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 for the Elaboration of the Interactive Map on Seismic Risk in the Republic of Moldova

Reference No. (as per Procurement Plan): MD-OEAPM-578962-CS-QCBS

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 Development of the Methodology for the Elaboration of the Interactive Map on Seismic Risk in 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 are:

• At least 5 years of experience in developing a technically sound seismic risk methodology, data architecture, indicators, GIS-ready outputs and functional specification for the interactive map.

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 shortlist will contain five (5) to eight (8) firms.

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 Quality and Cost-based Selection method described in the Procurement Regulations and to be specifically set out in the Request for Proposals.

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, December 2, 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 for the Elaboration of the Interactive Map on Seismic Risk in the Republic of Moldova

1. 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 national 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 - which includes technical assistance for the development of methodologies, regulatory documents, data systems and supporting tools aimed at reducing seismic risk in the Republic of Moldova. Within this framework, the methodology for the elaboration of the Interactive Map on Seismic Risk is required as a core technical product linking seismic hazard, exposure and vulnerability information into a coherent and usable risk assessment framework.

The Republic of Moldova is exposed to significant seismic hazard, primarily generated by the Vrancea intermediate-depth seismic source (Romania), which has historically affected the entire territory of the country. The 1940 (M 7.4) and 1977 (M 7.2) earthquakes underlined the vulnerability of the existing building stock and the importance of integrated risk assessment for prioritization of public investment, retrofit planning and emergency preparedness. In this context, an interactive seismic risk map — built on an explicit and reproducible methodology — is a foundational instrument for evidence-based seismic risk management.

1.1. Conceptual scope of the interactive seismic risk map

Object of the risk assessment. This Terms of Reference addresses the seismic risk of buildings. The primary risk objects of the methodology and of the interactive map are buildings — residential, public and other categories agreed with the Client — consistent with the PAD, with the RVS methodology under GD 334/2025 (Activity 1b) and with the retrofit feasibility studies under Activity 1d. Critical facilities and infrastructure may be represented as contextual/ancillary layers for interpretation and prioritization (e.g. location of hospitals, schools, emergency services), but the full seismic risk modelling of infrastructure networks (utilities, transport, lifelines) is outside the scope of this assignment, because it requires component-specific fragility models and network data that are not available in the Republic of Moldova and are not covered by the Subcomponent 3.1 data chain

The interactive seismic risk map is not, by design, a mere visualization product. It is the visible output of a structured technical process that must define: the data architecture, the calculation logic, the risk indicators and their thresholds, the treatment of uncertainties, the scenarios to be assessed, and the rules for presenting results in a transparent, auditable and reproducible manner. The map shall enable public authorities, technical experts and decision makers to identify where seismic risk is concentrated, which factors drive that risk, and how alternative assumptions or scenarios affect the outcome.

The assignment is closely coupled with the other outputs of Subcomponent 3.1, in particular: (i) the methodology for seismic hazard zoning developed under Activity 1a, which provides the hazard input layer; (ii) the Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) methodology operationalized through Activity 1b, which provides the building-level exposure and vulnerability data; (iii) the future regulatory NCM package harmonized with Eurocode 8; and (iv) the seismic risk reduction recommendations to be developed under subsequent project activities. The methodology for the interactive risk map shall therefore be designed to be coherent with hazard, exposure and fragility/vulnerability datasets, compatible with GIS-based workflows, and suitable for integration into institutional planning and regulatory-support activities, applying the Common Data Standard and the coordination mechanism defined in Section 3.12.

1.2. Boundaries of this assignment

Methodology — not software development. This assignment is preparatory and methodological in nature. It explicitly covers the development of the seismic risk methodology for buildings, the data architecture, the calculation model, indicators and thresholds, the functional specification for the interactive map, and (where feasible within available data) a methodological pilot or demonstrator. It does not include full-scale software/web-GIS development, deployment of a production IT platform, code production, hosting infrastructure, large-scale data acquisition, or final population of the interactive map with the complete national dataset, all of which are foreseen as subsequent activities to be procured under separate contracts.

Accordingly, the critical quality risk under this assignment is not the coding of an interactive web-GIS application, but the correct translation of seismic risk principles, hazard-exposure-fragility/vulnerability integration logic, indicator structure, threshold classification and GIS data architecture into a complete, internally coherent and procurement-ready specification. Where a pilot or demonstrator is included, it shall serve only to test and validate the methodology — not to substitute the future production interactive map system.

In line with the principle of fit-for-purpose expertise, the Key Experts required under this Terms of Reference shall be focused on seismic risk methodology, exposure and fragility/vulnerability modelling, structural and earthquake engineering, and GIS / spatial-data architecture. Given the role of the pilot/demonstrator and of the functional specification, an IT / Web-GIS specialist shall additionally be included in the team as a mandatory non-key expert (Section 7.4), assessed on a responsive basis;IT or web-GIS development input may be mobilized as non-key or short-term support, including through subcontracting or through qualified members of the Consultant's technical team with proven experience in interactive mapping or web-GIS configuration.

This Terms of Reference also includes, as a secondary and framework-level output built on the seismic risk map results, a buildings-focused seismic resilience strategic framework (Section 3.13). This framework is deliberately limited to the building sector and to the strategic (policy and prioritization) level; it is not a full standalone National Seismic Risk Reduction Strategy. The broader themes of institutional arrangements, emergency response, reconstruction planning, financing mechanisms and public communication are identified as follow-on activities rather than developed under this assignment.

1.3. Justification and need

The Republic of Moldova currently lacks an integrated, methodologically harmonized and publicly accessible seismic risk mapping framework. Existing seismic hazard maps, building data and disaster risk information are fragmented across institutional sources, are not structured around a common data architecture, and are not yet integrated into a transparent risk-calculation framework usable for policy, investment and emergency preparedness decisions. A robust, traceable and reproducible methodology for the elaboration of an Interactive Seismic Risk Map is therefore a precondition for:

• the integration of the seismic hazard zoning developed under Activity 1a with the exposure and vulnerability data collected through the RVS process under Activity 1b;
• the prioritization of public buildings and critical infrastructure for detailed seismic assessment, retrofit feasibility studies and public-investment decisions;
• the alignment of national practice with recognized international risk-mapping frameworks (GEM, UNDRR, JRC, INFORM Risk, Risk Data Library and equivalent);
• evidence-based decision making for seismic risk reduction at central, regional and local government levels;
• transparent, auditable communication of risk to non-specialist audiences while preserving scientific rigour;
• the preparation of a defensible, technology-neutral procurement of any future interactive map development service, in line with World Bank Procurement Regulations.

1.4. Legal and regulatory framework

The services to be carried out under this Terms of Reference shall comply with, but not be limited to, the following legal and regulatory references:

• Code of Urbanism and Construction No. 434/2023 (Codul Urbanismului și Construcțiilor) and subsequent implementing acts;
• Government Decision No. 334 of 05.06.2025 on the Regulation for Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) of existing buildings;
• NCM A.07.02 — Quality assurance in design and execution of constructions;
• EN 1998-1:2004 + A1:2013 — Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance — Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings;
• EN 1998-3:2005 — Eurocode 8 — Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings;
• ISO 19115 — Geographic information — Metadata; INSPIRE Directive principles for spatial-data interoperability;
• OGC standards for web-GIS services (WMS, WFS, WMTS) — to be referenced where relevant for the functional specification;
• Law No. 133/2011 on the protection of personal data, with subsequent amendments;
• Law No. 271/1994 on civil protection, and the institutional framework for emergency management in the Republic of Moldova;
• Reference international frameworks: GEM (Global Earthquake Model) risk methodology, UNDRR/UNISDR risk terminology, JRC INFORM Risk Index, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030;
• Recent Romanian national methodology for the development of seismic risk maps and related Ro-Risk outputs (reference regional practice for Vrancea-type intermediate-depth seismicity);
• World Bank Procurement Regulations for IPF Borrowers (current edition);
• World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) — relevant Environmental and Social Standards;
• Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) of Subcomponent 3.1 — current approved version.

