| name | world-bank |
| description | Use when a consulting-services proposal follows World Bank procurement, TECH/FIN forms, QCBS or related selection methods; use AfDB, UNDP, or PPDA skills when those rules control. |
| metadata | {"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]} |
World Bank Procurement Framework — Consulting Services
Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, +256 784 464178.
Use When
- Use this skill when the solicitation clearly follows World Bank consulting procurement rules.
- Load it before drafting when you need form, scoring, threshold, or compliance guidance.
Do Not Use When
- The task only needs sector-domain framing without procurement mechanics.
- A different procurement framework clearly applies.
Required Inputs
| Artefact | Source/provider | Required? | Missing-input behaviour |
|---|
| The solicitation package, especially instructions, forms, and evaluation criteria. | Buyer solicitation, ToR, or approved brief | Required | Stop the affected claim, request or verify the input, and label the resulting gap. |
| Any known selection method and technical threshold. | Buyer, verified sector source, or discovery | Required | Stop the affected claim, request or verify the input, and label the resulting gap. |
| The target proposal sections that must comply with the framework. | Buyer, verified sector source, or discovery | Conditional | Stop the affected claim, request or verify the input, and label the resulting gap. |
Workflow
- Confirm that World Bank procurement applies from explicit cues in the solicitation.
- Read this skill and the local references to understand forms, scoring, thresholds, and constraints.
- Map those requirements into the numbered proposal section skills before drafting.
- Draft to maximize technical quality without creating compliance risk.
- Check the final output against thresholds, form placement, and two-envelope rules.
Stop condition: Stop when proposer identity, controlling framework, mandatory form, sector fit, current rule, or load-bearing evidence remains unresolved.
Recovery: Record the gap and owner, seek clarification or current evidence, and return only the separable proposal content that remains supportable.
Quality Standards
- Treat World Bank instructions as hard constraints, not optional style guidance.
- Keep terminology, form names, and scoring assumptions aligned to the actual solicitation.
- Optimize for evaluator behavior where the framework supports it.
Anti-Patterns
- Do not infer TECH or FIN form requirements from memory when the solicitation provides exact instructions.
- Do not ignore minimum technical thresholds, conflict-of-interest rules, or pass/fail gates.
- Do not mix World Bank assumptions with PPDA, AfDB, or UN rules.
- Treating a neighbouring sector or framework as interchangeable. Fix: identify the controlling rule and primary outcome.
- Adding terminology without changing a delivery choice. Fix: link each term to method, risk, output, or evaluation criterion.
- Presenting an unverified current rule or statistic as settled. Fix: cite and date the source or mark it not assessed.
- Ignoring a missing mandatory input. Fix: stop the affected claim and assign an evidence owner.
- Letting sector or identity framing contradict methodology, staffing, schedule, or price. Fix: reconcile all affected sections before release.
Outputs
| Artefact | Consumer | Acceptance condition |
|---|
| A World Bank-compliant drafting and scoring approach for the relevant proposal sections. | Proposal lead, section writer, and evaluator-readiness reviewer | Applied consistently, traceable to the selected source, and free of unsupported identity, framework, or sector claims. |
Evidence Produced
| Evidence | Consumer | Acceptance condition |
|---|
| Routing and source record | Proposal lead and reviewer | Selected identity, framework, sector, source, date, and material gaps are recorded. |
| Decision record | Section writer and delivery lead | Each material choice has rationale, owner, evidence, and a review or stop condition. |
| Conformance check | Release reviewer | Mandatory forms, identity rules, sector logic, and unresolved checks are explicitly assessed. |
Capability Contract
This skill may read supplied profiles, solicitations, ToRs, approved references, and proposal drafts and may prepare routing guidance or draft content within the authorised workspace. Review is read-only by default. It must not invent credentials, certify compliance, submit a bid, accept terms, publish, disclose confidential information, or change source records without explicit authority.
Degraded Mode
If the solicitation, profile, current procurement source, sector evidence, network, or reviewer is unavailable, provide the narrowest useful qualified routing or draft. Mark the missing check not assessed, omit unsupported credentials, thresholds, dates, or compliance claims, and identify the evidence owner. An unassessed requirement is never a pass.
