Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Monetary Fund Request For Proposal No: 862
Independent Mid–Term Evaluation of the
Middle East Regional Technical Assistance Center (METAC)
Contents: RFP
1. Introduction2. ProcurementScheduleandInstructions3. OrganizationofProposal4. ProposalValidityandRepresentations5. ProposalEvaluationandAward6. Confidentiality
Schedule of Attachments A. TermsofReference/StatementofWorkB. PricingScheduleC. StandardTermsandConditionsD.SupplierQuestionnaire
IMF Contact: [email protected]‐623‐9503
2
Request for Proposal No. 862
Independent Mid–Term Evaluation of the
Middle East Regional Technical Assistance Center (METAC)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope and Goals
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is soliciting proposals from technically qualified firms with the relevant experience to perform consulting services as described in Attachment A (referred to as ‘Statements of Work’, ‘SOW’ or ‘Terms of Reference’, ‘TOR’).
The goals of this Request for Proposal (RFP) are to ensure best value and lowest Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for the IMF. Where best value is the optimal combination of cost, service quality and technical capability required to meet the IMF’s needs and TCO is the total cost of using a good or service over its lifecycle, taking into consideration both price and non-price factors like quality, service and process improvements. While maintaining service quality is essential, the IMF is also seeking to reduce total cost. Cost will be an important factor in evaluation of the bids. Further details of requirements are listed in ATTACHMENT A: Statement of Work.
1.2 About the International Monetary Fund
The IMF is an international organization with 188 member countries. It employs approximately 3,500 staff, the majority of whom work at its headquarters in Washington, DC. The core work of the IMF includes analyzing economic and financial conditions in member countries and providing macroeconomic policy advice as well as financial and technical assistance. More information about the IMF may be found at http://www.imf.org.
2. PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE AND INSTRUCTIONS
2.1 Procurement Schedule
Release Date for RFP:
November 1, 2013
Final Clarification Questions Due From Bidders:
By 10:00a.m. EST (USA) November 8, 2013
3
IMF’s Response to Questions from Bidders
November 12, 2013
Confirmation of Intent to Bid: November 14, 2013 Proposals Due: By 5:00 p.m. EST (USA), November
19, 2013
2.2 Requests for Clarification
Bidders may send questions to request clarification concerning this RFP by email to David Tesarcik [email protected].
Questions from bidders must be submitted and IMF responses may be expected by the dates listed under Section 2.1.
2.3 Confirmation of Intent to Bid
All bidders are required to respond via email indicating their intention to submit a proposal by the “Confirmation of Intent to Bid Date” listed in Section 2.1. Bidders who do no intend to submit a proposal should also respond indicating their reasons for not participating.
2.4 Presentation Requirements and Delivery Instructions
The bidder should submit its questions and the proposal electronically to David Tesarcik ([email protected]). Subject line of the email should read:
RFP 862 – METAC Evaluation – (‘name of firm/bidder’)
Proposals must be submitted by the “Proposal Due Date” listed under Section 2.1. THE IMF RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT LATE PROPOSALS.
3. ORGANIZATION OF PROPOSAL
These instructions are provided for general information for the preparation of the proposal and are not part of the documents comprising the proposal or the contract, and are not to be interpreted so as to change any contract provision, condition or specification.
The proposal should be separated into a technical and financial proposal. Pricing information should only be quoted in the financial proposal and should not appear in any other section. Proposals should be concise and contain the sections described
4
below. Proposals that fail to adhere to or comply with the following format may be excluded from the evaluation process.
3.1 Cover Letter
The cover letter must clearly identify the bidder (company name) and list a point of contact for discussions and clarifications of the proposal. Contact information should include name, title, e-mail, telephone, and facsimile numbers.
The cover letter must explicitly indicate if the bidder does, or does not accept the IMF’s Standard Terms and Conditions as per Attachment C. In the event that the bidder does not accept or wishes to discuss alternative terms and conditions, the bidder must explicitly indicate which items are not accepted and propose specific alternative language as appropriate. The IMF reserves the right to decline without further comment any proposal which does not accept the IMF’s immunities and dispute resolution language.
3.2 Organization of Technical Proposal
The technical proposal should be structured in the following format. Proposals will be judged largely on the information provided under the following sections.
3.2.1 Response to the Statement of Work
The bidder will provide detailed explanation on how it intends to perform the services covered by this RFP, giving sufficient information to demonstrate its understanding of the requirements and its capability to successfully complete the project.
3.2.2 Corporate Experience
This section should describe the bidder’s corporate experience and ability to perform the required services.
3.2.3 Key Personnel and Subcontractor(s)
Bidder should describe the role and responsibility of each member of the proposed team and level of involvement. Resumes of key personnel assigned to the effort should be included in the proposal. Include a description of the team’s experience with this type of work. The IMF expects that all personnel proposed will, in fact, conduct the work.
5
If some or all of the proposed work is to be subcontracted to another company or individual for any reason, bidder must identify the work items that will be subcontracted, to whom, and the experience and qualifications of the organization or individual. The IMF reserves the right to approve all subcontractors.
3.2.4 Required Facilities (if any)
The successful bidder will be expected to work out of its own offices. Meeting or touch-down space while on site at the IMF can be arranged in advance on an “as-needed” basis. The IMF does not typically provide dedicated, long term office space, computers, phones, etc. unless the statement of work specifically requires that the supplier be on-site for the entire duration of the work. The IMF cannot furnish parking spaces.
3.2.5 Awareness of Difficulties (if any)
The bidder must describe what, if any, difficulties it anticipates in a project of this type, and describe how it would avoid and/or overcome such potential difficulties.
3.2.6 List of References
Bidders shall provide a minimum of three (3) references for similar types of engagements. The bidder shall include brief project descriptions as well as client names, titles, emails, phone numbers to enable the IMF to contact the references should it be required.
3.2.7 Schedule and Work Plan
The bidder will provide a preliminary work plan showing the separate tasks, schedules and anticipated starting and completion dates for each separate task or deliverable. The bidder’s assumptions about internal review time by the IMF should be made explicit in this section unless specified by the IMF elsewhere in this RFP.
The bidder will develop a final work plan with firm scheduling of tasks and deliverables in consultation with the IMF’s Project Team immediately following contract award.
3.2.8 Proposed Alternatives, Comments or Reservations (if any)
6
The bidder may use this section to propose an alternative offer or make comments about its proposal and the contents of this RFP or state reservations relative to the scope.
The bidder may use this section to identify any alternative approaches to meeting the IMF’s goals in this project, and may include additional materials not easily categorized in the preceding sections.
