REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

(CONSULTING SERVICES - FIRMS SELECTION)

Republic of Moldova

Strengthening Moldova’s Disaster Risk Management and Resilience Project

Loan No.: 9720-MD

Assignment Title: Consulting Services for the Development of the Methodology on the Zoning of Design Spectral Acceleration of the Territory of the Republic of Moldova

Reference No. (as per Procurement Plan): MD-OEAPM-578952-CS-CQS

The Government of the Republic of Moldova has received financing from the World Bank toward the cost of the Strengthening Moldova’s Disaster Risk Management and Resilience Project, and intends to apply part of the proceeds for consulting services.

The consulting services (“the Services”) include the consultancy services for the Development of the Methodology on the Zoning of Design Spectral Acceleration of the Territory of the Republic of Moldova.

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the primary procurement stage for the assignment are attached to this request for expressions of interest.

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Regional Development (MIRD) and the P.I. “Office for External Assistance Programs Management” (OEAPM) Project Implementation Unit (PIU) now invites eligible consulting firms (“Consultants”) to indicate their interest in providing the Services. Interested Consultants should provide information demonstrating that they have the required qualifications and relevant experience to perform the Services. The shortlisting criteria is:

At least 5 (five) years of experience in experience in seismic design, engineering seismology and/or probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, geotechnical/engineering geology assessment, seismic hazard-related methodologies and GIS-based mapping.

Only the firm’s relevant experience and qualifications will be assessed at the shortlisting stage. Key Experts are not required to be proposed and will not be evaluated at this stage.

The attention of interested Consultants is drawn to Section III, paragraphs, 3.14, 3.16, and 3.17 of the World Bank’s “Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers” September 2023 (“Procurement Regulations”), setting forth the World Bank’s policy on conflict of interest.

Consultants may associate with other firms to enhance their qualifications, but should indicate clearly whether the association is in the form of a joint venture and/or a sub-consultancy. In the case of a joint venture, all the partners in the joint venture shall be jointly and severally liable for the entire contract, if selected.

A Consultant will be selected in accordance with the „Consultant’s Qualification-based Selection” described in the Procurement Regulations and to be specifically set out in the Request for Proposals.

The Expression of Interest shall clearly state the name of the Consultant (individual Firm, Joint Venture or sub-consultancy). The Consultant shall provide relevant references (assignment name, Client, time frame, the role of the firm (main Consultant/Partner in JV/sub-consultant, contract amount, tasks performed etc.) to confirm its experience and qualifications.

Further information can be obtained at the address below during office hours 08:30 to 17:30 hours.

Expressions of interest must be delivered in a written form to the address below (by e-mail) by 17:30 local time, November 16, 2026.

Attn: Ms. Raia CANTEMIR

Director, Office for External Assistance Programs Management / PIU

57/1 Mitropolitul Banulescu Bodoni str., office 306, MD-2005, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova

Tel: 373 22 23 29 63, 373 23 82 48

E-mail: achizitii.proiecte@ogpae.gov.md

www.ogpae.gov.md

TERMS OF REFERENCE

for Consulting Services for the Development of the Methodology on the Zoning of Design Spectral Acceleration of the Territory of the Republic of Moldova

Background and Rationale

The Government of the Republic of Moldova is implementing the Strengthening Moldova’s Disaster Risk Management and Resilience Project (SMORE), financed by the World Bank. The Project aims to strengthen the country’s preparedness and resilience to natural hazards and climate-related shocks, including through improved policy, regulatory and technical instruments for disaster risk reduction.

This assignment is part of Subcomponent 3.1 – Policy, Regulatory, and Feasibility Study Support to Reduce Seismic Risk, which includes technical assistance for the development of methodologies, regulatory documents and supporting tools aimed at reducing seismic risk in the Republic of Moldova. Within this framework, the development of a methodology for seismic hazard design parameters for ultimate and serviceability limit states at the finest administrative unit level is required as a key technical input for seismic design, seismic hazard assessment and future seismic risk mapping.

The methodology will support the modernization and harmonization of the national construction regulatory framework with relevant European standards, in particular Eurocode 8 and the corresponding Moldovan construction norms (NCM). It will also provide the technical basis for the preparation of seismic zoning maps and associated GIS datasets, to be used by public authorities, designers, engineers and other relevant stakeholders.

The zoning of design acceleration is a fundamental element for both:

i) the seismic design and verification of buildings and structures according to applicable technical regulations; and

ii) the development of seismic risk assessment tools, including seismic risk maps, where hazard information must be combined with exposure and vulnerability data. Subcomponent 3.1 treats this deliverable as a core technical product that must be scientifically justified, traceable, reproducible and compatible with GIS-based risk analysis.

Therefore, the purpose of this assignment is to ensure that the Republic of Moldova has a clear, technically sound and nationally applicable methodology for zoning seismic hazard design parameters for ultimate and serviceability limit states at the finest administrative unit level, supported by documented assumptions, validated input data, transparent calculations, maps, GIS files, metadata and quality assurance records. The resulting methodology will contribute to strengthening seismic safety, improving the consistency of future NCM provisions and supporting evidence-based seismic risk reduction decisions.

Currently, the Republic of Moldova does not have an updated national seismic hazard methodology and zoning map fully harmonized with European practice (Eurocode 8). The existing regulatory framework relies on legacy provisions that no longer reflect the state of the art in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), updated seismicity catalogues, modern ground-motion prediction equations (GMPE), or the harmonization requirements with the Romanian seismic zoning (essential for coherent values in border areas).

The development of a robust, traceable, and reproducible methodology for seismic hazard zoning is a precondition for:

• the elaboration of the NCM "Seismic design of buildings" harmonized with Eurocode 8;
• the elaboration of the national Interactive Seismic Risk Map;
• the application of the Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) methodology under GD 334/2025;
• the prioritization of public-building retrofit and feasibility-study activities;
• the alignment with EU practice and with neighboring countries (in particular Romania), ensuring coherent hazard values in border areas.

Objective of the Assignment

The general objective of the assignment is to develop a clear, technically sound and nationally applicable methodology for the zoning seismic hazard design parameters for both the ultimate limit state (ULS) and the serviceability limit state (SLS), at the finest administrative-territorial unit level (level I administrative-territorial units — communes, towns/cities and municipalities), on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The methodology shall provide the technical basis for defining seismic design parameters to be used in construction design, assessment and future regulatory updates, while ensuring compatibility with the national construction framework, relevant Moldovan Construction Norms and the principles of Eurocode 8. The seismic hazard design parameters shall be expressed as free-field ground-surface values, in accordance with the site-condition treatment defined in Section 3.5, and not as values for engineering bedrock or for a single uniform reference ground class.

The assignment aims to establish a transparent and justified methodological approach for assessing seismic hazard and translating the results into zoning maps and design values applicable across the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The Consultant shall define the required input data, assumptions, calculation approach, seismic hazard parameters, zoning rules, validation steps and the structure of the final technical outputs, including maps and GIS/digital datasets.

The specific objective of the services is to ensure that the resulting methodology can be used by public authorities, technical committees, designers, engineers and other relevant stakeholders as a reliable reference for seismic design and seismic risk reduction. The methodology shall support the preparation and future updating of seismic zoning maps, contribute to the harmonization of national technical regulations with European practice, and provide a coherent hazard input for the development of seismic risk maps and other tools under Subcomponent 3.1.

