Tender No. GFPREQ01618 – Call for Consultancy for the Evaluation of Key Population Programs At Kenya Red Cross

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

CONSULTANCY FOR EVALUATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PREVENTION PROGRAMS FOR KEY POPULATION

Document Release Date : 31^st March, 2021 **

Last Date for Receipt of proposals : 14^th April, 2021 **

Time : 11.00 Hrs

Tender Number : GFPREQ01618

Submission Method : Email to [email protected]

Tender Opening Venue and Time **: Zoom link to be shared**

An Evaluation of the Comprehensive Prevention Programs for the Female Sex Workers (FSW), Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and People Who Inject Drugs (PWID).

1. Summary of the Key Population Program Evaluation

1.1. Purpose: The main purpose of this evaluation will be to assess program impact, outcomes, outputs and the implementation of the comprehensive programs for the Female Sex Workers (FSW), Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and People Who Inject Drugs (PWID).

1.2. Partners: Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS), National AIDS & STI Control Programme (NASCOP), National AIDS Control Council (NACC), Key Population Implementers (Sub-Recipients and Networks).

1.3. Duration: 35 days.

1.4. Estimated Dates: 26^th April, 2021 to 11^th June, 2021.

1.5. Geographical Location: 20 counties of Kenya (Elgeyo Marakwet, Kajiado, Kericho, Kiambu, Kilifi, Kisii, Kisumu, Kwale, Laikipia, Machakos, Mombasa, Nairobi, Nakuru, Nyamira, Nyeri, Taita Taveta, Trans Nzoia, Uasin Gishu, Vihiga and West Pokot).

1.6. Target Population: Female Sex Workers (FSW), Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and People Who Inject Drugs (PWID).

1.7. Deliverables: Comprehensive Inception, Draft and Final Evaluation Reports.

1.8. Methodology: An evaluation technique that will employ both Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.

1.9. Evaluation Management Team: Representation from KRCS, NASCOP and KP communities’ representatives (FSW, MSM and PWID).

2. Background Information

The Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS) is the non-state Principal Recipient (PR) for the Global Fund HIV Grant, focusing on creating demand for health services from the community through increasing access to community HIV testing and counselling; expanding services for HIV prevention; providing community HIV care and support and strengthening community health systems. The KRCS is committed to ensuring that the vulnerable communities in the country have access to much needed services in the most efficient, effective, reliable and trusted manner at any time and whenever required.

The HIV prevalence is estimated at 4.4%, translating to 1.5 million people living with HIV in Kenya. The HIV prevalence is both generalized and highly concentrated among Key Populations including female sex workers (FSW), male sex workers (MSW), men who have sex with men (MSM), and people who inject drugs (PWID) with age, gender and geographical variations. The HIV prevalence amongst FSW is 29%, 18.2% among MSM and 18.3% among PWID. The Kenya Modes of Transmission (MOT) study, 2020 showed that key populations contribute 13.9% of the total number of new infections in Kenya; FSW contributed to 11.7%, PWID (3.8%) and MSM (1.3%).

The current Global Fund HIV grant, which started implementation in January 2018, was designed to contribute to the reduction of new HIV infections by 75% and AIDS related mortality by 25%. The programs are implemented by 24 Sub Recipients (SRs) and Networks, which are spread across the 20 counties of Kenya. The grant provides combination prevention package for Female Sex Workers (FSW), Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and People Who Inject Drugs (PWID) as per the National Guidelines for HIV/STI programming with key populations.

Reducing Human Rights and Gender Barriers to accessing health services and justice are integrated for key population interventions. Access to justice for human rights violations remains a challenge, particularly for key affected populations. This is largely due to low levels of awareness on legal rights, inefficiencies within law enforcement institutions and underutilization of available avenues for dispute resolution. Key populations may have little or no understanding of the justice system. Lack of awareness exposes them to the likelihood of wrongful conviction and arbitrary arrests by the law enforcers and County Askaris.

3. Program Goal and Objectives

3.1 Main objective

The overall objective of the key population program was to contribute to the reduction of new HIV infections by 75%, AIDS related mortality by 25% and self-reported stigma and discrimination related to HIV/AIDS by 50% by 2025.

3.2 Specific objectives

3.2.1 To increase coverage of comprehensive HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services reaching out to 23,000 MSM by year 3.

3.2.2 To increase coverage of comprehensive HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services reaching out to 41,443 FSW by year 3.

