ROUND 2 Questions.pdf

Questions – Round II

Question 1:

Page 11: "The Contractor is required to use the following indicators in its MEL Plan:" , and then it lists eight bullets that are not indicators, but requirements to be part of AMELP, such as "Provide a framework for monitoring progress toward achieving objectives", or "Explain the rationale for the proposed program results...". Can USAID clarify what they mean by 'indicators' or was this meant to read 'requirements'?

Answer 1:

As answered in round one of the questions, there are no required indicators that must be included in the MEL plan. This language has been updated. The offerors are responsible for proposing indicators and a draft MEL plan as required in annex J that will sufficiently track USAID-funded activities’ outputs, outcomes and impact.

Question 2:

GOR abbreviation has been used in several parts of the RFP. Is this abbreviation meant to read GoNM (the Government of North Macedonia)?

Answer 2:

As answered in the round one of the questions, this has been updated to read Government of North Macedonia (GONM)

Question 3:

Page 69: Referring to the list of 8 documents, can USAID clarify what is included and what excluded in terms of the 20 page limit? What documents in the list on page 69 constitute "Technical Proposal Body"? Related to this, what is the page limit for those documents that are excluded? Are there page limits for all Annexes or only for the ones for which the page limit has been provided (such as for Annex J MEL plan - 10 pages)?

Answer 3:

This has been updated in the RFP amendment. Please see section L.6 of the revised solicitation.

Question 4:

RFP refers to municipalities, local governments, and LGUs (local government units). Can USAID confirm that these represent the same entities, i.e. municipalities, and whether USAID has any particular preference for using one term over the others?

Answer 4:

These terms are interchangeable. Offerors can decide to use one term in their proposals, if they wish to do so.

Question 5:

Page 93: Both the title of objective 1, and the last bullet under that title read exactly the same.

Was this done intentionally to highlight and emphasize the importance of increased OSR?

Answer 5:

Yes, increased OSR is very important under Objective 1.

Question 6:

Page 71: Annex B - Deliverables makes reference to Section 4 of SOO. Section 4 of SOO is the Theory of Change. The same reference is provided on page 73. Can USAID clarify what was the intent of the reference to the Theory of Change?

Answer 6:

The reference has been deleted in this solicitation amendment.

Question 7:

Section L.6 lists Past Performance as number 7 under the “Required order” of sections in the proposal (L.6 on page 72 and L6(d) on page 74). In both L.6 and L.6(d), this reference to past Performance precedes Annexes; however, the answer to Question 68 says that Past Performance Information should only be included in Annex I to the technical proposal. Will USAID please clarify if a past performance narrative should be included as part of the technical proposal or if offerors may include it as part of Annex I?

Answer 7:

USAID confirms that for Past Performance Information Attachment J.4 needs to be completed and included only in Annex I. In addition (per section L.6 of the RFP), offerors should include a brief narrative about their past performance, which is excluded from the page limitation.

Question 8:

Sections L.6(d), page 74, and L.7, page 76: Both sections refer to instructions for preparation of Annex B Deliverables in Section 4 of the SOO. Would USAID provide instructions for Annex B, or remove reference to them in the amended RFP?

Answer 8:

This reference has been deleted.

Question 9:

USAID’s answer to Question 81 allows for a cover letter to the proposal that does not count toward the 20-page limit, but this is not included in the amended RFP. Would USAID please include this in the amended RFP?

Answer 9:

As stated in the previous round of Q&A, the cover page has been excluded from the page limitation. This is reflected in Section L.6 of the RFP.

Question 10:

In Amendment 1, the answer to Question 68 reads “Past Performance Information should only be included in Annex I to the technical proposal.” However, the revised RFP retains two references to a proposal section titled “Past Performance.” Please confirm that Offerors should provide a past performance narrative that is excluded from the technical page limitation, as shown in Section L.6 (page 72) of the revised RFP.

Answer 10:

As stated in the revised RFP, USAID confirms that Offerors should provide a past performance narrative that is excluded from the technical page limitation.

Question 11:

We note that the evaluation criteria for personnel and management was revised to remove the following: “Organizational Chart: Adequacy of key personal and staff key strengths (i.e., skills, education, and experience) vis-à-vis their roles and responsibilities in the proposal.” Given the revised evaluation criteria for Personnel/Management, can USAID please clarify how the qualifications and experience of Key Personnel will be evaluated?

Answer 11:

As per M.5-Personnel and management Approach of the revised RFP.

Question 12:

Where there are differences in categories/headings between the budget template (Attachment 5) and the Budget Line-Item Headings provided on p.81-82 of the RFP, please confirm that the Offeror may format their budget according to either one.

Answer 12:

USAID confirms that the Offeror may format their budget according to either one.

Question 13:

“Award fee” is a category on the budget template (Attachment 5). Please confirm that there is “fixed fee” but not “award fee” on this project.

Answer 13:

Correct, there is only fixed fee.

Question 14:

The summary tab on the budget template (Attachment 5) says please include a “by line item explanation.” Please confirm the explanation should occur in the budget narrative.

Answer 14:

Correct, the explanation should be in the budget narrative.

Question 15:

The RFP does not provide mandatory performance objectives, deliverables or outputs for the fee payment schedule; however, Section L.11(a) 2. (p. 80) indicates that they exist. With the understanding that there are no mandatory items for the fee payment schedule and that offerors are free to propose their own, we suggest that the following sentence be deleted: “Subject to the requirement to include mandatory performance objectives, deliverables or outputs in the fee payment schedule, offerors have discretion to propose up to three additional performance objectives, deliverables or outputs that are most relevant as described in the SOO.”

Answer 15:

USAID has deleted this language through Amendment 2 of the solicitation.