Procurement of Consultancy Services fo...
Go BackMs. Ashraq Ahmed
ConvenerGeneral Manager
Department: Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA)
Email: ashfaq@smeda.org.pk
Mr. Muhammad Raza
MemberDeputy General Manager
Department: Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA)
Email: razam@smeda.org.pk
Mr. Muhammad Arif Chaudhry
MemberDeputy General Manager
Department: Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA)
Email: marif@smeda.org.pk
No response to clarification questions
I raised a clarification question more than 24h ago and there's still no response on it. Please respond as soon as possible so I can submit a proposal that appropriately responds to the bid.
The bidder mistakenly uploaded the clarififaction in grievance section. The clarification has been addressed. The grievance against GR0-P78547-001 was withdrawn by the bidder and the same is attached.
Velosi Pre-Bid Clarification No. 01
Respected Concered,
Reference to below email, Please find attached Velosi Pre-Bid Clarification No. 01 for you review and response.
Feel free to contact us if you need any further information in this regard.
The bidder mistakenly uploaded the clarififaction in grievance section. The clarification against GR0-P78547-002 has been addressed and attached as well.
Mr. Sohail Nazar
ConvenerDeputy General Manager
Department: Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA)
Email: sohailn@smeda.org.pk
Mr. Ijaz Hussain
MemberManager
Department: Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA)
Email: ijazh@smeda.org.pk
Mr. Asad Ullah Sheraz
MemberAssistant Manager
Department: Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA)
Email: asad.sheraz@smeda.org.pk
Query
Clarification Request – SMEDA A2A (RFP P73417): Acceptable Documentary Evidence for Confidential Client Contracts
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are writing to seek clarification on RFP P73417 (Access to All – A2A), specifically the documentary evidence requirement for relevant experience set out in Annexure-A:
"Only Projects/Assignments with Verifiable Documentary Evidence would be considered and must be enclosed in the bidding document. In case the said verifiable documentary evidence is not provided, the experience will not be considered. Verifiable Documentary Evidence could be one of the following: Completion Certificate of the assignment / project; Award Letter / Agreements / Contracts of the completed assignment/ project."
A number of our most relevant past assignments were delivered for United Nations agencies, foundations, and other institutional donors under contracts and grant agreements that are contractually confidential, and which we are not permitted to disclose or submit externally, including in a public procurement bid.
We would appreciate clarification on whether, for projects where the underlying contract or grant agreement cannot be shared for confidentiality reasons, SMEDA would accept alternative forms of verifiable documentary evidence, such as:
- The project's final report, or
- An end-of-project summary presentation (a deliverable typically required by the client at project close), or
- A reference table listing the contract number, contracting entity, contract value, and the contact details of a representative of the contracting authority. This would allow SMEDA to verify the engagement directly with the client, without Viamo needing to disclose the confidential agreement itself.
Each of these is a non-confidential way of substantiating a project's scope, duration, completion, and value, without breaching confidentiality obligations to our clients, and option 3 in particular would let SMEDA confirm the details independently rather than relying solely on our own documentation.
We would be grateful for your guidance on this point ahead of the clarification deadline of September 15, 2026, and remain happy to provide any further information SMEDA may need to assess this.
Kind regards,
Osman Anwar
Country Director,
Viamo Pakistan
Submitted on: Aug 27, 2026, 11:10 PM
Clarification
Clarification Request – SMEDA A2A (RFP P73417): Acceptable Documentary Evidence for Confidential Client Contracts
The clarification is not relevant to this RFP
Responded on: Aug 28, 2026, 03:05 PMQuery
Request for Clarification — RFP P73417 (Access to All — MSME Digital Outreach Programme)
Dear Sir/Ms,
We are reviewing the above RFP with a view to submitting a proposal and would be grateful for clarification on two points relating to the eligibility criteria.
