In terms of Rule 65 of Public Procurement Rules, 2026, a Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) is notified for the subject procurement and the notification copy is available on the procuring agency’s website and on Authority’s website at (www.ppra.org.pk).
Higher Education Commission (HEC) (Higher Education Commision (HEC)), Assistant Director
Central Procurement Cell, Sector H-9, Islamabad Capital Territory
+92-317-377-6141
zalashari@hec.gov.pk
Sections of Prequalifica¬tion Documents
The following specific data for the Prequalification of Applicants shall complement, supplement, or amend the provisions in the Instructions to Applicants (ITA). Whenever there is a conflict, the provisions herein shall prevail over those in ITA.
PDS Clause Number
ITA Number
Amendments of, and Supplements to, Clauses in the Instructions to Applicants
PDS Clause Number 1
ITA Number 1.1
Identification Number of the Invitation for Prequalification: P164583
The Procuring Agency is: Higher Education Commission (HEC) (Higher Education Commision (HEC))
List of Service Contracts:
See section services and Lots
PDS Clause Number 2
ITA Number 2.1
The name of Procuring Agency is: Higher Education Commission (HEC) (Higher Education Commision (HEC))
The name of Project / Procurement is: INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION AND HEC-FUNDED HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
PDS Clause Number 3
ITA Number 4.2
Maximum number of members in a Joint Venture (JV): 5
PDS Clause Number 4
ITA Number 4.5
A list of debarred firms and individuals is available on PPRA website: https://ppra.gov.pk
PDS Clause Number 5
ITA Number 7.1
For clarification, the Applicant shall seek clarifications through: EPADS v2.0
PDS Clause Number 6
ITA Number 7.1 & 8.2
Information related to Prequalification shall be published on: EPADS v2.0
PDS Clause Number 7
ITA Number 7.2
Pre-Application Meeting: Clarification Date: Saturday, November 14, 2026
Pre-Bid Meeting: Monday, November 2, 2026 11:00 AM
Venue: Central Procurement Cell, Sector H-9
Meeting Link: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/454916396016901?p=yGhyGcEJmVl5gi8KZ6
PDS Clause Number 8
ITA Number 10.1
This Prequalification Document has been issued in the language: English
PDS Clause Number 9
ITA Number 11.1(d)
Additional documents to be submitted through EPADS v2.0:
No
PDS Clause Number 10
ITA Number 14.2
Source for determining exchange rates: Not Applicable
PDS Clause Number 11
ITA Number 16.1
Deadline for Application Submission:
Day: Tuesday
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2026
Time: 11:30 AM
PDS Clause Number 12
ITA Number 17.1
Opening of Applications shall be conducted through: EPADS v2.0
Day: Tuesday
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2026
Time: 12:00 PM
Virtual participation link: https://vendors.epads.gov.pk/
PDS Clause Number 13
ITA Number 21.1
Margin of Domestic Preference: Not Applicable
(Applicable only if authorized in Procurement Plan)
PDS Clause Number 14
ITA Number 29.1
Prequalification-related complaints / grievances shall be submitted in writing through: EPADS v2.0
A complaint may challenge:
All Active Taxpayers shall be eligible to participate in the procurement process, unless expressly excluded or otherwise restricted under the Eligibility Criteria specified by the Procuring Agency.
