Final Questions Learn Together.docx

Learn Together Questions

1. Section C.5.2 indicates that USAID determined that this activity does not pose a climate risk and does not require further assessments. However, the second sentence in this section notes the offeror may need to conduct an assessment if deemed necessary. We request that USAID remove the second and third sentences.

USAID declines the request to remove the sentences from Section C.5.2.

2. Section F.5.5, Final Report, states that the subject report is due no later than 45 days prior to contract completion. Section F.7, Fixed Fee Payment Schedule, states that the report is due 45 days after the contract completion. Would USAID kindly confirm that the final report is due no later than 45 days prior to contract completion?

This is confirmed and will be reflected in the amendment.

3. We request USAID kindly consider removing or revising the following deliverables from Section F.7, Fixed Fee Payment Schedule, for reasons detailed below:

a. Local Governance Project Activity Database. We request this be removed as it is not discussed in Section C for this activity.

The deliverable will be removed and this will be reflected in the amendment.

b. Site Selection Plan. Sections F.5.1 and F.7 reference a Site Selection Plan, and the former states that this includes “a draft methodology for district and jamoat-level site selection shall be proposed by all offerors, in consideration with the site selection criteria specified in the SOW.” The SOW references criteria for geographic and linguistic coverage in Section C.5.1 that stipulates, “The geographic location of pilot and intervention schools (Grades 1-4) will be defined in discussions and consultations with the MOES, once the activity is launched to avoid overlapping and duplication.” Can USAID please clarify if the Site Selection Plan referenced in Section F applies to school selection?

It is confirmed that the Site Selection Plan referenced in Section F applies to school selection.

c. Branding Strategy and Marking Plan. The deadline for this deliverable precedes contract award and execution. As such, we kindly request removing this deliverable.

This has been amended so that the Branding Strategy and Marking Plan is due at contract signing.

d. Reoccuring Deliverable – Marking and Branding Reports. Since these are included in the Quarterly Report deliverables, we kindly ask that this line item be removed.

Marking and Branding Reports are separate from Quarterly Performance Reports. They are simply due at the same time and therefore this requirement will not be removed.

e. Reoccuring Deliverable – Environmental Compliance Measures. Section 3.1 of the amended IEE states that “100 percent of funding for new activities in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will fall under categorical exclusion and will not require further environmental review and reporting to USAID.” We request that USAID remove this item.

Categorical Exclusion activities are listed in the Title 22, CFR part 216.2 (c) (2) (https://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/compliance/22cfr216 ). Environmental compliance language instructs the bidder what they are supposed to do in accordance with threshold decisions approved by the Bureau Environmental Officer in their IEE. We cannot remove this item and in any case, because of the nature of this activity, it does not create any imposition on the contractor.

4. Section L.6.2. Would USAID consider removing the 12-page limitation for the technical approach and leave it to offerors to ensure the total volume does not exceed 20 pages?

USAID declines to remove the 12 page limitation from the technical approach.

5. Section L.7 (page 110) states that the offeror and each major subcontractor must complete Section K, and sign and date in “the space provided.” Section K does not provide a place to sign. Can USAID please provide an amended Section K?

A Signature page will be added at the end of Section K in the amendment.

6. The instructions provided in Section L do not call for the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, SF-LLL, but the form is included in Section J as Attachment J.2. Should the SF-LLL be submitted, and if so, should it be submitted by the offeror only, or by major or all subcontractors as well?

The form may need to be submitted by the offeror (and major subcontractors) if offerors engage in lobbying activities. Please refer to FAR 52.203-11 to determine whether the form needs to be submitted with the offer in your case.

7. Page 10 of the RFP references that the intended coverage is nationwide – at least 80% with attention on regions with historically lower learning outcomes while also needing to control for contamination effects by not targeting treatment and control schools under AKF and RWM projects – Kindly clarify if USAID can provide the list of treatment and control schools by region for both projects to inform the response to the RFP?

