AMENDMENT_No.01_72012118R00006.pdf

RFP No. 72012118R00006 Amendment No. 01

PART I – ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS

Questions regarding RFP No. 72012118R00006

Q.1 Learning, under Section C.9.1. page 32, states “The Activity must generate evidence through periodic evaluations.” What does USAID intend by “periodic evaluations”? For instance, would these be:

● DQA conducted by the contractor and/or COR to verify reported data, and examine and refine data collection tools and processes (such as those mentioned on page 43)?

● Formal and separate evaluation/s of program impact/s, completed by the awardee or an external contractor?

● Detailed commentary on progress toward indicator targets?

A.1 “Periodic evaluations” may include internal evaluations of program implementation and performance data such as strategic reviews conducted with USAID staff to inform program strategy, design, and management.

Q.2 Are the “periodic evaluations” mentioned in Section C.9.1 page 32 different from the “periodic impact assessments/evaluations” noted in section E.3 on page 38? It seems USAID may expect the contractor to carry out periodic evaluations themselves (as part of CLA on page 32), but also may implement separate evaluations of contractor progress (page 38).

A.2 Yes, they are different. Specifically, Section E.3 refers to “periodic impact assessments/evaluations” which may include external, third party evaluations or assessments of the achievement of required results under this Contract. Section C.9.1 refers to internal evaluations of program implementation and performance data such as strategic reviews conducted with USAID staff to inform program strategy, design and management.

Q.3 If “periodic evaluations” are intended to include external firms to lead assessments/evaluations, should offerors include these costs in our proposed budget?

A.3 External, third party evaluations referred to in Section E.3 would be funded by USAID, outside of this Activity’s budget. Internal evaluations or strategic reviews referred to in Section C.9.1 are the Contractor’s responsibility.

Q.4 Are all references to “evaluation” in the RFP related to the mid-term (and possible additional)

USAID-led program evaluation/s described in section F.10?

A.4 No, please refer to Q.2 above for clarification of C.9.1 and E.3. Section F.10 refers to external third party evaluations as determined by USAID.

Q.5 Section C.12.0 page 34 requires “Ensuring the interoperability of the database with USAID.” To inform the database design explanation in our proposal, what key considerations can USAID provide at this stage which would affect the interoperability metric?

A.5 Please see the revised RFP. The Activity Database requirement has been removed.

Q.6 Section C.12.0 page 34 states the database must be accurate “in accordance with the protocols established by USAID.” Do these protocols reference existing USAID guidance or will they be developed post-award?

A.6 Please see the revised RFP.

Q.7 Section C.12.0 page 34 states the indicators “will be drawn from USAID’s Performance

Monitoring Plan (PMP) which will be developed at a later point.” Given that the PMP is not finalized, but the Activity Monitoring Database requirement needs to be described in the proposal and must include indicators which align with the PMP to measure the output, outcome, and/or impact of an activity or group of activities, does USAID expect initial indicator selection from offerors at the proposal stage?

A.7 Please see the revised RFP.

Q.8 If offerors must propose initial indicators, does USAID have a preference for how indicators are presented?

A.8 Offerors should submit a draft MEL Plan in accordance with Section L and F requirements.

Q.9 If offerors must propose initial indicators, how many indicators should be included?

A.9 The draft MEL Plan should include the indicators the Offeror believes will demonstrate its proposed approach to MEL for this Activity.

Q.10 When does USAID anticipate completing the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)?

A.10 USAID will complete its PMP within 6 months of CDCS approval, which is expected in fall

2018.

Q.11 Section F.4.B(6)e on page 48 states “The activity location(s) must be recorded at the [Insert level of geographic detail].” Does the placeholder left in brackets imply the Contractor will determine the level of geographic detail with USAID post-award?

A.11 This section of the RFP has been modified through this Amendment. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.12 On page 48, under II. Data Submission Frequency, the geospatial data submission frequency is noted as “twice annually.” However, on page 50, the Summary of Reports table #7 states geospatial data must be submitted as part of quarterly performance reports. Please confirm if twice annually (2nd QR and then annual report) is accurate.