| Required Registration |
|---|
|
None |
| Eligibility Criteria | Document |
|---|---|
| Legally registered company/firm (SECP/Registrar of Firms in Pakistan, or equivalent companies/registration authority in the country of incorporation). | Yes |
| Authorized application and, for a JV, a signed agreement/letter of intent identifying the lead member and responsibilities. | Yes |
| At least ten (10) years of relevant consulting operations by the applicant/lead JV member, supported by registration and corporate records. | Yes |
| Valid tax registration with FBR and applicable Active Taxpayer status for Pakistan-based applicants; equivalent home-country tax registration/compliance evidence for foreign applicants, with Pakistan registrations obtained as legally required. | Yes |
| Capacity of at least forty (40) relevant professional employees/consultants (support staff will not be counted), employed or substantively engaged during the preceding two years by the lead firm, verifiable by a named roster showing qualifications, role, engagement dates and status. | Yes |
Quality Based Selection (QBS)
Weightage (Without Financial Criteria)
| Technical Evaluation % |
|---|
| 100 |
| Technical Marks | 100 | |
|---|---|---|
| Passing Marks | 70 | |
| INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL CAPACITY : 20 Marks | ||
| Average annual turnover (latest 3 audited years): (Quantitative)(Doc Required) PKR ≥275m (10) PKR 225 – <275m (7) PKR 200 – <225m (4) | 10 | |
| Operational capability for national/multi-region fieldwork :
Verifiable local offices = 2 Mark for each field office in a distinct city in Pakistan. (Quantitative)(Doc Required) 5 or More verifiable local offices in a distinct city in Pakistan. (10) 4 verifiable local offices in a distinct city in Pakistan. (8) 3 verifiable local offices in a distinct city in Pakistan. (6) 2 verifiable local offices in a distinct city in Pakistan (4) 1 verifiable local office in a city in Pakistan (2) | 10 | |
| PROFESSIONAL HUMAN RESOURCE CAPACITY : 20 Marks | ||
| Relevant professional staff/consultants (unique named individuals with evidence of substantive engagement within 2 years): (Quantitative)(Doc Required) ≥80 (20) 60–79 (15) 40–59 (10) | 20 | |
| RELEVANT FIRM EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE : 60 Marks | ||
| Completed higher education sector-wide or multi-institutional review for HEC or comparable higher education/funding or any other regulatory authority. (Quantitative)(Doc Required) 2 or more completed review (20) 1 completed review (10) | 20 | |
| Completed funding-impact, evaluation, public expenditure, cost-effectiveness or value-for-money studies, public-finance or policy-review assignment (preferably education/skills/public programmes or public institutions) (Quantitative)(Doc Required) 2 or more completed assignment (20) 1 completed assignment (10) | 20 | |
| 1 or more completed regulatory, governance, quality assurance or institutional-performance reviews of public-sector organizations. (Quantitative)(Doc Required) | 10 | |
| Completed national/multi-region institutional surveys, tracer studies or substantial field-data assignments: (Quantitative)(Doc Required) 2 or more completed assignments (10) 1 completed assignment (5) | 10 | |
Lot Title : Scope of Services: Four Distinct Assessment Components
Position: Component A: Impact of HEC Funding on Institutional and Sector Outcomes
Specifications / Requirements:
Assess the results of federal/HEC funding and interventions against institutional baselines, funding exposure and reasonable comparison groups, with attention to the following five outcome domains:
A1. Teaching and educational quality
a. Programme relevance and quality; curriculum improvements; externally available quality-assurance / programme-review outcomes; teaching-learning conditions and effective use of libraries, laboratories and digital learning infrastructure.
b. Enrolment, retention, completion, student progression and access/equity trends (including gender, region and disadvantaged groups), with appropriate adjustment for institution type and baseline circumstances.
c. Evidence of tangible learning or educational improvement using reliable existing assessments, graduate evidence and targeted student/faculty feedback, without introducing a stand-alone national learning examination under this contract.
A2. Research, innovation and wider impact
a. Research publications of verifiable quality, discipline-normalised citations where feasible, competitive grants, research completion, postgraduate research, collaboration, patents, licensing, start-ups and other documented innovation outputs.
b. Contribution of funded research to industry, public policy, services, economic activity and strategic national priorities, substantiated by verifiable examples rather than publication volumes alone.