The lists of schools may be found in the attached amendment.

8. Page 10 of the RFP indicates that there is poor capacity of the MOES to manage the Education Management Information System (EMIS)- Can USAID kindly provide more information on the current EMIS. What training has been done? What capacity building is needed?

The EMIS department is struggling with the following, among other challenges: lack of financial resources, limited professional development opportunities, poor capacity and brain drain. EMIS data often isn’t accurate and consistent with reality. USAID hopes that with the appointment of a new minister, deputy ministers and technical support from the European Union and Islamic Development Bank, the organisational and operational approaches and services will be improved. It is vital to provide training on collection of data, analysis, processing and M&E.

9. Please clarify if USAID expects that the remaining 20% of schools not covered by the project to be included in the EGRA and EGMA assessments for comparison?

Yes, USAID expects that some of the remaining 20 % of non-covered schools will be selected in the EGRA EGMA assessments for comparison.

10. On Page 11 the RFP references that according to the NSED 2020, the MOES has revised the curriculum and textbooks from knowledge-based to competency-based standards. Can USAID kindly confirm if the new textbooks were in fact developed and distributed to schools? And If not, where in the process the MOES currently is in developing them?

The ministry published the new primary textbooks (Grade 1-4) on competency-based standards in 2017-2018. The new textbooks were piloted in 50 schools and evaluated the quality of newly developed textbooks on Mother tongue and Math subjects. The ministry is working internally on the findings and recommendations collected from teachers and other educators. At this time, the results of evaluation have not been officially presented to the international community. However USAID has some anecdotal evidence that primary teachers are dissatisfied with the quality of developed books (i.e., insufficient changes and content is inconsistent with the competency standards). To meet the government education policy and regulations, the curriculum standards must be revised and updated once every five years

11. Page 12 of the RFP states that “After two years of literacy programming under the USAID Quality Reading Project, however, the 2016 EGRA showed significant growth in all skill areas across grades and languages.” Could USAID kindly clarify to what extent the MOES has been involved in literacy programming under past projects?

The Ministry worked closely with the literacy programs to benefit from technical assistance to reform the primary education system to be consistent with the national and global education strategies. The ministry professional and technical staff at the national, regional and school levels were closely involved in the revision and update of in-service, preservice curriculums, development of competency-based standards, revision and development of supplementary teaching and learning materials, development of EGRA tools, field testing and administration of EGRAs. The ministry valued and acknowledged the projects’ contributions that impact the quality of teaching/learning outcomes. The implementation of EGRA through QRP with the ministry was challenging as the government had no experience and expertise on the outcome focused assessment and weren’t comfortable to open EGRA’s data to the public. Both QRP and Read with Me literacy projects helped the ministry to strengthen the coordination and partnerships with donors to leverage resources to maximize cost efficiency results, with the Writers Union to strengthen capacity and develop new grade relevant books, National Testing Center to jointly advocate for better reforms, resource managements, to generate and use education data to drive transparent policy planning and accountability. Literacy projects helped to strengthen coordination and partnerships between the MOES and NTC and successfully administered the EGRA Midline in 2019 that was part of the Mid-Term Action Plan (2016-2020) under the National Strategy for Education Development. The Ministry accepted the EGRA in a new national strategy and used the data for policy planning, budgeting, informing decision makers and donors on the needs, challenges and opportunities (e.g., Islamic Development Bank allocated USD 30 M under Global Partnership for Education Grant Multiplier Fund).

12. Page 20 of the RFP indicates that the Activity “should make use of the titles produced under the former Reading for Children, Quality Reading Project and Read With Me projects which meet the required quality standards.” Does USAID and/or the MOES have an inventory of materials already developed that can be shared with the contractors?

USAID will provide an inventory of age-relevant books developed in partnerships with Aga Khan Foundation Reading for Children and on-going Read with Me project. The Quality Reading Project was not involved in the development of books but delivered grade relevant books in Tajik and Russian that were available in the market.