3.2.9 Response to the Supplier Questionnaire
The bidder will submit a completed Supplier Questionnaire using Attachment D to this RFP. Bidders must answer all the questions and provide the required documentation as instructed on the form.
The response to Attachment D Supplier Questionnaire must be submitted as a read-only Word document.
3.3 Organization of Financial Proposal
The bidder will provide a separate financial proposal to state all proposed pricing to complete the work effort. Pricing information should NOT appear in any other section of the proposal. The IMF will not be responsible for any costs incurred by bidders in the preparation of their submissions.
The IMF intends to award a contract for fixed price deliverables. Bidders must respond using the attached Pricing Schedule. (Attachment B).
Bidders are also required to submit their rate schedule for relevant positions proposed for any additional scope that the IMF may require for this assignment and that is currently not covered in the SOW.
In addition to the required Pricing Schedule, bidders are welcome to present alternate financial proposals or arrangements that may lower the IMF’s total cost of ownership. Examples may include additional tiered discounts based on volume; alternate volume based pricing models etc.
4. PROPOSAL VALIDITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
7
Any Proposal shall be irrevocable after the final submission time and shall remain valid for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the Proposal Due Date.
By making a proposal, the bidder represents to the IMF as follows:
(i) That it has read and understood all RFP documents, and that RFP documents are acceptable to it; and
(ii) That its proposal is based upon the services requested and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP documents.
5. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND AWARD
5.1 Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria (not in order of importance): 1. Corporate experience and capability. 2. Quality and experience of key personnel. 3. Price and total cost. 4. Quality and depth of response to the Statement of Work and understanding of client’s needs. 5. Quality of Preliminary Work Plan and draft schedule. 6. Bidder’s acceptance of IMF’s Standard Terms and Conditions. 7. Supplier Questionnaire response analysis.
5.2 Oral Interviews
In addition to submission of the proposal by the date stated above, an organization submitting a proposal may, at the option of the IMF, be required during the evaluation process to make a formal presentation to and/or attend a meeting to discuss the proposal with members of the IMF Evaluation Team.
5.3 Contract Award
The IMF reserves the right to conduct follow-on negotiations from short-listed bidders after reviewing the proposals. The IMF reserves the right to make no award, to make a partial award, to make a single award, to make multiple awards, to award in the aggregate, to award by line-item or to use any combination thereof for any reason that is, in its opinion, in the best interest of the IMF. The IMF reserves the right to decline without further comment any proposal which does not accept the IMF’s
8
immunities and dispute resolution language as outlined in the Standard Terms and Conditions.
6. CONFIDENTIALITY
The information provided by the IMF in, or in connection with, this Request for Proposal is for the sole purpose of this solicitation and is to be considered strictly confidential. Any information learned by bidder in connection with this solicitation shall not be revealed by it or used for any purpose other than the preparation of its proposal.
9
ATTACHMENT A
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE
INDEPENDENT MID–TERM EVALUATION OF THE
MIDDLE EAST REGIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
CENTER (METAC)
November 2013
10
Contents I. Background and Objectives of the Evaluation .................................................................... 11
A. Background .................................................................................................................... 11 B. Objectives of the Mid-Term Evaluation ......................................................................... 12 C. Steering Arrangements for the Mid-Term Evaluation ................................................... 13
II. Evaluation Questions.......................................................................................................... 13 III. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 15
A. Evaluation Criteria and Ratings ..................................................................................... 15 B. Information Sources ....................................................................................................... 16
IV. Timing and Deliverables ................................................................................................... 16 A. Timing ............................................................................................................................ 16 B. Deliverables .................................................................................................................... 17
V. Evaluator Qualifications .................................................................................................... 18 ANNEX I. Status of Financial Contributions under the Third Funding Cycle……………………….11 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 19
A. Recommendations from the 2009 METAC Evaluation ................................................. 20 B. Evaluation Subcriteria and Weights ............................................................................... 23 C. List of Documents to be Provided by the IMF ............................................................... 28
I. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
A. Background
1. The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Middle East Regional Technical Assistance Center (METAC) was established in November 2004 in Beirut, Lebanon, to help countries in the region build their capacity for effective macroeconomic management and to support the region’s further integration into the world economy. METAC’s specific objective is to strengthen the institutional and human capacities of governments to manage public finances effectively, maintain robust financial systems, and produce reliable macroeconomic statistics. Its activities are directed to five areas that are common policy challenges for member countries: revenue administration; public financial management; financial sector supervision; macroeconomic statistics; and money and public debt markets. Due to relatively low demand and METAC’s tight financial conditions, the latter area was dropped from the program in October 2012.
2. METAC provides technical assistance (TA) and training to 10 beneficiary countries1 over a five–year cycle. The current cycle, the third, started in May 2010 and will end in April 2015. METAC’s operations are funded by contributions from the host country, the IMF, and bilateral and multilateral donors2, including METAC’s beneficiary countries. The total budget of METAC for the current five-year funding cycle was originally estimated at US$33 million (See Annex I for current funding status).
3. Operations are guided by a rolling annual work plan within a results-based management framework (RBM). This approach ensures that activities are planned and implemented on the basis of beneficiary country needs, are complementary to other forms of IMF TA and those of other donors and development partners, and are an integral part of the overall IMF TA program. METAC is guided by a steering committee (SC) composed of representatives of the authorities of the METAC countries, the donors, and the IMF. The SC meets annually to discuss the Center’s strategic directions, review progress against its work plan, and discuss and endorse a work plan for the next year and beyond.
4. METAC’s assistance to beneficiary countries, which is provided by short-term experts (STXs) and four resident advisors, is based on assessment of the TA and training needs of member countries, feedback from those countries, and IMF TA priorities for the
1 Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Syria, West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen
2 Donors include the European Commission, the European Investment Bank, France, Germany through Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internatioanle Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Kuwait, Oman, and the US through the US Agency for International Development.
12
region. The activities in the Center, which may also include TA in areas not covered by the resident advisors, are backstopped by subject-matter specialists at IMF headquarters.
B. Objectives of the Mid-Term Evaluation
5. The terms and conditions governing establishment and operation of the METAC multidonor trust fund call for independent evaluation of the Center’s activities. They specify that evaluation of activities financed by the METAC subaccount “will be initiated no later than 40 months after the activities financed under the subaccount with respect to each funding cycle have begun.” In response, the METAC Program Document requires that such an evaluation will be initiated “within a maximum of three years of operation…[to] assess the effectiveness and sustainability of its TA, bearing in mind the long-term nature of capacity building [so that METAC can] formulate recommendations for improvement, which will inform discussions on METAC’s future operations.”3 This evaluation covers the third funding cycle (i.e., May 2010 to April 2015).4 Its objective is to assess the extent to which METAC is achieving its objectives efficiently and effectively and whether the TA delivered is sustainable. The Center has been in operation for nine years. The evaluation will assess whether the results of the previous three-year cycles were sustained in the current phase.