A3. Faculty quality and capacity
a. Faculty qualifications, subject mix, PhD ratios where relevant, teaching/research capacity, development initiatives, recruitment/retention trends and staff-student ratios on consistent definitions.
b. Linkage between HEC support (including scholarships and faculty development programmes) and tangible changes in faculty capacity and institutional performance.
A4. Graduate employability and labour-market relevance
a. Graduate employment and time-to-employment, field relevance, underemployment (where defensibly measurable), employer perceptions, self-employment/entrepreneurship and the relevance of academic programmes to market demand.
b. Review and validate existing graduate tracer studies and institutional data; undertake a proportionate supplementary graduate/employer sample where data gaps are material. Wage data may be examined only where availability, comparability and respondent confidentiality permit.
A5. Global competitiveness and aggregate sectoral contribution
a. Trends in recognised national/international institutional and subject rankings, research visibility and academic collaboration; examine explanatory drivers rather than treating rankings as direct proof of educational quality.
b. Higher education’s contribution to skilled human capital, research and innovation, regional opportunity and economic competitiveness, using identifiable measures and clearly stated attribution limitations.
Output from Component A: a defensible account of outcomes achieved, disparities and areas of underperformance, supported by matched financing, institutional context, historic trends and representative case evidence.
Position: Component B: Effectiveness of HEC as a Regulatory and Sector-Oversight Body Evaluate the adequacy, implementation and demonstrable outcomes of HEC’s statutory, policy, regulatory and sector-governance functions, rather than duplicating routine univer
Specifications / Requirements:
Evaluate the adequacy, implementation and demonstrable outcomes of HEC’s statutory, policy, regulatory and sector-governance functions, rather than duplicating routine university compliance inspections.
a. Statutory mandate and division of responsibilities: review relevant provisions of the HEC Ordinance, post-18th Amendment arrangements, relationships with MoFEPT, provinces, higher education departments/commissions, accreditation councils and HEIs; identify overlaps, gaps and coordination constraints.
b. Regulatory architecture and service delivery: assess standards and policy clarity, institutional/programme recognition, QA and programme oversight, review mechanisms, decision timeliness, institutional compliance monitoring and response to identified deficiencies.
c. Regulatory outcomes: assess evidence that policy, oversight and support have improved teaching quality, academic standards, institutional governance, transparency and public accountability; distinguish policy existence from actual uptake and results.
d. Governance and autonomy interface: assess whether regulations and funding conditions appropriately balance academic/institutional autonomy with accountability, and whether HEC has proportionate means to discharge its mandates.
e. Coordination and emerging needs: evaluate coverage and effectiveness in light of growth in HEIs, programmes, students, new delivery modes and digitalisation of HEI operations.
Output from Component B: an evidence-based regulatory-effectiveness assessment, with mapped statutory functions, observed constraints, benchmarks, and options for strengthening coordination, regulation and oversight.
Position: Component C: Financial Efficiency, Funding Adequacy and Sustainability
Specifications / Requirements:
Undertake a consolidated public-finance and value-for-money assessment, avoiding double-counting between HEC administrative expenditure, transfers to HEIs, federal development financing, provincial grants and HEIs’ own resources.
C1. Funding architecture, utilisation and value for money
a. Reconcile annual federal allocations, releases and expenditure through HEC: recurring grants, development interventions, research programmes, scholarships/faculty development and material sector services; separate funding managed directly by HEC from grants transferred to institutions
b. Compare expenditures against credible outputs and outcomes using indicators such as expenditure/subsidy per student, cost per graduate, spending by institution type, research output per relevant research rupee, asset utilisation and programme results—only where denominators and cost boundaries are comparable.
c. Review transparency, predictability, use and timeliness of grants, financial management and implementation constraints; identify demonstrable inefficiencies, duplication and areas where additional funding could yield stronger returns.
