (quality assurance) for in-country application of frameworks (20%), the weightage provided is 20%.Currently the scope involves high level supervision and feedback on the in-country deliverables for in-country partners. At this stage when the partners engagement level and as the 4 countries are to be confirmed, the weightage provided for the deliverable at 20% and occurring after 8 months after the last deliverable is a huge cashflow constraint with external dependency risk to the offeror.Request this milestone to be reduced to 5% or 10% so  that the offeror can ensure appropriately focus on the effective roll-out and understanding of the  framework for in-country partner to adopt .We also suggest that this payment milestone is further split into twoUNOPS Response: We have considered the overall set of deliverables and weight for each (e.g. deliverable 1 is 50%) and have resolved to retain the deliverables as indicated in the RFP .This will therefore not be amended.

New clarification added: Question:  The 4 countries for framework development would be selected by the client or by us?UNOPS Response:  The framework is developed irrespective of the countries where it’s applied. Over time, it will be applied across SHF’s target countries (beyond 4 countries). During this RFP, the countries that will be overseen by the service provider are selected by SHF based on SHF country priorities.Question: Will the implementation of the frameworks/methodology be done by us or by client's in-country partners? UNOPS Response:  The implementation is done by SHF’s in-country partners for the frameworks. For country market sizing estimates, the estimates are created by the RFP service provider.Question: Do we need to prepare 2 different technical and financial proposals for each Lot?UNOPS Response: Should you want to send a proposal for both Lots, you need to prepare 2 proposals, since there are separate submissions for Lot 1 and Lot 2. There is a technical and financial proposal for each Lot. However, you do not have to send a proposal for both Lots if you decide to focus on only one of them.

New clarification added: Question:  The 4 countries for framework development would be selected by the client or by us?UNOPS Response:  The framework is developed irrespective of the countries where it’s applied. Over time, it will be applied across SHF’s target countries (beyond 4 countries). During this RFP, the countries that will be overseen by the service provider are selected by SHF based on SHF country priorities.Question: Will the implementation of the frameworks/methodology be done by us or by client's in-country partners? UNOPS Response:  The implementation is done by SHF’s in-country partners for the frameworks. For country market sizing estimates, the estimates are created by the RFP service provider.Question: Do we need to prepare 2 different technical and financial proposals for each Lot?UNOPS Response: Should you want to send a proposal for both Lots, you need to prepare 2 proposals, since there are separate submissions for Lot 1 and Lot 2. There is a technical and financial proposal for each Lot. However, you do not have to send a proposal for both Lots if you decide to focus on only one of them. 

New amendment added #1: The tender has been amended as below:I. The scoring methodology of the tender is changed. The amended weightage criteria of technical : Financial is also revised from 60:40 to 70:30. Revised Schedule of requirement is uploaded with the RFP.II. The RFP  Clarification deadline has been extended from 25 June 2024 to 28 June 2024, 10 00 hours UTC.III. The RFP  Submission  deadline has been extended from 02 July 2024 to 08 July 2024, 10 00 hours UTC.IV. Exclusivity and/or availability statement is not required, hence Form H is removed from the checklist and revised returnable forms are uploaded.V. Pre-bid meeting minutes for LOT 1 are uploaded.VI. Pre-bid meeting minutes for LOT 2 are uploaded.

New clarification added: Question: For Form D: Technical Proposal Form, should the proposal be formatted so that responses are in the table structure on the form, or can one write a proposal in a separate document, using the proposal form as a structural guide?” Additionally, is it possible to obtain access to a recording of or notes on the clarification meeting held June 14, 2024?UNOPS Response: The technical proposal should be submitted on the Form D. Meeting minutes will be uploaded with the RFP.

New clarification added: Question: we wanted check on 2.3 and 2.5 sections from Stage 2: Qualification criteria. Is it only the lead or the consortium's joint capabilities will be considered for Pass/ Fail.UNOPS Response: It is required only for the lead consortium agency for 2.3 and 2.5.

New clarification added: Questiion: Should the outcome examples for 2.5 on same projects used for 2.3 submitted for qualification? UNOPS Response: They can be the same or different examples depending on whether they fit in both 2.3 and 2.5.