The Consultant is also expected to ensure that the methodology is fully documented, verifiable and reproducible. This means that all data sources, assumptions, models, calculation steps, limitations and outputs shall be clearly presented and traceable. The final product shall include not only the written methodology, but also the related maps, GIS/data package, metadata, technical annexes and quality assurance evidence required for review and acceptance by the Beneficiary.

The assignment shall ultimately contribute to strengthening the technical capacity of the Republic of Moldova to manage seismic risk through evidence-based planning, improved seismic design requirements and better integration of hazard information into regulatory and risk assessment instruments. The technical deliverables shall be traceable, reproducible and coherent with the other outputs of the assignment. They shall be supported by controlled versions, documented responses to comments and data registers, so that the review, revision and acceptance process can be clearly verified.

Specific objectives

In addition to the general objective stated above, the Consultant shall achieve, in particular, the following specific objectives:

• Develop the national probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) methodology, including the treatment of epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties through a logic-tree approach;
• Compile, harmonize, and document the unified seismicity catalogue covering the territory of the Republic of Moldova and the surrounding areas of seismotectonic relevance (in particular the Vrancea source); building on existing national and international catalogues and databases (e.g. IGS/ASM, INFP/NIEP, ISC, EMSC, SHARE/ESHM); the compilation and harmonization of existing sources is required, whereas new seismological research, new instrumentation or re-processing of raw waveform data is not part of this assignment;
• Define the seismic source zone model, with parameters consistent with regional models (including SHARE, EMME, GEM and the Romanian model);
• Select, evaluate, test, rank and weight existing published Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) for the territory of the Republic of Moldova, in coherence with those used in Romania for border-area consistency; The development of new GMPEs and formal regression-based recalibration of GMPEs are outside the scope of this assignment, given the limited strong-motion database available for Moldova;
• Generate the "raw" national seismic hazard maps in terms of horizontal spectral acceleration on the plateau of the design response spectrum, for the relevant return periods for ULS and SLS verifications (see Section 3.4);
• Define the design seismic hazard parameters (Sa, ag and the control periods TB, TC, TD of the design response spectrum) for both the ultimate limit state and the serviceability limit state, at the finest administrative-territorial unit level (level I units — communes, towns/cities and municipalities), with the values defined on the actual soil conditions at the ground surface (free field) and not on engineering bedrock. ;
• Produce informative seismic zoning maps of the territory of the Republic of Moldova (low / medium / high seismic hazard);
• Deliver a complete digital GIS package (vector, raster, metadata) compliant with INSPIRE / OGC standards; giving preference to open-source software, tools and formats wherever technically feasible (see Section 6.2).
• Provide all supporting documentation, registers (decisions, assumptions), QA/QC evidence and update rules, in line with the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) of Subcomponent 3.1;
• Conduct technical workshops and consultations with national and international stakeholders and integrate their feedback into final methodology.
• deliver a proportionate training and capacity-building programme, a communication and dissemination package, and a Maintenance and Update Plan for the hazard model and zoning maps (Sections 3.10–3.12).

Intended applications of outputs

The outputs of this assignment are not an end in themselves. They shall be structured so that they can be used directly in the following downstream applications:

• Regulatory reform: as the technical basis for the seismic hazard provisions and national zoning values of the future NCM “Seismic design of buildings” harmonized with Eurocode 8, including the national tables of Sa, ag and control periods;
• Rapid Visual Screening (ToR 1b / GD 334/2025): as the hazard input used to set screening thresholds and hazard classes per locality within the RVS methodology and mobile application;
• Seismic risk mapping (ToR 1c): the unified seismicity catalogue, hazard curves, uniform-hazard values and GIS layers shall serve as the hazard component of the national Interactive Seismic Risk Map;
• Feasibility studies and investment prioritization (ToR 1d): preliminary and final hazard values shall inform the seismic assessment and retrofitting design criteria for public buildings and the prioritization of public investment;
• Public administration use: locality-level design values retrievable by any designer or verifier through the correspondence tables and GIS layers, with clear application rules (Section 3.6).
• The final methodology report shall contain a dedicated chapter describing these intended uses and the corresponding handoffs, consistent with the cross-ToR coordination arrangements in Section 3.13

Scope of Services

The Consultant shall provide all services necessary for the preparation of a complete, technically sound and applicable methodology for the zoning of design spectral acceleration on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The services shall cover the review of the existing legal and technical framework, the identification and assessment of relevant data sources, the development of the seismic hazard methodology, the preparation of zoning maps and GIS datasets, the validation of the results and the revision of the deliverables based on comments received from the Client, the Beneficiary and other relevant institutions, as well as training, dissemination support and maintenance planning as defined in Sections 3.10–3.12.

The Consultant shall ensure that all activities are carried out in a transparent, traceable and verifiable manner. All data sources, assumptions, models, parameters, calculation steps, limitations and outputs shall be properly documented. The Consultant shall also ensure that the methodology is suitable for practical application in seismic design, for the preparation and use of seismic zoning maps, and for further seismic hazard and risk assessment activities under Subcomponent 3.1. The methodology shall also be structured in a manner that allows its results to be used, where appropriate, as technical input for future updates of national construction norms.

For clarity of scope and pricing, the following activities are explicitly excluded from this assignment: new seismological field investigations or instrumentation; new geotechnical site investigations (boreholes, in-situ or laboratory testing); site-specific microzonation studies of individual localities; the development of new ground-motion prediction equations; and the drafting of the NCM normative text itself. Where such activities are found to be necessary for future refinement, the Consultant shall identify and justify them in the Maintenance and Update Plan (Section 3.12) as recommendations for subsequent phases.

The Consultant shall comply with the applicable Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) requirements of the World Bank and the relevant Project instruments, including the Environmental and Social Commitment Plan (ESCP), Labor Management Procedures (LMP), Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), and Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). All personnel engaged under the assignment shall adhere to the Project Code of Conduct, including provisions on the prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment (SEA/SH).

3.1 . Review of the existing legal, normative and technical framework

The Consultant shall review the current legal, normative and technical framework applicable to seismic design, seismic hazard assessment, construction regulation and technical standardization in the Republic of Moldova. The review shall include the relevant Moldovan Construction Norms, existing seismic design provisions, applicable procedures for technical regulation, and the relationship with the future NCM package to be harmonized with Eurocodes, in particular Eurocode 8.

The Consultant shall identify at least the following categories of documents: national construction legislation, existing NCM/CP documents related to structural actions and seismic design, procedures for development/approval of normative documents, Eurocode 8 and relevant national annex principles, and available technical documentation used in design practice in Moldova. The review shall result in a Legal and Normative Review Table, with minimum columns: document code, title, year/version, issuing authority, relevance for the methodology, provisions to be considered, and gaps/limitations.

The Consultant shall provide a short gap analysis showing what is missing or outdated in the current framework regarding design spectral acceleration, seismic zoning values, application rules for designers and GIS-based use of seismic hazard parameters. The analysis shall clearly state how the new methodology will support seismic dimensioning of structures under NCM/Eurocode 8 and how it will feed further seismic risk assessment under Subcomponent 3.1.

