MANAGING PREPARATION OF REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS:

A Quantity Surveyors Outlook

1.0

Introduction

The adoption of Act No 21 of 2004 (The Public Procurement Act, which replaced and
repealed a similar Act of 2001), means that in the present environment, Consultants
have to be familiar with the requirements of the Act and Regulations made under this
Act. The requirements and stipulations of the Act and Regulations are reflected in
Solicitation Documents, commonly referred to as Requests for proposals (RFPs). This
brief paper highlights the salient points in both the Act, the Regulations and the Standard
RFP document, insofar as they are interpreted and reflected in selection of Consultants
for projects funded by the Government of Tanzania or its donors and agencies.
Throughout this paper, the terms Act, Regulations and RFP shall mean Act No 21 of
2004, Regulations made under section 88 of the Act and RFP documents prepared for
the purpose of selection of Consultants for Construction projects respectively.
2.0

Some features of The Act with Respect to Selection of Consultants

2.1

No distinction Between Contractors, Suppliers and Consultants

Understandably, the Act does not itself make a distinction between the Contractors and
Consultants, as even a casual reading would show. These distinctions are indicated and
elaborated in the Regulations.
2.2

Involvement of Procuring Entitys Staff

Under the Act and Regulations, the procuring entity may be represented and physically
involved in many aspects of the process like evaluation, analysis of tenders, and even
the writing of the tender report itself. In other words, the Procuring Entity, as defined in
the Act, may choose to handle the tender evaluation and reporting on its own, do it jointly
with the Consultants or appoint third parties to the task. The Consultant has to know this
and note what the RFP anticipates, and if possible seek clarifications in advance. The
tender evaluation report is thus no longer in practice an independent report of the
consultant, and it is not unusual to encounter situations where Procuring Entities prefer
to undertake the exercise of evaluation on their own, or using experts other than the
project consultants. This possibly calls for discussions on the best way to go.

2.3

Matters of Fraud and Corruption

The spirit of the Act, the Regulations in this respect can be summed up as follows thou
shall not take or receive a bribe, and the Consultant had better respect the letter of
the law and regulations, for acts of corruption are prohibited and bear sanctions of
various forms as stipulated in the Act and Regulations.
2.4

Appeals

Where the Consultant, like the other groups covered by the Act (Contractors, Suppliers
etc) are dissatisfied with any act or decision of a relevant authority, they may appeal
under the Act, following the procedures stipulated in the Regulations. This is a good
idea, as it ensures a likelihood of justice and minimizes incidences of corruption and
nepotism. It is worthy to note that Consultants are free to appeal against procedure,
result, or both.
3.0

The Request For proposal (RFP)

3.1

Basic features

The following are the basic features of a typical RFP

Letter of Invitation

Information to Consultants normally of a general nature

Standard Format for the technical proposal

Standard Format for the financial proposal

Terms of Reference-specifying what is required in terms of size and general

levels of quality.

Sample Form of Contract

For the sake of brevity, we will in this paper consider just a few of these items, with the
hope that the other aspects will be covered by the papers presented by those who work
as Principal Consultants. We will not analyse each item in depth, but will only consider
those aspects that are relevant for the Quantity Surveyor(QS) in responding to the RFP

4.0

Responding to the RFP

In most situations, the QS firm would appear in the RFP submission back to the client as
a subconsultant of the Architect or the Engineer. The information required on the QS
aspects will thus be submitted to the Architect or Engineer, as the case may be, for the
latter to incorporate in his or her work. Timely submission of information to the Architect
or Engineer is thus crucial, especially where, as often happens, time provided by the
RFP is very short, the regulations notwithstanding. Below we consider the key items to
consider as part of effective management of this process
4.1

Read all pages

In preparing the Technical proposal, Consultants are expected to examine the

documents constituting this RFP in detail. Material1 deficiencies in providing the
information requested may result in rejection of a proposal. (From a typical RFP). Note
that it is to your own benefit to read and understand the import of sections like the draft
form of Contract, as its provisions will definitely have cost and time impact on your
programme.
Further details to remember, which are normally supplied in the Information to
Consultants are like:

Name of client

Method of selection

Date and Place of pre-proposal Meeting (Your Architect may ask you to attend
with him)

Date and Place to Opening

Contact Persons with the procuring Entity

Other Information that is being provided

Taxes payable and any exemptions

It makes good practical sense to ask for a full copy of the RFP from the Architect or
Engineer at your cost, so that you can read it at ease.
4.2

Stick to one Architect in a given RFP submission

Note that material deviation is open to various interpretations, but a clear example would be for instance
absence of CVs of key personnel, or absence of an anti-bribery commitment, of that of copies of business
documents like Taxpayer Identification Number and Business Licence

Do not embarrass your Principals by appearing as a QS for two different Architects in the
same RFP. Both submissions will be rejected.
5.0