A.12 Geospatial data must be submitted twice annually as part of quarterly performance reports. The specific timing of geospatial data submission will be determined with USAID post-award.

Q.13 May offerors include cooperative agreements in our past performance projects?

A.13 No.

Q.14 Please confirm if the past performance annex is included in the 50-page limit.

A.14 Yes, this is confirmed.

Q.15 Please confirm if the Environmental Compliance annex is included in the 50-page limit.

A.15 Please see the revised RFP.

Q.16 Please confirm if the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan is included in the 50-page limit.

A.16 Please see the revised RFP

Q.17 RFP pages 116-117 request offerors describe plans to coordinate and achieve synergies with other complementary donor programs and investments under both the Management Section and the Collaboration, Learning and Adapting (CLA) Section. Could you confirm if both sections should discuss coordination with other programs and how the two descriptions should differ?

A.17 References to coordination and achieving synergies with other complementary donor programs has been removed from the Management Approach in Section L. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.18 On page 13, Section C.2.4 Collaboration with Other USAID Programs, USAID clarifies that: “the

DGE Activity will build on the successes of a number of initial efforts in eastern Ukraine, particularly the Ukraine Confidence Building Initiative (UCBI).” We have the following related questions:

a. Would USAID consider releasing the most recent reports from each of the ongoing programs bulleted on pp. 13-14? Specifically, we request the semi-annual report for UCBI-II for the period of October 2017-March 2018, and the most recent quarterly, semi-annual or annual reports for DOBRE and ENGAGE.

b. Taking into consideration the requirement for building upon the UCBI-II project, would USAID please provide the activity plan for the current six-month period?

A.18 a. USAID Implementing Partners are required to publish reports and work products from their programs to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) at https://dec.usaid.gov. Please use this site to find the requested documents.

https://dec.usaid.gov/

b. No, USAID does not publish its activity plans.

Q.19 On page 114, Section L.7.A Organization of the Technical Proposal states: “The Technical

Proposal is limited to fifty (50) pages including Annexes.” Considering the number of annexes and minimum requirements to be addressed in proposals, would USAID consider extending the technical proposal page limit to 55 pages?

A.19 No, the page limitation remains 50 pages.

Q.20 On page 49, Section C, Reporting and Plan Summary Matrix, USAID lists a summary of required plans and reports. The deadlines for the Mobilization Plan, the Initial Implementation Plan and the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (MEL) Plan are all within 30 days after the start of the contract. Would USAID consider extending the deadline for Initial Implementation Plan and MEL Plan to 60 days after the start of the contract?

A.20 No.

Q.21 On page 16, Section C.3.2 Technical Approach and Results Framework states: “USAID envisions that a substantial amount of the overall funding to this project will be organized under objective 2.” Could USAID provide further guidance on the expected ratio of funding between the two objectives (e.g. 40% of funding to Objective 1 and 60% of funding to Objective 2)?

A.21 It’s up to the Offeror to distribute funds in their Business Proposals based on their Technical

Approach.

Q.22 On page 114, Section L.7.A, Organization of the Technical Proposal states that proposals should be written using: “Times New Roman font, point 12 size or more.” Would USAID consider allowing offerors to use a slightly smaller font—perhaps 10 point Times New Roman font—for textboxes, figures and tables?

A.22 No.

Q.23 On pages 114-115, Section L.7.B, Content of the Technical Proposal, specifies that the technical proposal should include a Cover Page, a Table of Contents and an Acronym List within the 50-page limit. Given the number of items that must be addressed within the 50-page limit, would USAID consider excluding the Cover Page, Table of Contents and Acronym List from the page limit to allow offerors additional pages for evaluated sections of the proposal?

A.23 No.

Q.24 On page 116, Section L.7.B.6, Management Approach, states that: “CVs for expatriate short-term technical assistance shall be included, as well as these individuals’ anticipated contributions to project efforts.” Given the extensive list of potential STTA staff, both expatriate and local, that will be employed on this project, would USAID consider removing this requirement, or allowing offerors to include an illustrative list of expatriate short-term technical assistance, with the understanding that resumes and bio-data form will be submitted for specific tasks and USAID approval during implementation?

