Q&A - Amendment #2.pdf

December 12, 2019

Subject: Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 7200AA19R00019, Amendment #2, Questions and Answers, Part 2

Title: EVAL ME II – Monitoring Evaluation Learning Services

Dear Potential Offerors, Due to the volume of questions received, USAID will respond to offeror questions in a phased approach. The first phase was the issuance of Amendment #1 on November 27, 2019, which provided responses to offeror questions regarding past performance. As stated in the solicitation and Amendment #1, offerors must submit their Past Performance Information in accordance with Sections L and M by Friday, December 13, 2019, 12:00 pm Eastern Time in order to be considered for evaluation.

The purpose of this Amendment (2), is to provide responses to offeror questions for other sections of the solicitation. These questions and responses are segmented into RFP sections. USAID responses are written in red. Many questions were considered redundant in nature, therefore responses have been consolidated. USAID highly recommends that offerors read through this document in its entirety to ensure proposals are being submitted in accordance with instructions.

An updated solicitation has been provided with this Amendment with areas highlighted in yellow to reflect revisions. Additionally, a copy of Attachment B (Labor Rate Matrix) has been provided in Microsoft Excel. Offerors must use this Excel version and provide cost information in accordance with Section L (see both tabs).

Remaining questions and answers will be posted to beta.sam.gov no later than the close of business on Wednesday, December 18, 2019. An additional extension to the submission deadline of Wednesday, January 8, 2019 at 12:00 pm Eastern Time has NOT been considered at this time.

USAID bears no responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or conversion processes.

USAID advises to regularly check the website above for future amendments.

Sincerely, /s/

Ashlee Tuck, Contracting Officer http://beta.sam.gov/

General Questions

1. As the Congressional House Committee on Small Business noted in May, “the Small Business Administration has postponed [the SB Runway Extension Act’s] implementation, creating confusion and challenges for small businesses competing for federal contracts.”

Many implementing partners currently designated as small do not yet know which size standard rule (3-year or 5-year) will apply or when. As this will affect whether small businesses maintain their status upon recertification at an unknown date of EVAL-ME II award, it is critical for offerors to understand USAID’s outlook at this time. Does USAID have any knowledge of when the SBA intends to issue a final rule around the Act’s five-year averaging period?

Effective January 6, 2020, SBA will change the period of measurement for receipts-based size calculations from three years to five years. This change is the result of the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018 and SBA’s final rulemaking on December 5, 2019.

SBA is adopting a two-year transition period, until January 6, 2022, during which firms may choose to use either the current three-year calculation or the new five-year calculation.

After January 6, 2022, all companies must use the five-year period of measurement in determining their size under a receipts-based calculation.

2. Can USAID please confirm that it does not want to see named personnel in offerors’ proposals?

Page 5 of the RFP states that, “The contractor must designate a primary point of contact that USAID may contact for procedural and substantive matters. The central management bears primary responsibility for technical aspects of contract performance, as well as procurement personnel, reporting, and other management related requirements of the contract.”

Additionally, Section L lists requirements for a Management Organizational Chart and Personnel Summary Matrix. Please see the solicitation for details.

3. It’s understood the Development Information Solution (DIS) will replace existing results management systems, providing one overarching application to meet USAID needs. To what extent does USAID envisage EVAL-ME II providing support to missions transitioning to Development Information Solution (DIS)? Is there a set timeline in which specific Missions will transition to DIS?

Missions may request the services of EVAL-ME II as needed. There is no set timeline for Missions to transition to DIS. The system is currently in the pilot phase.

https://smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=2553

4. How is small business categorization (WOSB, SDVOSB) being applied in the determination of small business status for the award of the IDIQ?

This is a small business set aside. All small businesses are eligible for award.

5. Can USAID confirm that there are no required annexes?

Per Section L, the Personnel Summary Matrix and Management Structure Organizational Chart(s) are the only required annexes for Volume 2. USAID Form 1420 is to be submitted if applicable. Please read Sections L & M for other required information.

6. If applicable, please confirm that there is not a requirement to propose Key Personnel.

Page 6 of the RFP states that, “The contractor must designate a primary point of contact that USAID may contact for procedural and substantive matters. The central management bears primary responsibility for technical aspects of contract performance, as well as procurement personnel, reporting, and other management related requirements of the contract.”

Offerors should propose a technical approach that best meets this need.

7. May offerors have the option of including additional information in an Annex?

No, please only include required information listed in sections L and M of the solicitation.

8. Are all subcontractors required to complete information on workday/week or only major subcontractors?

Yes.

9. Does the Offeror need to include Organizational Letters of Commitment from its subcontractors?

Yes, offerors should submit Letters of Commitment from all subcontractors.

10. Will USAID please explain further how does EVAL ME II intersect with and complement the “several available mechanisms in the Agency for supporting evaluations, performance monitoring, CLA, knowledge management and learning”? For example, the Program Cycle Mechanism.

EVAL-ME II is a follow-on to the current EVAL-ME mechanism, designed to provide MEL services to USAID operating units.

11. The cover sheet states: “The NAICS Code for this award is 541990 – All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services. Based on the North American Industry Classification System Codes, the average annual receipts for small businesses is $15M.