3.2. Review of available seismic hazard data, studies and maps

The Consultant shall identify and review existing seismic hazard data, studies, maps and models relevant to the Republic of Moldova and the surrounding region. The review shall include national data, regional studies, historical earthquake catalogues, instrumental seismicity data, previous seismic zoning maps, and international or regional reference models.

As a minimum, the Consultant shall assess the relevance and usability of scientifically recognized sources such as SHARE, EMME, GSHAP, INFP, and any other regional or national source justified by the Consultant (including ESHM20, GEM, ISC and EMSC products, and datasets held by the Institute of Geology and Seismology of Moldova if available).

The Consultant shall prepare a Seismic Data and Studies Inventory, indicating at least: source name, author/institution, year, spatial coverage, time period covered, type of data, format, access conditions, relevance for Moldova, limitations and proposed use in the methodology. For earthquake catalogues, the Consultant shall clearly specify the period covered, for example 1900–2024, or another period justified by the actual data available. If the period differs by source, the Consultant shall explain how catalogues are harmonized.

3.3. Collection and assessment of input data

The Consultant shall collect and assess all input data required for the methodology, including seismicity data, seismic source information, geological/geotechnical data, administrative boundaries, spatial datasets and any available hazard-related parameters. The data shall not be used as a “black box”; each dataset shall be documented and evaluated before being used in calculations or mapping.

For each dataset, the Consultant shall record at least: dataset name, source/owner, date of access, year/version, format, spatial coverage, coordinate reference system where applicable, main fields/attributes, use restrictions, processing steps, quality issues and limitations. The Consultant shall prepare a Data Register and maintain it throughout the assignment. Project requires full traceability of data sources, licenses, metadata and processing steps for deliverables with GIS/data content.

The Consultant shall perform basic data quality checks, including duplicate removal in earthquake catalogues, consistency of units, completeness of mandatory fields, coordinate validity, compatibility of administrative boundaries, CRS/projection consistency, and identification of missing or uncertain values. All transformations shall be documented, including filtering, homogenization, normalization, reprojection, aggregation and classification rules.

Data collection shall rely on existing, documented sources; where required data do not exist or cannot be made available for the whole territory (for example, uniform measured shear-wave velocity profiles), the Consultant shall state this explicitly in the Data Register and shall propose documented, scientifically accepted proxy approaches (Section 3.5), rather than assuming data that are not available in Moldova.

3.4. Development of the seismic hazard methodology

The Consultant shall develop the methodological framework for determining design spectral acceleration values and translating them into zoning rules for the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The methodology shall explain the complete technical chain from input data to final zoning output: data selection, seismic source model, recurrence parameters, GMPE selection, hazard calculation, uncertainty treatment, zoning classification, map preparation and application rules. The methodology shall include a clear statement on the hazard assessment approach. Where Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) is used, the Consultant shall describe the model structure, probability levels/return periods considered, source characterization, recurrence relationships, GMPEs, uncertainty treatment and calculation outputs. Project explicitly requires the probabilistic hazard model to be correctly documented and implemented, and requires sensitivity checks on parameters such as magnitude, distance and return period.

The hazard results shall be produced, as a minimum, for the following probability levels: (i) for ULS verifications, a return period of 475 years (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years), with results for 2,475 years (2% in 50 years) provided for information and for risk-mapping use; and (ii) for SLS (damage-limitation) verifications, for SLS (damage-limitation) verifications, a return period of 40 years, adopted for consistency and continuity with Romanian seismic design practice in the border area and for maintaining feasible seismic design demands, particularly for soft-soil sites..

The methodology shall also explain how the resulting design spectral acceleration values will be used in design practice. This shall include the relation with NCM/Eurocode 8 provisions, the unit of the parameter, the reference ground conditions, the rules for assigning a value to a locality/site, and the limitations of use. The Consultant shall include an update mechanism explaining how the methodology can be revised when new seismic data, GMPEs, administrative boundaries or regulatory requirements become available.

3.5. Definition of calculation assumptions, models and parameters

The Consultant shall define and justify all assumptions, models and parameters used in the calculation of design spectral acceleration values. This shall include, at minimum: seismic source zones, maximum magnitude assumptions, recurrence parameters, depth assumptions where relevant, epicentral or source-to-site distance treatment, selected GMPEs, probability level/return period, reference site conditions, interpolation/classification rules and treatment of uncertainty.

For each key assumption, the Consultant shall provide a justification based on data, scientific literature, regional seismicity or recognized technical practice. The selection of GMPEs shall be scientifically justified and regionally appropriate. Where more than one GMPE or model option is considered, the Consultant shall explain the selection logic and, if applicable, present a sensitivity comparison.

Consistent with the requirement that design values be defined for actual (free-field) surface conditions, the methodology shall include a national-scale site-condition model used to transfer hazard results from the reference ground class of the GMPEs to the ground surface. Given that systematic, measured shear-wave velocity (Vs30) data are not available across the territory of the Republic of Moldova, the site-condition model shall be built from existing information — geological and lithological maps, available geotechnical archives, and internationally accepted proxy methods (e.g. topographic-slope or geology-based Vs30 proxies) — with the approach, resolution and limitations fully documented. Site-specific microzonation of individual localities is outside the scope of this assignment; the methodology shall, however, define when and how a site-specific study may supersede the zoning values, and the Maintenance and Update Plan (Section 3.12) shall recommend a phased national programme of site characterization and microzonation as data become available.

The Consultant shall include at least at least three complete numerical calculation examples, covering different types of administrative units and geological conditions (for example: a municipality on soft/alluvial deposits; a rural commune on stiff ground; and a locality in the border area with Romania). Each example shall show the input data, assumptions, parameters, calculation steps, units and resulting value. The methodology shall present the formulas, algorithms, input parameters and units used, so that each example can be independently reproduced.

3.6. Development of design spectral acceleration zoning maps

The Consultant shall prepare zoning maps for design spectral acceleration covering the entire territory of the Republic of Moldova. The maps shall present the final zoning values or classes in a form usable by public authorities, designers, engineers and technical reviewers. The hazard computation shall be performed on a regular grid with a spacing not coarser than 0.05° (approximately 5 km), and the resulting design values shall be assigned to each first-tier administrative unit (commune, town, municipality) using a documented, conservative allocation rule (for example, the maximum or an appropriately justified representative value of the grid cells covering the unit). Values shall refer to the actual (free-field) ground surface conditions as defined in Section 3.5.

The Consultant shall define the zoning rules, including how calculated values are grouped into zones, how local variations are treated, how values are assigned to administrative-territorial units or localities, and how boundary cases are handled. The methodology shall include a practical rule for selecting the design value for a building location, for example by coordinates, locality, administrative unit or GIS layer query.

The Consultant shall deliver the maps in at least two forms: static PDF maps suitable for inclusion in the methodology report, and GIS files suitable for reuse by MIRD/OEAPM/PIU. The Consultant shall also deliver a CSV/Excel correspondence table showing the assigned zoning value/class for each first-tier administrative unit (commune, town, municipality), identified by its official CUATM code, as agreed with the Client. The GIS layer shall include at least: unique ID (CUATM code), locality/administrative unit name where applicable, zoning class/value, unit of measurement, source/version, date of generation and notes/limitations.

