End-to-end redesign of six priority processes in the General Directorate of Internal Taxes (GGII) — modelled in BPMN 2.0, validated on a live BPMS reference environment orchestrated by Zoho Qntrl, and delivered as a complete, reliable input for the automation of the DNIT tax system.
DNIT has consolidated internal taxes and customs into a single revenue administration. Within the GGII, several high-volume end-to-end processes remain semi-automated, dependent on paper and on the physical presence of the taxpayer or their authorised third party. The consequence is limited traceability, discretionary handling, slow response times and avoidable procedural risk.
A specification so precise, so legally grounded and so evidently executable that the automation firm can build from it without re-interpretation, and that DNIT itself can maintain and extend for years afterwards through the Technical Procedures Manual.
We apply a four-phase, process-first method structured on the PMI project life cycle — initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and closure — as required by Section VII of the Terms of Reference. Methodological standards are combined by need:
BPM BPMN 2.0 BPMS PMI / PMBOK Lean Six Sigma ISO 9001 MECIP / NRM Agile co-design sprints
For every one of the six end-to-end processes we execute the same repeatable eight-step chain. This is the "logical relation between activities" the evaluation grid asks for.
| # | Activity | Content and output |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Legal & system inventory | Every legal provision that grounds the process, and every current system functionality supporting it, catalogued before modelling begins. |
| 2 | AS-IS capture & field validation | Existing processes (documented or not) walked through on-site with DNIT technical staff in central and regional tax offices. |
| 3 | Opportunity analysis | Bottlenecks, paper dependencies, discretionary points, rework loops, control gaps and traceability breaks identified and quantified. |
| 4 | TO-BE modelling | BPMN 2.0 diagrams and templates: activities, events, tasks, conditions, handoffs, timing, data and forms, responsible positions, technology used, and the legal provision covering each step. |
| 5 | Executable validation | The model is instantiated as a live blueprint on the BPMS reference environment and walked through with the business area — errors surface here, not during construction. |
| 6 | Functional specification & use cases | Written to be consumed directly by the automation firm, plus interactive interface prototypes for each user-facing step. |
| 7 | Regulatory drafting | Where the new process requires it, draft decrees and resolutions prepared by our Paraguayan tax-law specialist. |
| 8 | Conversion & manualisation | Output converted to DNIT/NRM-MECIP formats and incorporated into the Process Manual and Technical Procedures Manual. |
Each TO-BE process is designed against proven international practice, so DNIT adopts what already works rather than reinventing it.
| Administration | Practice embedded | Where it lands in the DNIT design |
|---|---|---|
| Estonia | Once-only data principle; single digital identity | Electronic File; taxpayer portal; elimination of re-submitted annexes |
| Singapore — IRAS | Pre-filled filings; AI-assisted risk classification | Tax Operational Procedures; risk criteria for non-withholding certificates |
| Australia — ATO | Risk-differentiated treatment of taxpayers | Payment Facilities: automatic for standard regime, analysed for non-standard |
| Spain — AEAT (SII) | Near-real-time reconciliation of obligations | Current Account: real-time compliance status (Cumplido / Incumplido) |
| Brazil — Receita Federal | Systemically interlinked processes | Litigation tracking automatically linked to audits, summaries, appeals, tax credits |
| Chile — SII | Digital certificates issued without human intervention | Bulk and individual certificate issuance under defined verifications |
Our BPMS reference environment runs on Zoho One, a single unified platform. This matters for a modelling engagement for one specific reason: it lets us prove an end-to-end process — intake, orchestration, rules, signature, document custody, integration and dashboards — in days rather than months, so DNIT sees the target state working before a single line of production code is written.