2. Objective of the Assignment

The general objective of the assignment is to develop a complete and technically justified methodology for the elaboration of the Interactive Map on Seismic Risk of buildings for the Republic of Moldova, including the conceptual model, data architecture, calculation approach, indicators, threshold intervals, GIS/data requirements and functional specification necessary for practical implementation.

The assignment shall establish how seismic risk is calculated, documented and communicated by combining the three fundamental components of seismic risk: hazard, exposure and fragility/vulnerability. The Consultant shall define the required input data, minimum attributes, spatial units, assumptions, formulas, risk scenarios, uncertainty treatment, classification logic and outputs to be used for the interactive map.

The specific objective is to produce a methodology that can be used by MIRD, OEAPM/PIU, technical reviewers, consultants, public authorities and other designated users as a reliable reference for seismic risk mapping, prioritization and decision support. The methodology shall not be limited to a narrative description; it shall provide practical rules, tables, matrices, data templates and calculation logic that allow the results to be verified and reproduced.

The assignment shall also produce the functional specification for the Interactive Seismic Risk Map. This specification shall describe required layers, filters, tools, comparison of results and scenarios, import/export functions, reporting functions, access modes, performance expectations, scalability, security, auditability and update mechanisms. This shall be prepared as a technical bridge between the seismic risk methodology and any future or parallel IT/web-GIS implementation.

In addition, and building on the outputs above, the assignment shall produce a concise, buildings-focused seismic resilience strategic framework (Section 3.13). Drawing on the seismic risk map methodology and its results, this framework shall set out protection objectives and target safety/performance levels for the retrofitting of existing buildings and for the design of new construction, the use of risk information for building-code (NCM/EC8) implementation, retrofit prioritization for public and critical-use buildings, broader building-stock risk-reduction goals, and a strategic (portfolio-level) cost-benefit perspective to support investment prioritization. Consistent with the PAD (recommendations for integrated interventions), this remains a framework-level output and does not constitute a full standalone national strategy.

The assignment is primarily a seismic risk methodology, data architecture and GIS specification assignment. It is not intended to be a complex software development contract. Any IT/web-GIS support required for functional specification, configuration of a simple demonstrator, or preparation of handover materials shall be provided through the mandatory non-key IT/Web-GIS expert (Section 7.4) and, if needed, additional non-key support, while the core responsibility remains with seismic risk, exposure/vulnerability and GIS/data experts.

The final product shall include the written methodology, calculation model description, data architecture, risk indicators and thresholds, technical workshop records, functional map specification, GIS-ready data structures, metadata templates, QA/QC registers and, where feasible within available data, a pilot or demonstrator map package in study areas decided by the Client (pilot area: municipality of Chisinau). All deliverables shall be traceable, internally consistent and coherent with the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) applicable to Subcomponent 3.1.

2.1. Intended use of outputs and end users

The methodology and the interactive map specification shall be designed for the following minimum categories of end users and decision use cases, which shall be explicitly addressed in the indicator framework (Section 3.6), the functional specification (Section 3.7) and the pilot use cases (Section 3.8):

• MIRD and central public authorities — prioritization of public buildings for detailed seismic assessment and retrofit investment (link to Activity 1d), regulatory support and national reporting;
• municipalities and local public authorities — identification of high-risk building concentrations, local prioritization and planning;
• emergency management institutions (IGSU and the civil-protection framework under Law 271/1994) — scenario-based preparedness and response planning inputs;
• public-investment planning entities and development partners — evidence base for programming and financing of risk-reduction interventions;
• technical community and public — transparent, appropriately aggregated risk communication.

To support prioritization of public assets, the indicator framework shall include a criticality-adjusted risk perspective (weighting or flagging of public and critical-use buildings such as schools, hospitals, emergency facilities) and a social-vulnerability perspective as defined in Sections 3.5 and 3.6

3. Scope of Services

The Consultant shall provide all services necessary for the preparation of the Methodology for the elaboration of the Interactive Map on Seismic Risk and the associated technical specifications. The services shall cover review of the relevant framework, identification and structuring of data, formalization of seismic risk calculation models, definition of indicators and threshold intervals, preparation of functional requirements for the interactive map, consultations with stakeholders, piloting/validation of the methodology and preparation of the final handover package, including the implementation roadmap and cross-ToR coordination defined in Sections 3.11 and 3.12.

The Consultant shall ensure that all activities are carried out in a transparent, traceable and verifiable manner. Data sources, limitations, assumptions, formulas, processing steps, scenarios, model choices and map outputs shall be documented with sufficient clarity to allow technical review and future updating. The Consultant shall avoid treating data or calculations as a black box; each stage from data source to risk output shall be explainable.

The following subsections describe the minimum required scope. The Consultant may propose additional tasks or refinements if they strengthen the quality, usability and sustainability of the methodology, provided that they remain consistent with the objective, budget and project calendar.

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

The Consultant shall review the legal, policy, technical and institutional framework relevant to seismic risk assessment, risk mapping, disaster risk reduction, construction regulation, public infrastructure planning, GIS/data governance and public access to risk information in the Republic of Moldova.

The Consultant shall review and comply with the applicable requirements of the Project's Environmental and Social Commitment Plan (ESCP), Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), Labor Management Procedures (LMP), Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), and Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM), as relevant to the scope of the assignment. All personnel engaged under the assignment shall comply with the Project Code of Conduct, including provisions on the prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment (SEA/SH).The review shall cover, as applicable, national legislation and strategies related to disaster risk management and construction, Moldovan Construction Norms (NCM), relevant Eurocode 8 principles, documents developed under Subcomponent 3.1, available procedures for technical regulation and approval, and institutional responsibilities related to data ownership, update, publication and use.

The Consultant shall prepare a Legal, Policy and Technical Framework Review Table with at least the following columns: document/code, title, year/version, issuing authority, relevance for seismic risk mapping, provisions to be considered, gaps/limitations and implication for the methodology. The review shall identify requirements and constraints that may influence the risk model, data architecture, map publication, access rights, update process and institutional use.

The Consultant shall provide a short gap analysis explaining what is missing or insufficiently defined in the current framework regarding seismic risk mapping, exposure/vulnerability data, risk indicators, thresholds, use of GIS data and interactive communication of results. The analysis shall explain how the methodology will support evidence-based decision making while remaining compatible with the national construction and disaster risk management framework.

3.2. Review of seismic risk methodology, models and relevant international practice

The Consultant shall review recognized international and regional methodologies for seismic risk assessment and seismic risk mapping. The review shall include, as relevant, approaches used by GEM, UNDRR, JRC, European and regional initiatives, the recent Romanian national methodology for the development of seismic risk maps (including the Ro-Risk experience for Vrancea intermediate-depth seismicity), and other scientifically recognized models or guidance documents relevant to the Republic of Moldova.

The review shall focus on the conceptual and mathematical structure of seismic risk assessment, including the relationship between hazard, exposure and vulnerability, the use of scenario-based and probabilistic approaches, loss/damage indicators, uncertainty treatment, aggregation levels, classification of risk levels and communication of risk results through maps and dashboards.