6. The evaluation will assess the extent to which METAC is achieving the advantages typically associated with delivering TA through Regional Technical Assistance Centers (RTACs): sound identification of country TA needs, rapid and flexible TA delivery, closer interaction with beneficiary country authorities, stronger country ownership, and effective exchange of information with other TA providers and donors in the region. The evaluation will also look at the challenges and known risks that METAC has faced in conducting TA and training, and what has been done to address the challenges and mitigate the risks. It is important that on the basis of METAC’s achievements and lessons learned the evaluation makes recommendations for improvement. The evaluation will also look into how the recommendations of the 2009 METAC evaluation have played out (see Appendix A).
7. To address these objectives, evaluators will consider a set of linked questions, detailed below, that relate to (a) the relevance of METAC TA and training activities; (b) the efficiency of the processes by which resources (human resources/expertise, financial resources, and time) were converted to achieve the desired outcomes; (c) the effectiveness of
3 Page 53, paragraph 105 of the METAC Program Document which can be found at http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/key/RTACs.htm.
4 While the evaluation will formally not cover the previous phases, it will be informed by analysis of the previous cycles.
13
METAC TA and training—i.e., the extent to which the outcomes identified in the Program Document are being achieved; and (d) the extent to which these are likely to be sustained. In addition, the evaluators should form a view of the extent to which METAC and the RTAC model are still relevant to the region, particularly whether METAC is operating at an optimal scale.
8. METAC has recently introduced new tools to support RBM, in line with the IMF’s capacity development strategy, including a strategic logical framework (log frame) for the Center, a series of topical log frames for each country to guide the work of the resident advisors, and a new format for the work plan to track inputs. METAC has also built a database that provides for flexible management and reporting of the log frame and work plan. While the primary focus of the evaluation will be an assessment against the objectives set out in the Program Document, evaluators should refer to these new tools as appropriate. Evaluators should also comment on the suitability of these instruments and, if needed, propose refinements.
C. Steering Arrangements for the Mid-Term Evaluation
9. The IMF Institute for Capacity Development’s Global Partnerships Division (ICDGP) will manage the procurement process and support information-gathering for the evaluation. An Evaluation Sub-Committee (ESC) will be established to guide the evaluation (see Appendix B). The creation of ESCs is part of IMF evaluation practice and allows SCs to actively participate in the evaluation process.
10. The role of the ESC is to provide strategic guidance for the evaluation and to ensure that it takes into account issues relevant to stakeholders. The ESC will (1) review, comment, and agree on the draft terms of reference (TOR); (2) review and advise on the Inception Note prepared by evaluators; and (3) review and comment on the draft evaluation report. The ESC has 12 members, distributed as follows:
SC Chair (1)
Member countries (3)
Donors (3)
IMF area department (1)
IMF TA departments (3)
IMF ICD (1)
II. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
11. The evaluation will address linked questions aligned with best international practice and reflect the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, and impact. Of these, relevance is fundamental –– without it, no
14
interventions can be effective, and where relevance and effectiveness are absent, efficiency is not a major concern. Finally, without relative success in the other three dimensions, no intervention is likely to be sustainable.
12. Table 1 summarizes the basic evaluation questions.
Table 1. Basic Evaluation Questions DAC
Criterion Question
Relevance Is METAC meeting the priority needs of member countries and is TA aligned with national reform priorities?
Is the SC effective in ensuring strong country ownership of METAC activities?
What were the challenges posed by the Arab Spring (e.g., authorities’ commitment to reforms, rapid turnover of economics managers, etc.), and how has METAC reacted to these (in terms of engaging with new authorities, identifying new issues, etc.)?
What information generated by this evaluation could the METAC SC use to decide on the optimal number of beneficiary countries?
How does METAC TA complement TA provided by other donors or by other IMF TA programs (e.g., TTFs)?
Efficiency
Are METAC activities delivered efficiently in terms of (i) process and implementation (e.g., timeliness in executing the work plan); (ii) use of resources (i.e., cost efficient); and (iii) monitoring and reporting?
What are the obstacles/challenges to achieving/not achieving objectives in implemented projects?
Does METAC have the capacity to react to a spike in demand from a country once stability returns?
What internal and external factors deter efficiency?
How has METAC worked to leverage its assistance with other TA provided by the IMF and other donors?
Effectiveness
What is the quality of TA delivered and what factors add value to it?
To what extent have METAC TA and training led to tangible results?
How is the Center helping to integrate TA and training?
What are the challenges and risks faced in conducting TA and training in these countries?
Is METAC TA captured sufficiently and measured accurately by the logframe and results framework?
What contribution has METAC made to building a robust network of
15
DAC Criterion
Question
local experts in the region, and to systematically identify and optimize the use of local and regional expertise?
Sustainability
What factors affect sustainability of TA and training delivered? How are these factors (e.g., absorptive capacity of beneficiary countries) incorporated into the planning of the METAC work programs?
What has been done to address these challenges and mitigate risks?
How have beneficiaries incorporated lessons learned from METAC TA into their daily operations?
Impact What difference did the METAC TA and training bring to the beneficiary countries?
What impact did METAC TA have on the beneficiary country’s development indicators (e.g., intended and unintended results, positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in basic policy environments, general economic and financial conditions, etc.).
13. Building on the answers to the evaluation questions, evaluators will consider the extent to which the underlying logic for METAC intervention is still valid; whether there is still a clear role for METAC; and whether given its mandate the Center is operating at an optimal scale and with an appropriate skill mix. 14. The evaluation should report on any significant lessons that can be drawn from the METAC experience, highlighting strengths and weaknesses, and provide a focused, prioritized set of recommendations for improvement. It should also respond to any suggestions received during the course of the review on the direction of METAC operations and areas of work.
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Evaluation Criteria and Ratings
15. A quantitative rating scheme will be used to (a) ensure transparency in the judgments made by evaluators; and (b) allow for aggregation across RTACs or functional areas. Appendix B proposes a rating scheme consistent with that used in the 2009 external evaluations of METAC and other RTACs. In the Inception Note, evaluators will assess the adequacy of this rating scheme considering that a consistent methodology will facilitate comparative analysis across all evaluations. The evaluators may propose amendments or refinements to the rating scheme. To deter the risk that these changes may undermine adequate comparative analysis with previous evaluations of METAC and other RTACs, the
16
evaluator should explain: how the recommendations to change the scheme would affect making these comparisons, and how the ESC and the Steering Committee will conduct such comparisons following changes to the scheme.