| Component | Function in the reference environment | Why it matters to DNIT's specification |
|---|---|---|
| BPMS. Blueprints define stages, transitions and states; cards are live process instances; orchestrations invoke external systems. | Turns a BPMN diagram into something DNIT can click through. Every stage, SLA and handoff in the specification has been executed before it is written down. | |
| Low-code application layer: dynamic intake forms, the procedures catalogue, business-rule engine (Deluge), taxpayer portal. | Lets us prototype the taxpayer-facing behaviour of each of the six processes and validate the rule set with the business area. | |
| Signature workflow, signatory sequencing, evidence package and audit trail — used in the reference environment to model the signing step. The certificate itself is supplied by the accredited provider DNIT designates. | Lets us specify, per step, who signs, in what order, over which document, with what evidence retained — while leaving the choice of accredited certification provider where it belongs, with DNIT. See §09 on legal validity. | |
| Document repository with versioning, retention and granular permissions. | Proves invulnerability and custody of annexed documentation — a specific TDR requirement for the Electronic File. | |
| Taxpayer master record and complete log of every communication in every direction. | Covers the requirement to record taxpayer↔DNIT, DNIT↔DNIT and DNIT↔other-entity communications. | |
| Real-time dashboards over process, deadline and risk data. | Materialises the performance indicators, statistics and reports required for the litigation-tracking process. | |
| State-based orchestration engine inside the BPMS. Handles non-linear processes: conditional branching, loops back to earlier stages on rejection, and parallel execution of independent branches. Invokes functions and external endpoints as circuit states. | Models the integration contract itself — the sequence, the branch conditions, the retry and the rollback path — as an executable artefact rather than prose. High-volume tax processes are not linear, and the orchestration layer has to reflect that. | |
| Serverless back-end: Basic and Advanced I/O functions, event and cron functions, and Catalyst Circuits for concurrent or sequential function orchestration with conditions and data paths, behind an API gateway. | Where the heavy integration work sits. Payload transformation, batching, throttling, idempotency, retry with back-off and error compensation against Marangatu, the Current Account and the customs systems are specified as functions with defined contracts — the form the automation firm can implement directly. | |
| Identity, single sign-on, role-based access, delegated authority. | Models the Authorised Third Party figure and the confidentiality controls for third-party and public-entity requests. | |
engine selected with DNIT | OCR and layout extraction, document classification, and risk scoring — invoked as functions from a circuit state, behind a fixed interface contract. | Connects risk criteria to integrated risk management as the TDR requires, without committing DNIT to a specific engine. Candidate engines are benchmarked on DNIT's own documents and selected on evidence — see §07. |
| Profiling, cleansing and reconciliation of data sets moving between systems. | Supports the current-account requirement that taxpayer operation records integrate cleanly, and surfaces data-quality issues during AS-IS capture rather than after go-live. | |
| Structured authoring with templates and controlled review. | Production environment for the Process Manual, the Technical Procedures Manual and the draft decrees and resolutions. | |
| Work-plan execution, milestone control, deliverable tracking. | Gives DNIT and the UCP live visibility of progress against the 12-month schedule and each package. |
Zoho, Qntrl and related marks are the property of Zoho Corporation. Rede Corporativa is an authorised Zoho Premium Partner. The reference environment is a modelling and validation instrument owned and operated by the consulting firm; it imposes no technology obligation on DNIT and no dependency on the subsequent automation contract.
A layered, API-first reference architecture. Qntrl is the orchestration backbone; Creator carries the custom logic and taxpayer-facing applications; and a dedicated integration layer — Qntrl Circuits for process-level orchestration, Catalyst Functions and Circuits for the serverless back-end — connects to DNIT's core systems: Marangatu, the DNIT Current Account, the customs systems of the General Directorate of Customs, and the banking network.
DNIT has prioritised six end-to-end processes. For each we state the automation intent of the TO-BE design and the components of the reference environment used to model and validate it.
