Request For Proposals To Conduct An endline evaluation for the CONTINUITY IN CRISIS - Ensuring continuity of NCD care for crisis-affected populations in Kalobeyei Refugee Camp, Kilifi, Tana River and Nairobi Counties. Document Release Date: 28th October 2025 Last Date for Receipt of Proposals: 18th November 2025 Time: 17.00HRS Tender Number: PRF 29110 Submission Method: email to
[email protected] Tender Opening Venue and Time: Virtually via Microsoft Teams at 1200HRS on 19th November 2025 Summary of the Evaluation Purpose : The primary purpose of the Endline evaluation is to assess the non-communicable diseases project in the refugee populations of Kalobeyei camp, Informal Settlements in Nairobi and communities affected by floods and drought in Kilifi and Tana River Counties. The evaluation aims to provide an understanding of the project's outcomes, analyse the extent to which the project achieved its specific objectives, and assess its contribution to the overall goal. It should also contribute towards building evidence to inform future NCD programming by identifying lessons and building on good practices and opportunities for scale-up. Partners Danish Red Cross, Kenya Red Cross Society and Respective Counties and the National government. Duration 30days Estimated Dates 1st December to 30th December 2025 Geographical Location Kalobeyei Refugee Camp in Turkana, Nairobi, Kilifi and Tana River Counties in Kenya. Target Population Refugees, migrants, urban refugees, Health care workers, Community health promoters, community members, including people living with NCDs, women, youth and stakeholders within targeted locations, KRCS staff and volunteers. Deliverables Inception report and data collection tools, three finalised case studies, Draft and final report, dissemination of the report, and additionally, all data sets. Methodology Quantitative and Qualitative methods. Evaluation Management Team KRCS MEA&L team, KRCS Project representatives and Danish Red Cross Representatives. Background Information Kenya is facing a rapidly evolving health landscape marked by the dual challenge of communicable and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) amid recurrent climate-related and humanitarian crises. NCDs, such as hypertension and diabetes, have become a major public health concern, accounting for an estimated 39% of all deaths and over 50% of hospital admissions nationally. The Kenya Stepwise Survey (2015) revealed that 23% of adults are overweight, 6% obese, 24% have raised blood pressure, and 3% live with diabetes, with prevalence expected to rise due to rapid urbanization, changing diets, sedentary lifestyles, and environmental stressors. Kenya’s vulnerability to climate shocks, floods, droughts, and displacement exacerbated these gaps, disrupting access to essential health services and increasing exposure to NCD risk factors such as food insecurity, stress, and poor living conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed systemic weaknesses in chronic disease management, with interruptions in routine follow-up and medicine supply chains. Health systems faced persistent gaps in trained personnel, diagnostic capacity, essential medicines, and data for decision-making. Limited integration of NCD care into primary health care (PHC) and emergency preparedness frameworks further constrained service delivery continuity during disasters. Supported by Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF), Kenya Red Cross Society (KRCS), and the Danish Red Cross (DRC) partners to implement the “Continuity in Crisis” project, which aimed to improve and ensure continuous access to NCD care for crisis-affected populations in Kalobeyei camp in Turkana, Nairobi, Kilifi and Tana River Counties. The targeted population to be reached by the project was over 43,244 in Kalobeyei, 448,000 (including 134,000 youth) in Nairobi, and 56,000 people in Tana River and Kilifi Counties, being the number of people displaced annually due to flooding. Direct beneficiaries of the Project were the mixed migrants (Informal settlements and IDPs), refugees (urban and Kalobeyei settlement) and community members, including people living with NCDs and youth (in and out of school). Other direct beneficiaries that were targeted by the project included KRCS staff and volunteers, and relevant external stakeholders. The project was divided into two outcomes, which, combined, will support the achievement of the overall objective. The first outcome was building on and consolidating existing efforts of KRCS to improve access to NCD prevention, care and support for people affected by displacement and disaster, thereby reaching more vulnerable people in crisis in Kenya with NCD care. The second outcome supported the integration and capacity of Red Cross Red Crescent-National Societies in East Africa and beyond to integrate NCD prevention and care in humanitarian operations, including in health and migration programs and in disaster response, thereby reaching more vulnerable people in crisis with NCD care. Project Objectives Project Goal/Impact : Improved and continuous access to NCD care for crisis-affected populations in East Africa through the engagement of RCRC partners. Immediate Objective/Outcome : Outcome 1: Access to NCD prevention, care and support to people affected by displacement and disaster in Kenya has been improved. Outcome 2: Regional (East Africa) - and global RCRC partners have been mobilised to integrate NCD care in their humanitarian operations and share learnings beyond the Movement. Output 1.1 : Vulnerable communities, including migrant populations and youth in urban informal settlements in Nairobi have increased awareness, self-care skills and access to NCD care services. Output 1.2 : The continuity of care of NCD prevention and care services for refugee population in Kalobeyei camp has been strengthened. Output 1.3 : Disaster preparedness and response systems with integrated