3.7. Validation of results and comparison with relevant regional/EU practice

The Consultant shall validate the results through technical checks and comparison with relevant regional and European practice. Validation shall include checking the plausibility of values, spatial continuity, consistency between neighboring zones, comparison with available regional models and comparison with values or zoning approaches used in neighboring areas, where data is available.

The Consultant shall document consistency checks, including at least: order-of-magnitude checks, comparison between calculated values and existing/reference maps, identification of any abrupt spatial changes, review of border-area continuity and explanation of deviations from reference models.

The Consultant shall prepare a Validation and Consistency Note, including tables or figures comparing proposed values with selected reference sources. Any significant difference shall be technically explained. The final methodology shall not simply present maps; it shall show why the maps are reasonable, technically defensible and fit for use in design and future seismic risk modelling.

3.8. Preparation of GIS/data package and technical documentation

The Consultant shall prepare a complete GIS/data and technical documentation package. The package shall include the final methodology report, annexes, maps, GIS layers, attribute tables, Data Register, metadata, calculation files or calculation annexes, version log, comment log and a short README file explaining the folder structure and how to use the files.

The GIS/data package shall include, at minimum: final zoning layer, static PDF maps, editable map/project files where applicable, CSV/Excel correspondence table, metadata file, Data Register, and processing/audit trail. Metadata shall specify at least the dataset name, purpose, source, date, spatial coverage, CRS/projection, attribute structure, units, processing method, QC checks, limitations and version.

The Consultant shall ensure that GIS files open without errors, use a clearly specified CRS/projection, contain valid geometries, use consistent geometry types, include required fields, avoid uncontrolled duplicates and use stable unique identifiers. The final package shall separate, where relevant, raw data, processed data and final outputs, so that the Client can understand what was changed and why.

The Consultant shall use open-source software and tools wherever technically feasible for hazard calculations and GIS processing (for example, the OpenQuake, R-Crisis, Hazus, etc. engine for PSHA and QGIS for spatial processing, or equivalents). All final deliverables shall remain fully usable by the Beneficiary without proprietary software.

3.9. Consultations with MIRD/OEAPM/PIU and revision based on comments

The Consultant shall work in close coordination with MIRD and OEAPM/PIU throughout the assignment. The Consultant shall submit draft deliverables for review, participate in technical meetings and present interim findings, assumptions, preliminary maps and validation results.

The Consultant shall maintain a Comment Log for all comments received from MIRD, OEAPM/PIU, the World Bank or other designated reviewers. The Comment Log shall include at least: comment ID, source of comment, document/page/section reference, comment text, Consultant’s response, action taken, status, and version in which the change was implemented.

The Consultant shall submit revised versions after comments and shall clearly identify each version, for example Draft v0.1, Revised v0.2 and Final v1.0. The final version shall be accompanied by the complete handover package: methodology report in PDF and editable format, GIS files, metadata, Data Register, maps, correspondence tables, calculation annexes, Comment Log, Version Log and QA evidence. Quality Assurance Plan – QAP – defines the standard pipeline for technical deliverables: draft, internal QA/QC, peer-review, official handover, review, consolidation, acceptance and final archiving.

Stakeholder consultations conducted under the assignment shall follow the principles of the Project Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), ensuring inclusive participation, transparent communication and appropriate documentation of consultations and feedback received.

3.10. Training and capacity building

The Consultant shall design and deliver a proportionate training and capacity-building programme on the developed methodology, the use of the seismic zoning maps and the management of the associated GIS data. The programme shall target, as a minimum, staff of MIRD, OEAPM/PIU, technical universities, and representatives of professional bodies of engineers, architects and urban planners. The programme shall include, as a minimum:

• two in-person training workshops in Chișinău (up to two days each): one on the methodology, its assumptions and application rules for design practice, and one on the GIS package, data management and updating of the zoning maps;
• a User Guide / Technical Manual;
• a short Knowledge Note (up to 10 pages) summarizing the methodology, its outputs and their intended uses, suitable for institutional and academic dissemination;
• training materials (presentations, exercises, datasets) handed over in editable form, so that the Beneficiary and universities can repeat and extend the training (training-of-trainers approach).
• Attendance lists, training materials and a short training report shall be included in deliverable D6. The Consultant is not responsible for the subsequent institutional roll-out of training beyond the events and materials defined above

The Consultant shall also ensure that the methodology is suitable for practical application in seismic design, for the preparation and use of seismic zoning maps, and for further seismic hazard and risk assessment activities under Subcomponent 3.1. The methodology shall be structured in a manner that allows its results to be used, where appropriate, as technical input for future updates of national construction norms.

3.11. Communication and dissemination support

The Consultant shall prepare a concise Communication and Dissemination Strategy describing how the final methodology, the zoning maps and the associated tools should be communicated to the technical community, policymakers and the public in Moldova, in order to support awareness and adoption. The strategy shall identify target audiences, key messages, channels, responsible institutions and an indicative calendar.

The Consultant shall also produce a dissemination package consisting of: a non-technical summary of the methodology and maps (in Romanian and English), presentation materials for institutional use, and the Knowledge Note referred to in Section 3.10. The implementation of the communication activities (publication, media outreach, public events beyond the workshops in Section 3.10) shall be carried out by MIRD/OEAPM-PIU using the materials provided.

3.12. Maintenance and Update Plan for the hazard model and zoning maps

The Consultant shall prepare a Maintenance and Update Plan describing how the seismic hazard model, the methodology and the zoning maps shall be maintained, operated and periodically updated after the completion of the assignment. The plan shall cover, as a minimum:

• proposed institutional responsibilities for hosting, maintaining and updating the hazard model, the GIS datasets and the published zoning values, including the roles of MIRD and other relevant institutions;
• the required human capacity, indicative resources and software (consistent with the open-source policy in Section 3.8);
• data acquisition priorities for future updates — including a phased, prioritized programme of site characterization and, in the longer term, microzonation of the main urban areas, to progressively replace proxy-based site information (Section 3.5) with measured data;
• triggers and an indicative cycle for periodic updates (for example, every 5–10 years, or upon significant new seismic data, new regional models or regulatory changes);
• the legal/normative basis required for the continued operation and official status of the zoning values, as input to future NCM provisions.

3.13. Cross-ToR coordination and Common Data Standard

This assignment is one of four coordinated assignments under Subcomponent 3.1 (1a Seismic Hazard Methodology; 1b RVS and Data Collection; 1c Seismic Risk Map Methodology; 1d Feasibility Studies). Each assignment remains individually procurable and executable, with its own scope, deliverables, experts and evaluation. The dependencies below are indicative interfaces, not conditions that suspend or block the execution of this contract. Indicative dependencies and handoffs (outputs of ToR 1a):

The Consultant shall: (i) participate in a joint inception workshop with the consultants of ToRs 1b–1d, organized by OEAPM/PIU, at which the common data protocol is agreed; (ii) apply the Common Data Standard below in all deliverables; and (iii) participate in joint review gates at the milestones corresponding to D3 and D5, at which interface outputs are checked for consistency with the other assignments. Coordination shall be facilitated by OEAPM/PIU; the Consultant shall not be contractually dependent on the progress of the other assignments. Common Data Standard (to be consolidated in the common data protocol at inception):

• Spatial reference: national CRS for delivery and a global CRS for exchange ; all layers with explicit CRS definition; MOLDREF99 / Moldova TM (EPSG:4026) for national delivery, with WGS 84 (EPSG:4326) copies for exchange and web use.
• Unique identifiers: official CUATM codes for administrative-territorial units;
• Hazard intensity measures: Sa (plateau of the elastic response spectrum), ag, control periods TB, TC, TD; units in m/s² or g, stated explicitly;
• Return periods: 475 and 2,475 years (ULS/information) and and 40 years for SLS / damage-limitation verification. ;
• File formats: GeoPackage (primary), GeoJSON/SHP on request, GeoTIFF for rasters, XLSX/CSV (UTF-8) for tables, PDF for static maps;
• Terminology: consistent use across ToRs of the terms Feasibility Study, seismic retrofitting, structural assessment, QA/QC, Data Register, Comment Log, Version Log.