| DNIT process | Components used | Automation intent of the TO-BE design |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Expediente Electrónico DNIT Electronic file |
A living catalogue of procedures defines, per procedure type, the standardised stages and the data and annexes required. Everything is received, managed, processed, stored and delivered digitally, with guaranteed traceability and invulnerability of documentation. Procedures better served by dedicated automation — Form 10 operations, payment facilities, non-withholding certificates — are separated out and routed to their own processes. Real-time status and the full communications trail are exposed to the taxpayer, operator, authorised third party and internal units. | |
| 2 · Trámites Operativos Tributarios ex-Form 10 & certificates |
Taxpayers register requests electronically and they are processed automatically or semi-automatically under verifications DNIT defines — return application, file annulment, return annulment or correction, correction of payment receipts, copies of documents, RUC unblocking, account clean-up, tax-compliance certificate under dispute, and further operations identified during the consultancy. A second, public-facing track handles requests from persons and public or private entities for statements of account, RUC certificates, tax cards, compliance certificates, copies of returns, closure/cancellation certificates and pre-printed-document certificates — individually or in bulk, with information-security controls and a legal review of confidential-information access when the requester is a third party. | |
| 3 · Facilidades de Pago Payment facilities |
Systematised, automated and digitalised for all operation types — including obligations originating in foreign trade, which today require an in-person visit to affect the current account before the customs dispatch can be settled. Full chain from entry through processing and approval to current-account posting. Risk criteria govern authorisation of requests outside the general regime, with a process manager recording the analysis and approval sequence. A dedicated subprocess monitors compliance, applying lapse criteria on instalment default, and feeds back into the current account. | |
| 4 · Constancia de No Retención Non-withholding certificate |
Both taxpayer situations unified in one digital process: those without active VAT or income obligations, and those with active obligations and credit balances who today must file on paper with documentary annexes. Digital intake with annexes, requirement validation, analysis, processing and issuance. Validity is redefined by tax type and the taxpayer's closing month rather than fixed at 31 December. Risk criteria accelerate resolution, and the process manager records the complete sequence of steps, actors, dates, comments and documents — both those submitted and those DNIT issues. | |
| 5 · Seguimiento de Juicios Administrative litigation |
A single platform replacing spreadsheets, systemically and automatically linked to the precedent processes — tax audit, administrative summaries, appeals, tax credits — so that complete, consistent, current background is available to lawyers when they set legal strategy. Covers litigating-lawyer assignment, event recording with date, time and responsible party, incorporation of digitalised documents at each stage, deadline control and expiry alerts, and performance, statistical and reporting indicators by stage. Interacts with the Current Account where applicable. | |
| 6 · Cuenta Corriente DNIT Current account — cross-cutting |
Every action in the five processes above that must be recorded in the Current Account is explicitly identified in the process model, and consolidated into a single transmission where DNIT prefers it. The TO-BE processes register and update obligations automatically — payments, taxes, fees, surcharges, penalties, interest and enforceable guarantees, with the steps needed to establish enforceability; detect failure to file or pay on time and set compliance status automatically; integrate taxpayer operations with the current account so the tax statement is exposed visually in real time; and guarantee complete traceability of each obligation from generation to extinction — by payment, offset or prescription — linked to the documents, administrative acts and processes involved. |
The Terms of Reference require BPM tools including BPMN for modelling and BPMS for automation. Qntrl is where our BPMN models become executable: Blueprints define the process — stages, transitions, states and conditions; Cards are live process instances; and Circuits — a modular, state-based engine supporting conditional branching, loop-back on rejection and parallel execution — connect every other component and every core system.
Stages and transitions express each end-to-end process and its subprocesses, including conditional branches, mandatory fields per stage and the MECIP controls attached to each step.
Time limits per stage with automatic alerts and escalation — the direct answer to procedural-deadline risk in litigation tracking and to response times across all six processes.
Teams and queues mirror DNIT's organisation and taxpayer segmentation (small, medium, large), so every inter-area handoff is explicit, timed, tracked and auditable.
| Interface | Mechanism | Behaviour modelled |
|---|---|---|
| Process → platform components | Qntrl Circuit states invoking custom functions | Each circuit state triggers a Creator function, raises a Sign request, attaches a WorkDrive document or writes to CRM and Analytics. The state machine stays visible to the business area, so the process owner can read the integration, not just the developer. |
| Non-linear process control | Circuit branching, loop-back and parallel states | Rejection returns the case to an earlier stage without a new filing; independent verifications — filing status, obligation status, documentary requirements — execute in parallel rather than in sequence, which is what makes single-session resolution feasible at volume. |
| Process → Marangatu / Current Account / customs | Catalyst Functions behind an API gateway, orchestrated by Catalyst Circuits | Payload transformation, field mapping, batching of bulk requests, throttling against core-system capacity, idempotency keys, retry with exponential back-off and compensating actions on failure. Each function is specified with its contract, preconditions and error semantics — the integration specification handed to the automation firm. |
| Core systems → process | Event functions and inbound webhooks updating the card | True two-way synchronisation: when the core system confirms a posting or a payment, the circuit advances the case automatically rather than waiting for an officer to check. |
| Bulk and scheduled operations | Catalyst cron and event functions | Mass certificate requests, instalment-default sweeps and periodic reconciliation against the current account run as scheduled functions with their own execution log — outside the interactive process, so a large batch never blocks a taxpayer's request. |
| Risk evaluation | Function invoked from a circuit state on stage entry | The returned score drives the transition — automatic resolution versus routing to the competent officer — making the risk-management linkage required by the TDR explicit in the model. |
| Identity & delegated authority | Directory, SSO, OAuth 2.0, scoped tokens | Models the Authorised Third Party mandate: which operations a delegate may perform, on whose behalf, and with what evidence — to be reflected in functional specifications and use cases. |
| Audit & control | Immutable transition log | Every stage change, actor, timestamp and comment retained — the evidentiary base for MECIP internal-control requirements. |
| Standards export | BPMN 2.0 XML export and NRM-MECIP mapping | Models are portable to any BPMS. DNIT is not locked to the modelling instrument used during the consultancy. |
A circuit is the executable expression of the integration section of a process specification. The illustration below is the validation and posting segment shared by several of the six processes.