13. Page 21 of the RFP references a classroom observation form – can USAID kindly clarify if there is an established tool that USAID expects the Contractor to use or if the Contractor will be expected to develop their own tool?

Read with Me has developed the classroom observation tools for Mother tongue subjects. USAID expects that the Contractor will review/update the developed tools and develop such a tool for Mathematics.

14. Page 22 of the RFP references building the capacity of the MOES to deliver blended trainings for both pre-service and in-service - can USAID kindly elaborate on whether the blended approach has been established already or would need to be developed by the Contractor?

USAID expects that the contractor will develop and deliver blended training as it isn’t part of the contractual requirements under Read with Me.

15. Would USAID kindly clarify if the primary school teachers are teaching math as well as the mother tongue, as referenced on Page 22 of the RFP under Component 2.

USAID confirms that the primary teacher is responsible to teach the Mother tongue and Math.

16. Could USAID kindly share the training manuals for school communities and parents to be updated as indicated on Page 27 in the RFP.

The parental guides are attached to the amendment. Because of their size, links are provided for the remaining documents.

· The Read With Me in-service training package (in Tajik) that was approved by the Education Advisory Board last week can be accessed via a Cloud link (https://cloud.eastera.tj/f/272276)

· The PowerPoints for the Russian-language 1) Teacher Training; 2) Mentoring Training; 3) Librarian Training can be accessed via a Cloud link (https://cloud.eastera.tj/s/3LK2JgemN5dZCXo)

17. On Page 27 of the RFP, USAID mentions a government ministry called the, “Printing company.” Could USAID kindly provide additional information on this Ministry? What has been its involvement in developing supplementary teaching and learning materials in math and reading at the primary level?

The Ministry with is affiliates (Academy of Education, Education Development Institute, Republican Methodological Center and Republican Teacher Training Institute including Pedagogical Universities and Pedagogical Colleges) are responsible for update and development of textbooks, in service, pre service curriculum standards, modernisation of pedagogy approaches and techniques, standardised student outcome focused, formative and summative assessments, M&E and Mentoring tools, supplementary materials for in class and extracurricular activities. The Ministry through their printing company “Maorif” is printing textbooks and supplementary materials. USAID Read with Me established efficient partnerships with the Writers Union and the Principal Scientific Edition of the National Encyclopedia to develop and increase age relevant reading materials for primary education.

18. On Page 28 of the RFP, USAID mentions that geographic location of pilot and intervention schools will be defined in discussion with MOES – can USAID kindly clarify if the pilot schools mentioned refers to schools to pilot the EGRA/EGMA tools or if USAID expects the Contractor to pilot its approach prior to scaling up the intervention to the 80% of schools (continue the cohort model employed by RWM)?

USAID administered EGRA through the Quality Reading and Read with Me projects. EGMA tools have to be developed. Prior to conducting the national EGRA and an early grade national math assessment, the offeror will need to conduct a small-scale pilot study of both tools. The geographic areas for the pilot study will be determined in discussion with the MoEs. Since this is the third time the EGRA has been used in Tajikistan, findings and recommendations from Read with Me Mid-term evaluation and feedback on prior EGRAs should be considered when developing, piloting and validating the version to be used in the current work. This is the first time an early grade national Math assessment will be administered in Tajikistan and so the contractor should develop Math assessments for grades 2 and 4 in Tajikistan that aligns with the Global Proficiency Framework and best practice in testing administration for very young children.

19. Could USAID kindly discuss the COVID -19 impact on procurement and the challenges of preparing a proposal during this time and would USAID consider extending the proposal submission deadline due to the COVID-19 impact?

The US Government fiscal year dictates the timeline for procurement and the end date for when an award must be made. Although it is not ideal, we are not considering extending the proposal submission deadline at this time. Given current events, it is unlikely that a small extension of the submission deadline would make a positive impact. However, any delay may negatively impact USAID’s ability to make the award within this fiscal year.