1. Eligibility criterion requires the bidder to have at least ten years of verifiable experience as a legal entity in Pakistan. Our firm completes ten years in November 2026, shortly after the submission date of 22 September 2026. Could you confirm whether eligibility is assessed as at the submission date, or whether a firm completing ten years within the current calendar year would be considered compliant?
2. Could you confirm whether proposals may be submitted as a joint venture? If so, we would be grateful for clarification on how the ten-year experience requirement is applied to a joint venture—specifically, whether it must be met by the lead member, by each member individually, or on a combined basis.
We would appreciate your response.
Thank you for your assistance.
Regards,
Soha Zaka
Associate Consultant, Akademos
Submitted on: Aug 28, 2026, 11:24 AMClarification
Request for Clarification — RFP P73417 (Access to All — MSME Digital Outreach Programme)
The reply to the clarification is given as below:
- The verifiable experience will be assessed from the date of opening of bid.
- If the proposal is submitted as a joint venture, experience of ten years will be evaluated collectively.
Query
Eligibility Criteria for Consultancy Services Bid
This is to formally bring to your kind attention an issue identified in the eligibility criteria of the recently
advertised bid on PPRA 2.0 titled “Procurement of Consultancy Services for Design, Configuration and
Deployment of a Web-Based Project Monitoring and Performance Dashboard for SMEDA Business Plan
(Consultancy Services)” which requires reconsideration.
As per the bidding document, the eligible bidder types include Partnership Firm or Company (Private
Limited). However, Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), being a not-for-profit
educational institution, does not formally fall within the aforementioned categories despite possessing the
relevant institutional expertise and technical capacity required for the assignment.
We have attached the copy of letter for your review and consideration.
View PDF Submitted on: Aug 19, 2026, 05:07 PMClarification
Eligibility Criteria for Consultancy Services Bid
The clarification has already been taken up by LUMS with PPRA to seek clarification requiring legal interpretation on specific point whether a non-profit organization (LUMS) can participate in a commercial activity or otherwise. The matter may be further processed in the light of clarification received by LUMS from PPRA and sharing of the same with SMEDA.
Responded on: Aug 20, 2026, 03:52 PMQuery
Queries regarding Bid No. P78547 – Procurement of Consultancy Services for Design, Configuration and Deployment of a Web-Based Project Monitoring and Performance Dashboard for SMEDA Business Plan.
|
S# |
Category |
Query / Clarification Required |
Bid Doc Reference |
|
1 |
Implementation Timeline (Development vs. Support Period) |
Considering the scope and complexity of the assignment, the stipulated seven months may be insufficient. Kindly consider extending the implementation timeline, with priority modules developed and operationalized first and the remaining modules completed within the extended period, at no additional cost beyond the proposed contract price. |
Section 7 (TOR), Part 5 – Implementation Timeline, p.77; SCC Clause 14.1, p.111; Appendix B-2 – Time Schedule of Services, p.115 |
|
2 |
Liquidated Damages vs. Penalty Clause |
The RFP provides both a 1% penalty under GCC 16.4 and 0.1% per day LD under SCC 14.1, each capped at 10%. Kindly clarify whether when LD applies and which provision will govern. |
GCC Clause 16.4, p.101; SCC Clause 14.1, p.111 |
|
3 |
Hosting Infrastructure Provision |
The ToR does not clarify responsibility for hosting infrastructure. Kindly confirm whether SMEDA will provide the hosting infrastructure or the selected firm must provision and cost it, including server/cloud, domain, and SSL, and specify the required hosting period during and after the contract. |
Section 7 (TOR), Part 3.3 – Platform Selection and System Configuration, p.73 |
|
4 |
Key Experts Documentary Requirements |
The RFP specifies qualification and experience requirements for Key Experts. Kindly clarify which documentary evidence is required to substantiate the proposed experts’ qualifications and professional experience. |
Section 7 (TOR) – Key Experts / Staffing Requirements; relevant GCC/SCC |
|
5 |
Client/Project Eligibility Relevant Experience |
Kindly clarify whether projects funded by Development agencies but implemented through another organization/consultant will be considered eligible, or whether the bidder must have a direct contractual engagement with the respective Development agency? |
Section 2.3 Clients of the Consultant |
Clarification
Queries regarding Bid No. P78547 – Procurement of Consultancy Services for Design, Configuration and Deployment of a Web-Based Project Monitoring and Performance Dashboard for SMEDA Business Plan.