NCD care have been strengthened and decentralized/localized in Kilifi and Tana River Counties and throughout Kenya. Output 1.4 : Enhanced policy dialogue and engagement for improved prioritization of NCD care for crisis-affected populations at local and national levels in Kenya. Output 1.5: CRISIS MODIFIER: Continued access to NCD prevention, care and support during natural disasters and political, economic or social crises through effective risk monitoring and mitigation plans. Output 2.1: Increased peer learning and regional sharing of experience on NCD care for crisis affected populations in the East and Horn of Africa. Output 2.3: Standardized RCRC approaches and services packages for NCD in humanitarian settings developed with IFRC based on operational experience from EA Evaluation Objectives The evaluation aims to systematically and objectively assess the project’s performance, outcomes, and contribution to strengthening NCD care in humanitarian settings by: Measuring project achievements against planned objectives and benchmark indicators to determine overall effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Documenting both intended and unintended results, highlighting concrete examples of change and innovation emerging from implementation. Assessing the application and effectiveness of Community Engagement and Accountability (CEA) approaches, identifying the most impactful strategies, enabling factors, and actionable recommendations to enhance participatory and accountable NCD programming. Evaluating peer-learning and knowledge exchange mechanisms, including regional platforms and standardized RCRC NCD service packages, to determine their role in harmonizing approaches, strengthening integration of NCD care in humanitarian operations, and influencing global RCRC and partner strategies. Generating evidence-based learning through at least three comprehensive case studies or learning briefs, capturing good practices, lessons learned, and recommendations for scale-up, replication, and cross-regional learning. Study Purpose & Scope The evaluation is expected to address the above objectives based on the following guiding questions: a) Achievement of the project results against project targets. What was the project achievement against baseline values? What is the end-line value for indicators as per the project plan? If any, what hindered the achievement of project targets and contribution to objectives and goals? b) Effectiveness Did the project focus on the most relevant risk factors, or have other priorities emerged? Based on the patient’s information, which approaches and activities have produced statistically significant improvement in project indicators in relation to the baseline values? What changes as reported by the community/stakeholders can be attributed to the project (positive, negative, expected, and unexpected)? What are the entry points for NCD prevention and response at community level and to what extent RCRC CEA approaches are integrated? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the RCRC approach to NCD at the country level, and what is the added value of the NS in relation to other in-country stakeholders in terms of promoting the NCD agenda in the humanitarian sector? Whether and how the CiC project facilitated integrated approach with NCD activities combined/integrated in other sectors? What emerging learning and case studies have the potential to become good practice and influence NCD agenda regionally and globally? What opportunities exist on country level to co-fund NCD agenda and NCD activities of RCRC/DRC/NS? To what extent has the project facilitated the dialogue with the authorities and MoH more specifically, and to what extent there is an alignment in the NCD agenda in humanitarian set-up? To what extent the project activities were embedded in and integrated with the emergency responses policies, protocols and practices at country level? What progress was achieved and what gaps remain at country level? c) Efficiency Was the project implemented according to the implementation plan? If not, was timely corrective action taken where necessary? Was additional support identified or provided to overcome implementation challenges? Were all activities done within the budget? If there were any significant variances (whether early or late, over or under expenditure), what caused them? What has been done innovatively? Was the process of achieving results efficient? Could a different approach have produced better results? Whether and how the CiC project facilitated an integrated approach with NCD activities combined/integrated in other sectors? f) Sustainability To what extent has the project potentially ensured the continued availability of comprehensive NCD services? Have there been any challenges? To what extent are the benefits of the projects likely to be sustained beyond completion of this project, and what sustainability measures – institutional/financial/technical/community-based have been implemented to ensure continuity of gains made? What opportunities exist at the country level to co-fund the NCD agenda and NCD activities of RCRC/DRC/NS? What approaches should be adopted by the Red Cross Red Crescent while designing similar projects in the future? What are the strengths and weaknesses of RCRC approach to NCD at country level and what is the added value of the NS in relation to other in-country stakeholders in terms of promoting the NCD agenda in the humanitarian sector? To what extent the project activities were embedded in and integrated with the emergency responses policies, protocols and practices at country level? What progress was achieved and what gaps remain at country level? To what extent has the project facilitated the dialogue with the authorities and MoH more specifically, and to what extent there is an alignment in the NCD agenda in humanitarian set-up? To what extent has the project contributed to advocacy, policy