C2. Actual funding requirements and international comparison
a. Estimate HEC’s reasonable recurrent administrative, regulatory and sector-development funding needs and the aggregate HEI funding envelope required to maintain essential quality and meet projected enrolment, faculty, technology, research and strategic priorities under low/base/high scenarios.
b. Benchmark Pakistan against suitably selected regional and international peers using harmonised indicators including public higher education expenditure as a share of GDP and government expenditure; expenditure per tertiary student; participation/enrolment trends; institutional funding mix and relevant outcomes. Adjust for differences in system composition, income levels and price bases where feasible.
c. Present funding gaps and projected needs as transparent ranges with explicit assumptions, separating efficient minimum operating requirements, service-quality improvements and strategic expansion; do not treat current funding as inherently adequate or inadequate without evidence.
C3. Federal–provincial responsibilities and financing:
a. Analyse the federal/provincial shares and respective roles in recurring and development financing; assess the relevance of constitutional/statutory arrangements, applicable Council of Common Interests decisions, the National Fiscal Pact and the nature of national-interest or shared-benefit expenditure.
b. Examine fiscal feasibility and potential impacts of different federal–provincial cost-sharing approaches on institutional sustainability, regional equity, continuity and academic quality. Verify any cited aggregate such as Rs 71 billion against audited/official records before use.
c. Identify policy issues and options for future intergovernmental consultation; do not prepare a binding devolution schedule or assume wholesale withdrawal of federal support as a predetermined result.
C4. HEI sustainability, performance orientation and student support:
a. Review institutional finances and resilience: grant dependence, salary and non-salary shares, own-source revenues, fee affordability, endowment/competitive grants where applicable, capital maintenance, financial reporting and effective use of assets.
b. Assess evidence for strengthening existing formula-based and performance-oriented funding approaches, taking account of funding adequacy, equity, institution mission and unintended consequences; recommend whether a separate reform/design exercise is justified.
c. Review the current scholarship, need-based financial assistance and loan-based support landscape; examine accessibility, cost, coverage, repayment/administration risks and compatibility with sustaining core institutional teaching/research functions; identify options for detailed feasibility study rather than designing a new student-finance product.
Output from Component C: a reconciled funding/VfM diagnostic, sustainable funding-needs scenarios, peer-country comparison, and evidence-based options for future grant policy, cost sharing and financial assistance reforms.
Position: Component D: HEC Organisational Capacity, Rightsizing and Digital Readiness Independently assess whether HEC’s functions, organisational capacity, professional composition, administrative costs and technologies are proportionate to the mandate and gr
Specifications / Requirements:
Independently assess whether HEC’s functions, organisational capacity, professional composition, administrative costs and technologies are proportionate to the mandate and growing scale/complexity of Pakistan’s higher education system. The analysis must be neutral as to whether the result should be reduction, reallocation or augmentation of capacity.
a. Functional mapping and workload: catalogue principal HEC services/functions, outputs, statutory obligations, duplication, service volumes and trends, HEC/HEI coverage, staff workload and feasible productivity benchmarks, including federal–provincial coordination requirements.
b. Human resources and institutional capacity: examine sanctioned versus working strength, vacancies, skill mix, age/retirement profile, professional shortages, functional overlaps, field/regulatory coverage and management arrangements; identify critical functions requiring specialised capability.
c. Financial and efficiency implications: evaluate administration/staff costs in relation to volume, service quality, statutory duties and comparative regulators; quantify practicable savings, process efficiencies, redeployment or targeted capacity enhancement options with transition costs and risks, using financial inputs coordinated with Component C.
d. Digitisation and service processes: examine existing HEC/HEI systems and major initiatives, end-to-end electronic services, data quality, interoperability, operational support and monitoring workflows; identify high-value opportunities for process simplification, integration and automation without specifying or developing a new digital platform or detailed technical architecture.
e. Rightsizing assessment: explicitly test any suggested staff/administrative budget reduction against validated workload, existing reforms, affordability, sector growth, service-level consequences and statutory obligations. Recommend a justified configuration—reduction, restructuring, redeployment, strengthened staffing, or a combination—as warranted by evidence.