Quality Assurance and Technical Requirements

The Consultant shall implement a structured Quality Assurance and Quality Control process for all deliverables prepared under this assignment. The purpose of this process is to ensure that the methodology, maps, calculations, datasets and technical documentation are technically correct, traceable, reproducible, internally consistent and suitable for review and acceptance by the Beneficiary.

The Consultant shall not submit deliverables as isolated reports only. Each submission shall be provided as a controlled technical package, including the main report, annexes, editable files, data files, GIS files, metadata and quality assurance registers, as applicable. A deliverable shall be considered incomplete if the technical content is submitted without the supporting data, assumptions, calculation evidence, metadata or QA records required under this section.

Compatibility with Eurocode 8 and relevant NCM framework

The Consultant shall demonstrate that the proposed methodology is compatible with the principles of Eurocode 8 and with the relevant Moldovan Construction Norms framework. This requirement does not mean a simple reference to Eurocode 8; the Consultant shall explain technically how the proposed design spectral acceleration values can be used in seismic design practice and future NCM provisions.

The methodology shall clearly define the seismic design parameter or parameters produced by the assignment, including name, symbol, unit of measurement, reference ground conditions, probability level or return period used, and rules for application in design, for both ULS and SLS. If the methodology uses or derives parameters such as PGA, design ground acceleration, spectral acceleration or equivalent zoning classes, the relationship between these parameters shall be explicitly explained.

The Consultant shall include a compatibility matrix showing the link between the proposed methodology and the relevant design framework. The matrix shall include at least: Eurocode 8 / NCM reference, relevant design concept, corresponding output of the methodology, application rule, limitation and comment. For example, if a zoning value is intended to support seismic design of buildings, the matrix shall show how that value is assigned to a site, administrative unit or locality and how it should be interpreted by designers.

The Consultant shall also check that the methodology does not create contradictions with other Subcomponent 3.1 outputs, especially the seismic risk map methodology, NCM documents and GIS-based hazard/risk products. Any difference in terminology, parameters, units or zoning rules shall be identified and resolved before final submission, applying the Common Data Standard in Section 3.13.

Technical traceability of data, assumptions and calculations

The Consultant shall ensure full traceability from data source → processing → assumptions → calculation → map/value → final recommendation. Each final value, map class or zoning boundary shall be explainable through documented input data, methodological assumptions and processing steps.

The Consultant shall prepare a Traceability Matrix for the methodology. The matrix shall include at least the following columns: requirement or technical issue, data source, assumption/model used, calculation or processing step, resulting output, deliverable section/annex where it is documented, and verification evidence. This matrix shall allow MIRD/OEAPM/PIU or reviewers to verify how the final seismic zoning values were obtained.

For all calculations, the Consultant shall document formulas, algorithms, input parameters, units, software/tools used, and any processing sequence applied. The methodology shall include the three complete numerical calculation examples defined in Section 3.5, showing input data, assumptions, intermediate steps and final design spectral acceleration value.

The Consultant shall document uncertainty treatment and sensitivity checks. As a minimum, the Consultant shall show how key parameters such as magnitude, distance, return period/probability level, source model and GMPE selection influence the results. Where sensitivity checks are not applicable, the Consultant shall provide a technical justification.

Internal QA/QC

The Consultant shall carry out internal QA/QC before each official submission. No draft, revised or final deliverable shall be submitted to the Client without prior internal verification by the Consultant.

Internal QA/QC shall cover, at minimum: completeness of the report, consistency of terminology, consistency of units, correctness of figures and tables, cross-checking between report values and GIS attribute tables, verification of calculation steps, checking of map legends and scales, checking of data source references, verification of metadata, and confirmation that all annexes mentioned in the report are included in the delivery package.

For data and GIS outputs, internal QC shall include, at minimum: CRS/projection check, geometry validity check, geometry type consistency, duplicate ID check, mandatory fields completion check, attribute values domain check, unit consistency check, comparison between GIS layer values and CSV/Excel correspondence table, and opening test of all delivered GIS files.

The Consultant shall submit an Internal QA/QC Checklist with each deliverable package. The checklist shall indicate, for each verification item, whether it was checked, by whom, on what date, what issue was identified, and how it was resolved. A final deliverable without a completed internal QA/QC checklist shall not be considered ready for acceptance.

Peer-review, if required

If the Client decides that external peer-review is required, the Consultant shall provide all editable reports, calculation annexes, GIS files, data registers and metadata necessary for the reviewer to perform the verification. The duration of any external peer-review shall be treated as a Client review period under Section 5 (clock-stop rule) and shall not consume the Consultant's execution time.

Version Log, Comment Log and Data Register

The Consultant shall maintain a Version Log for all official submissions. Each submitted version shall have a unique code, version number, date and status. The minimum versioning structure shall include: Draft v0.1, Revised/Consolidated v0.2 or higher, and Final v1.0. File names shall include the deliverable code, short title, version and date in YYYYMMDD format.

The Version Log shall include at least: document ID, deliverable title, document code, version, status, date of issue, author, reviewer, short description of changes, delivery date, recipient and reference to the delivery package.

The Consultant shall maintain a Comment Log for all comments received from MIRD, OEAPM/PIU, the World Bank or other designated reviewers. The Comment Log shall include at least: comment ID, date of receipt, source, document/version, section/page reference, comment text, type of comment, severity, Consultant’s response, action implemented, version where the change was made, status and closing date.

The Consultant shall maintain a Data Register for all datasets used or produced. The Data Register shall include at least: dataset name, source, owner/author, date of access, year/version, format, spatial coverage, temporal coverage where applicable, CRS/projection, key fields, processing steps, QC checks, limitations, license/access conditions, dataset version and location in the delivery package.

If a change affects methodology, key assumptions, datasets, scope, deadlines or the interpretation of results, the Consultant shall record it in a Change Log / Change Request and shall not implement the change without Client confirmation. If non-conformities are identified, they shall be recorded in an NC/CAPA Register with corrective action, responsible person, deadline and evidence of closure.

GIS metadata and digital package

The Consultant shall deliver a complete GIS and digital package together with the methodology. The package shall be organized in a clear folder structure and shall include a short README file explaining the content of the package, the main file to be opened first, the CRS/projection used, the folder structure, limitations and terms of use.

The GIS package shall include, at minimum: final zoning layer, static PDF maps, GIS files in reusable format, CSV/XLSX correspondence table, metadata file, Data Register, map layout files where applicable, and processing/audit trail.