The Consultant shall prepare a Methodology and Good Practice Inventory indicating at least: source/model, author/institution, year/version, risk components covered, calculation concept, required data, outputs/indicators, applicability for Moldova, limitations and proposed use in the methodology. The Consultant shall not automatically adopt an external model; the selected approach shall be adapted and justified for the Moldovan context. For clarity, this Inventory is a supporting analysis within this assignment: it shall be prepared as a concise working annex of Deliverable D2 and integrated into the draft methodology; it is not a separate contractual deliverable.

The review shall explicitly identify which parts of the international practice are suitable for direct use, which require adaptation, and which are not appropriate due to data limitations, scale, building typologies, institutional context or intended use of the interactive map.

3.3. Data inventory and data architecture for hazard, exposure, vulnerability and ancillary data

The Consultant shall define the complete data architecture required for the Interactive Seismic Risk Map. This shall include, at minimum, hazard data, exposure data, vulnerability data and ancillary data such as administrative boundaries, building typologies, population/use information, critical facilities, infrastructure layers, basemaps and other contextual datasets relevant for interpretation.

Building typologies shall be defined as in the Rapid Visual Screening methodology under GD 334/2025 and the RVS data model developed under Activity 1b, which constitute the controlled national typology vocabulary; the mapping of this vocabulary to international schemes (EMS-98 vulnerability classes, GEM building taxonomy) shall be documented so that international fragility evidence can be applied consistently.

Hazard input shall be consumed at the finest administrative-unit level for which the Activity 1a outputs are produced — the first-tier administrative units (commune/town/municipality) — so that risk results are directly comparable across all administrative units of the country; the underlying hazard grid may be used for verification.

For each risk component, the Consultant shall define the minimum required datasets, spatial unit, scale/resolution, mandatory fields, data type, units, source/owner, update frequency, access conditions, quality level, limitations and relation to the calculation model. The methodology shall clearly distinguish between mandatory data for calculation, optional data for improved interpretation, and data that can be added in future updates.

The Consultant shall define explicitly how gaps in building data are identified and filled, including: a documented hierarchy of sources (RVS screening data as they become available > cadastral and administrative records > statistical/census data > documented inference/proxy rules based on typology, construction period and settlement pattern); the inference rules themselves, with their limitations; a data quality/confidence flag attached to every exposure record or aggregate; and a phased data-improvement path linked to the RVS roll-out. The methodology shall state transparently that complete national building-level exposure will exist only as the RVS screening under Activity 1b progresses, and shall therefore be fully operational with aggregated and proxy exposure data in the interim.

The Consultant shall prepare a Data Inventory and Data Architecture Report. The report shall include a data catalogue, entity-relationship or equivalent data structure diagrams, attribute templates, coding rules, unique identifiers, links between hazard, exposure and vulnerability tables/layers, and rules for handling missing, uncertain or incomplete data.

The Consultant shall ensure that the data architecture is compatible with outputs from the seismic hazard methodology, RVS data collection, GIS processing and future interactive map use.   The data architecture shall comply with the Common Data Standard of Subcomponent 3.1 (Section 3.12) — coordinate reference system, CUATM-based unique identifiers, RVS typology vocabulary, open file formats and metadata per ISO 19115 — and shall follow an open-data, open-format approach: reusable open formats and open-source-compatible structures shall be the default, and any proprietary software, platform or data structure proposed at any stage shall be technically justified and accompanied by an upfront assessment of licence and lifecycle costs for the Beneficiary. Particular attention shall be given to how building-level or locality-level RVS data can be aggregated, anonymized where needed, verified and connected to risk calculation and visualization workflows.

All datasets used or produced shall be recorded in a Data Register. The Data Register shall include at least: dataset name, source/owner, 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.

3.4. Development of seismic risk calculation model and scenarios

The Consultant shall develop the methodological framework for calculating seismic risk for the purposes of the interactive map. The methodology shall explain the complete technical chain from input data to risk output: hazard input, exposed elements, fragility/vulnerability functions or vulnerability classes, scenario definition, calculation logic, uncertainty treatment, classification rules, aggregation and map presentation.

The Consultant shall define the mathematical formulation of the seismic risk model. As a minimum, the methodology shall explain how hazard, exposure and vulnerability are combined; what units and spatial levels are used; what assumptions are made; how results are aggregated; and what results can and cannot be interpreted from the model. The risk model shall be written in a way that allows independent technical review and reproduction.

The Consultant shall define the scenarios to be included in the methodology. These may include, depending on data availability and Client agreement, selected earthquake scenarios, return periods/probability levels, hazard intensity levels, building typology scenarios, occupancy or use scenarios, and alternative vulnerability assumptions. The methodology shall clearly indicate whether each scenario is intended for planning, prioritization, awareness, preliminary screening or detailed technical decision making.

Minimum mandatory risk output metrics. The methodology shall be capable of generating, and shall define the complete calculation procedure for, the following minimum set of risk metrics, aligned with GEM and EU practice: (i) expected damage distributions by building class and administrative unit for at least the 475-year and 2,475-year return-period hazard levels (consistent with the Activity 1a outputs); (ii) population exposed by damage class (human exposure indicators); (iii) Average Annual Loss (AAL), economic and human; and (iv) loss exceedance curves. Metrics (i)–(ii) shall be produced in the pilot and shall be producible nationally with the interim exposure data under Section 3.3. Metrics (iii)–(iv) shall be fully defined, implemented in the calculation procedure and demonstrated in the pilot at aggregated level using documented proxy replacement-cost and occupancy values; their national production at building-class resolution is data-dependent and shall be explicitly linked, in the update mechanism, to the availability of RVS exposure data (Activity 1b) and of validated national cost data.

The Consultant shall document all formulas, algorithms, calculation steps, input parameters, units and processing logic. The methodology shall include at least one complete worked example, showing how input data for a representative territorial unit, building class or pilot area is transformed into risk indicators and map outputs.

The Consultant shall describe how uncertainty is treated, including uncertainty in hazard values, building exposure, vulnerability classification, missing data, aggregation rules and scenario assumptions. Where quantitative uncertainty treatment is not feasible due to data limitations, the Consultant shall provide a transparent qualitative or semi-quantitative uncertainty classification and explain its implications.

3.5. Exposure and vulnerability modelling rules

The Consultant shall define exposure and vulnerability modelling rules suitable for the data conditions and building stock of the Republic of Moldova. The methodology shall specify how exposed elements are identified, classified and represented in the risk model, including buildings, public facilities and, as contextual layers only, critical infrastructureor other assets agreed with the Client.

The exposure model shall define minimum attributes required for calculation and visualization,as in the Rapid Visual Screening methodology and the RVS data model (Activity 1b), such as location, building or asset type, use/function, construction material or structural typology where available, number of storeys, approximate construction period, occupancy or importance category, administrative unit and data quality flag. The Consultant shall define how missing values are treated and how alternative data sources may be used to fill or validate exposure information, per the data-gap strategy in Section 3.3.

The fragility/vulnerability model shall define how buildings or asset classes are assigned to vulnerability categories, vulnerability functions or scoring classes. The methodology shall explain the relationship with RVS outputs and shall clarify how field data collected through RVS can be transformed into vulnerability inputs for risk calculation. The methodology shall use lognormal fragility functions as the default representation for building typologies. For each typology of the national RVS vocabulary, the Consultant shall propose or adapt typology-specific parameters, including median intensity and logarithmic standard deviation, based on regional evidence, Romanian/Ro-Risk experience where accessible, GEM fragility data and EMS-98-consistent studies. The sources, applicability, assumptions, limitations and need for future calibration with Moldovan RVS/damage data shall be documented. This produces comparable results across all administrative units and allows consistent aggregation of risk results at raion and national level. The typology-specific parameters shall be derived and justified from regional evidence relevant to Vrancea intermediate-depth seismicity (including the Romanian enforced fragility sets and Ro-Risk experience), the GEM fragility database and EMS-98-consistent studies, with sources, applicability, units and limitations documented for each typology.