The choice of orchestration technology is a design decision we make deliberately and state openly, because it determines whether the specification survives contact with production volumes.
The point for the evaluation committee: this proposal does not specify integrations in the abstract. It specifies them at the level of state, contract, failure mode and recovery — which is the difference between a specification the automation firm can build from and one it has to reinterpret.
The Terms of Reference require risk criteria in the processes and an explicit linkage to DNIT's intelligence and integrated risk-management functions, and the Electronic File requires that annexed documentation be captured and handled digitally. The Terms of Reference do not prescribe an engine — and neither do we. Committing to one before measuring it against DNIT's own documents would be an assumption dressed as a design decision.
We therefore specify the requirements and the interface, present the viable options with their real trade-offs, and run a comparative benchmark on real DNIT material during Phase 1. DNIT selects on evidence.
Turning a scanned or PDF filing and its annexes into structured data: optical character recognition, layout and table extraction, entity extraction, document classification. Success is measured as field-level accuracy on documents of realistic quality — not on clean samples.
Deciding treatment — automatic resolution versus routing to a competent officer — from structured taxpayer data: filing history, obligation balances, economic sector, payment behaviour. This is a structured prediction problem, not a language problem, and its binding constraint is legal explainability rather than raw predictive power.
| Option | What it is | Strengths | Constraints to weigh |
|---|---|---|---|
| In-house / open source deployed inside DNIT |
OCR and layout models — PaddleOCR, docTR, Tesseract with layout analysis, or open-weight document models — hosted on DNIT infrastructure. | Complete data sovereignty: no taxpayer document leaves DNIT. No per-page cost, so reprocessing and back-scanning are free. Models and tuning become DNIT assets. | Requires DNIT to hold or build MLOps capability. Spanish-language and Paraguayan form tuning is an investment. Accuracy is proportional to that investment. |
| AWS Textract, Comprehend |
Managed OCR with forms and table extraction, plus entity recognition over the extracted text. | Mature and strong on tabular documents. Well-documented. Regional presence in South America (São Paulo). | Documents leave national territory. Per-page cost becomes material at DNIT volumes. Residency must be reconciled with the confidentiality clause. |
| Google Cloud Document AI |
Managed processors, including custom processors trained on your own document types. | Custom processor training on DNIT's actual forms is the strongest option in this class for structured extraction. Good Spanish handling. | Same residency question. Processor availability by region must be confirmed at selection time. |
| Microsoft Azure AI Document Intelligence |
Managed service with custom models — and, distinctly, available as a deployable container. | The container option is the notable middle path: managed-service accuracy running inside DNIT's own data centre, so documents never leave national territory. | Container licensing terms and a continuing dependency on a foreign supplier for model updates. |
| Zoho Zia native to the platform |
Classification, extraction and prediction services native to the reference environment. | Zero integration effort in the reference environment. Adequate for triage and coarse classification during modelling. | We would not specify it for field-level extraction from legal tax documents in Spanish. It is a convenience in our modelling environment, not our recommendation for production accuracy. |
Options are listed for evaluation, not endorsement. Any selection must also satisfy the eligibility rules of the financing, DNIT's information-security policy, and the confidentiality obligations of this contract.