infrastructure, and influence through its auxiliary role, and what evidence or lessons emerge from the advocacy agendas? f) Coherence How well has the project’s intervention been compatible with other interventions in the project implementation sites To what extent was the project complementary to, and coordinated with, other work undertaken by KRCS and other implementing partners including public authorities? g) Community Engagement and Accountability To what extent were the Centre for Humanitarian Standards/KRCS minimum accountability standards integrated? What are the entry points for NCD prevention and response at community level and to what extent RCRC CEA approaches are integrated? How much do the beneficiaries understand the services being made available through the project? How much were beneficiaries involved in decision-making around services provided through the project? What complaints and feedback mechanisms were put in place? What were the common community complaints addressed during the project period? To what extent did the CF mechanisms affect/impact the program design/activities, reviews, etc? Sample of resolved matters through the mechanisms. How satisfied are the project target groups with the interventions undertaken by the project? To what extent was the project, including its activities and modality, responsive to the changing context of NCDs in emergency? What do the beneficiaries feel is the effect of the project on their lives in the short term and in the long run? Survey Methodology The consulting firm/team will propose the most suitable study design, sampling methods, sample size, data collection, and analysis approach suitable for the study and which will be validated in the inception phase. This should be clearly outlined in the bidding document/proposal, and if qualified to the oral stage to have further discussion with the evaluation management team. The consulting firm/team will also propose targeted respondents to interview or data sources that can answer the evaluation question and provide comparable statistics to document any changes. The methodology should consider triangulation of data, an adequate and representative sample size for the targeted beneficiaries, with clear sampling methods. All the indicators should be given an operational definition in the bid submission. The data analysis plan should be embedded, indicating how the indicators will be analysed and presented. The study will use the following literature and any other sources for reference and to inform the research process further: Existing project reports by the time of data collection. (Baseline, MTR, interim evaluation, Project narrative reports, Outcome Harvesting reports and the project documents) Documents, policies and frameworks by partners, county and national government. Available national, regional or global studies relevant to the scope of this assignment. Quality & Ethical Standards The consultant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the study is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the assessment is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted transparently and impartially, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the research team shall be required to adhere to the evaluation standards and applicable practices as recommended by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies ( IFRC Framework for Evaluations 2024 ). Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, respectful and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner. Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted ethically and legally, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation. Impartiality & Independence: Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders. Transparency: Evaluations should be conducted openly and transparently. Accuracy: Evaluations should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that their worth or merit can be determined. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate. Accountability: Evaluations should be conducted upholding accountability standards by adequately documenting the evaluation process and products, aligning evaluation practice with an equity approach, and with the development of recommendations that are detailed and actionable. It is also expected that the assessment will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity and 7) universality. Qualifications and Experience for Consultants The lead consultant must possess the following qualifications: Should have a background in Public health (at a minimum of Master’s degree level) with proven experience in NCD, public health in emergency programs and health policies. A minimum of 5 years’ extensive experience in carrying out comprehensive study/research or similar assignments. Good understanding of NCD programming and emergency set-up programming. Proven experience in participatory and results-based M&E, knowledge and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative research methods. Must demonstrate having led in at least five Evaluations/assessments. Experience of conducting research and assessment work in the target or similar communities (preferred) High level of professionalism and an ability to work independently and in high-pressure situations under tight deadlines. Strong interpersonal, facilitation and communication skills The team must have a statistician able to analyse quantitative and qualitative data, as well as key technical team members to handle specific components of the project evaluation. Team must have experience in participatory data collection methods and using mobile phone technology for data collection, monitoring and reporting. The lead consultant must have strong analytical skills and the ability to clearly synthesise and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and prepare well-written reports in a timely manner. Availability for the