A.24 Yes, please note that resumes for Key Personnel are the only proposed personnel that require the submission of resumes. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.25 On page 118, Section L.7.B.8.d., Performance in Using Small Business Concerns, states that offerors should provide “a copy of the 10 most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” against which you were required to report for the past 3 years. The reports may be enclosed as an annex and will not be considered in the page limit.” Can USAID confirm that this annex should be included as Annex 9 to the technical proposal?

A.25 Please see the revised RFP. SF 294 submissions should be part of the Offeror’s Cost Proposal.

Q.26 On pages 118-119, Section L.7.B.9, Annexes to the Technical Proposal, USAID specifies that offerors should include “Environmental Compliance” as Annex 7 to the technical proposal. Given the 50-page limit for the entire proposal, would USAID consider excluding this Annex from the page limit to allow offerors additional pages for evaluated sections of the proposal?

A.26 Please see the revised RFP. Environmental Compliance should be part of the Offeror’s Cost

Proposal.

Q.27 On pages 118-119, Section L.7.B.9, Annexes to the Technical Proposal, USAID specifies that offerors should include a “Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan” as Annex 8 to the technical proposal. Given the 50-page limit for the entire proposal, would USAID consider excluding this Annex from the page limit to allow offerors additional pages for evaluated sections of the proposal?

A.27 Please see the revised RFP. The Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan should be part of the Offeror’s Cost Proposal.

Q.28 On pages 118-119, Section L.7.B.9, Annexes to the Technical Proposal, and in Section L.8. Part

2, subsection O, Fee Schedule, USAID specifies that offerors should include a “Deliverables and Fee Schedule” as Annex 6 to the technical proposal. We respectfully request that USAID move this annex to the cost proposal as it contains detailed cost and pricing information.

A.28 Please see the revised RFP. The Deliverables and Fee Schedule should be included as part of the

Offeror’s Cost Proposal.

Q.29 Section F.5, DELIVERY SCHEDULE AND FIXED FEE PAYMENT SCHEDULE on page 51 of the RFP has a number of deliverables for which the designation “N/A” is indicated under the Fixed Fee % and USD column, specifically Deliverables #2, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Can

USAID please confirm that offerors are not required to propose fixed fee amounts for these Reports/Deliverables with the N/A Fixed Fee indicated?

A.29 Confirmed.

Q.30 On page 21, Section C.3.4.1 Objective Two: Sub-Objectives with Illustrative Activities, USAID includes the illustrative activity “Capacity building for (non-hromada level) local municipalities to manage citizen demands and community expectations.” Could USAID please clarify the meaning of “(non-hromada level) local municipalities?”

A.30 “Non-hromada level local municipalities” refer to units of sub-national self-governance of any size.

Q.31 Is it possible to have access to the current UCBI Activity Database or other data on current projects and communities UCBI is implementing?

A.31 No additional information will be provided. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.32 Can USAID please clarify if the illustrative activities set forth in the RFP are required deliverables, or are they suggested examples that the Contractor may or may not propose directly? When the RFP mentions that “the Contractor may implement additional activities,” is this intended to be additional or alternative? If the illustrative activities are mandatory, can USAID please clarify if Offerors can re-structure the order of illustrative activities under each

SO?

A.32 The illustrative activities set forth in the RFP are illustrative and do not represent required deliverables. The Contractor may propose additional activities that it considers necessary to achieve the contract objectives; however, they may be adjusted in consultation with USAID throughout implementation. The minimum requirements for the Contractor are set forth in Section C.4.

Q.33 The RFP makes reference to community-level work throughout the solicitation. Can USAID please clarify if the term “community” is synonymous with “hromada”? How does USAID view communities in relation to the amalgamation process, for example, should the Offeror focus on communities that have already begun the process, or those which have not?

A.33 For the purpose of this RFP, community may be, but is not necessarily, synonymous with hromada. “Community” may also refer to a subdivision of a municipality or any other territorial unit. Offerors are not expected to base activity location on the territorial amalgamation process, but on the Geographic and Demographic Targeting described in C.5.0.