In addition to physical vulnerability, the methodology shall define a social-vulnerability module as a derived indicator layer, using available census and statistical data of the National Bureau of Statistics at administrative-unit level (e.g. age structure of the population, household composition, dwelling occupancy) and, where available, indicators of access to emergency response. The module shall operate exclusively on aggregated, non-personal data in line with Law 133/2011, shall carry data quality/confidence flags, and shall be presented as a complementary prioritization perspective, not as a modifier of the physical risk calculation. Where income or tenure data are not available at usable resolution — which is currently the case in the Republic of Moldova — documented census proxies shall be used and the limitation stated.

The social-vulnerability module shall consider, subject to data availability, the specific needs of vulnerable population groups, including older persons, persons with disabilities, children and other groups that may face additional barriers during seismic emergencies. The methodology shall explain how these considerations can inform risk communication, emergency preparedness and prioritization of public buildings, while ensuring the use of aggregated, non-personal data and avoiding discriminatory classifications.

The Consultant shall define aggregation and generalization rules so that building-level information can be used at territorial levels appropriate for public map display, planning and prioritization. The methodology shall clearly distinguish between preliminary screening results and outputs that may require detailed engineering assessment before use in investment decisions.

3.6. Definition of risk indicators, derived indicators and threshold intervals

The Consultant shall define the risk indicators to be presented in the methodology and, where applicable, in the interactive map. The indicators shall be technically meaningful, understandable for users and compatible with the available data and calculation model.

As a minimum, the Consultant shall propose a structured set of indicators covering hazard-related inputs, exposure indicators, fragility/vulnerability indicators and combined risk indicators. The methodology may also include derived indicators such as relative risk index, expected damage class, priority class, potential affected assets, criticality-adjusted risk, data quality/confidence class, and scenario comparison indicators, subject to Client agreement and data availability. The criticality-adjusted risk indicator (weighting/flagging of public and critical-use buildings) and the social-vulnerability indicator (Section 3.5) shall be part of the minimum indicator set, in support of public-asset prioritization.

For each indicator, the Consultant shall provide a definition, formula or calculation rule, input data required, unit of measurement, spatial aggregation level, classification method, interpretation, limitations and intended use. Indicators shall not be defined only as labels; their technical meaning and calculation logic shall be explicit.

The Consultant shall define threshold intervals or classification levels for risk communication and prioritization. Thresholds shall be justified technically, using available data, expert judgement, international practice and consultation feedback. The methodology shall explain how thresholds may be updated when more data become available or when the Beneficiary decides to recalibrate priorities.

The final methodology shall include an Indicator and Threshold Matrix. The matrix shall contain at least: indicator name, type of indicator, formula or derivation rule, required data fields, unit, classification intervals, color/legend recommendation for map use, interpretation, limitations and QA/QC checks.

3.7. Functional specification for the Interactive Seismic Risk Map

The Consultant shall prepare the functional specification for the Interactive Seismic Risk Map. This specification shall translate the seismic risk methodology into clear requirements for a GIS/web-GIS map or equivalent interactive platform. It shall be suitable for use by the Beneficiary, GIS specialists, an IT provider or a technical implementation team.

The functional requirements shall include, at minimum: map layers, layer groups, symbology rules, legends, filters, search tools, selection tools, scenario selection, comparison of results and scenarios, display of risk indicators, data quality/confidence information, pop-up attributes, export/import tools, report generation, map printing and user guidance and additionally: (i) selectable seismic scenarios and return-period levels, with an architecture extensible to future multi-hazard layers without redesign; (ii) filtering and display down to the lowest administrative unit (commune/town/municipality); (iii) downloadable GIS outputs (GeoPackage/GeoJSON) and tabular exports (CSV/XLSX) for authorized tiers; (iv) building-level query capability for authorized institutional users, with the public tier limited to aggregated results in line with Law 133/2011; (v) public and restricted access tiers with role-based rights; (vi) a bilingual Romanian/English user interface; (vii) responsive display usable on mobile devices; and (viii) a defined data-update mechanism (who updates, how versions are published, how the methodology version is displayed).

The non-functional requirements shall include, at minimum: expected performance, scalability, user access modes, role-based access if needed, security considerations, audit trail, logging, versioning, data update process, backup and recovery considerations, compatibility with commonly used GIS formats, browser/device expectations and minimum documentation requirements.

The Consultant shall clearly distinguish between the methodological and GIS/data requirements that must be met before the map can be accepted, and optional future functionalities that may be implemented later. The specification shall avoid over-engineering; it shall prioritize functions required for understanding and verifying seismic risk results.

No Key Expert for software development is required under this assignment; however, the IT / Web-GIS Functional Specification and Demonstrator Specialist defined in Section 7.4 is a mandatory non-key position, required in the team composition and assessed on a responsive basis. The functional specification shall be prepared by the seismic risk, GIS/data and methodology experts together with this specialist, because the core task is to define what the map must show, how the data are structured and how the results are interpreted, not to develop a complex custom application.

If the required datasets for the proposed pilot area are not available in time, the Consultant shall use an alternative pilot sample or synthetic/proxy dataset agreed with the Client, clearly marked as a methodology demonstrator and not as an official populated risk map.

3.8. Methodology piloting, validation and use-case testing

The Consultant shall pilot the methodology to the extent possible using available or sample datasets agreed with the Client. The pilot shall demonstrate whether the proposed data architecture, calculation logic, indicators, thresholds and map presentation rules are technically coherent and practically usable.

The proposed default pilot area is the municipality of Chișinău (in whole or as 2–3 representative sectors, depending on data availability), complemented by one rural raion sample for contrast between urban and rural building stock. The pilot shall use the exposure data actually available at the time (RVS sample data if any, cadastral/statistical data, documented proxies per Section 3.3) and the Activity 1a hazard outputs as available; it shall demonstrate the minimum mandatory risk metrics of Section 3.4, including AAL and loss exceedance at aggregated level with documented proxy values.

The pilot may be implemented as a GIS-based demonstrator, a limited web-GIS configuration, a set of static and interactive map outputs, or another practical format agreed with the Client. The purpose is to test the methodology and specification, not to replace a full-scale production IT system if such a system is procured separately.

The pilot shall include at least one representative use case showing how a user can move from data layers to risk indicators, interpret the results, compare scenarios or thresholds, and export or document findings. The Consultant shall record issues found during piloting and propose corrections to the methodology or functional specification. The pilot shall test at least one use case for each end-user category defined in Section 2.1 (central authority prioritization; municipal planning; emergency management scenario view; investment programming).

The Consultant shall prepare a Pilot and Validation Note documenting the pilot area or sample dataset, assumptions, data limitations, calculation steps, map outputs, user feedback, identified issues, corrections made and remaining limitations. The note shall include a clear statement of what can be generalized nationally and what remains dependent on future data collection, especially RVS data.

3.9. Technical workshops, consultations and revision based on comments

Stakeholder workshops on indicators, thresholds and use cases shall be held only after the seismic risk calculation model and scenario framework (Deliverable D2) have been technically stabilized, so that consultation addresses a mature model rather than open technical assumptions; the final validation consultation shall follow the draft methodology (Deliverable D4). The deliverables schedule in Section 5 reflects this sequencing.