Output from Component D: a functional capacity and rightsizing diagnostic, evidence-backed capacity options, preliminary costs/benefits and a sequenced roadmap for any more detailed organisational, HR or digital systems study.
 2. Purpose, Objectives and Scope:
The overarching purpose is to furnish the Federal Government, MoFEPT and HEC with an independent, verifiable and policy-relevant assessment of the effectiveness of public investment in higher education, the discharge of HEC’s statutory and regulatory responsibilities, and the adequacy, efficiency and future requirements of federal support and HEC’s institutional capacity.
2.1 Principal objectives
1. Evaluate the contribution and measurable impact of HEC funding and interventions on the quality, relevance, accessibility, research performance, faculty capacity, graduate outcomes and international competitiveness of HEC-funded HEIs.
2. Assess the effectiveness and outcomes of HEC’s regulatory, quality-assurance, policy, monitoring, compliance and sector-coordination functions, considering statutory responsibilities and federal–provincial arrangements.
3. Assess financial efficiency, value for money, sustainability and adequacy of HEC and HEI financing, including an evidence-based estimate of the federal funding required to fulfil sector needs under credible future scenarios.
4. Assess whether HEC’s present functional structure, staffing profile, and administrative capacity are proportionate to its current and foreseeable mandate, and identify options for strengthening, rationalisation, redeployment, automation or rightsizing as objectively warranted.
2.2 Nature of the assignment:Â
This is an independent diagnostic and advisory assignment. The Consultant shall review existing policies, funding arrangements and performance measures, identify strengths and weaknesses, quantify feasible reform options, and propose a prioritised roadmap for subsequent Government/HEC consideration. Where the evidence suggests that any new regulatory, funding, scholarship, digital or organisational framework may be warranted, the Consultant shall specify the problem, possible options, prerequisites, indicative resource implications, responsible authorities and the terms of reference for a separate follow-on study or implementation process. Recommendations shall not be represented as approved Government or HEC policy.
3. Scope of Services: Four Distinct Assessment Components For analytical clarity, the assessment is divided into four mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive components. i. ii. iii. iv. Component A assesses outcomes at the HEI/sector level; Component B assesses HEC’s regulatory and sector-oversight performance; Component C assesses funding flows, costs, adequacy and sustainability; and Component D assesses HEC’s internal operational capacity and staffing requirements.
Baseline development, sampling, data collection, benchmarking and recommendations are cross cutting methods/outputs rather than additional overlapping assessment components.
Component A: Impact of HEC Funding on Institutional and Sector Outcomes Assess the results of federal/HEC funding and interventions against institutional baselines, funding exposure and reasonable comparison groups, with attention to the following five outcome domains:
A1. Teaching and educational quality a. Programme relevance and quality; curriculum improvements; externally available quality assurance / programme-review outcomes; teaching-learning conditions and effective use of libraries, laboratories and digital learning infrastructure. b. Enrolment, retention, completion, student progression and access/equity trends (including gender, region and disadvantaged groups), with appropriate adjustment for institution type and baseline circumstances. c. Evidence of tangible learning or educational improvement using reliable existing assessments, graduate evidence and targeted student/faculty feedback, without introducing a stand-alone national learning examination under this contract.
A2. Research, innovation and wider impact a. Research publications of verifiable quality, discipline-normalised citations where feasible, competitive grants, research completion, postgraduate research, collaboration, patents, licensing, start-ups and other documented innovation outputs. b. Contribution of funded research to industry, public policy, services, economic activity and strategic national priorities, substantiated by verifiable examples rather than publication volumes alone.
A3. Faculty quality and capacity a. Faculty qualifications, subject mix, PhD ratios where relevant, teaching/research capacity, development initiatives, recruitment/retention trends and staff-student ratios on consistent definitions. b. Linkage between HEC support (including scholarships and faculty development programmes) and tangible changes in faculty capacity and institutional performance.