3.2.3 To increase coverage of comprehensive HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services reaching out to 13,500 PWID by year 3.

3.2.4 To increase awareness on human rights related to HIV and improve enabling environment to address human rights violations.

3.2.5 To increase knowledge and awareness on GBV prevention and management as well as improved response to GBV cases by KPs

3.2.6 To enhance the capacity of the key population Networks on the implementation of Global Fund Programs.

4. Evaluation Purpose, Scope & Deliverables

4.1 Purpose:

Kenya Red Cross Society and its partners are committed to upholding accountability and learning to their communities. The evaluation of Key Population programs will provide information, learning and accountability to donor, Ministry of Health, Principal Recipient, Sub Recipients, Networks and more importantly to the communities. This evaluation is expected to assess program impact, outcomes, outputs and the implementation of the comprehensive programs for Female Sex Workers (FSW), Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and People Who Inject Drugs (PWID).

The evaluation results will be shared with Global Fund, Ministry of Health, Sub Recipients, Networks and the community, which will be expected to guide and inform next key population programming in Kenya. The evaluation will also assess the performance of the project against key parameters including the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, organizational learning and best practices; partnerships and stakeholder management.

4.2 Broad Objective

The broad objective is to evaluate the extent to which Key Population Program contributed to the reduction of new HIV infections, AIDS related mortality and self-reported stigma and discrimination related to HIV/AIDS among Female Sex Workers (FSW), Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and People Who Inject Drugs (PWID) in Kenya.

4.3 Specific Objectives:

3.3.1 To examine the comprehensiveness of prevention programs for Female Sex Workers (FSW),

3.3.2 To appraise the comprehensiveness of prevention programs for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM),

3.3.3 To evaluate the comprehensiveness of prevention programs for People Who Inject Drugs (PWID),

3.3.4 To determine the literacy levels on Human Rights related to HIV and barriers to accessing health services and justice among Key Population

3.3.5 To evaluate Gender Based Violence and Response Mechanism among Key Population.

3.3.6 To appraise the extent to which the program enhanced the capacity of the Key Population Networks to implement Global Fund Program.

4.4 Scope of Work:

The Global Fund HIV Grants focusses on providing comprehensive preventions programs for Female Sex Workers (FSW), Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and People Who Inject Drugs (PWID) as per the National Guidelines for HIV/STI programming with key populations.

4.4.1 Key Population Program Implementation: Start date: January, 2018; End date: June, 2021.

4.4.2 Geographical coverage: 20 counties of Kenya (Elgeyo Marakwet, Kajiado,Kericho, Kiambu, Kilifi, Kisii, Kisumu, Kwale, Laikipia, Machakos, Mombasa, Nairobi, Nakuru, Nyamira, Nyeri, Taita Taveta, Trans Nzoia, Uasin Gishu, Vihiga and West Pokot)

4.4.3 Target groups: The primary target group will be 46,425 FSW, 15,420 PWID and 24,879 MSM.

4.4.4 Expected Outputs:

4.4.4.1 A technical and financial response to the call for applications outlining the understanding of the task, detailing the evaluation methodology, data analysis plan, work plan with tentative timelines and summary budget.

4.4.4.2 Initial discussions with the consulting firm on the evaluation work plan, methodology and logistics. This will lead to the approved work plan and road map with clear timelines.

4.4.4.3 An inception report of the desk review prior to field work to demonstrate a clear understanding and a practical work plan for the evaluation.

4.4.4.4 Meeting with Evaluation Management team to discuss inception report and provide feedback.

4.4.4.5 Submission of appropriate tools, approaches and plan for data collection as well as data analysis plan for input and approval by the Evaluation Management team

4.4.4.6 Seek for ethical clearance from a reputable Ethical Review Committee and any other relevant child protection body.

4.4.4.7 Conduct field data collection, data analyses and report writing (guide will be shared for report writing).

4.4.4.8 Submission of the draft evaluation report to the KRCS and Evaluation Management team for review and feedback.

4.4.4.9 Validation meeting with KRCS project team, SRs’/Networks’ team and Technical Working Group (TWG) to discuss the draft evaluation report and provide feedback.

4.4.4.10 Dissemination of the final evaluation report to Kenya Coordination Mechanism through HIV Inter-Agency Co-ordinating Committee (ICC).

4.4.4.11 Submission of the final evaluation report to the evaluation management team and KRCS, including:

4.4.4.11.1 Databases of raw and cleaned data (both qualitative and quantitative, including copies of data sets with codebook as appropriate).