The Consultant shall work in close coordination with MIRD and OEAPM/PIU throughout the assignment. The Consultant shall participate in technical meetings, present interim findings, discuss data requirements and assumptions, and obtain feedback on the risk model, indicators, thresholds, data architecture and functional specification.

The Consultant shall organize or support interdisciplinary technical workshops during the methodology development stage. The workshops shall involve, as agreed by the Client, representatives of MIRD, OEAPM/PIU, technical experts, potential users of the interactive map, data owners and other stakeholders relevant to seismic risk management.

Stakeholder engagement activities shall be conducted in accordance with the Project Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), ensuring inclusive and meaningful participation of relevant institutions, technical experts, local authorities and representatives of potentially vulnerable groups, where appropriate. The Consultant shall document relevant feedback and recommendations and explain how these have been considered in the methodology. Participants shall be informed about the available Project Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) channels for submitting feedback or complaints related to the assignment.

At minimum, workshop discussions shall cover: data availability and ownership; hazard, exposure and vulnerability integration; risk model options; scenario selection; indicator interpretation; threshold classification; map layers and user functions; data limitations; and institutional responsibilities for future update and use.

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.

3.10. Final methodology, interactive map package and handover documentation

The Consultant shall prepare the final Methodology for the elaboration of the Interactive Map on Seismic Risk as a complete technical document, supported by annexes, tables, matrices, calculation examples, GIS/data templates, metadata and QA/QC evidence.

The final methodology shall include, at minimum: purpose and scope; conceptual risk framework; definitions and terminology; data architecture; data quality requirements; seismic risk calculation model; scenario framework; exposure/vulnerability rules; risk indicators and thresholds; uncertainty and limitations; map presentation rules; functional and non-functional requirements; pilot/validation findings; update mechanism; and implementation recommendations, including the data management and update framework of Section 3.11 (update frequency, institutional responsibility, required skills and indicative budget).

The final package shall additionally include a draft Terms of Reference (outline level, procurement-ready structure) for the next phase — the production of the national seismic risk map and of the production interactive platform using the agreed methodology — covering scope, inputs, dependencies on RVS data availability, deliverables, indicative timeline and expert profile.

The final handover package shall include the methodology report, annexes, Data Register, Indicator and Threshold Matrix, Traceability Matrix, Functional Specification, Pilot/Validation Note, GIS-ready templates or layers where applicable, metadata files, README file, Version Log, Comment Log, Change Log/Change Request records if any, NC/CAPA register if any, and internal QA/QC checklist, together with the draft next-phase ToR and the implementation roadmap (Section 3.11).

The risk model and the functional map specification shall be embedded as components of the methodology and supporting annexes. They shall not be treated as separate standalone contractual deliverables unless the Client formally requests such separation through a change request. This structure reflects the project planning in which the risk model and functional map specification are integrated into the methodology and interactive map deliverables.

3.11. Implementation roadmap, data management and sustainability

The Consultant shall prepare an Implementation Roadmap describing what is needed to operationalize and maintain the interactive seismic risk map after this assignment. The roadmap shall cover, at minimum:

• hosting options for the future platform, with indicative cost and responsibility implications, on the pattern of the Subcomponent 3.1 data-governance approach (government cloud / e-Government infrastructure vs. dedicated institutional infrastructure), without prescribing the final institutional choice;
• data management and update framework: update frequency per data component (hazard, exposure/RVS, ancillary), versioning and publication workflow, and the link between RVS data inflow and map refresh;
• institutional responsibilities and required skills: proposed operator, technical custodian of the methodology and data, review/approval roles, and the competence profile needed to run updates;
• indicative operating costs (order of magnitude) for hosting, maintenance and periodic updates, to inform institutional budgeting;
• the legal/normative basis required for the official status, publication and continued operation of the risk map.

3.12. Cross-ToR coordination, Common Data Standard and procurement packaging

The Consultant shall participate in the cross-ToR coordination mechanism of Subcomponent 3.1: (i) a joint inception workshop with the consultants of ToRs 1a, 1b and 1d (as mobilized), organized by OEAPM/PIU; (ii) the adoption, within the first 8 weeks, of a common data protocol implementing the Common Data Standard below; and (iii) joint review gates at Deliverables D2 and D4, to which the consultants of ToRs 1a and 1b shall be invited as reviewers of interoperability aspects.

Common Data Standard (defaults, shared with ToRs 1a and 1b): coordinate reference system MOLDREF99 (EPSG:4026) for national datasets, with WGS 84 copies for exchange and web use; CUATM-based administrative coding and stable unique building identifiers; building typologies per the GD 334/2025 RVS vocabulary with documented mapping to EMS-98/GEM taxonomy; hazard intensity measures and return periods per the revised ToR 1a (Sa, ag, control periods; 475 and 2,475 years plus the 40 years SLS level); file formats GeoPackage/GeoJSON for spatial data, GeoTIFF for rasters, CSV/XLSX for tables; metadata per ISO 19115; and a data-privacy line under Law No. 133/2011, with the public tier of any published output limited to aggregated, non-personal results. Indicative dependencies and handoffs (inputs/outputs, non-blocking):

3.13. Buildings-focused seismic resilience strategic framework

On the basis of the seismic risk map methodology and its outputs (risk indicators, priority classes, criticality-adjusted risk and pilot results), the Consultant shall prepare a concise, buildings-focused seismic resilience strategic framework. This is a framework-level document that translates the risk results into strategic direction for the building sector; it is not a full standalone National Seismic Risk Reduction Strategy.

The strategic framework shall cover, at minimum:

• protection objectives and target levels of safety and performance for (i) the seismic retrofitting of existing buildings and (ii) the design of new construction;
• the use of risk information for the implementation and enforcement of the building-code framework (NCM harmonized with Eurocode 8);
• retrofit prioritization logic for public and critical-use buildings (schools, hospitals, emergency and government buildings), drawing on the criticality-adjusted risk perspective (Sections 2.1 and 3.6);
• broader building-stock seismic risk-reduction goals and a phased pathway for improving the resilience of the building stock over time;
• a strategic, portfolio-level cost-benefit perspective to support investment prioritization and future financing decisions, drawing on the minimum mandatory risk metrics of Section 3.4 (Annual Average Loss and loss exceedance). This is an indicative, portfolio-level perspective and does not replace the building-level feasibility cost-benefit analysis carried out under Activity 1d.

The framework shall explicitly identify — without developing them — the follow-on themes to be addressed through subsequent activities: institutional arrangements, emergency response, reconstruction planning, financing mechanisms and public communication. It shall be structured so that it can serve as the foundation for a future, broader National Seismic Risk Reduction Strategy.

Boundary. The strategic framework does not duplicate the Implementation Roadmap of Section 3.11 (which concerns the operation, hosting and sustainability of the interactive map platform), nor the feasibility-level analyses of Activity 1d. It is delivered as Deliverable D8 (Section 5) and is prepared only after the risk model, indicators and pilot outputs are available.

4. 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, risk model, indicators, data architecture, GIS templates, functional specification and pilot outputs 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/GIS files where applicable, metadata and quality assurance registers. A deliverable shall be considered incomplete if the technical content is submitted without supporting data structures, assumptions, calculation evidence, metadata or QA records required under this section.

4.1. Methodological consistency, scientific traceability and reproducibility

The Consultant shall ensure full traceability from data source to processing, assumptions, model, indicator, map layer and final recommendation. Each final indicator, map class, threshold interval or risk output 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.

For all calculations, the Consultant shall document formulas, algorithms, input parameters, units, software/tools used, and processing sequence. The methodology shall include at least one complete numerical or tabular example showing how hazard, exposure and vulnerability data are combined into risk indicators and how those indicators are classified for map display.