Each GIS layer shall include, at minimum, the following attribute fields or equivalent: unique ID (CUATM code for administrative units), administrative unit or locality name where applicable, zoning class or design value, unit of measurement, source/version, date of generation, methodology version, and notes/limitations. The Consultant shall ensure that all layers open without errors and that GIS attributes are consistent with the values shown in the report, maps and correspondence tables.

Metadata shall be provided for each delivered dataset. The metadata shall specify: dataset name, purpose, source, date, spatial coverage, temporal coverage where relevant, format, CRS/projection, attribute scheme, units, encoding, rules for missing values, method of creation, processing steps, QC checks, known limitations and incorrect use cases.

The final package shall clearly distinguish between raw data, processed data and final outputs, where such data are deliverable or allowed for sharing. Datasets shall not be overwritten between submissions; each official submission shall contain a dated and versioned dataset package linked to the corresponding report version.

Acceptance of deliverables by the Beneficiary

A deliverable shall be eligible for acceptance only if it meets the scope requirements, is complete, technically clear, methodologically justified, traceable, reproducible, consistent with related deliverables, and delivered in the required format.

For this assignment, acceptance shall require at least the following: the methodology report is submitted in DOCX and PDF; all annexes mentioned in the report are included; calculation steps and the numerical examples defined in Section 3.5 are provided; GIS layers and static maps are included; metadata and Data Register are complete; Version Log and Comment Log are updated; internal QA/QC checklist is completed; peer-review evidence is provided where required; and all major comments or non-conformities are closed.

A submission shall be considered not accepted / returned for completion if any of the following are missing: main report, editable version, GIS files, metadata, Data Register, calculation annexes, Version Log, Comment Log after review rounds, or evidence of internal QA/QC. A deliverable shall also be returned if the GIS files do not open, the CRS/projection is not specified, values in the report do not match the GIS/table values, or calculation assumptions are not documented.

Major non-conformities shall block final acceptance. Major non-conformities include methodological errors, undocumented assumptions, missing metadata, missing Data Register, inconsistent GIS/report values, unresolved major comments, lack of reproducibility, or incomplete delivery package. Minor non-conformities may allow “accepted with conditions” only if the condition, responsible party and deadline for closure are recorded in the Comment Log or NC/CAPA Register.

Final acceptance shall be confirmed only in writing by the Beneficiary or Client, through e-mail, minute, handover note or acceptance form, and shall explicitly indicate the accepted version number and date. A version shall not be considered accepted only because it was submitted. The final accepted package shall be archived in the official project space indicated by OEAPM/PIU

Deliverables and Timeline

The Consultant shall prepare and submit the deliverables listed below. The indicative deadlines are calculated from the contract signature date.

NOTE: The review periods of the Client/Beneficiary (indicatively 10 working days for short deliverables and 15 working days for major technical deliverables, per Section 8.4), as well as any external peer-review under Section 4.4, are not counted within the Consultant's execution weeks. Deadlines above are therefore net of review time. One consolidation round per deliverable (review → revision → resubmission) is included in the schedule; if the Client requires a second full review iteration for a deliverable, the corresponding time shall be added through the Change Log / Change Request mechanism without penalty to the Consultant

D1. Inception Report and Detailed Work Plan

The Inception Report shall confirm the Consultant’s understanding of the assignment, proposed methodology, work plan, team organization, data collection approach, key risks and proposed structure of the final methodology. It shall also include a detailed implementation schedule showing all technical steps from data inventory to final GIS package, the software plan under the open-source policy (Section 3.8), and the Consultant's inputs to the common data protocol (Section 3.13).

D2. Data Review and Technical Assumptions Report

This deliverable shall include the review of available seismicity data, geological and geotechnical information, previous seismic hazard studies, maps, administrative boundaries and regional/EU reference sources. It shall also include the proposed definitions, parameters, quality criteria, initial assumptions and Data Register, including the proposed site-condition model approach (Section 3.5).

D3. Hazard Model, GMPE Selection and Raw Seismic Hazard Outputs

This deliverable shall define the seismic hazard model, calculation approach, treatment of uncertainties, selected GMPEs and key technical parameters. It shall include preliminary calculation outputs and the first “raw” seismic hazard results in terms of spectral acceleration, supported by calculation annexes and technical justification. It shall also include the unified seismicity catalogue and the preliminary hazard values constituting handoffs H1/H2 to ToRs 1c and 1d (Section 3.13).

D4. Draft Methodology and Preliminary Zoning Maps

This deliverable shall include the complete draft methodology, including purpose, definitions, assumptions, data, calculations, uncertainty treatment, QA/QC approach and update rules. It shall also include preliminary zoning maps, initial GIS layers and a draft table of values for first-tier administrative units, as agreed with the Client.

D5. Final Methodology, Final Maps and GIS/Data Package

This deliverable shall include the final methodology, final design spectral acceleration zoning maps for ULS and SLS, GIS layers, raster/grid files where applicable, XLSX/CSV table of values, metadata, README file, Data Register, Version Log, Comment Log and final technical annexes. The final package shall be submitted as one controlled package in editable and PDF/digital formats.

             D6. Training, Dissemination and Sustainability Package

This deliverable shall include: the training workshops and materials, the recorded online module and the training report (Section 3.10); the User Guide/Technical Manual and Knowledge Note; the Communication and Dissemination Strategy and dissemination package (Section 3.11); the Maintenance and Update Plan (Section 3.12); and the final administrative handover of the complete archive to OEAPM/PIU.

Reporting and Format of Deliverables

Language of deliverables, reporting process and final submission package

All deliverables shall be prepared in English. The final methodology report (D5, main volume), the User Guide/Technical Manual, the Knowledge Note and the non-technical summary shall additionally be provided in Romanian. For interim deliverables (D1–D4), executive summaries, key tables and map legends shall be provided in Romanian to facilitate institutional review.

Each deliverable shall be submitted in three stages, where applicable: Draft, Revised/Consolidated, and Final. Each submitted version shall include a clear document title, deliverable code, version number, date of issue, author/organization and status. The Consultant shall use a consistent file naming convention (see QAP).

The Consultant shall submit each deliverable as a complete package, not only as a narrative report. The package shall include the main report, technical annexes, editable files, maps, tables, calculation annexes, GIS/data files, metadata and QA registers, as applicable. The final submission shall also include a short README file explaining the folder structure, file content, software requirements, CRS/projection used for GIS files, and any limitations for use.

The final deliverable package shall be organized in a clear folder structure. The Consultant shall ensure that the submitted files can be opened, reviewed and reused by the Client and Beneficiary without requiring proprietary or undocumented processing steps. Any specialized software, script, model or tool used for calculations or GIS processing shall be clearly identified in the documentation.

Required formats: DOCX, PDF, XLSX/CSV, GIS files, maps, metadata, calculation annexes and editable files

The main methodology report and all narrative deliverables shall be submitted in both editable DOCX format and signed or final PDF format. The DOCX version shall remain fully editable and shall not be locked or protected. The PDF version shall correspond exactly to the submitted DOCX version. All tables of values, administrative correspondence tables, data inventories, assumptions tables, comparison tables and registers shall be submitted in XLSX format. Where data need to be reused in GIS or other technical software, the Consultant shall also provide CSV format with clear encoding, column names, units and explanation of fields.