4.4.4.11.2 All recorded material including video and audio recording and photos.

4.4.4.11.3 A logical inventory of material handed over.

4.4.4.11.4 KRCS will have sole ownership of all final data and any findings shall only be shared or reproduced with the permission of KRCS.

4.4.5 Deliverables: The evaluation will be phased with deliverables at intervals that will be discussed and agreed with the consulting firm. However, at the minimum;

4.4.5.1 Submission of the Inception report (Evaluation Management team will share a guide for compiling the report).

4.4.5.2 Ethical approval from a reputable Ethical Review Committee and any other relevant child protection body.

4.4.5.3 A draft and final end of project evaluation report (Evaluation management team will share a guide for compiling the report).

4.4.5.4 Sharing the draft report in a validation meeting consisting of KRCS Project Team, Implementing SRs/Networks and Technical Working Group (TWG).

4.4.5.5 Dissemination of Dissemination of the final evaluation report to Kenya Coordination Mechanism through HIV Inter-Agency Co-ordinating Committee (ICC).

5. Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions.

The evaluation process focuses on, but not limited to the following:

5.1 Relevance:

5.1.1 To what extent did the program address the beneficiaries needs?

5.1.2 What has been in particular useful for the target beneficiaries?

5.1.3 How relevant were the interventions to county/national government priorities?

5.2 Effectiveness:

5.2.1 To what extent was the project expected results achieved (output and outcomes)?

5.2.2 What changes can be attributed to the project (positive, negative, expected and unexpected)?

5.2.3 Is there any need to adjust the project response to the changes in the project environment? If yes, what adjustments were made and were they timely?

5.3 Efficiency

5.3.1 Were all activities undertaken on time as planned?

5.3.2 Were all activities done within the budget? If there were any significant variances (whether early or late, over or under expenditure), what were the causes?

5.3.3 How did the efficiency affect the effectiveness of the project?

5.4 Impact

5.4.1 What is the extent to which the program contributed to the intended results among the Key population?

5.4.2 What is the contribution of the intervention elements (Condom distribution and use, STI screening and treatment, HTS, HIV treatment, Needle and syringe program, nutritional program, etc.) in the reduction new HIV infections and AIDs related deaths and on legal literacy and on the improvement of enabling environment and reporting of GBV cases among key population?

5.4.3 What is the extent to which the program contributed to the unintended results among key population?

5.4.4 Are there positive or negative changes in the community, which can be attributed to the program?

5.4.5 Are there any lessons learnt and Good practices that can be deduced from the program?

5.5 Sustainability:

5.5.1 What measures were put in place to ensure project sustainability?

5.5.2 Does the program have an exit or sustainability strategy?

5.5.3 To what extent were socio-cultural factors affected uptake of project interventions? And what measures were taken to address the same?

5.5.4 To what extent have the benefits of the programme expected to be or sustained after completion of the programme?

5.5.5 What are the recommendations for similar support in the future?

5.6 Stakeholders Participation and Accountability

5.6.1 How much did the beneficiaries understand the project?

5.6.2 How much were beneficiaries involved in the project decision making?

5.6.3 What strategies were used for beneficiary communication and complains mechanism?

5.6.4 What were the respective responsibilities and contributions of donor partners, implementing partner and other local partners?

5.6.5 To what extent were the interventions integrated into the Kenya Government National programs, policies and orientation?

5.6.6 To what extent was capacity building of the implementing SRs/Networks done and what were their positive and negative effects?

6. Evaluation Methodology Approaches

The KRCS highly recommend that the evaluation firm considers effective approaches and design that responds to the evaluation objectives and scope of this assignment, which should take into account the available program data throughout the project cycle. However, additional and effective approaches may be recommended to meet the data requirements for the evaluation as agreed with KRCS and evaluation management team.

The evaluation firm will also be required to recommend sampling techniques for the evaluation, which adheres to the laws of Statistical Regularity and Inertia of large numbers. All findings should be scientific, evidenced and critically evaluated for validity and reliability. The data collection and analysis methods must be comprehensively and explained in the reports.

7. Evaluation Quality & Ethical Standards

The evaluation firm shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of Key Population and communities involved and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate and reliable; is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. The firm will be required to seek for ethical approval prior to the commence of data collection process. In addition, the evaluation team shall be required to adhere to the evaluation standards and applicable practices as recommended by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

3.3 Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.