| Option | Approach | Why it might be chosen — or not |
|---|---|---|
| Deterministic rules only | Thresholds and conditions codified directly from current regulation. | Fully explainable, immediately auditable, no model risk. This is the correct starting point for every process, and for some processes it may be the correct end point. |
| Rules plus gradient-boosted model recommended default | Classical machine learning over structured features — filing history, balances, sector, payment behaviour — layered behind the deterministic rules. | What leading administrations actually run for tabular risk. Strong on this data shape, and each score decomposes into per-feature contributions, which is what makes an adverse decision defensible. |
| Managed ML platform SageMaker · Vertex AI · Azure ML | Managed training, versioning and serving of the same class of model. | Shortens time to production where in-house MLOps capacity is the constraint. Trades some control and cost for speed. |
| DNIT-owned in-house model | Trained and hosted by DNIT on DNIT data. | Model, features and training data remain DNIT intellectual property, consistent with the intellectual-property terms of this contract. Highest long-term autonomy. |
| Generative model reasoning over cases | A large language model judging whether a request should be granted. | Not recommended for adverse administrative decisions. Non-determinism and the inability to reproduce a decision exactly are disqualifying where the act can be challenged. Legitimate uses exist — summarising a case file, drafting a resolution for officer review — and we specify it only there. |
A resolution denying a payment facility or a non-withholding certificate is an administrative act, and the taxpayer may challenge it. Whatever engine is selected, the specification imposes the same conditions:
Rather than assert an accuracy figure in a proposal, we propose to measure it. Included within the Month 3 report:
The process models do not depend on the engine. A circuit state calls a function with a fixed contract — classify_document, extract_fields, score_risk — with defined inputs, outputs, confidence semantics and failure behaviour. Changing engine changes that function's implementation and nothing else.
The consequence for DNIT: the selection can be deferred until the benchmark evidence exists, revisited later as the market changes, or made differently for different processes — without reopening a single process specification. Avoiding premature vendor commitment is a design decision, and we have made it deliberately.
Each of the six end-to-end processes is presented here with its target flow, our design approach, and the key interfaces and boundaries it depends on. Final deliverables comprise the complete BPMN 2.0 diagrams, templates and step-by-step descriptions for every process and subprocess, with functional specifications, use cases and interactive prototypes.
Seven requirements apply to every process. Each is treated as a design pattern applied uniformly, not as a per-process afterthought.
Specific processes are developed for the management of all taxpayers, identifying the category — small, medium, large — so attention is segmented according to competences. Queues, approval competences and SLAs differ by segment; the process model is one, the routing is segmented.
For every procedure we determine whether it may be managed through the Authorised Third Party figure, and reflect that determination in the functional specifications and use cases — including registration prerequisites, mandate scope and the evidence retained.
Applied as a validation and security factor at each step where it corresponds, with the legal basis for its use identified per step. We treat this as one of the critical design constraints of the assignment, not a technical detail: under Ley 4017/2010, as amended by Ley 4610/2012, only certificates issued by a certification service provider accredited by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce carry the legal effect of a firma digital. Our specification therefore distinguishes, step by step, where a simple electronic signature suffices and where a qualified digital signature is legally required; identifies the accredited provider integration point as an explicit interface contract; and, where the required legal effect is not currently attainable for a given step, states so and proposes the regulatory amendment through our tax-law specialist. This is exactly the kind of provision the draft decrees and resolutions are for.
Taxpayer↔DNIT, DNIT↔DNIT and DNIT↔other-entity communications relating to each request are retained, together with transmitted data and image material.
Each process is explicitly linked to DNIT's intelligence and risk-management functions, in support of the integrated risk strategy under the IDB programme. Risk criteria are expressed as decision gateways in the model, with the data each gateway consumes specified.
Each step carries the legal provision that supports it. Steps with no applicable provision are flagged and the required provision proposed; where the new process demands it, draft decrees and resolutions are prepared.
Compatibility and linkage between related processes are verified jointly with DNIT's technical team, including entry and exit points for subprocesses executed by other entities.
Finished processes are converted into the models and formats established by DNIT, consistent with Paraguay's Standard Internal Control Model, and delivered as NRM-MECIP documents.