Small businesses must certify their status prior to award.” According to the SBA table of size standards, effective August 19, 2019, the size standard for this NAICS code was increased to $16.5M. Can USAID please confirm that $16.5M is the applicable size standard for this solicitation?

This was revised during Amendment #1. Please see the revised solicitation.

12. The SF33 form was not included with the solicitation. Could USAID please provide the SF33 for this procurement?

This was provided in Amendment #1. Please see the revised solicitation.

13. Would the government like to see illustrative resumes/CVs as part of the offeror’s submission?

Yes. See Section L.7.2 for details.

14. Does USAID have a general idea or estimation of the number of Task Orders that will be released throughout the duration of the IDIQ?

No.

15. Has USAID set a new policy under which mission-wide MEL platforms are required to be bid out under this IDIQ?

No.

16. Do you plan to conduct a post EVAL-ME I learning event, where those applying for, or selected as awardees for EVAL-ME II, will have the opportunity to hear from USAID and its partners about what worked well (and what did not) under the first contract?

No.

17. To what degree do you see this contract – and its resources – overlapping, engaging, and/or collaborating with the soon-to-be-awarded Program Cycle Mechanism contract from PPL/PRP?

There is no direct overlap between the Program Cycle Mechanism and EVAL-ME II.

18. Are there specific Knowledge Management initiatives and/or platforms that would be important for applicants to be able to use or contribute to as part of this contract?

Offerors are expected to provide a strategic approach to identify and utilize relevant sources of evidence and determine the content of messages according to the audience.

19. How much of this work do you envision being in support of USAID Missions versus support to Washington-based Operating Units?

EVAL-ME II will be open for buy-in for MEL services from both Washington OUs and USAID Missions. The demand will be determined by the specific needs of OUs and Missions.

20. In the past, one of the barriers experienced with data collection efforts has been a limitation on approved technology platforms from M/CIO. Is there an openness to supportive technology platforms that are not already approved by CIO?

No.

21. What is the envisioned turnaround time for RFTOPS under this mechanism, from release to award?

Each RFTOP is independent and issued from Washington OUs and various Missions around the world. It is not possible to give a specific timeline; that will be determined by the issuing Contracting Officer.

22. Are the only to joint venture categories admissible for EVAL-ME II those in a Mentor Protégé JV or the all-small JV?

No. See Section L.13. USAID will accept any legally tenable agreement that is compliant with 13 CFR 125.8.

Section B

23. As this procurement is a total-small business set-aside, would USAID consider striking the requirement for prime small businesses to propose ceiling indirect cost rates (B.8.1)?

While ceiling indirect cost rates are often manageable for large firms, small businesses often face challenges when committing to ceiling indirect cost rates, which could de-incentivize responses to RFTOPs in the future.

No.

24. Table B-10, page 14 - Can USAID confirm if the offeror is supposed to provide:

1. Ceiling rates in this table

Yes.

2. Should these ceiling rates be for the entire period of performance or should we provide a ceiling rate by year (as seen in the Labor Rate Matrix)

Per Section L.9.5, “Offerors may propose a single ceiling rate covering the term of award or a ceiling rate in each applicable contract year. If an annual ceiling rate is proposed, USAID will average the ceiling indirect rates and use that figure for evaluation purposes.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/13/125.8

3. Under Fringe Rates, there are 3 columns (a, b, and c). What is USAID expecting to view under each one of these columns if the offeror has one rate?

Those columns depend on the offeror’s base of application for indirect rates. It can vary from contractor to contractor.

25. Will USAID be allowing escalation on rates over time?

Yes, if it is the practice of the offeror to provide escalation rates. However, rates should not exceed the current USAID Contractor Salary Threshold.

26. How will USAID account for changing indirect rates over the life of the contract? Are offerors to estimate changes in fringe, overhead and G&A?

Per Section L.9.5, “Offerors may propose a single ceiling rate covering the term of award or a ceiling rate in each applicable contract year. If an annual ceiling rate is proposed, USAID will average the ceiling indirect rates and use that figure for evaluation purposes.”

If an offeror is awarded a contract, changes in indirect rates can be addressed through modification after award. Yes, offerors should estimate fringe, overhead and G&A.

27. Will TPM be considered part of the Performance Monitoring component and therefore procured under this contract or will TPM be a separately procured activity

Missions and OUs can procure TPM task orders through the IDIQ.

28. B.8.1, page 6 states that management costs for IDIQ and task orders cannot be recovered as a direct cost. The costs of managing the program should be treated as direct costs in accordance with our established accounting practices and with FAR 31.202(a) as the costs can be identified to a specific cost objective. Further, as we are a small business, if the costs are included in our overhead pool it will have a material impact on the overhead rate. This is a noncompliance with FAR 31.202(b) as it does not produce substantially the same impact as if the costs were allocated directly AND it will cause other unrelated contracts to bear of share of this contract’s cost for management through the application of a higher overhead rate.

The offeror’s technical and cost proposals should take into consideration the distribution of its management costs. Please also see Section L.9.6 for instructions.

29. How does USAID envision that bidders express their Central Management element structure and staffing: brief CVs; organizational chart naming present bidder staff, recruiting function description; management process descriptions or other means? If CVs are required, will they count against the page limit?