3.4 Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible manner.

3.5 Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.

3.6 Impartiality & Independence: Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.

3.7 Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.

3.8 Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.

3.9 Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.

3.10 Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.

8. Qualifications and Experience for the evaluation firm

For the purposes of this evaluation, the evaluation firm should have extensive experience and knowledge in key population programming, human rights and gender, social research, health programs including HIV and AIDS, working with disadvantaged population/communities, or other related fields. In addition, the evaluation team of the firm should possess the following:

3.11 Master’s in social sciences, public/community health, research methods, statistics or another relevant field.

3.12 Extensive experience of conducting evaluations along OECD- DAC assessment criteria, ideally leading an evaluation team as well as experience in designing mixed methods studies /tools, data analysis etc.

3.13 More than 5 years of experience in evaluating key population program.

3.14 Competent in designing and using mobile phone technology for data collection, statistical packages for quantitative and qualitative analyses.

3.15 Excellent analytical (qualitative and quantitative), presentation and writing in English.

3.16 Good understanding and proven track record in safeguarding/do not harm principle.

3.17 Experience in conducting data collection during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure safety of both researchers and respondents is a critical requirement

9. Management of the Evaluation

3.18 Duration: The entire survey will take a maximum of 35 days. The scheduled start date from 26^th April, 2021 to 11^th June, 2021.

3.19 Requirements:

3.19.1 Inception Report should be submitted in soft copy.

3.19.2 All hard copy forms for data submission and soft copy in a flush disk.

3.19.3 A soft copy Draft Evaluation Report, editable for review and inputs.

3.19.4 Final Evaluation Report, well visualized – 5 hard copies (Gloss paper and perfect book bound) and soft copy in a Flash Disk, including the PowerPoint presentation used during disseminations.

3.20 Roles of KRCS and Evaluation Management Team: The project management team will include KRCS and representative from NASCOP, FSW, MSM and PWID. The role of the KRCS and the evaluation management team are envisaged but not limited to the following:

3.20.1 Development and finalization end of project evaluation Terms of reference.

3.20.2 Procure the consulting firm and provide logistical support during the evaluation process.

3.20.3 In coordination with the lead consultant, guide in the recruitment of research team.

3.20.4 Provide Consulting team with all documents as required.

3.20.5 Plan for the evaluation report validation meeting for KRCS and evaluation management team, Implementing SRs/Networks and Technical Working Group.

3.20.6 Coordinate the dissemination meeting at HIV-ICC.

3.20.7 Review and approve the evaluation documents and the final report.

3.20.8 Make fund available to the evaluation firm and management team as per the contract document.

3.21 Role of the Consultant: The consultant will consult with KRCS in undertaking the following:

3.21.1 Respond to the TOR with clear methodology, work plan and budget.

3.21.2 Undertake the desk review and develop literature review.

3.21.3 Design the survey methodology, sample and tools.

3.21.4 Development of inception report.

3.21.5 Develop evaluation protocol for ethical approval.

3.21.6 Sensitize research team for data collection.

3.21.7 Conduct KI interviews, data analysis, report etc.

3.21.8 Develop and submit the draft and final evaluation report.

3.21.9 Develop study dissemination pack and facilitate actual dissemination.

3.21.10 Share all the data sets with KRCS.

10. Submission of proposal

The bidders MUST provide a technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly marked “Technical Proposal Name of the firm/consultant” and “Financial Proposal Name of the firm/consultant” with the subject: “Tender No. GFPREQ01618: Call for Consultancy for the *Evaluation of Key Population Programs”.*

The Proposal should be sent on mail to reach [email protected] by 14^th April, 2021 at 11:00 am

The tender documents must conform to the attached annexes.

ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT

1. Introduction: description of the firm, the firm’s qualifications and statutory compliance. 1/₂ pages>.
2. Back ground: Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services, key questions. .
3. Proposed methodology – Describe the proposed design for the evaluation. Indicate methods to be used for each objective and highlight any areas where adjustment may be recommended. The targeted respondents should be indicated for each objective. Proposed detailed questions should be indicated. Detailed sample size, calculation methods and sampling procedure needs to be indicated. .
4. Firms experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from the geographical area for other major clients (Table of: Name of organization, name of assignment, duration of assignment (Dates), reference person contacts). .
5. Proposed team composition as per the table below. .