New clarification added: Question:  Market sizing estimates: Please confirm in the market sizing estimates , the focus is at the household level sanitation only and  need not include public/ private  institutions and commercial sanitation investment opportunitiesUNOPS Response: Market sizing methodology is to be proposed by the bidder, but generally market size includes the full sanitation economy market size including institutions and commercial sectors.Question: The deliverable for market sizing estimate frameworks coincides/ runs parallel to the Sector status framework, public sector reform framework (draft in first two months and final after 4 months of signing). Do you anticipate that there may be no overlap of the findings/ framework from in-country work to be used as input to market sizing estimatesUNOPS Response: The deadline for the first two deliverables are set as per the RFP. Within this timeframe, the bidder can determine how to structure the workflow to meet this deadline. Both deliverables can be developed completely in parallel, sequentially, or slightly staggered - starting with one deliverable a few weeks later than the other. Any and all options for how to work can be included in the work plan, as long as the final deadline is met.  

New clarification added: 1.      It is mentioned in Stage 2: Qualification criteria, that we need to provide audited balance sheets covering the last [3] years. We have this for FY 2020, 2021 & 2022 (2023 is underway). Can we provide the audited balance sheets for FY 2020, 2021 & 2022?UNOPS Response: Yes it is acceptable in case you did not receive the 2023 audited balance.

New clarification added: 6.                  It is hard to gauge the extent of engagement needed (in-person and virtual) to guide and supervise in-country implementations teams upfront as offerors have limited knowledge on the technical capacity of these implementing teams. Can the offerors focus on submitting a budget that provides HR related costs only and have SHF directly pay for direct costs such as travel, per diem and training workshops as needed?UNOPS Response: All costs needed to provide the deliverables set out in the RFP should be included in the bid. There is no requirement to manage or oversee the implementing teams who will be using these developed frameworks and methodologies. For the section “oversight and control”, the offeror will be tasked with overseeing and controlling the quality of deliverables of an implementing team at key stages of the process. (e.g. work plan review, 1st draft review, final draft review). The offeror is not responsible for the development of the skills and expertise of the implementing team. If the offeror considers an online training or webinar as an integral part of the developed approach for the implementing team, this can be included. SHF will not dictate what approach you can or cannot include in your proposal. 7.                  The 60:40 scoring split skews incentives towards’ cost-cutting’ rather than technical rigor, approach and the ability to generate value to stakeholders.  We request the procurement team to consider a 80:20 (tech: financial) or at least a 70:30 scoring split to encourage strong technical responses.UNOPS Response: The scoring methodology of the tender is changed. The amended weightage criteria of technical : Financial is also revised from 60:40 to 70:30. Revised Schedule of requirement is uploaded with the RFP. Please refer to amendment no. 1 of the RFP as posted.8.                  When considering experience in Menstrual Health and Hygiene (MHM) markets, what qualifies as relevant expertise given the niche nature of this field? Specifically, would projects focused on building awareness, triggering demand, and measuring 'empowerment for MHM' be considered as relevant qualifications?UNOPS Response: Relevant MHH market expertise refers specifically to work on markets, not any other components of menstrual health. This may include, but is not limited to, supply chains, pricing, willingness to pay, demand generation strategies, value chains, business model development, taxation or the role of regulations and policies on market development. This does not include general MHH related themes such as MH advocacy, MH training and education, broader MH research. 9.                  Where can we demonstrate our eligibility for Stage 1: Eligibility and formal criteria (Pass/ Fail type)? Where can we show the proof that we are eligible. Is it acceptable if we provide a self-attested document and include it as an annexure in our proposal?-          Offeror is eligible as defined in Section I: Instructions to Offerors, Article 4.-          Completeness of the Proposal: All required Questionnaires (if any), Returnable Bidding Forms, and other documentation requested under the Document Checklist section have been provided and are complete.-          Offeror is eligible as defined in Section I: Instructions to Offerors, Article 4.-          The offeror must be incorporated and maintain all required licenses and certifications to operate as required by law in the country of registration. (Offeror must submit relevant registration, certifications, and licenses).UNOPS Response: Please refer to clause 4 in document no. 2; RFP_Section_I_Instructions to Offerors.pdf in the RFP under document’s tab.10.              As mentioned in Stage 2: Qualification criteria, we need to have Proven track record of at least 2 projects completed on: Lot 1: Sanitation economy Lot 2: Menstrual health markets. Id it acceptable of we show ongoing projects which are near to completion stage?UNOPS Response: The requirement is at least 02 completed projects. 11.              For Form H: Statement of Exclusivity and Availability do we need to attach contract papers? As proof of the availability?UNOPS Response:  Form H is not required anymore for this RFP process. It is decided to remove this requirement. Please refer to amendment no. 1 of the RFP as posted. 