Products are delivered against the schedule in Section IX of the Terms of Reference, with processes grouped into two packages according to the priorities and deadlines DNIT determines at kick-off.
| Month | Product / deliverable | Principal contents | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Initial meetings and Work Plan adjustment | Agreements reached; prioritisation for development and delivery of processes and subprocesses; training-programme application; proposed themes for the change-management strategy; possible modifications to the DNIT process map; description of how processes will be grouped into packages; information DNIT must provide and by when; composition of the working teams, members and responsibilities. Reflected in the adjusted Work Plan. | 10 % |
| 3 | Report on visits to tax and administrative offices | Initial diagnosis from validation and capture of the processes executed in those offices, used to prepare and confirm the AS-IS processes; principal findings and opportunity areas for the TO-BE processes. Includes the methodology and BPM/BPMN/BPMS tools training workshop, delivered on real tax processes so DNIT teams work in step with ours for the rest of the project. | 20 % |
| 6 | First package of finished processes and subprocesses | Report, diagrams, templates and process descriptions in electronic format; functional specifications; use cases; interactive interface prototypes; draft regulations — all reviewed and validated by DNIT. Difficulties encountered and their causes; any work-plan changes and the agreement reached. Plus outlines of the Process Manual and Technical Procedures Manual showing structure and expected content distribution. | 20 % |
| 9 | Second package of finished processes and subprocesses | Same product set for the second package, plus a sample of the Process Manual containing finished inputs from the first package. | 20 % |
| 10 | Preliminary final report | Draft final report with AS-IS and TO-BE processes and subprocesses, functional specifications, use cases, draft decrees and resolutions, Process Manual, Technical Procedures Manual and NRM-MECIP documents; delivery dates; personnel who developed each package; support received from DNIT; offices visited; meetings held with each working team and with the automation firm; difficulties and work-plan modifications agreed with DNIT. Includes complete drafts of both manuals. | — |
| 12 | Follow-up, adjustments and Final Report | All adjustments requested by DNIT completed before the end of month 11, updating diagrams, templates, descriptions, functional specifications, draft regulations and both manuals. Final training workshop for process-owning and IT areas, focused on the Technical Procedures Manual and on maintaining, updating and improving the end-to-end processes and the Process Manual. Final Report presented once reviewed and approved by DNIT. | 30 % |
Observations on any product are remedied in full within ten working days of notification, with dedicated resources assigned to remediation while the rest of the team continues scheduled development. Delivery dates are set as key dates in the Work Plan; where a delay arises from circumstances outside our control, an extension request with justification is submitted by e-mail before the due date.
The operating structure follows the Work Plan and adds the control bodies that the evaluation grid rewards at the highest level.
| Activity | Leader | Tax | Modelling | Legal | UI/UX | DNIT counterpart |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Work-plan adjustment & prioritisation | A/R | C | C | C | I | A |
| AS-IS capture & office visits | A | R | R | C | I | R |
| TO-BE modelling & templates | A | C | R | C | C | C |
| Functional specifications & use cases | A | C | R | C | C | C |
| Interactive interface prototypes | A | C | C | I | R | C |
| Draft decrees & resolutions | A | C | I | R | I | C |
| Current-account posting points | A | R | R | C | I | C |
| NRM-MECIP conversion & manuals | A | C | R | C | C | A |
| Training workshops | A | R | R | C | C | I |
R = responsible · A = accountable / approves · C = consulted · I = informed. The complete matrix, at task level, forms part of the Work Plan.
Organisational and system changes arising from process improvement can generate explicit or implicit resistance, which is a leading cause of project failure. We propose themes and points for incorporation into the organisational change-management methodology under Component 3 of the IDB programme, built on:
We field the full mandatory full-time team. Each profile below is mapped against the exact sub-criteria in the Data Sheet, so the evaluation committee can award points without interpretation. Curricula and supporting certificates are attached in the Annexes; all personnel are available during DNIT's official working hours.
| Sub-criterion | Max | Evidence in our proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Master's degree in Project Management or Direction | 2 | Master's in Project Management — certificate in Annex A |
| University graduate | 2 | Degree certificate in Annex A |
| PMP certification or equivalent | 2 | PMP, current registration number in Annex A |
| Participation in tax-process automation and digitalisation projects in the last 10 years (3 or more = 4 pts) | 4 | Three or more contracts listed with client, scope, dates, country and outcome |
| Participation in modernisation projects based on international best practice (3 or more = 2 pts) | 2 | Three or more benchmarked modernisation programmes |
| Regional experience — tax-process reengineering projects (3 or more = 3 pts) | 3 | Three or more Latin American reengineering engagements |
Responsible for execution of the consultancy in all its scopes, for contract compliance and for achieving the objective and expected results. Replacement, if ever required, is immediate and with an equal or superior profile, with full project knowledge transfer.