Please see Section L.7.2 for details.

30. Can bidders include additional Labor Categories and related unburdened rates that are not included in chart B.8.3?

Please do not include additional labor categories. Use only labor categories provided.

31. We have the following questions relating to the table in B.8.5:

a. For Senior-level, years of experience required with a JD/ABD, is less than Mid-level (5 versus 6 years)?

b. Years of experience required with a PhD degree to qualify for Mid-level, is not indicated?

c. For Senior-level, years of experience required with MS/MA/MBA, is 8 years, which is only one year more than for Mid-level with MS/MA/MBA (7 years)?

d. Years of experience required with MS/MA/MBA to qualify for Junior –level is not indicated?

Considering the above, please revise the education and experience requirements for each level.

Please see the revised table below. It is also updated and highlighted in yellow in the revised solicitation.

Education and Experience Requirements

LEVEL ACADEMIC DEGREE YEARS OF RELEVANT

WORK EXPERIENCE

Leve I (senior-level) PhD 4

JD/ABD 6

MS/MA/MBA 8

BS/BA 10

Education and Experience Requirements

LEVEL ACADEMIC DEGREE YEARS OF RELEVANT

WORK EXPERIENCE

Level II (mid-level) PhD 2

JD/ABD 4

MS/MA/MBA 4

BS/BA 8

Level III (junior-level) MS/MA/MBA 2

BS/BA 5

< BS/BA 20

32. Will the government consider allowing offerors to propose candidates with a lesser degree but additional professional experience in lieu of the required degree?

No.

33. B.10 INDIRECT COSTS, “Pending establishment of revised provisional or final indirect cost rates, allowable indirect costs must be reimbursed on the basis of the following negotiated provisional or predetermined rates and the appropriate bases for prime contractors and their major subcontractors.” and “Reimbursement for indirect costs must be at final negotiated rates, but not in excess of ceiling rates specified above.”

Please clarify if the indirect cost chart should have current indirect rates?

If an offeror has a NICRA, it should use those rates in its cost proposal. If an offeror does not have a NICRA, it should propose ceiling rates based on the Contractor's actual cost experience in accordance with FAR 52.216-7 and 52.232-7.

34. B.10 provides for inclusion of the prime and subcontractor current provisional or predetermined NICRAs, but Section B does not include a clause wherein offerors’ proposed ceilings on NICRAs will be referenced. As proposed ceilings are required per Section L, would USAID please consider adding a clause to Section B that will include proposed ceilings?

There is already mention of ceiling rates in Section B.10.

35. The RFP requests CDRs that will be fixed for all 5 years of the ordering period and 7 years of the performance period. B.9 grants the contractor the ability to propose reduced rates at any time during the life of the contract. Will contractors also have the ability to propose modest increases to rates over the life of the project, in order to account for inflation and cost of living increases?

Offerors can propose escalation rates if it’s in their practice to do so. However, those rates must not exceed the current USAID CST.

36. Under B.8.3, paragraph 2 on Page 9, the contractor will be expected to determine salaries based on a variety of factors including “recent relevant salary history”. In light of the recently published new biodata form, would USAID please consider removing this factor?

This has been removed in the revised solicitation.

37. For B.8.3 “Labor Category Groupings” should offerors propose CDRs for all cells or only those shaded in white?

Please provide rates for cells shaded in white.

38. USAID has outlined the major labor categories for work described under this solicitation.

However - all categories of labor are technical in nature. To deliver this scope of work there are often administrative and management functions that support technical delivery (Program Associate, Program Assistants). Would USAID consider adding a level III category for these positions?

No.

39. For the Labor Category 1024 - did USAID intend to say Evaluation Expert or Learning Expert? There is also a description of this labor category on p.12 that describes the position as an Evaluation Expert.

Learning positions are 1022 and 1023.

40. Please confirm the UCDRs proposed by offerors will be valid for Year 1 of the IDIQ, and that an annual escalation to those Year 1 UCDRs may be proposed?

Yes, if it is the offeror’s practice to propose escalated rates.

41. Can USAID confirm if offerors may escalate CDRs for years 2-5? If so, is there a cap on the escalation percentage?

The offeror should propose rates in line with its business practices.

42. Can USAID confirm if offerors may escalate CDRs beyond CST for years 2-5?

Escalation rates beyond the current CST may not be proposed. If the CST increases, the contractor can request a modification to their contract to incorporate the new CST rate.

43. Section B.8.4 lists definitions of labor categories. All positions except for 1027 Performing Monitoring Specialist on page 12 of the solicitation list the level of expertise required, whether it is Level I (senior-level), Level II (mid-level), or Level III (junior-level). Which level of expertise does USAID envision labor category 1027 Performing Monitoring Specialist having?

It should read as follows:

1027 Performance Monitoring Specialist

Lead expert in developing and designing performance monitoring systems. Manage and coordinate the overall approach to performance monitoring, with the skills and capability to provide technical assistance in developing Performance Monitoring Plans, and Monitoring and Evaluation plans.

Position 1027 is a Level II.

44. We would like to request that subcontractor submit their financial data/indirect cost directly to the CO and that any such data not be included in future contract such as the combined Prime & Subcontractor Indirect Cost in the Table provided in Section B.10, Page 14.