Q.34 Does USAID have a preferred or suggested number of communities in which it envisions UDGE will implement activities? Can USAID please clarify if the preference is for Contractors to work in many communities with lighter activities, or in fewer communities with more in-depth activities?

A.34 It is up to Offerors to develop an approach that responds to the requirements of this RFP.

Q.35 The Economic Resilience Activity RFP included a plug-in figure for construction activities. Does

USAID have a plug-in figure for construction under UDGE? If so, what is that figure?

A.35 No, USAID will not provide a plug figure for construction.

Q.36 Under the illustrative indicators on page 17, the RFP refers to “numbers and types of participants in civic activities.” Could USAID clarify what is meant by “types of participants”?

A.36 “Types of participants” means types of civic actors (such as civil society organizations, civic activists, informal civic groups, coalitions, etc).

Q.37 The Media Activity RFA indicates a clear focus on Eastern Ukraine, including a specific SO on coverage of reform issues as well as activities related to disinformation. On page 19 of the RFP, under SO 1.2, there is a similar illustrative activity: “Work with local media outlets…to develop locally relevant, objective, and professional quality information about Ukraine’s reforms…” In addition to effective coordination with the Media Activity, does USAID envision that UDGE will conduct similar activities?

A.37 The USAID Democratic Governance East Activity is expected to coordinate with and expand on the Media Program activities, with an increased focus on local media outlets based on the Geographic and Demographic Targeting considerations described in Section C.5.0. This will also include work with local media regarding program activities and achievements.

Q.38 Regarding the illustrative indicator under Objective 1 on page 17 around consumption and/or availability of news and information about reforms and events, is UDGE solely responsible for the achievement of this indicator, or is this more in the manageable interest of the Media Activity?

A.38 The USAID Democratic Governance East Activity will be responsible for this or a similar indicator that defines “news and information about reforms and events” within the Contractor’s manageable interest.

Q.39 How does USAID differentiate between the illustrative activity under SO 1.3 on page 19 for

“Establishing ‘international houses’ providing meeting spaces in key locations” with the minimum requirement under Objective 1 on page 22 for “Meeting and interaction spaces in every partner community”? Is there a difference between “key locations” and “every partner community”?

A.39 “International house” is an illustrative example of a meeting space. There is no difference between “key locations” and “every partner community”.

Q.40 On page 20, under SO 2.1, the RFP has the following illustrative activity, “Improved delivery of high-demand services (examples: administrative and social services (certificates; permits;

pensions; social security payments; social, health, and education service delivery plans;

partnership with utility companies to procure equipment and materials)…” Can USAID please clarify if this activity is meant to improve direct services or service delivery plans?

A.40 This activity is meant to improve both direct services and service delivery plans.

Q.41 On page 20, under SO 2.1, the RPF lists illustrative activity “Facilitating intra-Ukraine exchanges of civic activists, students, professionals, local government leaders, and economic actors” under the overall SO of “Increased integration of separated, marginalized, or isolated populations.”

Would USAID consider moving this activity – and the accompanying minimum requirement – to SO 1.3 or to SO 2.2?

A.41 USAID will not move the illustrative activity in Section C. Offerors may consider similar illustrative activities under SOs 1.3 or 2.2, based on its approach to achieve contract objectives.

Q.42 On page 21, under SO 2.3, the RFP has the following two illustrative activities “Improvements in the user experience of residents obtaining social services, health care, and other prioritized services” and “Improvements in the user experience of resident obtaining social and other prioritized services.” Can USAID please clarify what the difference is between these two illustrative activities and if healthcare should be considered a prioritized service?

A.42 Please see the revised RFP where the duplication has been removed.

Q.43 Under SO 2.3 on page 21, how does USAID consider the possible risk that planning between citizens and community-led initiatives (processes that do not include government actors) may not ultimately contribute to the objective of improving local governance? Or could even undermine it?