4.2. Compatibility with the hazard methodology, RVS, NCM framework and QAP

The methodology shall be compatible with the seismic hazard methodology and any hazard datasets or zoning outputs developed under Subcomponent 3.1. The Consultant shall clearly describe which hazard parameter is used, how it is linked to risk scenarios, what probability level or scenario logic applies, and how hazard data are joined to exposure and vulnerability data, consuming the ToR 1a outputs at first-tier administrative-unit level per handoff H1 (Section 3.12).

The methodology shall also be compatible with the RVS methodology and mobile RVS data collection process, because vulnerability and part of the exposure information may depend on building-level screening data. The Consultant shall define how RVS outputs can be used, transformed, aggregated, checked and integrated into the risk model, using the RVS data model and typology vocabulary as the binding attribute reference (handoff H2).

The methodology shall not create contradictions with relevant NCM/Eurocode 8 concepts or with other technical outputs developed under Subcomponent 3.1. Differences in terminology, units, parameters, risk classes or interpretation rules shall be identified and resolved before final submission, applying the Common Data Standard (Section 3.12).

The Consultant shall align all deliverables with the QAP requirements for controlled versions, Comment Log, Data Register, internal QA/QC, peer-review where required, metadata, final package completeness and acceptance criteria for the methodology on the interactive seismic risk map.

4.3. Data, GIS, metadata and digital package requirements

The Consultant shall deliver data and GIS components in a reusable and auditable format. The package shall be organized in a clear folder structure and shall include a README file explaining the content of the package, the main files to be opened, the CRS/projection used, the folder structure, limitations and terms of use.

GIS/data outputs shall include, as applicable: data architecture diagrams, attribute templates, sample layers, final layers produced during piloting, layer dictionaries, static maps, map layouts, CSV/XLSX correspondence tables, metadata files, Data Register and processing/audit trail.

Each GIS layer or template shall include stable unique identifiers and a clear attribute scheme. For risk-related layers, attributes shall include, as applicable: administrative unit or object ID, name, hazard input reference, exposure class, vulnerability class, scenario ID, risk indicator value, risk class, data quality/confidence flag, source/version, date of generation, methodology version and notes/limitations.

Metadata shall be provided for each delivered dataset or GIS template. 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.

4.4. Risk model verification, uncertainty treatment and sensitivity checks

The Consultant shall verify the risk model through consistency checks, plausibility checks and sensitivity analysis appropriate to the available data. Verification shall include cross-checking between formulas, tables, GIS attributes, indicators and map legends.

At minimum, the Consultant shall test how changes in key assumptions influence the results. These may include hazard scenario or return period, exposure classification, vulnerability class, building typology assumptions, aggregation level, threshold intervals and missing data treatment. The results shall be documented in a Risk Model Verification and Sensitivity Note or within a dedicated annex of the methodology.

The Consultant shall identify limitations that may affect interpretation of the interactive map, including data incompleteness, uncertainty in building typologies, lack of detailed structural information, aggregation effects, outdated exposure data or limitations in hazard inputs. Limitations shall be displayed or referenced in the functional map specification so that users do not overinterpret preliminary risk results.

4.5. Functional specification quality requirements and UAT readiness

The functional specification shall be sufficiently clear to allow future implementation by a GIS/web-GIS or IT provider without ambiguity regarding layers, filters, data fields, symbology, scenarios, export/import functions, reporting functions, access modes, update workflow and acceptance tests.

The Consultant shall prepare a Functional Requirements Matrix and a Non-Functional Requirements Matrix. Each requirement shall have an ID, description, user role, priority, data dependency, acceptance criterion and related methodology section. Requirements shall distinguish between mandatory functions for initial acceptance and optional functions for future phases.

Where a pilot map or demonstrator is prepared, the Consultant shall define simple UAT readiness criteria. These criteria shall cover whether layers open correctly, filters work as intended, scenario comparison is understandable, pop-up attributes match the data dictionary, exports are generated correctly, legends match threshold intervals and limitations are visible to users.

4.6. Internal QA/QC, peer-review, registers and controlled revisions

The Consultant shall carry out internal QA/QC before each official submission; no draft, revised or final deliverable shall be submitted without prior internal verification. Internal QA/QC shall cover, at minimum: completeness of the deliverable and annexes, consistency of terminology and units, cross-checking between report values, tables, GIS attributes and map legends, verification of calculation steps and formulas, completeness of metadata, and version control. An Internal QA/QC Checklist shall accompany each major deliverable, indicating item checked, by whom, on what date, issue identified and resolution.

The Consultant shall maintain, in line with the QAP: a Version Log (unique code, version, date, status for every official submission; minimum structure Draft v0.1 → Revised/Consolidated v0.2+ → Final v1.0); the Comment Log defined in Section 3.9; the Data Register defined in Section 3.3; and, where applicable, a Change Log / Change Request record for changes affecting scope, methodology, key assumptions, data or deadlines, and an NC/CAPA Register for non-conformities with corrective actions and closure evidence.

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). The external peer reviewer, if any, shall be appointed and financed by the Client, unless explicitly included in the Consultant’s contract.

4.7. 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; data architecture and Data Register are complete; formulas, calculation logic and at least one worked example are provided; indicators and thresholds are defined; functional and non-functional requirements are documented; GIS/data templates and metadata are included where applicable; Version Log and Comment Log are updated; internal QA/QC checklist is completed; 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, required annexes, Data Register, metadata, calculation model description, Indicator and Threshold Matrix, Functional Specification, Version Log, Comment Log after review rounds, or evidence of internal QA/QC. A deliverable may also be returned if GIS files do not open, CRS/projection is not specified, values in the report do not match GIS/table values, or assumptions are not documented.

Major non-conformities shall block final acceptance. Major non-conformities include methodological errors, undocumented assumptions, missing data architecture, missing metadata, inconsistent GIS/report values, unresolved major comments, lack of reproducibility, or incomplete delivery package. Minor non-conformities may allow acceptance with conditions only if the condition, responsible person and deadline are explicitly recorded and accepted by the Client.

5. Deliverables and Timeline

The Consultant shall deliver the outputs listed below. All deadlines are expressed in weeks from the contract signing date.

Table 1. Deliverables and indicative timeline

The review periods of the Client/Beneficiary (indicatively 10 working days for short deliverables and 15 working days for major deliverables, per Section 8.4), and any external peer-review under Section 4.6, are not counted within the Consultant's execution weeks; deadlines above are net of review time. One consolidation round per deliverable (review → revision → resubmission) is included; a second full iteration for a deliverable is handled through the Change Request mechanism without penalty to the Consultant.

The Consultant shall submit each deliverable as a controlled package. Each package shall include the main document, editable files, annexes, registers and data/GIS files where applicable. The risk model and the functional map specification are not separate standalone deliverables unless expressly requested by the Client; they shall be integrated into the methodology and associated annexes.

All draft deliverables shall be subject to review by MIRD, OEAPM/PIU and other designated reviewers. The Consultant shall revise deliverables based on comments and shall submit a Comment Log showing how each comment was addressed. Final acceptance shall depend on the completeness, technical quality and QA/QC evidence of the full handover package.

6. Reporting and Format of Deliverables

The Consultant shall report to the Client through the official communication channels indicated by OEAPM/PIU. The Consultant shall ensure that all submissions are clearly identified by deliverable code, title, version, date and status. File names shall include the deliverable code, short title, version and date (YYYYMMDD).

The Consultant shall maintain regular communication with MIRD and OEAPM/PIU and shall provide short progress updates when requested. Any issue that may affect the scope, schedule, data availability, methodology assumptions or quality of deliverables shall be communicated early and recorded in the appropriate project register.