B. Information Sources
16. The evaluation will draw on information from a range of sources, particularly IMF documents and data (see Appendix C for a list of documents); interviews with country authorities and the SC (including staff of beneficiary countries and donor representatives); and case studies. Each evaluation criterion should be assessed using at least two different information sources.
Document and data analyses: Evaluators will be expected to analyze all available materials, including work plans, SC minutes, and internal transaction documents produced by the center coordinator, resident advisors, and STXs. Financial information will also be provided.
Interviews: Evaluators will conduct semi-structured interviews with country authorities, SC members, and METAC staff. Interviews with the former are expected to cover the appropriateness and responsiveness of the TA and training provided by both resident advisors and STXs and explore and document any specific results. Evaluators can propose to meet and interview those who served as counterparts when the TA was delivered and who may now be serving elsewhere in the government. Evaluators will also be expected to meet in Washington, with staff from IMF TA and area departments and ICD.
Survey tools: Evaluators may use a survey to consult a wider range of individuals in beneficiary countries and the SC. Other donors currently not SC members as well as other TA providers could also be surveyed or consulted. Use of any online survey tool will be subject to review and approval by the IMF IT Security team. If Evaluators intend to use an online survey tool, evaluators are required to provide information about the tool in their response to this RFP.
Case studies (sample of countries/projects): Evaluators will be expected to visit at least three countries in the region to draw up case studies that can be disseminated.
IV. TIMING AND DELIVERABLES
A. Timing
17. The evaluation is expected to begin in December 2013 and end by April 2014. Evaluators will be contracted for a maximum of 120 person-working-days including travel
17
during that period. The evaluation process will be carried out in three phases: a desk phase, a field phase, and a synthesis phase.
Desk Phase: Four weeks at the latest after the contract is signed and before the field phase begins, evaluators will (i) conduct a desk review of documents; (ii) visit IMF headquarters to interview staff in the ICDGP, TA departments, and the Middle East and Central Asia Department (MCD), including the center coordinator in Beirut, and other stakeholders (key donors, SC Chair, etc); and (iii) prepare an Inception Note (see below), to be finalized in consultation with ICDGP and the ESC. Before embarking on the field phase, evaluators will hold a briefing for IMF staff. Total estimated work time: about 40 person-days.
Field Phase: Evaluators will visit METAC and beneficiaries in at least three countries. They will ensure adequate consultation with, and involvement of, a variety of stakeholders, working closely with government authorities and agencies, and where relevant, donor offices. Total estimated work time: about 40 person-days including travel.
Synthesis Phase: This phase is mainly devoted to drafting the report and any necessary follow-up interviews with IMF staff. Evaluators will make sure that assessment is objective and balanced and recommendations realistic, practical, and implementable. The evaluation team will draft a report in English presenting the main findings, lessons learned, and recommendations, accompanied by a summary of the information gathered. The draft will be submitted electronically and in hard copy to the ESC. After receiving ESC comments on the draft, the evaluation team will finalize the report. The final report with comments incorporated should be delivered by April 30, 2014. Evaluators may be asked to present the report findings to the METAC SC at its annual meeting planned for May 2014, or earlier. The final report will be posted on the METAC website after SC endorsement. Total estimated work time: up to 40 person-days, including the SC briefing and associated travel.
B. Deliverables
18. The evaluation team will provide three deliverables:
Inception Note: The Inception Note will set out the methodology for data collection and analysis, including criteria for selection of samples or case studies; draft interview and survey instruments; a detailed work plan for data collection; list of potential interviewees; and an outline of the draft evaluation report table of contents. The ESC or the SC may request the evaluators to present this inception note to them in person or by video or teleconference. This note should not exceed 10 pages, excluding annexes.
18
Draft Evaluation Report. The ESC may request a video or teleconference to discuss consolidated comments to the draft report. This stand-alone report should not exceed 40 pages, excluding annexes.
Final Evaluation Report. The ESC or the SC may request a brief presentation of the main messages of the report. This final stand-alone report should not exceed 40 pages, excluding annexes. Actionable recommendations should not exceed 15. A summary presentation in a format to be agreed with the IMF will accompany this final report.
V. EVALUATOR QUALIFICATIONS
19. The evaluation team should demonstrate the following qualifications:
Extensive knowledge of the issues covered by IMF TA and training, and expertise in the delivery and review of TA. Some background in macroeconomic policy making is desirable.
Experience in the region and countries served by METAC.
Extensive experience in evaluation, especially evaluation of TA and training.
Ability to work effectively in English.
20. Evaluators are also expected to outline the quality controls they will put in place to ensure the quality of all deliverables.
ANNEX I
Pledge (US$ dollars)
LOU S tatus
Contributor Currency
Pledge (Contributor
Currency)
Contributions Received
(US$)
Future Installments
(US$)
Phase III - S igned Agreements:
(A) Under Multi-Donor SFA
European Commission 1,875,000 12/29/2009 Euros 1,500,000 1,647,000 228,000
Libya 1,500,000 5/24/2010 U.S. dollars 1,500,000 900,000 600,000
Syria 500,000 8/27/2010 U.S. dollars 500,000 100,000 400,000
Kuwait 250,000 10/27/2010 U.S. dollars 250,000 250,000 -
Egypt 1,000,000 12/1/2010 U.S. dollars 1,000,000 600,000 400,000
Jordan2
500,000 12/9/2010 U.S. dollars 500,000 200,000 300,000
Sudan 500,000 12/1/2010 U.S. dollars 500,000 - 500,000
Lebanon1
5,000,000 01/31/2011 U.S. dollars 5,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000
France 2,502,000 3/15/2011 Euros 1,800,000 1,473,156 1,028,844
Oman 500,000 8/9/2011 U.S. dollars 500,000 500,000 -
Germany-GIZ 2,434,036 11/12/2012 Euros 1,880,000 2,434,036 -
USAID 1,300,000 9/30/2013 U.S. dollars 1,300,000 1,300,000
Subtotal 17,861,036 11,104,192 5,456,844
(B) UNDER FAA
European Investment Bank 578,552 4/3/2008 U.S. dollars 578,552 $578,552 -
Subtotal 18,439,588 $11,682,744
Phase III - Pledges - Pending
Syria 2 250,000 sent 4/2011 U.S. dollars 250,000 250,000
Yemen 500,000 sent 12/2010 U.S. dollars 500,000 500,000
Subtotal 750,000 750,000 750,000
GRAND TOTAL 19,189,588 $11,682,744 $6,206,8441 Lebanon contributes an additional $1.5 million for hosting the center, and has disbursed $0.9 million thereof as of March 2013.2 Contribution of $100,00 received on May 28, 2013 (FY14) is not included.