GIS deliverables shall be submitted in reusable geospatial formats. As a minimum, the Consultant shall provide the final zoning layers in GeoPackage (GPKG) and, where requested, also in SHP and/or GeoJSON format. Raster or grid outputs, if produced, shall be submitted in a standard GIS-compatible format such as GeoTIFF or another format agreed with the Client. All GIS files shall include a clearly specified Coordinate Reference System.

Static maps shall be submitted in PDF format, suitable for inclusion in reports and official documentation. Where possible, editable map layout or project files shall also be provided. Each map shall include title, legend, scale, north arrow, coordinate/grid reference where applicable, date, version, data source and short explanatory note.

The GIS/data package shall include metadata for each dataset. Metadata shall specify at least: dataset name, purpose, source, date/version, spatial coverage, CRS/projection, attribute fields, units, processing steps, QC checks, limitations, responsible author and version. The Consultant shall also submit the Data Register, Version Log, Comment Log and, where applicable, Change Log and NC/CAPA Register.

Calculation annexes shall be submitted in editable format, such as XLSX, scripts, model files or other agreed technical formats. They shall include formulas, input parameters, units, assumptions and the worked examples defined in Section 3.5 showing how a design spectral acceleration value is obtained for a representative locality or site. Where the hazard computation is performed with the OpenQuake/R-Crisis engine or equivalent open-source tools, the input model files (source model, logic tree, configuration) shall be part of the calculation annexes, so that the Beneficiary can re-run and update the computation.

A final deliverable shall be considered complete only if the report, maps, GIS files, tables, metadata, calculation annexes and QA registers are submitted together as one controlled package.

Key Qualification Requirements

The Consultant shall propose a qualified team with proven experience in seismic design, engineering seismology and/or probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, geotechnical/engineering geology assessment, seismic hazard-related methodologies and GIS-based mapping. The proposed team shall include at least three Key Experts. Additional non-key experts may be proposed by the Consultant, if needed, to cover specific tasks such as GIS/spatial data processing, data processing, QA/QC or technical editing.

The same expert may cover more than one technical function only if the Consultant clearly demonstrates that the expert has the required qualifications and relevant experience for all assigned tasks. The Team Leader shall be responsible for the overall technical coordination, quality of deliverables, communication with the Client and timely submission of reports, maps, GIS/data files and QA records.

Key Expert 1 — Team Leader / Senior Seismic Design, Hazard Interpretation and Methodology Specialist

The Team Leader shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the assignment and for ensuring that the methodology for the zoning of design spectral acceleration is technically sound, practical and suitable for engineering use. The expert shall coordinate the inputs of the geotechnical, seismic hazard and GIS/mapping specialists and ensure consistency between the methodology, assumptions, zoning values, maps, tables and final deliverables.

Minimum requirements:

• university degree in civil engineering, structural engineering, earthquake engineering, construction engineering or a closely related field;
• at least 10 years of professional experience in structural engineering, seismic design, technical assessment of buildings/structures, seismic rehabilitation, engineering design or related consultancy services;
• demonstrated experience in preparing, reviewing or coordinating technical documentation, engineering reports, methodologies, guidelines, technical specifications or regulatory-support documents;
• participation in at least two national and/or international projects relevant to construction, engineering design, seismic safety, disaster risk reduction, public infrastructure or technical consultancy;
• good understanding of seismic design principles, design acceleration values, design spectra, seismic zoning and their practical use in engineering design;
• experience in using or interpreting seismic hazard information, seismic zoning maps, design acceleration values or seismic risk-related outputs for technical/design purposes;
• ability to coordinate multidisciplinary inputs and ensure consistency between technical reports, maps, tables, GIS/data outputs and application rules;
• ability to communicate with the Client, respond to comments and present results to public authorities or technical reviewers;
• fluency in Romanian; working knowledge of English shall be considered an advantage.
• Moldovan technical attestation in the relevant field shall be considered an advantage.

Key Expert 2 — Geotechnical / Engineering Geology Specialist

The Geotechnical / Engineering Geology Specialist shall support the development of the methodology by reviewing and interpreting geological, geotechnical, terrain and site condition information relevant to seismic hazard zoning and design spectral acceleration values, including the national-scale site-condition model defined in Section 3.5.

Minimum requirements:

• university degree in geotechnical engineering, engineering geology, geology, civil engineering or a closely related field;
• at least 7 years of professional experience in geotechnical engineering, engineering geology, seismic site classification, terrain assessment or construction-related ground investigations;
• experience in interpreting geological, geotechnical, soil, terrain or site condition data for engineering purposes;
• knowledge of the relationship between local ground conditions and seismic design parameters;
• experience with technical documentation for construction design, infrastructure, buildings or risk/hazard assessment;
• ability to contribute to the definition of assumptions, limitations and application rules related to ground conditions;
• experience with Eurocode 7 and/or Eurocode 8-related geotechnical or seismic site classification aspects shall be considered an advantage.
• Moldovan technical attestation in the relevant field shall be considered an advantage.

Key Expert 3 — Seismic Design and Application Rules Specialist (EC)

The Seismic Design and Application Rules Specialist shall be responsible for ensuring that the methodology and the resulting design spectral acceleration values are suitable for practical engineering use. The expert shall support the definition of clear application rules for designers, engineers, technical reviewers and public authorities.

The expert shall not be responsible for drafting national construction norms under this assignment. However, the expert shall ensure that the methodology is compatible with the technical logic of seismic design practice and that its outputs can be used, where appropriate, as technical input for future regulatory updates.

Minimum requirements:

• university degree in civil engineering, structural engineering, earthquake engineering or a closely related field;
• at least 7 years of professional experience in structural engineering, seismic design, seismic assessment, seismic rehabilitation or technical design documentation;
• demonstrated experience with seismic design parameters, design spectra, seismic zoning values or equivalent national seismic design provisions;
• experience in preparing, reviewing or applying technical design guidelines, technical specifications, engineering reports or regulatory-support documents;
• ability to assess whether the proposed design spectral acceleration values are clear, technically justified and usable in design practice;
• ability to define practical application rules for the use of zoning maps, tables of values and site/locality-based seismic parameters;
• experience with Moldovan, Romanian or European seismic design practice shall be considered an advantage;
• ability to coordinate with the Team Leader, Geotechnical Specialist and GIS/mapping support to ensure consistency between methodology text, maps, tables and technical annexes.
• Moldovan technical attestation in the relevant field shall be considered an advantage

Key Expert 4 — Seismologist / Seismic Hazard Specialist (PSHA-GMPE)

The Seismologist / Seismic Hazard Specialist shall bear the primary technical responsibility for the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: the unified seismicity catalogue, the seismic source model, the recurrence parameters, the selection, testing, ranking and weighting of GMPEs, the logic-tree implementation, the hazard computations, the sensitivity analyses and the validation of hazard results.