6.1. Language of deliverables, reporting process and final submission package

Unless otherwise agreed with the Client, deliverables shall be prepared in English. In addition, the following shall be provided in Romanian: the executive summaries of D2, D4, D7 and D8; the Indicator and Threshold Matrix user-facing labels and map legends; the non-technical summary of the final methodology; and the user-facing texts of the pilot/demonstrator.  The Consultant shall ensure that terminology is consistent across all documents, tables, GIS layers and functional specifications.

Each official submission shall include a transmittal note listing the files included in the package, the version number, the status of the deliverable, the date of submission and any limitations or issues requiring the Client's attention.

The final submission package shall include the final methodology report, technical annexes, calculation examples, indicator and threshold matrix, data architecture, data register, metadata, GIS templates/layers where applicable, functional specification, pilot/validation note, workshop/consultation record, Version Log, Comment Log, Change Log/Change Request records if any, NC/CAPA register if any, internal QA/QC checklist and README file, , plus the Implementation Roadmap and the draft next-phase ToR (Sections 3.10–3.11).

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

The Consultant shall provide deliverables in formats suitable for review, future editing, archiving and technical reuse. As a minimum, reports shall be submitted in DOCX and PDF. Tables, registers, matrices and data catalogues shall be submitted in XLSX and, where needed, CSV. GIS layers shall be submitted in reusable formats agreed with the Client, such as GeoPackage, SHP, GeoJSON or other standard formats consistent with the Common Data Standard (Section 3.12 / DR-3).

Maps shall be submitted as static PDF/PNG layouts for reporting and, where applicable, as editable GIS project/layout files. GIS packages shall include metadata, CRS/projection information, attribute dictionaries and data lineage. Calculation annexes may be submitted as XLSX, documented scripts, notebooks or other transparent formats agreed with the Client; where open-source risk engines (e.g. OpenQuake) are used, the input model files shall be part of the calculation annexes so that the Beneficiary can re-run and update the computation.

The Consultant shall avoid proprietary or undocumented data structures that prevent future use by the Beneficiary. Where proprietary software is used, the Consultant shall provide exported open or commonly used formats and sufficient documentation to allow MIRD/OEAPM/PIU or a future service provider to understand and reuse the outputs, together with the upfront licence and lifecycle cost assessment required under Section 3.3.

7. Key Qualification Requirements

The Consultant shall provide a multidisciplinary team capable of developing a technically sound seismic risk methodology, data architecture, indicators, GIS-ready outputs and functional specification for the interactive map. The proposed team shall include the following Key Experts.

The Consultant may propose additional non-key experts if needed. An IT/software development specialist is not required as a mandatory Key Expert, because the main assignment concerns seismic risk methodology, exposure/vulnerability and GIS/data architecture. However, the IT / Web-GIS Functional Specification and Demonstrator Specialist defined in Section 7.4 is a mandatory non-key position: the position must be filled in the proposed team, with a CV meeting the stated minimum requirements, and is assessed on a responsive/non-responsive basis (not scored).

7.1. Key Expert 1 - Team Leader / Senior Seismic Risk Methodology Specialist

The Team Leader / Senior Seismic Risk Methodology Specialist shall coordinate the assignment and shall be responsible for the overall technical quality, coherence and integration of the methodology. The expert shall ensure that the risk model, data architecture, indicators, threshold intervals, functional specification and pilot outputs are consistent and aligned with the requirements of MIRD, OEAPM/PIU and the QAP. The fragility/vulnerability modelling responsibility rests with Key Expert 2 (Section 7.2); the Team Leader integrates and verifies it.

Minimum requirements:

• university degree in civil engineering, structural engineering, earthquake engineering, disaster risk management, or a closely related field;
• at least 10 years of professional experience in structural engineering, seismic risk assessment, seismic safety, disaster risk reduction, technical assessment, engineering design or related consultancy services;
• demonstrated experience in preparing, reviewing or coordinating methodologies, technical specifications, engineering reports, guidelines, risk assessment documents or regulatory-support documents;
• good understanding of seismic hazard, exposure, vulnerability and risk concepts and their integration into practical risk assessment tools;
• experience in coordinating multidisciplinary teams and communicating with public authorities, institutional clients or technical reviewers;
• attestation as certified technical expert in constructions in the Republic of Moldova, or a designer certificate in the relevant field, shall be considered an advantage.
• experience with Moldovan, Romanian, European or international seismic risk / disaster risk reduction projects shall be considered an advantage.

7.2. Key Expert 2 - Exposure, Vulnerability and Seismic Risk Modelling Specialist

The Exposure, Vulnerability and Seismic Risk Modelling Specialist shall support the development of the risk calculation framework, vulnerability/exposure modelling rules, scenario logic and interpretation of risk indicators, and shall be responsible for the development or adaptation of the typology-specific fragility functions (lognormal parameters per Section 3.5). The expert shall ensure that the methodology is scientifically defensible and applicable to the Moldovan building stock and available data conditions.

Minimum requirements:

• university degree in civil engineering, structural engineering, earthquake engineering, risk engineering, disaster risk management or a closely related field;
• at least 7 years of professional experience in seismic vulnerability assessment, seismic risk assessment, structural assessment, building typology analysis, disaster risk modelling or related technical consultancy;
• demonstrated experience with exposure data, vulnerability classes, fragility/vulnerability functions, risk indicators, damage/loss assessment or prioritization methodologies including experience in deriving, calibrating or adapting fragility functions;
• ability to define assumptions, limitations, uncertainty and data quality implications for seismic risk modelling;
• experience in using RVS, building stock screening, vulnerability typologies or earthquake risk tools shall be considered an advantage;
• attestation as certified technical expert in constructions in the Republic of Moldova, or a designer certificate in the relevant field, shall be considered an advantage.
• ability to work with the Team Leader and GIS/Data Architecture Specialist to ensure consistency between the methodology text, calculation matrices, data tables and map outputs.

7.3. Key Expert 3 - GIS, Spatial Data and Data Architecture Specialist

The GIS, Spatial Data and Data Architecture Specialist shall be responsible for the spatial data architecture, GIS templates, attribute structures, map layer requirements, data integration rules, metadata and digital handover package. The expert shall also support the preparation of the functional specification for the interactive map from the GIS/data perspective, including compliance with the Common Data Standard (Section 3.12).

Minimum requirements:

• university degree in GIS, geography, geoinformatics, urban planning, civil engineering, data management, computer science or a closely related field;
• at least 7 years of professional experience in GIS, spatial data management, geospatial analysis, map production, data architecture or related services;
• demonstrated experience with GIS formats such as GeoPackage, SHP, GeoJSON, GeoTIFF, XLSX/CSV and with coordinate reference systems, spatial joins, vector/raster processing and map production;
• experience in designing data dictionaries, attribute structures, metadata, data quality checks and reusable spatial data packages;
• ability to translate methodological requirements into map layers, filters, symbology, GIS attributes, export/reporting rules and functional requirements for an interactive map;
• experience with web-GIS configuration, dashboards, open-source GIS tools or interactive map preparation shall be considered an advantage.

7.4. Mandatory non-key expert — IT / Web-GIS Functional Specification and Demonstrator Specialist

This position is mandatory in the team composition (non-key: required and verified for responsiveness, not scored). The specialist shall support the structure and testability of the functional and non-functional requirements, user roles, access tiers, performance expectations and UAT-readiness criteria, and shall configure the pilot/demonstrator (Section 3.8) using web-GIS or equivalent tools. Minimum requirements: degree in computer science, geoinformatics, information systems or a related field; at least 3 years of experience in web-GIS configuration, interactive mapping platforms, dashboards or spatial web applications; demonstrated experience with functional specifications or UAT frameworks for GIS/IT products; experience with open-source web-GIS stacks shall be considered an advantage.