International Monetary Fund
Middle East Regional Technical Assistance Center
Third Funding Cycle (Phase III) May 2010 - April 2015
Status of Financial Contributions
20
APPENDICES
A. Recommendations from the 2009 METAC Evaluation
Recommendation 1. The preparation of Phase II of METAC was not used as an opportunity to develop a results framework or to strengthen the monitoring of performance against objectives. This has made it more difficult than it could have been to assess and measure the results achieved by METAC, and the findings of the 2005 IMF TA evaluation also suggest that this might militate against the effectiveness and sustainability of the TA provided. In the preparation of Phase III this opportunity should be taken so as to match best practices approaches for TA management and to build on approaches and lessons emerging from other RTAC experience. The Phase III proposal should include a clear statement of METAC’s objectives with defined performance indicators and an articulation of the linkages between METAC’s activities and these objectives, and the key assumptions that these require. A more results-focused reporting system should be developed as part of this process, which should include an assessment of the role that the Technical Assistance Information Management System (TAIMS) should play in monitoring and evaluation of performance. Response: The program document for Phase III sets out verifiable indicators in each of the areas of METAC’s activities. These objectives are linked directly to activities in each of the countries that METAC serves. A results-based reporting system will help in assessing performance and in measuring results. METAC’s annual work plan will be linked to the objectives and METAC will report on them at each SC meeting. Following recent improvements, TAIMS will play a more important role in monitoring and evaluating performance. Recommendation 2. The preparation of the Phase III project should also address issues about improving the performance of METAC TA through more focus on support to implementation and to regional networking and information-sharing and communication, including making an assessment of the costs and organizational requirements involved in strengthening this role. Response: The Phase III program document’s regional focus has been strengthened through regional networking, including through the establishment of regional organizations that would promote information-sharing and problem-solving. Regional workshops/seminars will continue to be held on issues that are common to the region, and METAC’s website, which was revamped, will report on the main findings of these workshops. As for implementation, METAC will focus more on following up on recommendations, although implementation remains ultimately in the hands of the beneficiary countries.
21
Recommendation 3. Financial reporting should cover the total cost of METAC’s TA delivery and include explicit performance indicators, rather than being restricted to reporting on the use of donor resources, as it is understood should be possible with the new Selected Fund Activities (SFA) reporting system. Response: Costing of METAC activities will be changed from standard to actual costs, and financial reporting will become more detailed under the IMF’s new financing instrument, the SFA. Recommendation 4. The increased focus on regional networking should be developed as part of the process of preparing and implementing information and training strategies, as should the more effective use of METAC’s website for information-sharing purposes. One route for increasing METAC’s profile would be to hold events linked to Steering Committee meetings on issues of topical importance. Response: Please see the response to recommendation 2 regarding the administrative changes on regional networking. On the substantive focus for regional networking METAC’s website has been upgraded and will include relevant documents produced by the IMF and METAC as well as others which would be useful for regional information-sharing and networking. Regarding events on issues of topical importance, this has been practiced by METAC but linking these events to the SC meetings would be meaningful only when there is a large overlap between participants of the event and SC members. Increasing METAC’s profile could be enhanced by issuing a press release on the outcome of the meeting as done for the SC meeting in May 2009 and in holding press conferences to highlight the work of METAC and its contribution to the region. Moreover, regional networking will more actively involve countries from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and North Africa to enhance knowledge transfer in a wider regional context. Recommendation 5. To support this increased focus on information and training (and under the assumption that its level of activities will increase), METAC should consider strengthening its capacity for training coordination and management. This could be done in one of the following ways: (a) short-term hiring of a training coordination consultant to establish best practice training administration systems and processes and train the current administrators on their use; (b) recruiting a new permanent training coordinator, probably on a part-time basis, the candidate possessing existing levels of required skills and experience; or (c) training and development of one or both administrators in training coordination. Response: This recommendation needs further discussion. While strengthening the administration of training might be useful, the implementation of this recommendation would be expensive and may be too ambitious given the current training agenda. If donors were
22
willing to provide funds in addition to the budget proposed in this document, action on this recommendation could be reassessed. Recommendation 6. The initiative to develop an Office Procedures Manual should be built on by strengthening process management throughout METAC’s operations to ensure consistency and provide a stronger basis for performance measurement. This should be driven by the development of a broader set of performance measures as part of the results framework. Response: A broader set of performance measures has been developed and included in METAC’s program document for Phase III. Recommendation 7. The Steering Committee (SC) needs to play a more effective role in representing all beneficiary organizations. There are a number of ways this could be done that could be considered, including the appointment of an alternate SC member representing other organizations, or the development of a set of subcommittees or networks of beneficiary organizations in each technical area to inform decision making. It is also desirable for proposed work plans and minutes to be distributed to designated authorities and counterparts in each beneficiary organization ahead of and following SC meetings. It is probably feasible to continue having a single annual SC meeting but this will need to be supplemented by better communication through the website and where necessary other forms of communication, such as telephone conferencing and ad hoc meetings, if there are major decisions to be made. Response: This is being addressed. The next SC will discuss the appointment of an alternate SC member from the next most important organization that METAC is dealing with in beneficiary countries. METAC will continue to encourage the SC members of beneficiary countries to strengthen their discussion with beneficiary agencies in each technical area in their country. The proposed work plans and minutes are already being distributed before and after the SC meetings to the SC members who are the focal contact points in their respective countries, who are responsible for distributing them to all counterparts in each beneficiary organization. Communicating with the SC members is being done but will be enhanced in the future.
B. Evaluation Sub criteria and Weights used in the 2009 Evaluation
DAC Criteria and
Weights
Indicative Evaluation Questions Sub criteria and Weights
Relevance (30%)
Is METAC meeting the priority needs of member countries, especially given the changing conditions and new challenges in the region?
Is there strong country ownership of METAC activities?
Are METAC activities appropriately focused in terms of subject areas, taking into account IMF expertise, the priority needs of the beneficiary countries, HQ activities, and the work of other development partners?
The evaluation will begin with an overview of quantitative and qualitative data on METAC activities (TA and training) since its inception. This will include an assessment of whether the TA and training delivered were relevant in terms of (a) priorities identified in the Program Document; (b) the needs of the member countries and the region; and (c) whether it was appropriately coordinated with other stakeholders. Ratings and weights will be: (i) Consistency with the program document and government priorities (60%): Particular attention to the link between METAC TA and training and the macroeconomic reform and capacity-development programs formulated by ministries of finance, central banks and
RFP:862
24
DAC Criteria and
Weights
Indicative Evaluation Questions Sub criteria and Weights
statistical agencies, regional organizations, and other recipients of METAC TA and training. (ii) Coordination with development partners (20%): Whether there has been sufficient effort, including outreach, to coordinate with development partners. (iii) Consistency with IMF headquarters’ activities (20%): The extent to which METAC TA and training are integrated with TA, surveillance, and lending activities of IMF HQ; evidence of consistency could be examined by drawing on the results obtained from a review of documents and interviews with staff of area and TA departments and IMF resident representatives.