Subcontractors are allowed to submit their information directly to the CO by the due date.

It should be made clear what offeror’s proposal it is a part of.

45. Will USAID permit offerors to propose unburdened CDRs that exceed the current contractor salary threshold if they include the proviso that in no case will CDRs exceed the prevailing CST at the time?

Escalation rates beyond the current CST may not be proposed. If the CST increases, the contractor can request a modification to their contract to incorporate the new CST rate.

46. Section B.8.2 and J.5 Labor Rate Evaluation Matrix (Attachment B), please clarify expectation for the ceiling rates where it is understood that the CDR should be set for the entire contract term. Effectively contractors should take current rates, escalate those rates for the 5-year period of performance and use the fifth year rates for the Section B.8.2 table and for all periods in Attachment B. The effect will be overstated labor costs in years 1-4 based on applying the common contract CDR rate. Should the expected annual CDR rates for each year be applied in Attachment B noting that those rates must be at or below than the rates reflect in the Section B.8.2 table?

The contractor should propose escalated rates if it’s in their policy to do so. However, the proposed rates must not exceed the current CST. If the CST increases, a modification can be requested by the contractor to revise the CST rate in their contract.

Section B.8.2 is an illustration for Year 1 rates. The complete table for Labor Category Groupings is within Attachment B. Rates for Years 1-5 should be proposed.

47. Section B.8.5, the minimum education and experience requirements for a Level 1 (senior), for a JD/ABD is 5 years of experience, compared to 6 years of experience for a Level II

(mid-level). It would appear that this is a typo, as the more senior level generally requires more experience. Please clarify.

This has been revised. See chart in the response to question #31 above.

48. Section B.9, please clarify the intent of the Labor (Unburdened CDR) Rate Changes clause.

It is understood that that lower Daily rates can be applied in any Task Order Pricing Response.

The intent of B.9 is just as it states. Lower rates can be proposed at any time to be incorporated at the IDIQ level. Contract holders will also be able to propose lower rates on a task order basis.

49. Section B.10, please confirm that current approved provisional NICRA rates are to be included in the table for the Offeror as well as Major Subcontractors and that the rates are not ceiling rates. There is reference to ceiling rates later in the clause in other sections of the RFP, but “Ceiling Rates” clause does not appear in the RFP. Please confirm that ceiling rates are not being requested or established in this clause.

Offerors should include approved NICRA rates as their ceiling rates. If an offeror does not have a NICRA, it should propose ceiling rates based on the Contractor's actual cost experience in accordance with FAR 52.216-7 and 52.232-7.

50. Section B.8.5: In the Qualification Substitution table, USAID requires a number of years of experience in lieu of academic qualifications that is much higher than any other table we have seen published by USAID, OPM, or any other government agency. Would USAID accept 8 additional years of relevant experience in lieu of a Doctorate; 6 years in lieu of a Master; and 4 years in lieu of a Bachelor?

No.

51. Please confirm that USAID requires Offerors to fill out only the white cells in the table B.8.3 “Labor Category Grouping.” Should offerors black out the other cells in the Labor Rate Matrix?

Fill out the white cells only.

52. Section B.8.3 (beginning on page 7), Labor Category Groupings, does not include a communications or ICT labor categories. Would USAID consider adding these labor categories, or are offerors free to propose additional labor categories they deem likely to be required?

No.

53. Page 9, May Offerors include a labor category for Technical Advisor – Level I under performance evaluations? Capping technical advisors at a level II which is a MA plus 7 years of experience is insufficient for the level of experience that most Missions require for technical advisors in a particular subject matter.

There is a Technical Advisor Level I on the chart.

54. Page 10, May Offerors include a labor category for Technical Advisor – Level I under impact evaluations? Capping technical advisors at a level II which is a MA plus 7 years of experience is insufficient for the level of experience that most Missions require for technical advisors in a particular subject matter.

There is a Technical Advisor Level I on the chart.

55. Page 12, May Offerors include a labor category for Evaluation Expert – Level I under impact evaluations? Capping Evaluation Experts at a level II which is a MA plus 7 years of experience is insufficient for the level of experience that most Missions require for evaluation experts.

There is an Evaluation Expert Level I for Impact Evaluations on the chart.

56. Section B.8.5 Minimum Qualifications:

Level I (Senior-Level) JD/ABD = 5 Year’ experience;

Level II (Mid-Level) JD/ABD = 6 Years’ experience;

Please confirm that the years of experience for the mid-level with a JD/ABD should in fact be lower than that of the senior position.

This has been revised. See the chart listed in the response to question #31 above.

57. Page 13, B.8.5 Qualifications Substitution: According to the Education and Experience Requirements on Page 13, Level II (Mid Level) Master’s = 7 years’ experience.

However, no option for an Associates Degree (<BA) is listed at this level. Please confirm that the Associates Plus 20 years’ experience can be used as a qualifications substitution for a Master’s at the Mid-Level.

No.

58. Page 13, B.8.5 Qualifications Substitution: According to the Education and Experience Requirements on Page 13, Level III (Junior Level) BA = 5 years’ experience and a Level III (Junior Level) <BA = 20 years’ experience. Please confirm that the labor Qualifications Substitution for a BA should be an Associates and 10 years’ experience.