Decision Rules
| Decision | Action | Failure/risk avoided |
|---|
| World Bank selection method | Map the RFP to QCBS, QBS, FBS, LCS, CQS, or SSS and follow its TECH/FIN forms and threshold. | Non-responsive forms or misweighted technical strategy |
| Conflicting solicitation and background guidance | Follow the solicitation while recording the conflict for formal clarification. | Non-responsive interpretation |
| Missing mandatory evidence | Stop the affected claim or form, record the owner and deadline, and continue only with independent supported content. | Fabricated evidence or silent omission |
| Submission, certification, or contractual commitment | Obtain explicit authority and preserve approval evidence before acting. | Unauthorised external commitment |
Worked Example
A solicitation requires world bank selection method, but one controlling input is missing. The proposal team applies this rule: Map the RFP to QCBS, QBS, FBS, LCS, CQS, or SSS and follow its TECH/FIN forms and threshold. It records the gap and owner, withholds the affected assurance, and proceeds only with content that can be verified. This avoids non-responsive forms or misweighted technical strategy.
References
This skill provides the procurement rules, evaluation methodology, and scoring intelligence that every World Bank proposal must be built around. Read this before writing any section of a World Bank-funded proposal.
When to Read This Skill
- The ToR references World Bank Investment Project Financing (IPF)
- The RFP uses World Bank Standard Procurement Documents (SPDs)
- The assignment uses QCBS, QBS, FBS, LCS, CQS, or SSS selection
- The proposal must use TECH and FIN standard forms
- You need to understand how evaluators score to maximise points
Selection Methods — Which One and Why It Matters
| Method | When Used | How It Works | Implication for Proposal |
|---|
| QCBS | Default for most consulting | Technical scored first; financial opened only for firms passing minimum. Combined weighted score. | Maximise technical quality. Price matters but less than quality. |
| QBS | Highly complex/specialised; scope hard to define | Only highest technical scorer negotiates. No financial weighting. | Quality is everything. Price is negotiated after selection. |
| FBS | Fixed budget, well-defined scope | Highest technical scorer within budget wins. | Maximise technical score while fitting within stated budget exactly. |
| LCS | Routine/standardised (audits, simple surveys) | All firms above technical minimum ranked by cost alone. | Meet the technical threshold comfortably, then compete on price. |
| CQS | Small assignments below monetary threshold | Qualifications evaluated; most qualified firm invited to negotiate. | Strong EoI and firm credentials are decisive. |
| SSS | Non-competitive; requires Bank justification | One firm approached directly. | Justification document is the critical output, not a competitive proposal. |
Under QCBS (the most common method): Technical weighting is typically 70-80%, financial 20-30%. At an 80/20 split, the maximum financial score spread between firms is often only 5-8 points, while the technical spread can be 30-40 points. Winning on technical quality is almost always more decisive than winning on price.
The Two-Envelope Procedure
All competitive consulting procurements use two sealed envelopes:
- Envelope 1: Technical Proposal — opened first, evaluated and scored
- Envelope 2: Financial Proposal — remains sealed until technical evaluation is complete; only opened for firms scoring above the minimum technical threshold
Financial envelopes of firms scoring below the minimum technical threshold (typically 75 out of 100) are returned unopened. This makes 75 the survival line — everything below it is wasted effort.