Efficiency (22%)
Is METAC delivering activities efficiently while ensuring the quality and timeliness of expert input (including management and backstopping by IMF headquarters-based staff)?
The mid-term evaluation will consider issues of efficiency, including management and use of resources and the extent to which locational efficiencies have been achieved, i.e., the cost benefits of being based in the region.
RFP:862
25
DAC Criteria and
Weights
Indicative Evaluation Questions Sub criteria and Weights
Ratings and weights will be: (i) Process and implementation efficiency (40%): Covering such factors as internal IMF management of METAC activities, appropriate selection of counterpart/ workshop participants, and the quality and timeliness of management and backstopping of METAC TA and training by HQ staff; planning for timely recruitment of qualified resident advisors; and the efficiency of planning and executing TA and training. (ii) Efficient use of resources (40%): Whether expenditures have been in line with annual work plans; whether METAC TA and training are cost-effective compared to TA delivered by others; whether opportunities for efficiency gains are explored. Respondents to the TA and training evaluation survey may be asked to give their perceptions on the relative cost-efficiency of TA and training by METAC compared to that of other TA providers, for example.
RFP:862
26
DAC Criteria and
Weights
Indicative Evaluation Questions Sub criteria and Weights
(iii) Monitoring and reporting (20%): The degree to which METAC uses self-evaluation (i.e., monitoring) and better reporting to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its activities. This involves examining METAC use of TAIMS and efforts to put RBM in place.
Effectiveness (28%)
Is METAC appropriately focused on delivering outputs that contribute to the achievement of priority reforms, including assessing, to the extent possible, outcomes and impacts at topic, country, and regional level?
What is the quality and timeliness of activities undertaken and outputs produced and the reporting and monitoring of these?
(i) Use of METAC outputs (40%): Including assessment of the use of outputs of each topic area and whether the outputs are leading, or are likely to lead, to the outcomes identified in the Program Document; whether the TA and training have delivered outputs that contribute to achieving capacity-building reforms of the beneficiary country. (ii) Planned vs. actual achievements (30%): Actual outputs compared to the planned outcomes stated in the METAC Program Document, work programs, and other documentation. Often there will be an unfinished agenda. In such cases, evaluators may form a judgment about whether the expected outcomes are
RFP:862
27
DAC Criteria and
Weights
Indicative Evaluation Questions Sub criteria and Weights
likely to be achieved. (iii) Significance of contribution to developing core economic functions and institution building (30%): The contribution of METAC activities and outputs to the development of core economic functions and strengthening institutions in beneficiary countries. Evaluators need to carefully distinguish between attribution and contribution. While it may be true that progress was made, the progress may reflect joint efforts of METAC, HQ assistance, support provided by other development partners, and a government’s own initiatives. Evaluators may estimate the relative importance of METAC contributions by considering whether the results could have been achieved without METAC involvement.
Sustainability (20%)
Have METAC TA and training led to tangible and lasting results?
What constraints do METAC member countries face that prevent them from taking full advantage of METAC TA and training? How can such constraints be addressed?
What are the challenges and risks faced in
(i) Executing agency ownership and use of the outputs (75%): Whether participants and trainees use the knowledge gained in workshops and seminars on the job. Participant
RFP:862
28
DAC Criteria and
Weights
Indicative Evaluation Questions Sub criteria and Weights
conducting TA and training? What has been done to address these challenges and mitigate risks?
selection may be examined for this weighting. For example, how are TA outputs embedded in the routine business practices of the executing agencies? (ii) Promoting the use of regional expertise (25%): The extent to which METAC has promoted the use of regional expertise, building local capacity, and contributed to sustainability in providing TA. Evaluators need to assess how effective METAC has been in identifying regional expertise.
C. List of Documents to be Provided by the IMF
Program Document
Work plans
Annual reports
Minutes of Steering Committee meetings
Activity reports
Annual budgets
TA reports
Previous evaluations of RTACs
General information on IMF TA, RTACs, etc.
RFP:862
29
Attachment B
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Independent Mid–Term Evaluation of the
Middle East Regional Technical Assistance Center (METAC)
PRICING SCHEDULE
The bidder should provide a detailed fixed pricing proposal that includes a delivery of all IMF requirements described in the Statement of Work/Terms of Reference and other RFP documents.
The Institute for Capacity Development Global Partnerships Division envisages that the work described in this Statement of Work/Terms of Reference will begin in December 2013. For further details refer to the Statement of Work/Terms of Reference documents.
21. The IMF expects the Consultant to provide the following:
i. Participate in a kick-off meeting after award of contract in December 2013 to review the key stakeholders’ understanding regarding the project. This meeting will take place at the IMF headquarters in Washington, DC.
ii. Inception Note submitted by December 2013, outlining the methodology for data collection and analysis (including the criteria for selection of samples or case studies), draft interview guidelines and draft survey instruments, together with a detailed work plan for data collection, a list of potential interviewees and an outline of the Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report table of contents.
iii. Draft Report submitted by March 2014, including a set of recommendations clearly identifying the main target and a timeline for implementation.
iv. Final Report submitted by April, 2014.
v. Presentation of outcomes/recommendations at the respective Steering Committee meeting in May 2014.
I, ______________________ , certify that ________________ (firm name) can provide
RFP:862
30
the deliverables in the fixed amount of _______________ . The fixed amount includes professional fees and translation of key deliverables (where applicable) as well as communication costs. All other expenses, such as travel expenses, are not included in the fixed cost but best effort estimate should be provided.
________________________________ ________________________
Signature Date
RATES AND FIXED COST SHEET
1) Professional Fees
Title Proposed Person Daily Rate (USD)
Number of Days Total Cost (USD)
TOTAL
2) Other Fees
Description Unit Cost (USD)
Total Cost (USD)
Other Fees (if any)
TOTAL
TOTAL FIXED COST ___________ and Estimated Travel Expenses ___________.
RFP:862
31
Attachment C
IMF MINIMUM STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
VI. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT; ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
These Terms and Conditions shall form an integral part of any contract (the Contract) into which they are incorporated by reference. The Contract, these Terms and Conditions, and any other documents specifically incorporated therein by reference constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof (the Agreement) and supersedes all other previous statements, communications or agreements, whether oral or written, including advertising and sales literature. In the event of a conflict between the Contract and these Terms and Conditions, the Contract shall prevail; provided, however, that in no event shall a provision in the Contract be considered a waiver of the immunities of the IMF set out herein.