| Sub-criterion | Max | Evidence in our proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Degree in Economics, Business Administration, Accounting, Industrial Engineering or related | 2.5 | Degree certificate in Annex B |
| Postgraduate specialisation or Master's in tax, accounting or administrative matters | 2.5 | Postgraduate certificate in Annex B |
| Minimum 8 years' verifiable experience in tax, administration or accounting (more than 10 years = 2.5 pts) | 2.5 | More than 10 years, with employment certificates |
| Experience formulating or managing projects linked to tax processes (3 or more = 2.5 pts) | 2.5 | Three or more projects at international, regional or national level |
| Regional experience — Latin American tax reengineering or modernisation (3 or more = 2 pts) | 2 | Three or more Latin American engagements |
Transfers expertise in collection, current account, taxpayer services and tax procedures to the working teams during development and testing of the new operational processes.
| Sub-criterion | Max | Evidence in our proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Degree in Economics, Business Administration, Industrial Engineering, Accounting or related | 1.5 | Degree certificate in Annex C |
| Certification or Master's in process management, automation or process modelling | 2.5 | BPM certification in Annex C |
| Minimum 7 years redesigning, modelling and implementing processes with BPM/BPMN/BPMS tools (more than 10 years = 2 pts) | 2 | More than 10 years, tools listed by engagement |
| Participation in tax-process improvement, optimisation, redesign, reengineering or automation projects (3 or more = 3 pts) | 3 | Three or more tax-process engagements |
| Regional experience — partial or total tax-process reengineering in Latin America (3 or more = 1 pt) | 1 | Three or more Latin American engagements |
Responsible for modelling the tax processes with BPM/BPMN/BPMS tools, including diagrams, templates, the description of each step of every process and subprocess, and their functional specifications.
| Sub-criterion | Max | Evidence in our proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Legal professional | 0.5 | Law degree and bar registration in Annex D |
| Master's, specialisation or certification in tax legislation | 1.5 | Tax-law postgraduate certificate in Annex D |
| Minimum 8 years' verifiable experience in tax matters within the last 10 years (more than 10 years = 4 pts) | 4 | More than 10 years in Paraguayan tax practice |
| International experience — minimum 6 years in tax matters within the last 10 years (more than 8 years = 2 pts) | 2 | More than 8 years with international exposure documented |
Reviews the new processes, verifies that references to current legal provisions in each step description are correct, identifies steps lacking a legal reference and states which provisions must be added, proposes reforms where the new processes require them, and prepares the draft regulations needed for implementation.
| Sub-criterion | Max | Evidence in our proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Degree or engineering in Informatics, technology or related | 2.5 | Degree certificate in Annex E |
| Minimum 3 years' verifiable UI/UX experience within the last 5 years | 1.25 | Portfolio and employment certificates |
| Minimum 3 years with prototyping tools — Figma, InVision, Sketch, Adobe XD | 1.25 | Tool-specific evidence per project |
Responsible for designing the mock-ups and interactive prototypes that illustrate how the user interfaces will work, producing designs, images, sketches and tables.
in process reengineering, project delivery, enterprise software and applied AI across telecommunications, ERP and public-sector transformation.
delivering complete platform transformations end to end — operations, finance, service, analytics and low-code process automation — as a Zoho Premium Partner.
tax-process reengineering, automation or digitalisation projects in Latin America — the documented threshold for maximum points under 1.1.1 and 1.1.2.
AENA · Banco Santander · Cosentino · Telefónica · Santos Brasil · Prodynamic, among others — including engagements involving tax and revenue processes and the cross-referencing of taxpayer data at scale.
| Sub-criterion | Max | Threshold | What the annex must show per contract |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1.1 Tax-process reengineering, automation or digitalisation projects in the last 10 years | 5 | 3 or more projects = 5 points | Client, scope, start and end dates, country, outcome, and a reference letter or completion certificate. A single contract satisfying more than one criterion may be scored under each. |
| 1.1.2 The same, in Latin American countries | 5 | 3 or more projects = 5 points |
Subcontracting of the awarded services is not permitted; association is possible only among short-listed firms. Our proposal is presented on that basis.