No.

59. Page 13, B.8.5 Qualifications Substitution: Please confirm what the qualifications for a JD/ABD are.

See the updated chart in the revised solicitation.

60. Section B.8.1, page 5, and Section L.7, page 94, mention central management of the IDIQ.

Please confirm that in addition to the “point of contact” referenced in Section B.8.1 as the individual “USAID may contact for procedural and substantive matters”, Offerors are allowed to propose other staff necessary to perform the central management function on the IDIQ, such as cost and quality control.

No.

61. Section B.8.5 Minimum Qualifications, pages 12-13, includes the Experience and Education table and the Qualifications Substitution table. We have several questions related to the content of the tables:

a. In the Experience and Education table, the difference between Level 1 (senior) and Level 2 (mid) for individuals with Master’s degrees is minimal. For Level 1 the minimum requirement is a Master’s degree and 8 years of relevant experience and for Level 2 a Master’s degree and 7 years of relevant experience. In contrast, Level 3 does not include a Master’s degree category. Would USAID consider reducing the Level 2 requirement for the number of years of experience with a Master’s degree to 5 (or even 3) years, to expand the pool of individuals qualified to support the work corresponding to this level of expertise?

b. In the Qualifications Substitution table, it is not entirely clear what counts as equivalent experience in the absence of a Master’s degree. For instance, the table states that the equivalent of a Master’s degree is “baccalaureate plus 15 years”, but under the Experience and Education table above, it would appear that the correct equivalency should be baccalaureate plus 2 years (or even 1 year in the case of Level 2).

c. When reviewing the Experience and Education table alongside the Qualifications Substitution table, we noted that there are no degree substitutions upwards. Could you please clarify whether, for example, an individual with a PhD and zero years of experience would qualify for Level III (junior) and Level II (senior) categories?

Similarly, would an individual with a Master’s degree and zero years of experience qualify for Level III (junior) category?

The table has been updated in the revised solicitation. Please also see the response to question #31 above.

62. p.12, B.8.5. It appears that some minimum qualifications for Levels 1 and 2 are reversed in part. Level 1 has a JD/ABD with five years of experience and Level 2 requires six years of experience for someone with a JD/ABD. Please confirm the qualifications are accurate as given or revise.

The table has been updated in the revised solicitation. Please also see the response to question #31 above.

63. B.8.5. Minimum Qualifications: Can USAID please validate the data presented in table labeled “Education and Experience Requirements” with “Qualifications Substitution.”

The two tables do not seem to cross validate consistently. For example, Level III positions require a BA and 5 years of experience or less than a BA and 20 years of experience. However, a BA can be substituted with 10 years of experience.

Yes.

64. Would USAID consider revising the years of experience required for Level III rates to allow for more flexibility on substituting years of experience with higher education levels?

No.

65. Could USAID please expand on the definitions for each labor category in Section B.8.4?

Some of them have the same title (i.e. Technical Advisor / Team Lead) and the definitions are very similar, yet they are in different levels and groupings.

They are in different levels and groupings which may be determined by specific task orders.

66. The Education and Experience Requirement table in Section B.8.5 does not provide the option for a PhD with 2 years of experience under the mid-level. Could USAID please explain why this is so?

The table has been updated in the revised solicitation. Please also see the response to question #31 above.

67. Under B.8.3 Labor Category Groupings (page7) of the RFP, some cells have been blackened, while others are white. It looks like USAID does not want rates for cells that have been blackened. Please confirm.

Confirmed.

68. p.7, B.8.2. The section states that “One unburdened ceiling daily rate for each labor category/grouping is included in the contract to provide more flexibility under task orders”.

Please confirm that USAID intended for rates to be provided for all levels for the Monitoring and Knowledge Management and Capacity Building categories or revise the table included in the section that follows (B.8.3) as well as the Labor/Cost/Price matrix.

Confirmed.

69. Note 4 under B.8.3 Labor Category Groupings (page 9) of the RFP states “The Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates above do not apply to Fixed-price Task Orders. Please confirm that contractors may utilize consultants whose rates may be in excess of these ceiling rates, which may end up exceeding USAID Contractor Salary Threshold.

The offerors may only use rates proposed and incorporated into their contracts. No rates shall exceed the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold.

70. Is the prime required to submit schedule B.10 (p. 14) as part of the submission?

Yes.

71. If a subcontractor policy is not to provide their indirect cost rates to the prime and requires them to provide it directly to USAID, could USAID a) confirm this is acceptable, and b) indicate how the prime should complete schedule B.10 (if required).

This is acceptable. The offeror should complete Section B.10 to the best of its ability.

This information should also be submitted as a part of Volume 3.

72. If a subcontractor policy is not to provide their labor rate backup to the prime and requires them to provide it directly to USAID, could USAID:

a. confirm this is acceptable, and

b. confirm it is acceptable for the prime to leave the labor rate justification blank for some of the rates, noting that the subcontractor will provide justification directly to USAID?

Confirmed.