VII. INVOICING
The Contractor/Consultant (the Contractor) agrees to submit invoices and supporting documentation for completed services to:
International Monetary Fund 700 19th Street, N.W. Attention: __________ Room: _____________ Washington, DC 20431
Invoice(s) must reference any applicable contract number. Invoiced amounts will be paid Net, thirty (30) days from receipt and approval. Invoice approval will not be unreasonably withheld.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is not obligated to accept any invoice which is delivered to the IMF greater than 180 days beyond the date of delivery for the relevant goods or services covered by the invoice.
VIII. CONTRACT TERMINATION
3.1 Termination for Convenience
RFP:862
32
A Contract may be terminated in whole or in part by the IMF at its sole option. Any such termination shall be effected by delivery to the Contractor at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination date of a notice of termination specifying the extent to which performance shall be terminated and the date upon which termination becomes effective. An equitable adjustment in the contract price shall be made for completed service, but no amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit on unperformed services.
3.2 Termination of Contract for Cause
If, through any cause, the Contractor shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner their obligations under this contract, or if the Contractor shall violate any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations of this contract, the IMF shall thereupon have the right to terminate, specifying the effective date thereof, at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination.
If the Contract is terminated, whether for convenience or for cause, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, and reports prepared by the Contractor under the contract shall, at the option of the IMF, become the property of the IMF.
Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability to the IMF for damages sustained by the IMF by virtue of any breach of contract by the Contractor for the purpose of set off until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the IMF from the Contractor is determined.
IX. OWNERSHIP
The IMF shall have the exclusive ownership of and right to use any documents or other tangible products of the services provided for herein, except to the extent that they incorporate property already owned by any other party including Contractor. Contractor shall inform the IMF of such ownership, shall license or obtain any necessary license for the IMF's use of such property, and shall hold the IMF harmless from any claims for unauthorized use of such property.
X. INDEMNIFICATION
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the IMF and its agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from any breach of representation, warranty or obligation of the Contractor under the contract; any infringement by the Contractor of intellectual property; any negligent act or omission of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or
RFP:862
33
anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, and any failure on the part of the same to comply with federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and codes.
XI. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY
The Contractor agrees to maintain at its own expense such insurance as will fully protect the Contractor, its agents, its employees, its subcontractors and the IMF from any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work. The Contractor must carry insurance equal to or greater than the coverage listed below:
1. Worker’s Compensation: (a) State: Statutory (b) Employer’s Liability: US$1,000,000 per accident
2. Comprehensive General Liability
(a) US$1,000,000 Per Occurrence (b) US$2,000,000 General Aggregate (c) US$1,000,000 Personal & Advertising Injury
Aggregate limits shall apply on a per project basis.
3. Automobile Liability Insurance (owned, not owned or hired) in the amount of $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit.
4. Umbrella Liability Insurance providing excess liability for items 1b, 2, and 3 above. Coverage to be at least as broad as the primary program:
a) Bodily Injury and Property Damage US$3,000,000 b) General Aggregate US$3,000,000
Aggregate limits shall apply on a per project basis.
5. Professional Liability
a) US$2,000,000 Per Claim b) US$2,000,000 Aggregate
The Contractor shall furnish the IMF with certificates of insurance prior to commencement of the work. The Contractor shall not cause or allow any insurance to be canceled nor permit any insurance to lapse. All insurance policies shall include a clause to the effect that the policy shall not be canceled or reduced, restricted, or limited until 30 days after the IMF has received written notice of such change.
RFP:862
34
The Contractor shall waive all rights of recovery against the IMF. The Contractor shall require the same of any Subcontractors by appropriate agreements written where legally required for validity, similar waivers each in favor of the IMF. The policies shall provide such waivers of subrogation by endorsement.
XII. NON-EXCLUSIVITY
The Contract is nonexclusive and the IMF may at its absolute discretion enter into arrangements with third parties to supply identical or similar services under separate contracts with other vendors.
XIII. RIGHT TO HIRE AND NON-SOLICITATION
The IMF reserves the right to hire or to contract directly with Contractor personnel, without additional charges to either the IMF or to the individual.
In the event of expiration or termination of the Contract, Contractor agrees not to solicit for hire any IMF employees or employees of any other vendor performing services for the IMF for a period of twelve (12) months following such expiration or termination.
XIV. ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement and any payments that may become due hereunder may not be assigned by the Contractor without the IMF’s prior written consent.
XV. CONFIDENTIALITY
Contractor agrees that it shall require each person assigned to perform work hereunder to abide by the following nondisclosure conditions:
(a) will not disclose, deliver, or use for the benefit of any person other than the IMF, or its authorized agents, any restricted or confidential information or material he or she receives from the IMF, other than material or information previously in the records of the undersigned or obtainable prior to such disclosure, delivery, or use, from third parties or from the public domain;
(b) Will adhere to any policies or instructions provided by the IMF as to the classification, use or disposition of any restricted or confidential information or materials;
(c) Will not use any restricted or confidential information or material for personal gain;
(d) After the completion or termination of an Agreement, will continue to adhere to the first three clauses above; and
RFP:862
35
Contractor further agrees to take such steps as may be needed to ensure that the terms of the nondisclosure statements are observed during and after the term of this Agreement.
If Contractor becomes legally compelled to disclose any Confidential Information of the IMF in a manner not otherwise permitted by the Agreement, Contractor agrees that, in light of the inviolability of the IMF’s archives, the Contractor shall give IMF prompt prior notice of the request before complying with such requirement and shall give IMF an opportunity to oppose such disclosure or seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
XVI. PUBLICITY REGARDING AGREEMENT
(a) Contractor may publicly release statements of the fact regarding the Agreement, including the name of the IMF, only upon the IMF's prior review and approval in writing. Requests for such review and approval should be directed to a Procurement Officer.
(b) The Contractor agrees not to refer to awards in commercial advertising in such manner as to state or imply that the services or products provided are endorsed or preferred by the IMF or are considered by the IMF to be superior to other services or products.
XVII. CONTRACTOR ETHICS AND CONDUCT
The IMF expects that Contractor observes the highest standard of ethics during the procurement and performance of contracts with the Fund, and violation of the following requirements shall constitute a material breach of the Agreement.
