On
UN Syria
Study, No
Request for
Proposals As
Benetech Told
ICP
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 9 --
Among the
questions that
have arisen
about
Benetech's
study of
deaths in
Syria for the
UN Office of
the High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights has
been one raised
by Inner City
Press
(and some
Security
Council
diplomats) since the
day of the
launch.
How
did OHCHR
selected
Benetech,
which lists
funding from
the US State
Department and
National
Endowment for
Democracy? And
was there a
Request for
Proposals or
RFP, as
Benetech has
claimed?
The
answer to the
latter, if
there was an
RFP, turns out
to be "no."
While
understandably
busy fielding
questions from
broadcasters,
OHCHR
spokesman
Rupert
Colville did
answer Inner
City Press' question
on
how much
Benetech was
paid: $25,000.
But
Patrick Ball
of Benetech
had told Inner
City Press
that "yes
there
was an RFP
for this
project. For
the specific
selection
mechanism, you
should contact
OHCHR who can
provide the
details."
So Inner City
Press did ask
OHCHR,
respectfully
but
repeatedly.
And
today Colville
has responded
to Inner City
Press'
questions
about the
selection /
Request for
Proposals
process with
this:
From:
Rupert
Colville
[OHCHR
spokesperson]
Date: Wed, Jan
9, 2013 at
3:38
AM
Subject: Re: Q
re Syria
study,
Benetech &
its funders,
how
chosen, update
on Minova /
HRDDP
To: Matthew
Russell Lee
[at]
innercitypress.com
Dear
Matthew,
Because
of
the need for
confidentiality
and the highly
specialized
nature of
this contract
-- there are
only a very
few
organizations
qualified
(and properly
equipped) to
do this type
of work -- we
did not issue
an RFP as
such. Instead,
as permitted
by the rules
in exceptional
cases such as
this, we
approached
three
organizations
working in
this
field. Of the
three, only
one -- the
Benetech Human
Rights Program
-- was both
available in
the required
time-frame and
able to
demonstrate
the necessary
experience and
expertise.
The
criteria were
experience,
expertise and
credibility --
and, of
course,
availability.
The
individuals
working in the
Benetech
Program
have
considerable
experience and
expertise in
this type of
work, and
are well known
to the UN,
having worked
on several
important
projects
in the past.
As I stated in
an earlier
email, we
agreed a sum
of
25,000 US
dollars (which
is a modest
sum given the
quantity of
work
that Benetech
undertook
during the
five months it
took to
complete a
study of
considerable
complexity,
and which
continued to
evolve as it
went along --
e.g. because
of additional
lists becoming
available
late on in the
process). We
have no
concerns about
their
independence.
Nor do we have
concerns about
the fact that
Benetech
has other
sources of
funding: that
is quite
normal for
most
non-profit
organizations
and NGOs with
whom we, and
many other UN
organizations,
work on a
regular basis.
I
hope this puts
to rest your
concerns.
Best
regards,
Rupert
[Colville,
Spokesperson /
Head of Media,
OHCHR]
We
appreciate the
answer, but
must note that
Patrick Ball's
response
that there was
an RFP is no
longer
consistent.
Nor do we
understand
why, given
that public
money was
used, the name
of the other
two
organizations
OHCHR decided
to approach is
not being made
public.
How
can the public
assess the use
of money, and
the price
arrived at,
without this
information?
How can the
comparative
credibility /
independence
of the three
firms be
assessed by
the public?
Particularly
when Benetech
cites an
"anonmyous"
funder? Click
here for that.
While
polite and
more
elaborated,
the answer may
still smack
too much of
"just trust
us" for a
public
institution.
It is
appreciated,
but watch this
site.
, 