period indicated and ready to carry out the assignment and deliver results within the specified period/time. Availability of experts in each of the subject areas, with experience and relevant qualifications for the assignment, will be highly preferred. Management of the Study. Duration: The Study will be conducted between 17th November to 16th December 2025 or 30 days from contract signing to delivery of the final report. Deliverables: Inception report detailing the study design, sampling methodology & sample frame, evaluation tools, agreed budget and work plan. (Not later than 10 days after the start of the contract). Copies of original and cleaned data sets with codebook. The raw data, including the cleaned database (both qualitative and quantitative), as well as the original field notes for in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, along with the recorded audio material, should be submitted together with the report. A simple inventory of material handed over will be part of the record. KRCS will have sole ownership of all final data, and any findings shall only be shared or reproduced with the permission of KRCS. (2 days before the contract end) Draft study report (not later than 25 days after the contract start) that will culminate in the final report with the following elements, and as will be guided by KRCS: Table of contents Clear executive summary with, among others major findings and summary of conclusions and recommendations. The objectives of the study, methodology and any challenges encountered in the field. A presentation of the results and discussion of the same (including analysis) according to evaluation questions. Conclusions Recommendations. Report annexes. At least 3 comprehensive, polished new case studies. A PowerPoint presentation highlighting key results and discussion from the study will be presented at a feedback meeting with stakeholders to be held after completing the draft report. Final Study report - submit 5 well-designed and bound hard copies and one electronic copy of the report by the agreed timeline. The specifications for the hard copies will be guided by the KRCS M&E team. A PowerPoint presentation highlighting key results, findings, and recommendations to be disseminated to the key stakeholders by the consultant after approval of the study report. An easy-read version of the study report alongside the full study report. Evaluation Management Team The evaluation management team shall consist of KRCS MEA&L Unit representatives, KRCS program manager and Danish Red Cross Representative. They shall ensure that the deliverables agreed upon and approved in the inception report are achieved on time. KRCS MEA&L representative will be the chair of the team. Role of KRCS (Project and M&E team) Lead the recruitment and study process Coordinate the evaluation implementation process Review of assessment products, including the inception report tools, and reports KRCS will organize logistics for the assessment team Avail data collectors within the agreed criteria Avail all necessary documents for desk review KRCS will be the link between the community, stakeholders and the consultant and will organize all the data collection activities (identifying respondents and setting up appointments) Will be the custodian of all data generated from the assessment Organize dissemination forums as necessary. Role of Danish Red Cross. Participate in the TOR development. Review the inception report and data collection tools on time. Review and give feedback on all study products. Fund the activity budget. Final approval of the study report. Application Requirements Application materials shall include: A written response to this TOR in terms of a proposal detailing the technical understanding of the task, proposed methodologies of the evaluation, expected activities and deliverables, proposed work plans with schedule, and financial bids. See Annex 1 Detailed CVs of all professionals who will work on the evaluation. If there is more than one contractor on the proposed evaluation team, please attach a table describing the level of effort (in number of days) of each team member in each of the evaluation activities. See Annex 3 Professional references: please provide at least three reference letters from your previous clients and full contact details of the referees (working and active email & phone number). 2 Sample reports of relevant previously completed assignments. Please also note that the people whose names appear in the team composition template MUST be the ones to undertake the evaluation. As such, they MUST be the ones to appear in person if the proposal moves to the interview stage. Submission of proposal. The Technical Proposal MUST be prepared in conformance to the outline provided in Annex 1 while the financial proposal shall conform to the template provided in Annex 2 . The team composition should conform to Annex 3. Bidders should provide softcopy technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly marked “Technical Proposal – Name of Consultant” and “Financial Proposal – Name of Consultant” . The subject of your email should read “Tender No. PRF 29110 – Call for Evaluation on Ensuring Continuity of Care in Crisis Project in Turkana, Nairobi, Kilifi and Tana River Counties.” The proposal should be addressed as below to reach the undersigned ( by mail ) through