73. Regarding rates for each labor category, in some cases, the rates may be of current full-time staff, in some cases the rates will be the unburdened rates of partner staff, and in some cases, the rates may be for consultants. In the case of subcontractors as well as consultants, a different application of indirect rates may apply. Please confirm that we can list the unburdened rates for subcontractor staff as well as consultants, for illustrative purposes only to document that basis of the rate for the given position and then apply our rate structure “as if” the position was full time of the prime. (not the subcontractor’s rate, or the indirect rates that will apply to consultants under a CPFF).

Confirmed.

74. Currently, the minimum qualifications table in Section B.8.5 states that a Level I (senior-level) position requires a JD/ABD and 5 years of experience, while a Level II (mid-level) position requires a JD/ABD and 6 years of experience. Would USAID please advise on the correct number of years of experience required for mid and senior-level positions when paired with a JD/ABD?

This table has been revised. Please see the response to question #31.

75. In Section B.10, would USAID please clarify what is considered “on-site” and what is considered “off-site”?

On-site is the Offeror’s Office/Headquarters and Off-site is the Client Site. This is all based on the offeror’s NICRA base of application or accounting system.

76. A note under the table in Section B.10 states, “Reimbursement for indirect costs must be at final negotiated rates, but not in excess of ceiling rates specified above.” Would USAID please confirm that Offerors are only required to propose a ceiling indirect rate for

Overhead, and that ceiling rates are not required for fringe, G&A, subcontract handling, etc.?

Ceiling rates should be proposed for all.

77. Small businesses tend to experience more significant volatility in their indirect rates than large businesses and setting appropriate indirect rate ceilings may be more difficult. As USAID anticipates awarding up to 15 IDIQs to small businesses, would USAID please consider removing the requirement for indirect rate ceilings from the IDIQ and allow the small business Offerors to use their current indirect cost rates in their proposals?

No.

78. Can USAID confirm that ceiling daily rates (CDRs) apply to the Prime and all subcontractors?

Confirmed.

Section C

79. On page 23 of the RFP, it states: “contractors will be expected to respond to approximately 10-20 impact evaluations service requests annually.” Does this include requests that are part of multi-year platform task orders, or are these in addition to the number that may be requested under multi-year platform contracts? If they are in addition, can USAID explain the reason for the increase in the number of impact evaluations compared to the much lower number requested under the current EVAL-ME

IDIQ?

These include requests that are part of multi-year platform task orders.

80. Can you clarify under which labor category the scope of work for Management of Subgrants in C.5 would be assigned to?

The RFP states that “the program direction, focus, type of grantees and final grant approval will remain with the tasking Bureau TOCO or Mission TOCO.”

81. Section C.4.10, Page 28: The following key design criteria: - All activities under the IDIQ will be coordinated with USAID Missions and Washington Bureaus as applicable”.

Could USAID indicate what the split between central Bureaus and field Missions for the Task Orders would be?

There is no predetermined split. Task orders will be demand driven.

82. On page 39 of the RFP, which describes ordering procedures for RFTOPs, USAID says “The small business prime must report the percentage of work being provided by its employees.” The spirit of this, of course, is to ensure that small businesses are able to maintain at least 50% of the LOE in accordance with FAR part 52.219-14. However, because of the shorter-term nature of evaluations, many of our staff will be hired as consultants, not necessarily as employees. Would USAID please consider re-wording this requirement to “…being provided by its employees or consultants”?

No.

83. Section C.4.5, Sharing Evaluation Reports and Data, states: “The ADS also requires the public sharing of all evaluation data sets. All data sets developed under the IDIQ must be submitted to the Development Data Library (DDL) as per Agency policy under ADS 579.”

Can USAID please confirm that, in accordance with ADS 579, quantitative datasets produced under this IDIQ are to be submitted to the DDL, but that submission of qualitative data from evaluations (being unstructured) will not be required?

Yes.

84. Could USAID please provide further elaboration of the statement, “Contractors will be expected to demonstrate sufficient in-house capacity to provide technical oversight of the quality of MEL processes and products delivered under this IDIQ” (page 21/108). Does this mean that the proposed technical manager of the IDIQ must be in-house staff?

Page 5 of the RFP states that, “The contractor must designate a primary point of contact that USAID may contact for procedural and substantive matters. The central management bears primary responsibility for technical aspects of contract performance, as well as procurement personnel, reporting, and other management related requirements of the contract.”

Offerors should propose its best technical approach based on the requirements in the RFP.

85. Impact Evaluations (p. 23/108) notes that “contractors will be expected to respond to approximately 10-20 impact evaluations service requests annually.” Does USAID have an illustrative list of the sectoral focus of impact evaluations that may be in the pipeline?

No.

86. Meetings (p. 35/108), for budgeting and planning purposes. Could USAID clarify if the contractor must participate in person at the semi-annual meetings with the USAID/W COR and/or USAID/W CO? Or may the contractor participate remotely in such meetings?

Meetings are organized with the option for remote participation.

87. Section C. makes reference in several places to the “A” in CLA, adaptive management, such as “…helping USAID and implementing partners learn more quickly and make iterative, timely course corrections.” (pg. 19) However, adaptive management is not highlighted under “technical services required” “work requirements” and even the section on CLA (C.4.7). To what degree is EVAL ME II intended to support Agency OUs and

Missions in operationalizing adaptive management in accordance with ADS 201 and guidance available on ProgramNet and the Learning Lab?