The technical proposal is constructed against the grid in the Data Sheet. Technical score weighs 70 %, price 30 %.
| Criterion | Max | Where this proposal answers it | Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Firm experience | 10 | §14 — 3+ projects in the last 10 years and 3+ in Latin America, with references | |
| 1.2 Logic of technical approach & methodology | 20 | §02, §04–§09 — complete coverage of every scope element, logical activity chain, detailed description of how each will be fulfilled, plus demonstrable added value | |
| 1.3 Work plan | 10 | §10 — activities, content, duration, phases, interrelations, milestones, DNIT provisional approvals and report delivery dates, consistent with the approach and the 12-month term | |
| 1.4 Organisation & staffing — technical and qualitative | 5 | §11 — coherent organisation chart plus control bodies and committees supporting management, which is the "very satisfactory" threshold | |
| 1.4 i · Knowledge-transfer programme | 3 | §12 — covers every scope area, involves all DNIT staff requiring training, includes everything the TDR requires | |
| 1.4 ii · Institutional change-management plan | 2 | §12 — plan and methodology with activities, duration, phases, interrelations, milestones and report dates, consistent with the approach and work plan | |
| 2.1 Project Leader | 15 | §13.1 — mapped sub-criterion by sub-criterion | |
| 2.2 Tax Processes, Collection & Current Account Specialist | 12 | §13.2 | |
| 2.3 BPM/BPMN/BPMS Modelling Specialist | 10 | §13.3 | |
| 2.4 Paraguayan Tax Law Specialist | 8 | §13.4 | |
| 2.5 UI/UX Design Specialist | 5 | §13.5 |
Tie-breaking, where applicable, favours the highest score on key personnel and then on technical approach and methodology — both of which this proposal is built to maximise.
The message to DNIT is straightforward: we understand the six processes in the detail the Terms of Reference demand; our method produces specifications that are proven executable before they are handed over; and our team is assembled to meet every documented threshold in the evaluation grid.
| Requirement | Our position |
|---|---|
| Language | Spanish, for the proposal, correspondence and all products. |
| Place of performance | DNIT central offices, Asunción, with visits to regional tax offices agreed with DNIT. Personnel maintained in Asunción or permanently available to DNIT in Asunción, as Section IV requires. |
| Duration | 12 months from the start order; services commence within five working days of that order. |
| Subcontracting | None. The awarded services are performed by the firm itself. |
| Professional liability insurance | Minimum cover of 100 % of the total contract amount, valid for at least 30 days beyond contract expiry, presented within ten calendar days of signature. |
| Performance guarantee | Surety bond covering 10 % of the contract amount, under the same validity conditions, from an insurer authorised by the Superintendence of Insurance of the Central Bank of Paraguay or a foreign entity with a national correspondent. |
| Intellectual property | Ownership of all materials and products developed — diagrams, templates, descriptions, drafts, use cases, digital files, support material — belongs to DNIT. Copyright and every other right over the reports, documents and all material produced or derived from the service vests exclusively in DNIT. |
| Confidentiality | All processes, specifications, draft regulations, communications and reports are treated as confidential DNIT property and are not shared with any person or entity other than DNIT. The DNIT non-disclosure agreement will be signed, with the confidentiality obligation maintained after contract end. |
| Powers of attorney | No predetermined form exists. A power of attorney is submitted for the authorised representative signing the proposal. Should the proposal be presented as a consortium (APCA), a power is required for the authorised representative of each member, plus a power for the representative of the lead member to represent all members jointly. |
| Consortium (APCA) eligibility | Association is permitted only among short-listed firms. All APCA members must satisfy the Bank's nationality criteria. The lead member and the joint-and-several liability of the members are declared in the proposal. |
| Electronic signature of products | Signature workflows specified against providers accredited by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce under Ley 4017/2010. Where a step requires legal effect not currently attainable, the required regulatory amendment is drafted as part of the deliverable. |
| Anti-corruption | Commitment Declaration submitted with the proposal; compliance with IDB policies on fraud and corruption. |
| Currency & taxes | Guaraníes, national taxes included. The firm is responsible for all tax obligations arising from the contract. |
| Proposal validity | Maintained for the period stated in the Data Sheet from the submission deadline. |