The technical Proposal

5.1

Discuss with the principal areas likely to have technical difficulties

Once you have read and understood the RFP and especially the TOR, you would have
then been able to undertake some sort analysis of your strengths and Weaknesses, and
how to deal with each. Discuss frankly with your Principal the strengths and
weaknesses. Giving the bad news is never palatable, but is a most professional thing to
do, if you have to maintain your credibility. For instance if the selected Consultant team
has to travel 800kms to a lake Tanganyika border site with own transport, and you know
you cannot avail that transport, while another member of the team has a vehicle in good
running condition, sharing the cost for running this car including wear and tear might be
a feasible idea, rather than considering buying a new car for the project, unless the latter
is a TOR stipulation.
5.2

Establish your technical capabilities

Consider whether the stipulated technical capabilities in terms of education and

experience as stated in the RFP are available in your organization, or if you may need to
source them outside the firm (eg Technical Audit skills, which not every practitioner may
have a first hand experience with). Further, the firm and staff may have the requisite
skills but be pressed with other assignments at the same time, and arrangements to
absorb an added workload must be thought of in advance their cost impact considered.
This information will also be required by the Architect or Engineer from your firm for
inclusion in the submission:

Brief description of your organizations background- indicating

experience of the Company and information about the shareholders.

Firms previous experience-normally on a sheet with all important details on

general

these projects.

Comments if any, on the Terms of Reference (TOR).

Comments on data, services and facilities to be supplied by the Client.

Methodology of work. Here the QS will deal with his or her specialization only for
later compilation with the Principal Consultants.

Team Composition and Task Assignments-this has to be prepared with close

reference to the TOR to ensure that the assigned team and tasks match what
has been called for in the RFP (name, position, Task-Consider level of
experience, does it match what has been stipulated in the TOR or other parts of
the RFP?).

Cvs of key personnel, on provided format. Make sure they are signed by the
relevant staff and that there is space for signing by the authorized representative,
who usually would be the Principal.

Your component for time schedules if one is requested.

Activity schedules-these are to be worked jointly with the Architect or Engineer

(Field study, Design, Supervision, Completion and submission of reports).

6.0

The financial proposal

6.1

Establish the Financial Involvements

Be sincere with your principals and explore all areas of difficulty like the need to have
added staff and equipment at certain levels, traveling costs and office overheads. Where
you may need to cut down as a business decision, ensure this is done with the actual
cost in mind and with an idea where you will make up for the loss. Your pricing
methodology should consider all expected areas, which usually include but are not
limited to the following:
Remuneration

Regular staff

Consultants

Reimbursables

Air, marine and Land Travel

Allowances during travel

Local transport in town or area of site

Office rent, clerical assistance (accountants, secretaries etc)

Miscellaneous expenses

Communication costs between established points (phones/faxes/etc

Drafting and reproduction of documents

Equipment


7.0

Software
Other Requirements

Your component will usually ask also for letters of association from subconsultants,
indicating that they will associate with the particular Architect or Engineer in the said
assignment if awarded to the said Architect/Engineer. Remember to furnish the same on
your letterheads and in sufficient multiple implicate copies.
Further, you must assure the prospective employer that your organization and the
individuals in it are not corrupt persons by furnishing in similar fashion an anti bribery
commitment on your company letterheads.
Special Note with Respect to QS work
This presenters personal experience is that often, the QS involvement at post contract
stage is much more than that provided in the Solicitation Document. It is possibly time
the regulations were amended to provide room for these additional costs that are usually
not easy to account for in the Contract for Consultancy Services. These include dealing
with Loss and expenses claim, and additional site visits where there is project time
overrun, among others.
Other issues that crop up as the project progresses is with the added QS worktime
handling negotiations due to simmering disputes, or due to excessive variations that may
come later on. Discuss these issues with the Architect in advance and if possible, work
with your Architect to secure an assurance from the Employer that they understand that
sizeable changed conditions will attract additional fees.

It is obviously clear that only proper recording of accounts and documentation of costs
on a regular basis can enable a QS to arrive at realistic prices for various items and
eventually submit to the Architect or Engineer figures that are competitive for any future
submissions. Unfortunately, the Act has led all of us to a situation where we have to
compete in terms of price as well, and so each entity will have its strategies which
cannot be discussed in any meaningful way. It suffices only to comment here that many
Consultants have at times been compelled to submit prices that are far below market

operating expenses, but possibly not much can be said further as this now becomes a
purely business decision.
One crucial observation from a colleague has been that the RFPs based on the Act are
silent on the issue of Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII). The future is gradually
heating up in terms of litigations and claims on part of the Client/Contractor relations.
One can reasonably foresee a future laden/pregnant with claims directed against
consultants, as a natural corollary to a liberalized economy. Are we prepared for this, or
we are wishing the future away? Should Regulations be amended to bring this on board
as a compulsory provision? I leave these and other questions to discussion by the
participants.
8.0

Tailpiece

Last but not least, check your documents before sealing them, and memorize your
submission date, place and time. Your best friend submitting in competition with you will
surely feel very sympathetic if you deliver late or have some missing documents. But it is
also an existential reality that he may in the same breath hiss softly serves him right, the
idiot. One down, three to go. Do not avail him that opportunity.
Thank you