TECH Forms — What Goes Where
Each TECH form maps to a proposal section skill. Read the relevant sub-skill for content guidance; this table shows the World Bank form structure:
| Form | Content | Maps to Skill | Typical Weight |
|---|
| TECH-1 | Technical Proposal Submission Form (cover letter) | 01-cover-letter/ | — |
| TECH-2A | Organisation of the Firm | 04-firm-profile/ | 10-20 pts |
| TECH-2B | Consultant's Experience (project list) | 05-relevant-experience/ | (part of TECH-2) |
| TECH-3A | Comments on the Terms of Reference | 03-understanding-of-assignment/ | Embedded in methodology score |
| TECH-3B | Comments on Counterpart Staff and Facilities | 03-understanding-of-assignment/ | Embedded in methodology score |
| TECH-4 | Approach, Methodology, and Work Plan | 06-methodology/ | 30-50 pts |
| TECH-5 | Team Composition and Task Assignments | 07-team-composition/ | 30-60 pts |
| TECH-6 | CVs of Proposed Professional Staff | 07-team-composition/ | (part of TECH-5) |
| TECH-7 | Staffing Schedule (person-months) | 08-work-plan/ | Embedded in methodology/team |
| TECH-8 | Work Schedule (Gantt chart) | 08-work-plan/ | Embedded in methodology score |
Evaluation Criteria and Point Allocations
Standard Criteria (QCBS)
| Criterion | Sub-criteria | Typical Points | What Evaluators Look For |
|---|
| Specific Experience of the Firm | Relevance, complexity, region/country | 10-20 | Highly analogous assignments (same type, sector, complexity). Not just quantity — quality and similarity to THIS ToR. |
| Adequacy of Methodology and Work Plan | Understanding, approach, work plan, innovation, risk | 30-50 | Tailored (not generic), credible, realistic, thorough. Identifies risks and proposes mitigations. Shows mastery of the subject. |
| Key Professional Staff | General qualifications, adequacy for assignment, regional experience | 30-60 | Each person's CV must directly match the tasks they are assigned. Senior staff on complex tasks. Regional/country experience scored separately. |
| Transfer of Knowledge | Training programme, on-the-job training | 0-10 | Specific, structured plan — not vague "capacity building" language. |
| Participation by Nationals | Proportion of national consultants | 0-10 | Named national experts with genuine roles, not token inclusions. |
| TOTAL | | 100 | |
The exact point allocations are set per assignment in the RFP Data Sheet. Always check the Data Sheet before writing — it tells you exactly how many points each criterion carries.
Key Personnel Sub-scoring
For each proposed professional position, evaluators typically score:
| Sub-criterion | Typical Weight | What Scores High |
|---|
| General qualifications | 20-30% | Advanced degree, relevant certifications, 15+ years experience |
| Adequacy for the assignment | 50-60% | Specific experience directly matching the ToR tasks for this position. Not general sector work — the exact type of work described in the ToR. |
| Regional/country experience | 10-20% | Named projects in the same country or East African region. Language skills if relevant. |
The Scoring Scale — What Each Score Means
| Score | Meaning | What the Proposal Shows |
|---|
| 0 | Feature absent | Criterion not addressed at all |
| 1 | Present but deficient | Information provided but insufficient, unclear, or not credible |
| 2 | Meets requirements | Sufficient information demonstrating the requirement will be met |
| 3 | Marginally exceeds | Information shows the requirement will be exceeded |
| 4 | Significantly exceeds | Substantial evidence of significant value addition beyond requirements |
Score 2 is the minimum to be competitive. Scores 3 and 4 win contracts.
To score 3-4, a proposal must:
- Go beyond restating the ToR — show deeper understanding than the ToR itself demonstrates
- Offer specific, named tools and frameworks (not generic "we will analyse")
- Identify risks the ToR did not mention and propose credible mitigations
- Show innovation — better ways to achieve the objectives
- Demonstrate quantified value addition
Combined Scoring Formula
Technical Score
Each criterion score × criterion weight = weighted score. Sum = total technical score.
Comparative technical score: (Firm's Score / Highest Score) × 100 × Technical Weight %
Financial Score
(Lowest Price / Firm's Price) × 100 × Financial Weight %
Final Score
Weighted Technical Score + Weighted Financial Score = Combined Score
Highest combined score wins.