A4. Graduate employability and labour-market relevance a. Graduate employment and time-to-employment, field relevance, underemployment (where defensibly measurable), employer perceptions, self-employment/entrepreneurship and the relevance of academic programmes to market demand. b. Review and validate existing graduate tracer studies and institutional data; undertake a proportionate supplementary graduate/employer sample where data gaps are material. Wage data may be examined only where availability, comparability and respondent confidentiality permit.
A5. Global competitiveness and aggregate sectoral contribution a. Trends in recognised national/international institutional and subject rankings, research visibility and academic collaboration; examine explanatory drivers rather than treating rankings as direct proof of educational quality. b. Higher education’s contribution to skilled human capital, research and innovation, regional opportunity and economic competitiveness, using identifiable measures and clearly stated attribution limitations.
Output from Component A: a defensible account of outcomes achieved, disparities and areas of underperformance, supported by matched financing, institutional context, historic trends and representative case evidence.
Component B:
Effectiveness of HEC as a Regulatory and Sector-Oversight Body Evaluate the adequacy, implementation and demonstrable outcomes of HEC’s statutory, policy, regulatory and sector-governance functions, rather than duplicating routine university compliance inspections. a. Statutory mandate and division of responsibilities: review relevant provisions of the HEC Ordinance, post-18th Amendment arrangements, relationships with MoFEPT, provinces, higher education departments/commissions, accreditation councils and HEIs; identify overlaps, gaps and coordination constraints. b. Regulatory architecture and service delivery: assess standards and policy clarity, institutional/programme recognition, QA and programme oversight, review mechanisms, decision timeliness, institutional compliance monitoring and response to identified deficiencies. c. Regulatory outcomes: assess evidence that policy, oversight and support have improved teaching quality, academic standards, institutional governance, transparency and public accountability; distinguish policy existence from actual uptake and results. d. Governance and autonomy interface: assess whether regulations and funding conditions appropriately balance academic/institutional autonomy with accountability, and whether HEC has proportionate means to discharge its mandates. e. Coordination and emerging needs: evaluate coverage and effectiveness in light of growth in HEIs, programmes, students, new delivery modes and digitalisation of HEI operations.
Output from Component B: an evidence-based regulatory-effectiveness assessment, with mapped statutory functions, observed constraints, benchmarks, and options for strengthening coordination, regulation and oversight
Component C: Financial Efficiency, Funding Adequacy and Sustainability Undertake a consolidated public-finance and value-for-money assessment, avoiding double-counting between HEC administrative expenditure, transfers to HEIs, federal development financing, provincial grants and HEIs’ own resources.
C1. Funding architecture, utilisation and value for money
a. Reconcile annual federal allocations, releases and expenditure through HEC: recurring grants, development interventions, research programmes, scholarships/faculty development and material sector services; separate funding managed directly by HEC from grants transferred to institutions.
b. Compare expenditures against credible outputs and outcomes using indicators such as expenditure/subsidy per student, cost per graduate, spending by institution type, research output per relevant research rupee, asset utilisation and programme results—only where denominators and cost boundaries are comparable.
c. Review transparency, predictability, use and timeliness of grants, financial management and implementation constraints; identify demonstrable inefficiencies, duplication and areas where additional funding could yield stronger returns.
Â
C2. Actual funding requirements and international comparison
a. Estimate HEC’s reasonable recurrent administrative, regulatory and sector-development funding needs and the aggregate HEI funding envelope required to maintain essential quality and meet projected enrolment, faculty, technology, research and strategic priorities under low/base/high scenarios.
b. Benchmark Pakistan against suitably selected regional and international peers using harmonised indicators including public higher education expenditure as a share of GDP and government expenditure; expenditure per tertiary student; participation/enrolment trends; institutional funding mix and relevant outcomes. Adjust for differences in system composition, income levels and price bases where feasible.
c. Present funding gaps and projected needs as transparent ranges with explicit assumptions, separating efficient minimum operating requirements, service-quality improvements and strategic expansion; do not treat current funding as inherently adequate or inadequate without evidence.