A.43 USAID expects that the majority of community-led initiatives will ultimately involve local governments in some capacity. USAID expects to work collaboratively with the Contractor to anticipate and mitigate these and other risks.

Q.44 Regarding the minimum requirement under Objective 1 on page 22 of the RFP, “Strategy for reforms communication for target audience in the targeted geographical regions developed,” can USAID please clarify if this is meant to be on the part of the program, by government actors, or by civic groups?

A.44 This is meant to be on the part of the program.

Q.45 Under minimum requirements for Objective 2 on page 22, the RFP mentions “Advocacy campaign for every key group of targeted population.” Does USAID have a specific definition and number of “every key group”?

A.45 No, USAID does not have a specific definition and number of “every key group.” Key groups should be based on the Geographic and Demographic Targeting described in C.5.0, and will be refined throughout implementation through periodic assessments within target communities described in C.6.2 and Joint Work-Planning Sessions described in C.7.3.

Q.46 On page 22, under minimum requirements for Objective 2, the RFP states “Advisory boards/councils to regional and local government in every partner oblast/community created.”

Can USAID please clarify what is meant by “partner community” and if this requirement relates back to SO 2.2 or SO 2.3?

A.46 “Partner community” is every community where the program activities will be implemented.

Q.47 On page 34, the RFP states that “The Contractor must support a GUC delivery mechanism, be able to provide STTA, training, and DDGS (Direct Distribution of Goods and Services) as part of a flexible and fast operational design…” Can USAID please clarify what forms of direct provision of goods and services are expected?

A.47 Please see the revised RFP. Direct provision of goods and services may include (examples only):

the purchase of equipment, materials and services on behalf of local communities, government and other partners that further Objectives 1 and 2.

Q.48 On page 34, C.12.0, the RFP states that “The Contractor must develop and use an Activity

Database as a management tool to facilitate reporting on activities as well as the monitoring and evaluating of initiatives” Can USAID please clarify to what extent the Activity Database should be addressed in the proposal?

A.48 Please see the revised RFP. The Activity Database requirement has been removed.

Q.49 On page 74, the RFP states that “The total value of all GUCs that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) to a particular partner government entity (for example, ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $300,000 for the duration of the prime contract.” Can USAID please clarify if the project is permitted to provide direct funding to entities of the Government of Ukraine?

A.49 No, the Contractor is not permitted to provide direct funding, make payments, transfer funds, or reimburse costs directly to Government of Ukraine entities.

Q.50 On page 116, the RFP states that “CVs for expatriate, short-term technical assistance shall be included, as well as these individuals’ anticipated contributions to project efforts.” Can USAID please clarify if these CVs count towards the 50-page limit?

A.51 CVs are required for Key Personnel only. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.52 With regards to the Contractor Past Performance Information section on page 117; will USAID accept past performance information for Cooperative Agreements and/or Contracts below $30 million?

A.52 No, please note the definition USAID has established for relevancy for purposes of evaluating Offerors’ past performance, such as the size and type of work identified in the RFP.

Q.53 The RFP has a section for Past Performance in the main technical, as well as Contractor Past

Performance Information as part of the annexes. Can USAID please clarify the differences between these two sections?

A.53 Past performance information should be provided as an Annex to the Technical Proposal. Please refer to the revised instructions in Section L.7.B and for Annex 4 for details.

Q.54 Would USAID accept additional documents, such as Letters of Support, as part of the annexes to the technical? And if so, would this count toward the 50-page limit?

A.54 It’s up to the Offerors to determine which documentation is necessary to present in accordance with the RFP’s instructions. However, the Technical Proposal is limited to 50 pages.

Q.55 Would USAID accept 10-point font for textboxes, tables, and charts, such as the Year 1

Implementation Plan and Illustrative Indicator Table?

A.55 No.

Q.56 USAID defines a number of local fringe benefits under the allowances section on page 124 as allowable/unallowable. Per the local Labor Law of the Government of Ukraine, shouldn’t this information, such as severance, be captured under fringe benefits?

A.56 Severance is not allowable under the Contract. Local fringe benefits could be included under fringe benefits.