Task orders are demand driven, and mission or OU specific.

Section F

88. In Section F.6.2.2 (1) Award Types – Fixed-price or Fixed-price with Cost Reimbursement Combination Type, the solicitation states that the Contractor must propose labor rates that do not exceed labor ceilings established in Section B of the IDIQ contract. However, Note 4 in Section B.8.3 states that “The Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates above do not apply to Fixed-price Task Orders”. Would USAID please confirm that the Unburdened CDRs will not apply to fixed-price or fixed-price with cost reimbursement combination type Task Orders?

Note 4 in Section B.8.3 has been deleted.

89. In F.2. USAID notes that TOs may extend 2 years past the ordering period of 5 years;

would USAID consider allowing offerors thus to propose CDRs for the full 7 years of possible TO implementation and updating the Labor Rate Evaluation Matrix (Attachment B)?

No.

90. F.6.2.2, please clarify whether the response to this clause (“Other Relevant Information”) should be included in our Cost/Business Proposal?

No.

91. Section F.6.1 contains the following: Task Order Contracting Officers (TOCOs) must negotiate and administer task orders in accordance with the ordering procedures set forth herein. The TOCO must provide each Contractor a fair opportunity to be considered for each task order (also referred to as "order") exceeding $3,500 issued under this contract unless one of the exceptions described in paragraph (b) Fair Opportunity Exceptions, applies. All Contractors must be contacted and provided the opportunity to be considered before award of all task orders. Although Contractors are not required to submit a proposal for every task order request, all Contractors interested in providing services under the task order must submit a proposal, inclusive of price.

This seems as a contradiction by saying simultaneously that all contractors must be contacted and provided the opportunity to be considered before all awards and that the exceptions to fair opportunity apply, one of which is urgency. Is it the Government’s promise that all contractors will be contacted before award on all task orders applies even for those task orders to which Fair Opportunities exceptions apply?

Offerors will be contacted in accordance with the ordering procedures as stated.

92. Page 41, F.6.2: The restriction of a 3-page proposal on task orders less than $500,000 seems restrictive. While imposing a limit is appreciated, 3 pages does not seem sufficient to convey a technical approach for a performance evaluation, for example. Would USAID consider increasing this limit to 8 pages?

Contracting Officers who issue task orders will have the ability to choose whether the proposal will be 3 or 4 pages, as stated.

93. Section F.5.1, IDIQ Reporting Requirements, page 33, includes a deliverable table with due dates. Under item #5, Foreign Assistance Reporting, the due date is defined as “Within 14 days of completion of consultancy”. Please clarify what is meant by “consultancy” in this context.

Consultancy is synonymous with the task order.

94. F.6. Ordering Procedures 4) Request for Task Order Proposals (p. 39) states orders placed under indefinite delivery contracts must contain the following information: a. large or small business competition. Does USAID expect to compete large business competitions under this total small business vehicle?

This has been deleted.

95. Section F.6.2.2.3 indicates that for TOs issue without competition, the contractor will be required to submit certified cost or pricing data if the award exceeds $700,000. However, per AAPD 18-04, the threshold for requiring certified cost or pricing data as listed in FAR 15.403-4 was increased to $2,000,000 as of July 1, 2018. As such would USAID please consider revising this threshold in the RFP?

This has been revised.

96. F.7.1 indicates that the TOCO may grant no-cost extensions to TOs up to 60 days. The ability to apply a 60-day no-cost extension is typically delegated to the TOCOR. As such, would USAID please consider making this adjustment to this clause?

No.

97. F.6.2 TASK ORDER LIMITATIONS/PERFORMANCE BASED/AWARD TYPES (3)

For Task Orders estimated to be more than $5,000,000: “In accordance with the general procedures in (d) above.”

It is not clear what general procedures in (d) above refers to – please advise.

This has been revised.

Section H

98. Section H, page 50, H3 states, "The Contractor agrees to furnish to the contracting officer on USAID Form 1420-17, “Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet”, biographical information on the following individuals to be employed in the performance of the contract: (1) All individuals to be sent outside the United States, or (2) any employees designated as “key personnel”. Biographical data in the form usually maintained by the Contractor on the other individuals employed under the contract shall be available for review by USAID at the Contractor's headquarters. A supply of USAID Form 1420-17 will be provided with this contract. The Contractor may reproduce additional copies as necessary.”

Can USAID confirm that no 1420-17 forms need to be submitted in the IDIQ response?

USAID Form 1420-17 should only be submitted if an offeror is proposing key personnel.

A statement confirming this has been added to Section L.

99. H.27 PRIME CONTRACTOR LABOR DISTRIBUTION, “Under this award the prime contractor must perform at least 50 percent of the duties per task order.”

What is the definition of “duties”? What is the formula to calculate the 50% of the duties per task order?

Duties include the tasks listed in the Statement of Work/Statement of Objectives/Requirements Document and of future task orders, which can be calculated by reviewing the proposed costs associated with the technical approach of that task order.

Section I

100. Section I.4 “Order Limitations” on page 73 seem to conflict with order limitations in Section F.6.2 on page 40. Can USAID please clarify?