[email protected] on 18th November 2025 at 1700HRS . Chairperson, Tender Committee Kenya Red Cross Society P.O Box 40712 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya . ANNEX 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT Introduction: description of the firm, the firm’s qualifications, and statutory compliance (2 pages) Background: Understanding of the project, context and requirements for services, Key questions (2 pages) Proposed methodology - Indicate methods to be used for each indicator and highlight any areas where indicators may need adjustment. The targeted respondents should be indicated for each indicator. Proposed detailed questions should be indicated. Detailed sampling procedure and sample size determination needs to be described and provided. (5 pages) Firms experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from the geographical area for other major clients (Table with: Name of organization, name of assignment, duration of assignment (Dates), reference person contacts (2 pages) Proposed team composition (As per annex 3) - 1 page Work plan (Gantt chart of activity and week of implementation) - 1 page 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) Item Unit # of Units Unit Cost Total Cost (Ksh.) Consultancy Fee (for the whole assessment period) Per day Consultancy logistics (cost of travel to and from the field, upkeep during data collection) Note that; movement during data collection in the field will be facilitated by KRCS lumpsum Office expenses (Printing, photocopy, binding, communication costs etc.) Lumpsum Grand Total ANNEX 3: PROPOSED TEAM COMPOSITION TEMPLATE Name of Team Member Highest Level of Qualification General Years of Experience related to the task at hand Roles under this assignment ANNEX 4: TENDER ASSESSMENT CRITERIA A three-stage assessment procedure will be used to evaluate all proposals from bidders. The total number of points which each bidder may obtain for its proposal is: Technical Proposal 50 marks Oral presentation 40 marks Financial Proposal 10 marks Mandatory Requirements. The proposal shall ONLY be evaluated on the basis of its adherence to the following compulsory requirements, this applies to both local and international firms or individuals. Document/ Requirements Yes/No Tax compliance certificate Certificate of incorporation/registration (only applicable for firms) Proceed to next stage (Yes/No) Assessment of the Technical Proposal The technical proposal shall be evaluated on the basis of its responsiveness to the TOR. Specifically, the following criteria shall apply: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Points Bidder’s score Remarks Background: Description of the consultant/Firm’s Qualifications, 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. 20 Firms Experience in undertaking assignments of similar nature and experience from related geographical area for other major clients: Provide a summary and supporting information on overall years of experience, and related technical and geographic coverage experience. 10 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 Provide CVs for key Consulting team including Statistician/Data Analyst. 5 Work Plan: A Detailed logical, weekly work plan for the assignment MUST be provided. 5 TOTAL SCORE 50 Note: The firms/consultants that attains a score of 35 and above out of 50 in the technical evaluation will be invited to proceed to oral presentation. Oral Phase Assessment At the oral phase, the following criteria shall apply: Criteria Maximum points Bidder’s Score Remarks Understanding of the assignment. 5 Clear and scientific methodology: samplings, data collection, understanding indicators, respondents, tools, data analysis etc. 15 Presentation of previous similar assignment (Consultant will be required to show/present at least 2 previous completed assignment reports at the oral stage and at least two reference letters) 10 Preparedness and participation of teams. Attendance of team members listed in the bid and whose CVs are availed. 10 Total Score out of 40 40 Note: From this stage, the technical and oral assessment scores are combined. The firms/consultants that attains a combined score of 70% in the technical & oral presentations will be invited to proceed to the financial stage. Assessment of the Financial Proposal The Financial Proposal shall be prepared in accordance to Annex 2 . The maximum number of points for the Financial Proposal shall be 10% ( 10 points) . This maximum number of points will be allocated to the lowest Financial Proposal. All other Financial Proposals will receive points in 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 A total score obtained including Technical, Oral and Financial Proposals is calculated for each proposal. The bid obtaining the overall highest score shall be awarded to undertake the assignment – subject to budget allocated. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Please read carefully the method of tender submission and comply accordingly. 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. 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. 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] 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 1 at 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. Deadline for Submission of Bids Bids should reach
[email protected] on or before 18th November 2025 at 1700HRS. Bids received after the above-specified date and time shall not be considered. Bidders should provide softcopy technical and financial proposal in two separate folders clearly marked “Technical Proposal – Name of Consultant” and “Financial Proposal – Name of Consultant” . The subject of your email should read “Tender No. PRF 29110 – Call for Evaluation on Ensuring Continuity of Care in Crisis Project in Turkana, Nairobi, Kilifi and Tana River Counties.” The proposal should be addressed as indicated above to reach the under signed by 18th November 2025 at 1700HRS for the tender to be opened at 1200HRS on 19th November 2025: Any bid received by KRCS after this deadline will be rejected. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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: Where there is a discrepancy between the amounts in figures and in words, the amount in words will govern, and 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. 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. 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. 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] .