Example (80/20 split): A firm scoring 240/300 on technical with a price of $4.8M vs. the lowest price of $4.4M:
- Technical: (240/300) × 100 × 80% = 64.00
- Financial: (4,400,000/4,800,000) × 100 × 20% = 18.33
- Combined: 82.33
Scoring Strategy by Section
TECH-3: Comments on the ToR (Often Underrated)
This is where most proposals lose easy points. Evaluators explicitly reward:
- Substantive comments that identify gaps, ambiguities, or improvements in the ToR
- Proposals that just say "we agree with the ToR" score 1-2
- Proposals that propose well-reasoned improvements score 3-4
Format each comment as: ToR Reference → Observation → Recommendation (see 03-understanding-of-assignment/SKILL.md).
TECH-4: Methodology (The Decisive Section)
This carries the most points and the most scoring differentiation between firms. Evaluators are instructed to look for:
- Credible — demonstrates the firm actually knows how to do this work
- Realistic — timeline, resources, and approach are achievable
- Thorough — all ToR tasks addressed with specific methods, not generic language
- Tailored — written for THIS assignment, not copy-pasted from another proposal
- Risk-aware — identifies risks beyond those in the ToR and proposes mitigations
Use the P-I-P structure (see references/proposal-strategy-and-persuasion.md) for every phase.
TECH-5/6: Key Personnel (Where Most Points Are Won or Lost)
This is typically the highest-weighted criterion. Critical rules:
- Each CV must directly match the ToR tasks for that position
- Evaluators read CVs against the ToR task descriptions — mismatches score 1
- Senior, experienced staff on the most technically complex tasks
- Regional/country experience is scored separately — include it
- Availability must be confirmed for the required period
- Staff substitution after award requires Bank approval and equivalent qualifications
FIN Forms: Strategic Pricing Under QCBS
- The financial score difference between firms is typically small (5-8 points spread)
- The technical difference is typically large (30-40 points spread)
- Optimal QCBS strategy: price competitively (not cheapest) while maximising technical quality
- Abnormally Low Bids are identified and rejected — price must be defensible
- Unbalanced or front-loaded pricing is examined and may be rejected
Minimum Technical Score — The Survival Line
The RFP Data Sheet specifies a minimum technical score, typically 75 out of 100. This is a hard gate:
- Score 74 = eliminated. Financial envelope returned unopened.
- Score 75 = survives to financial evaluation.
- The difference between 74 and 75 is total — not marginal.
Additionally, minimum quality thresholds may be applied to:
- The total combined score of all criteria
- Selected criteria or sub-criteria
- An individual criterion
Never ignore a low-weighted criterion. Even a criterion worth 5 points can have a sub-threshold that eliminates you if you score 0-1 on it.
Process Timeline
- General Procurement Notice (GPN) published
- Request for Expressions of Interest (REoI) issued
- EoIs received and shortlist compiled (typically 3-6 firms)
- Request for Proposals (RFP) issued to shortlisted firms (minimum 30 business days)
- Proposals submitted (two envelopes)
- Technical envelopes opened publicly
- Technical evaluation by Evaluation Committee
- Technical scores communicated to all shortlisted firms
- Financial envelopes opened publicly (only for firms above minimum threshold)
- Financial evaluation and combined scoring
- Notification of Intention to Award (10 business day standstill period)
- Negotiations with first-ranked firm
- Contract award
Conflict of Interest Rules
Critical disqualification risks:
- A firm that prepared the ToR cannot be shortlisted for the implementation assignment
- A firm shortlisted for consulting cannot supply goods for the same project if it creates a conflict
- All evaluators must sign Conflict of Interest declarations
- Firms/individuals sanctioned under Bank Anti-Corruption Guidelines are ineligible
Reference Library
| Reference File | Contents |
|---|
references/evaluation-scoring-guide.md | Detailed scoring methodology, comparative formulas, worked examples, scoring strategy per TECH form |
references/tech-fin-forms-guide.md | Complete TECH-1 through TECH-8 and FIN-1 through FIN-5 form requirements and best practices |
Read the relevant reference file for detailed guidance beyond this summary.
Based on: World Bank "A Beginner's Guide for Borrowers: Procurement under World Bank Investment Project Financing" (November 2023, 2nd Edition) and "Evaluating Bids and Proposals — Including Use of Rated Criteria" (February 2025, 3rd Edition).