Q.57 On page 125, the RFP says that Offerors must specify the following for equipment and supply purchases, “Type, unit cost and number of units, manufacturer, and anticipated geographic source.” Are Offerors expected to indicate the manufacturer at this stage since this item will have to be competitively procured during implementation?

A.57 No, unless that information is known at the time of proposal submission. Estimates and supportive narratives are enough at the proposal stage.

Q.58 On page 126, the RFP states that communication costs should be included in L.8, PART 2 (L) the other direct costs category, but there is already a dedicated communication cost major budget category outlined in L.8, PART 2 (G) on page 125. Can USAID please confirm that communication costs should be captured in the communication major line item per the instruction P. 125?

A.58 If necessary, please include communication costs in the other direct costs category.

Q.59 The summary budget format provided on page 137 does not include the communication costs section outlined on page 125. Can USAID please clarify whether offerors should follow the guidance on page 125 or the summary budget format on page 137?

A.59 The Offeror must use the illustrative budget format contained in Attachment J.4 “SUMMARY BUDGET FORMAT.” If necessary, please include communication costs in the other direct costs category.

Q.60 P. 126, under the (L) Other Direct Costs subsection, the RFP repeatedly indicates that trainings, workshops, studies and their associated communication costs be included under other direct costs.

Can USAID please confirm that training, workshop, and studies costs should be captured under the “Training” line item, as outlined in section L.8 Part 2 (H) on page125? Can USAID please also confirm that communication costs should be captured in the communication major line item per the instructions in L.8, Part 2 (G) on page 125?

A.60 Training, workshop, and studies costs could be included under the Training line item.

Communication costs, if any, should be included under the Other Direct Costs budget category.

Q.61 On page 126, the RFP states that Environmental Compliance Costs must be summed under major budget line item (K) Environmental Compliance Costs in the excel budget and described in the narrative. Can USAID please indicate whether Offerors are expected to capture related labor (and fringe) costs under this line item that are already captured in the salary and wages line item?

A.61 Please include labor and fringe under related budget categories. Under Environmental

Compliance cost category the Offeror must indicate its illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities. For the purposes of this solicitation, Offerors should reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal.

Q.62 Section B.4, page 4 - Please confirm that offerors should provide two summary budgets: 1) one following the summary template in Section B.4, and 2) a second in the Attachment J.4 Summary Budget Format.

A.62 Section B.4 will be finalized by USAID prior to award based on the Cost Proposal submitted.

Please refer to RFP, Section L.8 INSTRUCTION FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL, VOLUME II, regarding instructions for the Cost Proposal.

Q.63 Section C.8.6, page 31 – The RFP states that “the Contractor must ensure that they have access to a certified and independent Architect and Engineering (A/E) firm”. For budgeting purposes, will USAID please provide a plug figure for construction activities under this program?

A.63 Please see A35 above.

Q.64 Section C.11.0, page 34 – The RFP states that “the Contractor must support a GUC delivery mechanism, be able to provide STTA, training, and DDGS (Direct Distribution of Goods and Services) as part of a flexible and fast operational design able to work with civic actors, community representatives, and government counterparts to implement activities.” For budgeting purposes, will USAID please provide a plug figure for DDGS?

A.64 No, USAID will not provide a plug figure for DDGS.

Q.65 Section C.12.0, page 34 – USAID requires “interoperability of the [activity] database with

USAID”. Can USAID please provide additional detail regarding the requirement? Are there specific USAID information systems that offerors should consider to ensure interoperability?

A.65 Please see the revised RFP. The Activity Database requirement has been removed.

Q.66 Section C.12.0, page 35 – USAID requires the Contractor to “provide training to USAID on how to use the database and must provide follow-up training as appropriate.” Can USAID be more specific regarding expectations around USAID staff use of the proposed activity database?

Should the database allow USAID to log-in and approve specific activities, interventions, and/or grantee selection?

A.66 Please see above and the revised RFP.

Q.67 Section F.5, page 51 - Please confirm that no fixed fee proportion may be proposed for any deliverable marked “N/A”.