Name of Team Member

Highest Level of Qualification

General Years of Experience related to the task at hand

Number of days to be engaged

Roles under this assignment

1. Work plan (Gantt chart of activity date/period of implementation) – .

ANNEX 2: BUDGET TEMPLATE

The consultant shall only quote for the items below as KRCS will manage all other related costs (Logistics and payment of enumerators):

Items Description

Unit

# of Units

Unit Cost (Ksh.)

Total Cost (Ksh.)

Justification of Unit cost

Consultancy Fee (for the whole evaluation period)

Per day

Office expenses (Printing, graphic design, photocopy, binding, communication costs etc.)

Lump Sum

Grand Total

NOTE: It is recommended that this be done in excel sheet and the detailed budget submitted in electronic with summary as a print out in an envelope.

ANNEX 3: TENDER EVALUATION CRITERIA

A three-stage evaluation procedure will be used to evaluate all proposals from bidders that meet the Administrative compliance. The total number of points for each stage is as follows:

3.1 Eligibility compliance Pass

3.2 Technical Proposal 60 marks

3.3 Oral presentation 30 marks

3.4 Financial Proposal 10 marks

3.1 Eligibility Criteria

Applicants will have to be a legal entity registered in Kenya with the right to enter a contractual agreement with KRCS. The applicant must have no history of legal proceedings related to fraud or corruption. The applicant must be a qualified entity (firm/company) with:

3.1.1 Valid Registration,

3.1.2 PIN certificate,

3.1.3 Tax compliance,

3.1.4 Two reports of previous assignments (Soft/PDF copies).

Note: Only applications meeting all the above eligibility requirement will move to the tender evaluation.

3.2 Evaluation of the Technical Proposal

The technical proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of its responsiveness to the Terms of Reference. Specifically, the following criteria shall apply:

Evaluation Criteria

Maximum Points

Bidder’s score

Remarks

Introduction: Compliance to the Terms of Reference, clear description of the firm and its qualifications.

5

Background: Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services

10

Proposed Methodology: The proposed methodology MUST provide an indication of its effectiveness and added value in the proposed assignment. Review the previous reports submitted

15

Firms Experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from related geographical area for other major clients. Provide information on overall years of experience, relevant technical expertise, previous experience in ethical clearance and working with key population communities.

15

Proposed Team Composition:

• Tabulate the team composition to include the general qualifications, suitability for the specific task to be assigned and overall years of relevant experience to the proposed assignment.
• The proposed team composition should balance effectively with the necessary skills and competencies required to undertake the proposed assignment.
• Lead Consultant Qualifications – should be as per the TOR

5

Work Plan: A Detailed logical, date/period of work for the assignment MUST be provided.

10

TOTAL SCORE

60

Any firm with at least a score of 42 (70%) from the technical evaluation, will proceed and invited for the second stage – oral presentation.

3.3 Oral presentation

Criteria

Maximum Points

Bidders Score

Remarks

Understanding of the assignment and clarity on the proposed methodology

15

Roadmap is realistic and aligned to the methodology

10

Presentation of: detailed CVs of team to be involved, evidence of legal Compliance (Registration, PIN certificate, tax compliance etc.)

5

Total

30

For the firm to proceed to the last stage – financial proposal opening and evaluation, the minimum score must be 63 (70%) of the combined technical proposal and the oral presentation.

3.4 Financial Proposal Evaluation

The Financial Proposal shall be prepared in accordance to Annex 2. The maximum number of points (10 points) will be allocated to the lowest financial quotation and the other Financial Proposals will receive points in an inverse proportion according to the below formula:

Points for the Financial Proposal being evaluated

=

(Maximum number of points for the financial proposal) x (Lowest price)

Price of proposal being evaluated

3.5 Final Scores and Recommendation

A total score will be aggregated for ONLY the bids that go through all the last three stages above (Technical, Oral and Financial evaluations). The tender evaluation team shall make a recommendation to award the bidder with the highest total score.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Please read carefully the method of tender submission and comply accordingly.

1.1.1. KRCS reserves the right to accept or to reject any bid, and to annul the bidding process and reject all bids at any time prior to the award of the contract, without thereby incurring any liability to any Bidder or any obligation to inform the Bidder of the grounds for its action.

1.1.2. Cost of bidding

The Bidder shall bear all costs associated with the preparation and submission of its bid, and the Organization will in no case be responsible or liable for those costs, regardless of the conduct or outcome of the bidding process.