7.5. Non-Key Experts / Support Experts

The Consultant may propose non-key experts to strengthen specific components of the assignment. These experts are not mandatory Key Experts and shall be mobilized as needed according to the proposed methodology and work plan.

Seismologist / Hazard Interpretation Specialist may be proposed to support interpretation of hazard inputs, return periods, scenario hazard levels, ground motion parameters and consistency with the seismic hazard methodology developed under Subcomponent 3.1.

Seismic Resilience Policy / DRR and Cost-Benefit Specialist may be proposed to support the buildings-focused seismic resilience strategic framework (Section 3.13), including protection objectives and performance levels, retrofit prioritization logic and the strategic (portfolio-level) cost-benefit perspective. This support is non-key and does not replace the seismic risk and GIS responsibilities of the Key Experts. Minimum profile: a degree in a relevant field (disaster risk management, civil / structural engineering, economics, public policy or a related discipline) and demonstrated experience in disaster or seismic risk-reduction strategy/policy or in cost-benefit / economic analysis of resilience investments.

IT / Web-GIS Functional Specification Support may be proposed to assist with the structure of the functional and non-functional requirements, user roles, access modes, performance expectations, UAT criteria or a simple pilot demonstrator. This support is optional and does not replace the seismic risk and GIS responsibilities of 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.

Workshop / Facilitation Specialist may be proposed to support the organization of consultations, preparation of workshop materials, collection of comments and documentation of stakeholder feedback.

Socioeconomic / Statistical Data Specialist may be proposed to support the social-vulnerability module (Section 3.5), including census data processing and aggregation rules.

8. Client's Inputs and Institutional Coordination

The Client and Beneficiary will facilitate the Consultant's access to available project documents, relevant institutional information and designated focal points, subject to applicable rules on confidentiality, data ownership and access rights. The Consultant remains responsible for verifying the usability, limitations and quality of any data or documents received.

8.1. Available documents

The Client may provide, as available: the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) for Subcomponent 3.1; project planning documents; outputs of the seismic hazard methodology (ToR 1a — catalogue, source model, hazard curves and administrative-unit values, per handoff H1); RVS methodology and related templates; the RVS data model and data dictionary (ToR 1b, per handoff H2); documentation on the mobile RVS application if available; relevant NCM/Eurocode-related documents; previous seismic studies or maps; administrative boundaries or other GIS layers; and other materials considered relevant by MIRD/OEAPM/PIU.

The Consultant shall review all documents received and shall indicate in the Inception Report which documents are used, which require clarification and which have limitations for the methodology.

8.2. Coordination with MIRD and OEAPM/PIU

The Consultant shall coordinate with MIRD and OEAPM/PIU throughout the assignment. OEAPM/PIU will act as the official project coordination and communication channel unless otherwise indicated. MIRD will provide technical direction, institutional feedback and review of the methodology from the perspective of national applicability and future use.

The Consultant shall submit draft and final deliverables through the official channel indicated by OEAPM/PIU and shall participate in coordination meetings when requested, including the joint inception workshop and the review gates under Section 3.12. Decisions affecting scope, assumptions, data use, deadlines or interpretation of outputs shall be recorded in writing.

8.3. Access to available data

The Client and Beneficiary may facilitate access to available datasets, but the Consultant shall be responsible for identifying data gaps, evaluating data quality and documenting limitations. Use of any dataset shall be subject to ownership, access rights, license conditions and confidentiality requirements.

If required data are not available or are not suitable for calculation, the Consultant shall propose alternative approaches, assumptions, proxy indicators or phased data improvement recommendations. Such alternatives shall be clearly documented and shall not be presented as equivalent to validated detailed data unless justified.

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, aggregated or proxy alternatives.

8.4. Comments on deliverables

MIRD, OEAPM/PIU, the World Bank or other designated reviewers may provide comments on draft deliverables. The Consultant shall respond to comments in a structured Comment Log and shall submit revised versions showing how comments were addressed.

Where comments introduce conflicting requirements or changes to key assumptions, the Consultant shall request clarification through OEAPM/PIU. Changes affecting the scope, methodology, deadlines or interpretation of results shall be recorded through a Change Log / Change Request process. For planning purposes, review periods are indicatively 10 working days for short deliverables and 15 working days for major deliverables, subject to the clock-stop rule in Section 5.

8.5. Technical meetings and consultations

The Consultant shall participate in technical meetings and consultations agreed with the Client and proportionate to the scope of the assignment. The Consultant shall participate in technical meetings and consultations as required. At minimum, the Consultant should plan for meetings at inception, data architecture review, risk model review, indicator and threshold review, functional specification review, pilot/validation review and final presentation.

The Consultant shall prepare concise meeting materials and shall document decisions, action points and responsibilities. Workshop reports shall include agenda, participants, key issues discussed, decisions or recommendations, comments received and how they were reflected in the methodology. Additional meetings beyond the minimum list shall be organized by mutual agreement.

9. Evaluation of Technical and Financial Proposals

The evaluation shall be carried out in two stages: technical evaluation and financial evaluation. Only proposals that meet the eligibility requirements and obtain the minimum technical score shall be considered for financial evaluation.

The technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the Consultant's qualifications, relevant experience, understanding of the assignment, proposed methodology, work plan and the qualifications and experience of the proposed Key Experts.

The proposed team shall include at least three Key Experts: Key Expert 1 - Team Leader / Senior Seismic Risk Methodology Specialist; Key Expert 2 - Exposure, Vulnerability and Seismic Risk Modelling Specialist; Key Expert 3 - GIS, Spatial Data and Data Architecture Specialist. The mandatory non-key IT / Web-GIS specialist (Section 7.4) shall be included in the team with a CV and is verified on a responsive/non-responsive basis, without a score. Additional non-key experts may be proposed by the Consultant, if needed.

9.1. Technical Evaluation Criteria

Summary of technical evaluation criteria

Proposals scoring less than the minimum technical score shall be rejected and shall not be considered for financial evaluation. The minimum technical score shall be 75 points out of 100.

A. Consultant's qualifications and relevant experience - 20 points

B. Understanding of the assignment and proposed methodology - 25 points

C. Work plan, organization and delivery approach - 15 points

D. Qualifications and experience of Key Experts - 40 points

D1. Key Expert 1 - Team Leader / Senior Seismic Risk Methodology Specialist - 18 points

D2. Key Expert 2 - Exposure, Vulnerability and Seismic Risk Modelling Specialist - 12 points

D3. Key Expert 3 - GIS, Spatial Data and Data Architecture Specialist - 10 points

9.2. Financial Evaluation

Only proposals that obtain the minimum technical score of 75 points shall be considered for financial evaluation.

The lowest evaluated financial proposal shall receive the maximum financial score of 100 points. The financial scores of the other proposals shall be calculated using the following formula:

Financial Score = 100 × Lowest Evaluated Price / Evaluated Proposal Price

9.3. Combined Evaluation

The final score shall be calculated using the following formula:

Final Score = 80% × Technical Score + 20% × Financial Score

9.4. Award Criterion

The contract shall be awarded to the Consultant whose proposal obtains the highest combined technical and financial score, provided that the Consultant meets all eligibility, qualification, conflict of interest and procurement requirements. If MIRD/OEAPM-PIU adopts the two-lot packaging with combined-award option, the corresponding award mechanics shall be set out in the procurement documents; this ToR remains valid unchanged as the technical content of its lot.