A.67 Confirmed.

Q.68 Section F.5, page 51 - Please confirm that offerors may add more than one deliverable to the Fee

Schedule.

A.68 Confirmed.

Q.69 Section L.5, page 113 – Please confirm the offer validity period. Section L.5 requires that proposals remain available for acceptance by USAID for a minimum of 210 days, whereas the Standard Form 33 lists a 180 day bid validity period.

A.69 Confirmed, the validity period is 210 days. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.70 Section L.7.A, page 114 – Please confirm that offerors may use a font and font size other than

TNR 12 for textboxes, tables, and graphics, such as the Organizational Chart annex.

A.70 No, please see the Section L instructions.

Q.71 Section L.7.B.5, page 115 - Under 5. Technical Approach, USAID asks the offeror to incorporate the “cross-cutting considerations of gender and geographic and demographic targeting” throughout the technical approach. Section M evaluation criteria (page 131) indicates that the offeror “must demonstrate how the approach will incorporate and achieve the cross-cutting considerations described in Section C.” Within Section C, gender is included under the heading “Programmatic Linkages” (Section C.8.4, page 29). USAID discusses “Geographic and Demographic Targeting” within Section C.5.0 (page 23). Finally, a section entitled Cross-Cutting Approaches (C.6.0) discusses other themes (communications and community-based approaches).

While it is clear that that gender and geographic and demographic targeting should be clearly addressed in this program, can USAID please clarify what exactly is being evaluated as a cross-cutting consideration?

A.72 Please refer to RFP, page 115, 5) Technical Approach: “The technical proposal should address how it will incorporate the cross cutting principles as described in the Statement of Work, most importantly, the cross-cutting considerations of Gender, community-based approaches, and Geographic and Demographic Targeting must be prevalent and incorporated throughout the approach.”

Q.73 Section L.7.B.5, page 115 - Under 5. Technical Approach, USAID asks the offerors to provide a full description of the proposed approach (including the proposed activities, indicators and results for each year). In order to maintain the flexibility required to adapt to the changing operational context, please confirm that offerors should present a) life of activity indicators and results consistent with USAID’s results framework and b) year one activities, milestones, and results in the draft Initial Implementation Plan (Annex 1).

A.73 Offerors should submit proposals in accordance with Section L.7 which outlines what should be included. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.74 Section L.7.B.6, page 116 – Under Staffing Plan, USAID requires that the proposal include “a chart/exhibit (as an Annex) that illustrates the roles of the proposed staff.” Please confirm that this is a reference to Annex 5 Organizational Chart.

A.74 Please see the revised RFP.

Q.75 Section L.7.B.6, page 116 – Under Staffing Plan, USAID states that “CVs for expatriate, short-term technical assistance shall be included…”. Please confirm that CVs are required for key personnel only, as per instructions on page 118.

A.75 CVs are required for Key Personnel only. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.76 Section L.7.B.8, page 117 – Please confirm that all required contractor past performance information should be included as an annex to the technical proposal, and that no additional past performance information is required in the technical proposal.

A.76 Past performance information must be part of the Technical Proposal. Please refer to the revised instructions in Section L.7.B and Annex 4 for details.

Q.77 Section L.7.B.8, pages 117-118 – Within contractor past performance information requirements, USAID states that c) Quality Awards or Certifications and d) Performance Using Small Business Concerns are not subject to the page limit. Please confirm that these two sub-sections of Annex 4 are not subject to the overall 50-page technical proposal limit.

A.77 Please see the revised RFP. SF 294 has been moved and should be included in the Offeror’s Cost

Proposal.

Q.78 Section L.7.B.9, page 118 – Within Annex 2, USAID notes that offerors shall draft an illustrative

MEL Plan using the guidelines set forth in Section F.4.A(3). The Offeror notes that the guidelines set forth in Section F.4.A(3) include Performance Indicator Reference Sheets for each indicator.

Given the page limitation, please confirm the offerors do not need to submit separate Performance Indicator Reference Sheets at this time.

A.78 No, Offerors do not need to submit Performance Indicator Reference Sheets at this time.