12.1 No Gifts, Collusion or Coercion; No Improper Financial Benefits
Contractor shall take no action with the purpose or effect to influence any staff member of the IMF, any other employee of the IMF, or any contractor or consultant to the IMF (collectively IMF Persons), to act inconsistently with his or her duties to the IMF. Contractor shall not knowingly or recklessly mislead any IMF Person, and shall not substitute products or services of inferior quality, with the purpose or effect to obtain a financial or other benefit at the expense of the IMF or to avoid an obligation owed to the IMF. Contractor shall disclose, or shall not accept, rebates or discounts on the purchase of goods or services if the price charged to the IMF includes either (i) the undiscounted cost of the same goods or services, or (ii) the undiscounted cost of other goods or services provided to the Contractor by the same supplier or an affiliate thereof under any bulk sales, bundling or “soft dollar” arrangement.
RFP:862
36
12.2 No Conflicts of Interest
Contractor shall not deal with any IMF Person or other representative of the IMF, when such representative of the IMF, or any of his or her immediate family members, hold a significant financial interest in the Contractor or any of its affiliates or is negotiating for employment with the Contractor or any of its affiliates. Contractor shall avoid all other interests that conflict, or that appear to conflict, with its obligations to the IMF, and will immediately consult with the IMF Procurement Officer should any such actual or apparent conflict of interest arise.
12.3 Reporting
Contractor shall immediately report to the IMF Chief of Procurement any request received from any IMF Person for gifts in violation of the preceding requirements, or any other violation of these requirements.
XVIII. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
The Contractor shall, at its expense (and not as a reimbursable expense), perform its obligations in a manner that complies with all laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and requirements of all Federal, state and municipal governments, courts, departments, commissions, boards and offices, any national or local Board of Fire Underwriters, any environmental agency, or any other body exercising functions similar to those of any of the foregoing that may be applicable (in the absence of any IMF immunity and regardless of whether such laws are enforceable against the IMF or its property) to the services covered by this Agreement.
XIX. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS
Prior to commencing work at IMF facilities contractor shall engage an investigative agency specializing in background investigations to conduct, at contractor’s expense, a criminal history check of each agent or employee of the contractor whom contractor expects will enter IMF’s facilities. If contractor requires assistance identifying an appropriate investigative agency, the IMF’s Security Services Division can be contacted at (202)623-6545 or email [email protected] for a list of investigative agencies. The criminal history check shall include Maryland, the District of Columbia, the counties of Arlington, Loudon, Fairfax, Prince William and the city of Alexandria, as well as each jurisdiction the employee has lived in for the previous seven years, or after his or her eighteenth birthday, whichever is less. Agency reports of all criminal history checks, regardless of the outcome, shall be provided to the Fund’s Security Services Division. These reports should be attached to a letter from the contractor describing the dates and jurisdiction included in the checks and the name, date of
RFP:862
37
birth, and social security number of the employee.
Address: International Monetary Fund Security Services Division Room HQ1-1-302 700 19th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20431
No agent or employee of contractor/consultant/sub-contractor will be authorized to enter any IMF facility to perform work under this agreement without the aforementioned criminal history check. THE IMF RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DENY ACCESS TO THE IMF’S FACILITIES TO ANY INDIVIDUAL.
XX. IMMUNITIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND: TAXES & DISPUTES
Article IX of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund, as incorporated into the laws of the United States and the District of Columbia by the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S. Code Section 286h), provides that the International Monetary Fund, its property and its assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, are immune from every form of judicial process. In addition, the IMF, its assets, property, income, and its authorized operations and transactions, are immune from all taxation and from all customs duties, and the IMF is immune from liability for the collection or payment of any tax or duty. Accordingly, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement or any documents to which it refers, it is expressly agreed and understood that:
(a) Contractor will not invoke the IMF's immunity to avoid any taxes for which Contractor is legally liable, but will inform the IMF immediately of any attempt to impose a tax to which the IMF's immunity appears to apply, and will cooperate with the IMF at IMF's expense with respect to any such attempt.
(b) Any controversy of claim arising out of or relating to the Contract or any breach, termination of invalidity thereof, shall be settled by the mutual agreement of the parties hereto, provided that failing such agreement the dispute shall be finally settled by binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules then in effect. In any case where neither party’s claim exceeds US$75,000, then the Expedited Procedures of AAA shall apply, and the case shall be decided by a single arbitrator. Otherwise, the case shall be decided by a panel of three arbitrators, and each party shall appoint one arbitrator. The two arbitrators so appointed shall then appoint a third arbitrator who shall act as chairperson of the panel. The arbitral case shall be decided according to the terms of the Contract and the law of the District of Columbia. If a claim or dispute
RFP:862
38
would have been barred by a time limitation had it been asserted in a court of the District of Columbia, then the Tribunal shall declare the claim or dispute to be extinguished on the merits. Each party agrees to implement any requirements of the arbitrator or arbitrators directed to it in accordance with those rules. It is understood and agreed that the submission of a claim or dispute to arbitration shall not excuse either party from performing its obligations under the contract, and shall not be considered to be a waiver of the immunities of the IMF.
XXI. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES
The parties intend that the Contractor shall perform the services provided for and described herein solely as an independent Contractor of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and neither the Contractor nor any of its agents, employees or servants shall be considered an agent, employee or servant of the IMF.
XXII. AUDIT
The IMF reserves the right to inspect and audit the Contractor’s accounting, financial and other records and documents which are relevant to the performance of an Agreement. Any such inspection or audit shall be undertaken at the IMF’s cost, and shall occur during normal business hours, and shall be conducted in a manner so as to not unnecessarily interfere with the business of the Contractor. Contractor hereby undertakes to maintain complete, accurate and verifiable records of all costs charged and/or chargeable to the IMF under an Agreement or any extension(s) thereof, and agrees to retain such records for a period not less than three (3) calendar years following a termination of an Agreement or after final payment, whichever occurs last. The Contractor shall diligently cooperate with the IMF’s representatives during any such inspection and audit and hereby waives any objection it may have to such inspection and audit, unless specified in writing and duly acknowledged by both parties in any Agreement.
XXIII. CHANGES
The IMF may, at any time, by written order, require changes in the services to be performed by the Contractor. If such changes cause an increase or decrease in the Contractor’s cost of, or time required for, performance of any services under this Agreement, an equitable adjustment shall be made.
XXIV. WAIVERS
No waiver by either party of any breach hereof shall be deemed a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach. No failure by either party to exercise any right or privilege herein provided for shall be deemed a waiver of such party’s right to exercise a similar or other right or privilege in conformity with the provisions hereof at any subsequent time or times.
RFP:862
39
XXV. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the other provisions hereof.
XXVI. SURVIVAL
Neither completion of the works nor termination or cancellation of this Agreement shall relieve the Contractor of the IMF of any obligations that by their nature survive completion of the requirements hereunder, including all warranties, guarantees, and indemnifications.
