DOC_11_QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWERS_SMX90017Q0010(2).docx

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFQ#SMX90017Q0010 MP Process Mapping Mexico

1. What would be the use that will be given to this tool in the future?

A: We expect that this tool will be deployed throughout Mexico in the short to mid-term future, and that it will provide a diagnostic for all state attorneys generals’ offices.

2. Should the proposal be focused on the basis for future certification/accreditation processes?

A: Although the certification of justice sector actors is a goal of INL efforts in the area of capacity building for the justice sector, this project is the beginning of the focused endeavors in defining those capabilities (personal and institutional) that are needed nationwide. As stated in the SOW: “The final tool will serve as a basis for future certification/accreditation processes; therefore, the identification of factors enabling and hindering performance should lend themselves to areas that will benefit for training and mentoring.” Therefore, the requested project is meant to provide INL products that will set up the elements for that certification by mapping the prosecutors’ processes, develop a tool for registering those processes and the rules, criteria and incentives affecting prosecutors’ decisions (and therefore their efficiency in procuring and delivering justice), identifying efficiency gaps and establishing performance indicators.

3. What is Task 3-State Legislation/Regulation review referring to exactly?

A: The State Legislation/Regulation review is meant to provide the framework for the mapping. Review of the legislative framework will allow the contractor to identify the common elements of Ministerios Publicos’ processes across states, so the mapping, tool and other products are developed in a complete and applicable manner across states. The review is also expected to allow the contractor to be able to generalize the requested products to all states, given that internal processes, organizational structure within the branches of the State governments and other factors may be different from state to state.

Also, contractor should note that based on the process mapping, they must develop a tool for recording, at each stage of the criminal justice process in which prosecutors participate, all possible steps they take and the criteria/incentives/rules they follow in their decision making (i.e. organizational manuals, protocols, internal regulation, institutional criteria) which are given, in part, by the legal framework they face.

4. There is currently a model for the functioning of the MP’s that is being tested in different states of Mexico. We noticed that none of the five states mentioned in the RFQ are working under this model. Wouldn’t it be good to include some of these states in the development of the tool?

A: It would definitely be good to include if you can get access to that model. Annex 2 provides the list of all 32 states clustered into 5 and 10 groups by their crime rates, population, and the GOM scores in the formula for “level of progress of the implementation of the Accusatory Criminal Justice System in the strategic axis of training (for State Prosecutors and Public Defenders).” The clusters are only a guide for the diversity/similarity of the states, taking into account the above-mentioned relevant criteria. The contractor is free to suggest a better rationale for selecting another set of states.