Minimum requirements:

• university degree in seismology, geophysics, earthquake engineering, engineering seismology or a closely related field; an advanced degree (Master/PhD) shall be considered an advantage;
• at least 7 years of professional experience in seismic hazard assessment, engineering seismology or earthquake engineering;
• demonstrated experience in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), including logic-tree implementation and the treatment of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties, in at least one completed national or regional seismic hazard study;
• demonstrated experience in the selection, ranking, testing or calibration of Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE);
• experience with seismicity catalogue compilation, homogenization and declustering;
• experience with recognized hazard computation software (e.g. the OpenQuake engine or equivalent);
• familiarity with the seismotectonic context of the Carpathian/Vrancea region shall be considered a significant advantage;
• working knowledge of English; knowledge of Romanian shall be considered an advantage.

Non-Key Experts / Support Experts

The Consultant may propose additional non-key experts to support the implementation of the assignment. These experts are not mandatory Key Experts, but their involvement may strengthen the proposal and improve the quality of specific outputs.

GIS / Spatial Data and Mapping Specialist may be proposed to support spatial data processing, preparation of zoning maps, GIS layers, administrative correspondence tables, metadata, map layouts and the digital delivery package. The expert should have experience with GIS formats such as GeoPackage, SHP, GeoJSON, GeoTIFF and XLSX/CSV, as well as coordinate reference systems, spatial joins, vector/raster processing and map production.

A Training and Knowledge-Transfer Specialist may be proposed to support the preparation and delivery of the training programme, the User Guide and the Knowledge Note (Sections 3.10–3.11); this function may also be covered by the Key Experts.

QA/QC and Data Management Specialist may be proposed to support internal quality control, checking consistency between reports, tables, maps and GIS files, maintaining the Version Log, Comment Log and Data Register, and preparing the final controlled handover package.

The Consultant shall clearly indicate the role, expected input and contribution of each non-key expert. Non-key experts shall not replace the responsibilities of the Key Experts, but shall provide targeted support for specific technical tasks

Client’s Inputs and Institutional Coordination

The successful implementation of the assignment depends on timely access to available project documents, institutional data, technical clarifications and comments from the Client and Beneficiary. The Consultant shall remain responsible for the technical quality of the methodology and deliverables, but the Client and Beneficiary shall support the assignment by facilitating access to relevant information and by ensuring coordination with the institutions involved in Subcomponent 3.1.

Available documents

The Client shall provide the Consultant, to the extent available and applicable, with the relevant project and technical documents necessary for the implementation of the assignment. These may include the Project Appraisal Document, the Loan Agreement or relevant extracts, the Action Plan for Subcomponent 3.1, the Quality Assurance Plan, the implementation schedule, existing technical notes, previous maps, studies, draft methodologies, available regulatory documents, applicable Moldovan Construction Norms and any other project documentation relevant to seismic design, seismic hazard assessment and seismic zoning.

The documents provided by the Client shall be used by the Consultant as reference material for defining the scope, institutional context, deliverables, dependencies and quality requirements of the assignment. The Consultant shall review these documents and identify any gaps, contradictions or dependencies that may affect the preparation of the methodology. Where documents are provided as drafts or working versions, the Consultant shall clearly indicate this status in the deliverables and shall not treat them as approved documents unless confirmed by the Client.

Coordination with MIRD and OEAPM/PIU

The assignment shall be implemented in close coordination with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Regional Development and OEAPM/PIU. OEAPM/PIU shall act as the main administrative and contractual coordination point, while MIRD shall provide technical guidance, institutional feedback and confirmation of relevance for the national construction regulatory framework.

The Client shall designate focal points for communication with the Consultant. These focal points shall coordinate the transmission of documents, comments, meeting invitations, institutional clarifications and formal decisions. The Consultant shall address official submissions, requests for clarification and delivery packages through the communication channel indicated by the Client.

The Consultant shall participate in coordination meetings with MIRD and OEAPM/PIU at key stages of the assignment, including at least: inception, data review, methodological assumptions, preliminary zoning outputs, draft methodology and final deliverable review. The Consultant shall prepare short meeting notes or presentations, when required, summarizing the issues discussed, decisions taken, responsibilities and deadlines. OEAPM/PIU shall also facilitate the joint inception workshop and the joint review gates with the consultants of ToRs 1b–1d (Section 3.13). Any paid third-party datasets required for the assignment shall be subject to prior written approval by the Client. If such data are not approved or cannot be obtained, the Consultant shall document the limitation and use technically justified public, regional or proxy alternatives.

This coordination arrangement is consistent with the REOI, where the consultant’s work is described as being coordinated with MIRD and OEAPM/PIU, including preparation of requirements, technical specifications and support for progress reporting.

Access to available data

The Client and Beneficiary shall facilitate access to available institutional data relevant to the assignment, subject to legal, confidentiality and ownership restrictions. This may include administrative boundaries, existing seismic zoning materials, construction regulatory documents, available geological or geotechnical information, existing GIS layers, previous studies, maps and other relevant datasets held by public institutions or project partners.

Where data are held by third-party institutions, the Client shall support the Consultant by issuing official letters, introducing the Consultant to the relevant institutions or facilitating technical meetings for data clarification. The Consultant shall remain responsible for assessing the quality, completeness, usability and limitations of all data received.

The Consultant shall record all received datasets in the Data Register, including source, date received, format, coverage, restrictions, processing steps and limitations. If requested data are unavailable, incomplete or cannot be shared, the Consultant shall document this in the relevant deliverable and propose technically justified alternatives, such as use of public sources, regional datasets or assumptions validated with the Client.

Comments on deliverables

The Client, MIRD, OEAPM/PIU, the World Bank and other designated reviewers may provide comments on draft and revised deliverables. Comments shall be transmitted in writing, preferably in a consolidated form, within the review period agreed in the work plan. For planning purposes, the ToR may assume 10 working days for review of short deliverables and 15 working days for review of major technical deliverables, unless otherwise agreed; these periods are subject to the clock-stop rule in Section 5.

The Consultant shall respond to all comments through a Comment Log. The Comment Log shall include comment ID, source, reference to document section/page, comment text, Consultant’s response, action taken, status and version where the change was implemented. Comments classified as major shall be closed before the deliverable is submitted as final, unless the Client explicitly agrees otherwise.

If comments require changes to the methodology, assumptions, datasets, zoning rules, deadlines or scope of services, the issue shall be discussed with the Client and recorded as a Change Request, where applicable.

Technical meetings and consultations

The Client shall support the organization of technical meetings and consultations, as needed, with relevant institutions, technical experts and stakeholders. These may include inception meetings, data clarification meetings, methodological review sessions, GIS/data review sessions, technical validation meetings and final presentation of results.

As a minimum, the assignment should include the following coordination events: one inception meeting (combined, where practical, with the joint inception workshop under Section 3.13), one data and assumptions review meeting, one meeting on preliminary hazard/zoning outputs, one review meeting on the draft methodology and one final presentation or validation meeting, in addition to the training workshops under Section 3.10. Additional meetings may be organized by mutual agreement and shall remain proportionate to the scope of the assignment.

The Consultant shall prepare materials for these meetings, including presentations, technical notes, draft maps or summary tables, as appropriate. After each meeting, the Consultant shall record the main conclusions, decisions, actions, responsible parties and deadlines. These records shall be used to support the traceability of decisions and revisions made during the assignment.

Final acceptance of deliverables shall remain subject to written confirmation by the Client / Beneficiary, indicating the accepted version and date. Submission of a deliverable alone shall not be considered acceptance.