Response is attached
View Response PDF Responded on: Aug 20, 2026, 03:48 PMQuery
Request for clarification on attached queries
We have attached a document containing a few queries that would help us build a final technical proposal for this project. We would appreciate clarifications on each before submitting our proposal.
View PDF Submitted on: Aug 19, 2026, 09:19 PMClarification
Request for clarification on attached queries
Response is attached
View Response PDF Responded on: Aug 20, 2026, 03:42 PMQuery
bid security
Dear Concern,
It is mentioned in the proposal that hard copy of bid security is required to be submitted but later the amount of bid security is zero. please clarify if there is any bid security for this project?
Thankyou,
Cybervision International
Submitted on: Aug 20, 2026, 03:04 PMClarification
Bid Security
There is no bid security submission requirement. The Bid Securing Declaration on legal stamp paper of minimum PKR. 100 in favor of Small & Medium Enterprises Development Authority on prescribed format is to be submitted.
Responded on: Aug 20, 2026, 03:36 PMQuery
Kindly provide clarification regarding the reason for our ineligibility
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are interested in participating in the procurement titled “Procurement of Consultancy Services for Design, Configuration and Deployment of a Web-Based Project Monitoring and Performance Dashboard for SMEDA Business Plan,” Procurement Reference No. P78547.
While attempting to participate through EPADS v2.0, the system is showing our firm as “Not Eligible,” and we are therefore unable to proceed with the submission.
Kindly provide clarification regarding the reason for our ineligibility. In particular, please advise:
Which eligibility requirement or system condition is causing our firm to be marked as not eligible?
Whether any registration, profile information, category, certificate, document, or vendor classification is missing or requires updating in EPADS v2.0.
Whether any specific consultancy/service category needs to be selected or activated in our EPADS vendor profile.
Whether our eligibility status is related to NTN, tax registration, PPRA/EPADS registration, vendor status, or any other mandatory requirement.
What steps we should take to resolve the issue and participate in Procurement Ref. P78547 before the proposal submission deadline of August 27, 2026 at 2:00 PM.
We would appreciate detailed guidance at the earliest so we have sufficient time to address the issue and submit our proposal within the prescribed deadline.
We are also available to provide our EPADS Vendor ID, company registration details, NTN, screenshots of the error, or any other information required for verification.
Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards,
Clarification
Kindly provide clarification regarding the reason for our ineligibility
The matter of ineligbility comes once the bid is opened and initial screening is carried out by the procuring agency. The issue ineligiblity at this stage appears to be of technical nature that may be taken up with EPADS ver2.0 for further assistance.
Responded on: Aug 20, 2026, 02:03 PMQuery
Financial value of relevant project
Bidding document states "05 relevant completed projects with financial value of Rs. 15 million or above in last 5 years"
Does this mean a financial value of Rs. 15 million or above cumulatively for the 5 projects, or for each project?
Clarification
Financial value of relevant project
PKR. 15 Mn is not for all 5 projects. An individual project of financial worth of Rs. 15 Mn will be considered for evaluation.
Responded on: Aug 20, 2026, 01:58 PMClarification Request for Tender Reference: P78547
In case of a Joint Venture (JV), please clarify whether each JV member is required to independently meet all the mandatory eligibility criteria specified in the RFP, or whether fulfillment of the eligibility criteria by the Lead Member is sufficient for the JV to qualify.
Submitted on: Sep 07, 2026, 07:30 PM⏳ Time Left for Bid Submission Deadline