Both sections have been revised.

101. Per 48 CFR 9903.201-1.b.3, as this RFP is a total-small business set aside, CAS coverage is not applicable; would USAID kindly strike FAR 52.230-2 Cost Accounting Standards from Section I.1?

This has been deleted.

102. Section I.4 indicates that offerors are not required to accept task orders less than $100,000 or in excess of $25M. However, F.6.2(1-2) indicate that these thresholds are $50,000 and $20M, respectively. Could USAID please clarify which thresholds will apply?

In both sections, the minimum has been revised to $10,000 and the maximum has been revised to $25,000,000.

Section J

103. SF LLL is listed in Section J under J.1 – SF LLL - DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, but this document is not included in Section L.9 as requirement within the Cost/Business Proposal. Should this document be included as Annex to the Cost Proposal?

Per Section L.10, the SF LLL should be included as an annex to Volume 3.

104. Attachment J.3 – DD 254 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATIONS, is only mentioned once in the RFP, in Section J, and the link provided returns an error message of “page not found”. Can USAID confirm that the inclusion of attachment J.3 in section J was a mistake, and that it is not in fact required with submission of offerors’ proposals?

The link has been updated to ADS 567 - Classified Contracts Under USAID’s National Industrial Security Program where the form can be located. It is not a requirement for submission; however, contractors will be required to complete it if awarded a contract and it does not currently have a clearance.

Section K

105. Are all subcontractors required to complete Section K reps and certs or only major subcontractors?

Yes.

106. Are all subcontractors or only major subcontractors required to complete SF LLL lobbying disclosure? If an entity does not lobby, do they still need to complete the SF LLL Lobbying disclosure form?

All contractors are required to complete Section K and SF LLL - Disclosure of Lobbying Activities and include it in Volume 3.

107. Are all consortium sub-contractors required to submit Section K and Evidence of Responsibility, Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences, as well as other compliance documents or only major subcontractors?

All subcontractors should submit this information.

Section L

108. Is smaller than Times New Roman 10-point font allowable for graphics, charts, and tables?

No.

109. Section L.6.1 includes a bulleted list of items the offeror may include in their proposals that do not count against the 15-page limit of the technical proposal. In addition to those items listed, may the offeror also include a one-page executive summary to not count against the total page limit?

Yes, offerors can include a one-page Executive Summary that will not count against the page limit.

110. Can USAID share the “cost/price matrix” mentioned in section L.9.2 of the RFP?

The matrix is included as Attachment B. Section L.9.2 has been revised to reflect the correct name. An excel version has been provided with this Amendment.

111. Can USAID elaborate on the following “Pursuant to FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, small business prime Offerors proposing for a set-aside award are reminded that at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel must be expended for employees of the small business prime Offeror (pg 98)” and whether this is for the life of the contract or per RFTOP? Moreover, does the 50 percent pertain to labor only or all costs (inclusive of ODC).

Clause 52.219-14 applies to each task order and for the life of contract. The 50% requirement pertains to all costs incurred for personnel.

112. In RFP Section L.6.1, page 93, the RFP mentions a “Personnel summary matrix (per Section L)”. This matrix is not mentioned anywhere else in the RFP. Can USAID provide this personnel summary matrix?

Please see Section L.7.2.

113. Regarding the IDIQ Program Manager Cost described in Section L.9.6 – should the IDIQ Program Manager be included as a labor category in the cost/price matrix, or should this position be described in the proposal?

The reference to the ‘IDIQ Program Manager’ has been deleted.

Page 5 of the RFP states that, “The contractor must designate a primary point of contact that USAID may contact for procedural and substantive matters. The central management bears primary responsibility for technical aspects of contract performance, as well as procurement personnel, reporting, and other management related requirements of the contract.”

Offerors are required to determine a management structure best suited to their technical approach as stated in Sections L and M. The offeror’s approach should be accounted for in both Volumes 2 and 3.

114. What is required or expected to be included in the cost narrative?

As stated in Section L.9.3, “The prime Offeror must provide a narrative justifying the labor rates for each labor category proposed with supporting information such as historical biodata forms used (within the past five years), DCAA forward pricing agreements, other federal contract or orders (do not provide GSA rates, only final orders negotiated with the Government for a GSA order or BPA) (please provide award number and CO contact information and narrative providing the unloaded rate in accordance with Section B), market research support, and payroll records.”

Explanations for all other costs should be explained in a similar manner. All costs listed in the Labor Rate Matrix should be justified and explained.

115. What is the minimum font size for text in charts or graphics? Is this required to be 11 point font size or will 9point font Times New Roman be accepted for graphs and charts?

No less than 10 point font, Times New Roman.

116. Are all subcontractors required to be registered with Sam.gov or only major subcontractors?

Yes.

117. For costing, is the offeror expected to propose a budget for travel, etc. costs beyond personnel as provided in the table or are the amounts listed as maximum amounts to be used instead?

Please use plug figures provided.

118. Section L.9.3 and J.2 (Attachment A), while Attachment A is titled, “Prime and ‘Major’ Subcontractor Percentage of Labor Overview Chart”, clause L.9.3(3) states “The Offer must also provide [Attachment A] as an annex to…