New clarification added: 1.                  Can you please clarify how the ‘national snapshot methodology and framework’  is different from the ‘sector status’ and ‘public sector reforms’ framework. What is the use case for each of these?UNOPS Response:All deliverables in this RFP are needed by SHF at different stages of engagement with national governments in low and middle income countries (LMICs). SHF provides technical assistance to these governments to understand the status of the current market and provide options for interventions. The ‘Government Case’ should contain relevant information on the global and national mh market context from information that can be gathered through existing sources (e.g. desk research). This information should be gathered prior to engagement with a national government and it will provide the necessary background information to start negotiations with a national government to: highlight the opportunities of working on MH markets in the specific country. Develop a terms of reference for the collaboration between SHF and the government. The ‘sector status’ and ‘public sector reforms’ are deliverables that SHF can provide to a government as part of, and only after, an agreed Terms of Reference between SHF and the government.  These documents will help the government gain detailed understanding of the market and provide concrete policy and regulatory actions that governments can take to improve the national menstrual health market. These outputs will require in-depth country research, leveraging a range of different approaches and data sources to provide a detailed overview of the market and market opportunities. 2.                  Our interpretation is that the reforms will be informed by the national sanitation market diagnostic framework and is not separate from it and we may not need two separate national diagnostic frameworks to assess the market maturity.UNOPS Response: This varies country-by-country. In countries where there is a national sanitation diagnostic framework, this can be leveraged.3.                  How do you see the ongoing work on ‘sanitation market maturity assessment’ being led by Guy Hutton fit into all of this? Do you anticipate developing additional ‘national diagnostic frameworks’ over and above the sanitation market maturity framework? If yes, please clarify what the intent behind this is?UNOPS Response: Guy Hutton’s work focuses on creating a tool (including a set of indicators) to analyze sanitation market maturity from multiple perspectives. Some of this work is interconnected to that and may provide data points to the tool (e.g. market sizing work).4.                  SHF has already developed an approach to estimate ‘cost of inaction’ with the Toilet Board Coalition and further with Dalberg.  How is this RFP expected to build on those frameworks? Can you please make those methodologies available and clarify what gaps you see that need to be fulfilled by this RFP?UNOPS Response: The existing methodologies will be made available to the selected service provider and can be leveraged where appropriate.5.                  Any firm that has expertise in helping shape and organize sanitation markets (supply and demand) should be able to develop a logical framework to inform market structuring and sizing exercises for MHM. (For ex: MHM markets are likely to have a strong ‘retail character’ with the supply side being largely characterized by co-operatives and micro and small enterprises). Can you please clarify the logic behind splitting MHM from sanitation and procuring this as a separate lot?UNOPS Response: There are significant and structural differences between the menstrual health market and the sanitation economy. These include, but are not limited to: the role and level of involvement of national and local governments; funding, financing and investment from public and private stakeholders; the differences between users and paying customers; the types of markets (FMCG, SMCG vs infrastructure) and types of market actors (SMEs vs corporates, manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers, vs construction, maintenance and service providers)the level of subsidy for access; the pathways for product and services access; the value chain; and demand generation strategies. The deliverables under this RFP ultimately are designed to gain thorough insight into these specific markets. Governments are the primary audience, which is what these outputs have in common, but the information required to be collected and shared vary widely. Therefore SHF has purposefully opted to provide two separate lots within this RFP. Offerors with the necessary market expertise in both market can bid for both lots.To ensure sufficient quality proposals from qualified offerors are submitted, this RFP includes these two lots.  

New clarification added: In addition to my pervious mail, Dr. Malini Reddy, Director - Governance and Service Delivery, Athena Infonomics; E-mail: malini.r@athenainfonomics.com. will also be attending the pre-bid meeting for both the LOTSResponse: Done

New clarification added: Dear Sir/ Ma’am,Greetings from Athena Infonomics!We hear by confirm that we are interested in participating in this bid (RFP/2024/52262) and will also be participating in the pre-bid meeting that will be held on 14th June 2024 for both the LOT 1 and LOT 2.From Athena 4 members would be participating in the pre-bid meeting for both the lots 1 and 2:1.    Ms. Deepa Karthykeyan, Co-founder and Partner, Athena Infonomics; Email: deepa.k@athenainfonomics.com 2.    Ms. Manisha Bothra, Manager – Corporate Planning, Athena Infonomics; E-mail: manisha.b@athenainfonomics.com 3.    Ms. Mithra Vasudevan, Principal Consultant, Athena Infonomics; E-mail: mithra.v@athenainfonomics.com 4.    Ms. Pushpalatha, Associate BD, Athena Infonomics; E-mail: pushpalatha.c@athenainfonomics.com Thanks and Regards,Pushpalatha,Associate BD, Athena InfonomicsResponse: Done