C3. Federal–provincial responsibilities and financing
a. Analyse the federal/provincial shares and respective roles in recurring and development financing; assess the relevance of constitutional/statutory arrangements, applicable Council of Common Interests decisions, the National Fiscal Pact and the nature of national-interest or shared-benefit expenditure.
b. Examine fiscal feasibility and potential impacts of different federal–provincial cost-sharing approaches on institutional sustainability, regional equity, continuity and academic quality. Verify any cited aggregate such as Rs 71 billion against audited/official records before use.
c. Identify policy issues and options for future intergovernmental consultation; do not prepare a binding devolution schedule or assume wholesale withdrawal of federal support as a predetermined result.
C4. HEI sustainability, performance orientation and student support a. Review institutional finances and resilience: grant dependence, salary and non-salary shares, own-source revenues, fee affordability, endowment/competitive grants where applicable, capital maintenance, financial reporting and effective use of assets. b. Assess evidence for strengthening existing formula-based and performance-oriented funding approaches, taking account of funding adequacy, equity, institution mission and unintended consequences; recommend whether a separate reform/design exercise is justified. c. Review the current scholarship, need-based financial assistance and loan-based support landscape; examine accessibility, cost, coverage, repayment/administration risks and compatibility with sustaining core institutional teaching/research functions; identify options for detailed feasibility study rather than designing a new student-finance product. Output from Component C: a reconciled funding/VfM diagnostic, sustainable funding-needs scenarios, peer-country comparison, and evidence-based options for future grant policy, cost sharing and financial assistance reforms.
Component D: HEC Organisational Capacity, Rightsizing and Digital Readiness Independently assess whether HEC’s functions, organisational capacity, professional composition, administrative costs and technologies are proportionate to the mandate and growing scale/complexity of Pakistan’s higher education system. The analysis must be neutral as to whether the result should be reduction, reallocation or augmentation of capacity.
a. Functional mapping and workload: catalogue principal HEC services/functions, outputs, statutory obligations, duplication, service volumes and trends, HEC/HEI coverage, staff workload and feasible productivity benchmarks, including federal–provincial coordination requirements.
b. Human resources and institutional capacity: examine sanctioned versus working strength, vacancies, skill mix, age/retirement profile, professional shortages, functional overlaps, field/regulatory coverage and management arrangements; identify critical functions requiring specialised capability.
c. Financial and efficiency implications: evaluate administration/staff costs in relation to volume, service quality, statutory duties and comparative regulators; quantify practicable savings, process efficiencies, redeployment or targeted capacity enhancement options with transition costs and risks, using financial inputs coordinated with Component C.
d. Digitisation and service processes: examine existing HEC/HEI systems and major initiatives, end to-end electronic services, data quality, interoperability, operational support and monitoring workflows; identify high-value opportunities for process simplification, integration and automation without specifying or developing a new digital platform or detailed technical architecture.
e. Rightsizing assessment: explicitly test any suggested staff/administrative budget reduction against validated workload, existing reforms, affordability, sector growth, service-level consequences and statutory obligations. Recommend a justified configuration—reduction, restructuring, redeployment, strengthened staffing, or a combination—as warranted by evidence.
Output from Component D: a functional capacity and rightsizing diagnostic, evidence-backed capacity options, preliminary costs/benefits and a sequenced roadmap for any more detailed organisational, HR or digital systems study.
Undertakings/declarations on non-blacklisting/debarment, material litigation, conflicts of interest, accuracy of submissions and ability to undertake a nationwide, independent assessment.
Minimum average annual consultancy turnover of PKR 200 million (or equivalent) by the lead firm over the latest three completed financial years, supported by audited financial statements.