1.1.3. Clarification of Bidding Document

All correspondence related to the contract shall be made in English. Any clarification sought by the bidder in respect of the consultancy shall be addressed at least five (5) days before the deadline for submission of bids, in writing to the Administration Coordinator.

The queries and replies thereto shall then be circulated to all other prospective bidders (without divulging the name of the bidder raising the queries) in the form of an addendum, which shall be acknowledged in writing by the prospective bidders.

Enquiries for clarifications should be sent by e-mail to [email protected]

1.1.4. Amendment of Bidding Document

At any time prior to the deadline for submission of bids, KRCS, for any reason, whether at its own initiative or in response to a clarification requested by a prospective Bidder, may modify the bidding documents by amendment.

All prospective Bidders that have received the bidding documents will be notified of the amendment in writing, and it will be binding on them. It is therefore important that bidders give the correct details in the format given on page 1at the time of collecting/receiving the bid document.

To allow prospective Bidders reasonable time to take any amendments into account in preparing their bids, KRCS may at its sole discretion extend the deadline for the submission of bids based on the nature of the amendments.

1.1.5. Deadline for Submission of Bids

Bids should reach [email protected] on or before 14^th April 2021 at 11.00 am. Bids received after the above-specified date and time shall not be considered.

Any bid received by KRCS after this deadline will be rejected.

Bidders should provide a technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly Marked “Technical Proposal + Name of consultant” and “Financial Proposal + Name of consultant” both of which should then be sent to [email protected] with the subject reading “Tender No. GFPREQ01618: Call for Consultancy for the Evaluation of Key Population Programs”

The Proposal should be addressed as indicated above to reach the under signed by 14^th April 2021 at 11.00 a.m. for the tender to be opened at 12.00 noon:

Any bid received by KRCS after this deadline will be rejected.

All those tenderers who download the document will be required to send a mail to [email protected] for the purpose of receiving any amendments or additional information and log in details for the tender opening meeting.

Cost Structure and non-escalation

The bidder shall, in their offer (Financial Proposal), detail the proposed costs as per the template provided above.

No price escalation under this contract shall be allowed. KRCS shall not compensate any bidder for costs incurred in the preparation and submission of this RFP, and in any subsequent pre-contract process.

1.1.6. Taxes and Incidental Costs

The prices and rates in the financial offer will be deemed to be inclusive of all taxes and any other incidental costs.

1.1.7. Responsiveness of Proposals

The responsiveness of the proposals to the requirements of this RFP will be determined. A responsive proposal is deemed to contain all documents or information specifically called for in this RFP document. A bid determined not responsive will be rejected by the Organization and may not subsequently be made responsive by the Bidder by correction of the non-conforming item(s).

1.1.8. Currency for Pricing of Tender

All bids in response to this RFP should be expressed in Kenya Shillings. Expressions in other currencies shall not be permitted.

1.1.9. Correction of Errors

Bids determined to be substantially responsive will be checked by KRCS for any arithmetical errors. Errors will be corrected by KRCS as below:

a. where there is a discrepancy between the amounts in figures and in words, the amount in words will govern, and

b. where there is a discrepancy between the unit rate and the line total resulting from multiplying the unit rate by the quantity, the unit rate as quoted will govern.

The price amount stated in the Bid will be adjusted by KRCS in accordance with the above procedure for the correction of errors.

1.1.10. Evaluation and Comparison of Bids

Technical proposals will be evaluated prior to the evaluation of the financial bids. Financial bids of firms whose technical proposals are found to be non-qualifying in whatever respect may be returned unopened.

1.1.11. Confidentiality

The Bidder shall treat the existence and contents of this RFP, and all information made available in relation to this RFP, as confidential and shall only use the same for the purpose for which it was provided.

The Bidder shall not publish or disclose the same or any particulars thereof to any third party without the written permission of KRCS, unless it is to Bidder’s Contractors for assistance in preparation of this Tender. In any case, the same confidentiality must be entered into between Bidder and his Contractors.

1.1.12. Corrupt or Fraudulent Practices

KRCS requires that tenderers observe the highest standard of ethics during the procurement process and execution of contracts. A tenderer shall sign a declaration that he has not and will not be involved in corrupt or fraudulent practices.

KRCS will reject a proposal for award if it determines that the tenderer recommended for award has engaged in corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for the contract in question.

Further a tenderer who is found to have indulged in corrupt or fraudulent practices risks being debarred from participating please report any malpractices to [email protected]