Q.79 Section L.7.B.9, page 119 – Paragraph 5 under the heading “Instructions for the Preparation of

Branding Implementation and Marking Plan” states that “These plans shall detail implementation of the branding strategy (in the branding implementation plan), specify how the project will be marked (in the marking plan), as well as include a proposed budget for outreach and indicate who will be responsible for the implementation of these plans.” In light of this requirement, please confirm that the offeror should include the Branding Implementation and Marking Plan as an annex to the cost proposal.

A.79 Please see the revised RFP. The Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan should be part of the Offeror’s Cost Proposal.

Q.80 Section L.7.B.9, page 119 – Annex 6 Deliverables and Fee Schedule requires that offerors present the “value and percentage of each deliverable”. Will USAID allow offerors to present the Deliverables and Fee Schedule in the cost proposal only to avoid including pricing data in the technical proposal?

A.80 Please see the revised RFP. The Deliverables and Fee Schedule should be included as part of the

Q.81 Section L.8, page 125 - The Communication category is not reflected in Attachment J.4. Please confirm that offerors may modify the template to added Communications in the Summary Budget Format.

A.81 If necessary, please add Communications under Other Direct Cost budget category.

Q.82 Would USAID please consider removing the Cover Page, Table of Contents, and

Acronyms List from the 50-page limitation?

A.82 Unfortunately, no, they are included in the 50-page limitation.

Q.83 Part 3 of Section L.8 of the RFP requests a “Statement that the offeror [has] complete[d] the

Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) and that the Central Contract Registration (CCR) is current and up to date.” Since the CCR and ORCA were migrated to the System for Award Management (SAM) and are no longer accessible, would USAID consider removing this requirement from the RFP? Offerors will submit the certifications listed in Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, including certification confirming that offerors are registered in the SAM.

A.83 Please see the revised RFP.

Q.84 We respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from Section H.23.13 of the

RFP: “Copies of all reports received from grantees will promptly be forwarded to the COR.” We ask USAID to consider removing this sentence given that the Grants Under Contracts authorizing language in Automated Directives System (ADS) 302 and 303 does not require copies of all reports from grantees to be “promptly forwarded” to the contracting officer’s representative.

A.84 This requirement has been removed. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.85 We respectfully request that USAID remove the last sentence of Section H.23.13 of the RFP: “At the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor must consult with the Contracting Officer for direction as to which records must be transferred to USAID.” Although USAID retains the rights to visitation and inspection for three years after the grant completion date, all records under this contract are considered property of the contractor and must be retained in accordance with the contractor’s records and retention policies that originate from audit requirements.

A.85 See above. Please see the revised RFP.

Q.86 Section L.7 of the RFP indicates that Annex 6 should include a deliverables and fee schedule:

“Offerors must present the value and percentage of each deliverable in the table in Section F.5 where appropriate, as well as the value and percentage of any additional deliverable proposed.”

Given that Section L.6 of the RFP indicates that “Technical Proposals must not make reference to pricing data,” and given that presenting the proposed value per deliverable would require reference to pricing information, could USAID please clarify whether Annex 6 should be included in the Technical Volume or Cost Volume and whether Annex 6 must present both value and percentage of each deliverable?

A.86 Please see the revised RFP. The Deliverables and Fee Schedule should be included as part of the

Q.87 I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

A.87 This is a new, full and open competition.

Q.88 Our Foundation already worked with the XXX in Ukraine. And we would like to know if there is a possibility to include our proposal in your RFP.

A.88 Please see the RFP’s instructions and eligibility requirements to determine if your organization may bid on this solicitation.

Q.89 Is the CDCS Framework presented on p.12, the latest version of the Mission’s Results

Framework?

A.89 Please see the most updated Framework in the revised RFP.

II. PART II – REVISE RFP No. 72012118R00006

Based on the questions received for USAID Democratic Governance East RFP, the revised version of the RFP is posted. USAID edits/revisions are marked in yellow in the revised document.

[End of Amendment No. 01 to RFP No. 72012118R00006]