72016522R00003 Amendment No.1 Questions and Answers.pdf

RFP Amendment 1 Date of Issuance: October 6, 2022 Revised Closing Date and Time: October 31, 2022, at 4 p.m. Skopje Time

Subject: Amendment No. 1 to the Request for Proposals (RFP) #72016522R00003

Activity Title: Partnership Against Corruption (PAC) Activity

The purpose of this amendment is to:

a) provide answers to the questions submitted by interested offerors; and

b) to amend the original solicitation.

The original RFP#72016522R00003 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with an updated RFP included within this posting. All changes in the amended solicitation are highlighted for ease of reference.

Attached are:

1) The definitive and controlling amended solicitation RFP#72016522R00003 for the USAID/North Macedonia Partnership Against Corruption (PAC) Activity with adjustments highlighted to ensure ready access to the current solicitation emphasizing the newly added content within the RFP. This is the solicitation that governs this procurement.

2) Answers to Questions submitted with respect to the solicitation for the USAID/North Macedonia Partnership Against Corruption (PAC) Activity.

The RFP as amended is the legally binding and controlling document for this procurement.

USAID appreciates the time and effort put into preparing proposals in response to this solicitation.

RFP# 72016522R00003

Partnership Against Corruption (PAC) Activity.

Questions and Answers

USAID/North Macedonia Partnership Against Corruption (PAC) Activity.

Question 1.

May offerors propose to utilize grants under contract?

Answer 1.

No, offerors should not propose to utilize Grants Under Contracts. Grants Under Contracts are not envisioned under this RFP.

Question 2.

Does USAID contemplate the purchase of equipment and/or software development? If so, please provide a plug figure for each.

Answer 2.

The need for equipment or software will be determined by each proposal's technical approach. USAID will not provide any plug figure for any equipment or software.

Question 3.

There are several references to justice sector institutions, prosecutorial rates, cases/crimes/sentences, legal and justice sector expertise, traditional justice mechanisms, legal aid, etc. in the set indicators bullets (p.108), key personnel qualifications bullets (p.109), and contractor performance information (p.110). Please confirm that this is an error.

Answer 3.

Confirmed. USAID has deleted the indicators in the RFP. An Offeror must propose an illustrative set of indicators tailored to its technical approach to the Statement of Objectives.

The overall set of indicators must include the indicators with appropriate targets based upon the Offeror’s own analysis.

Question 4.

Does USAID have any specific requirements or guidance regarding the content and/or format of the Personnel Summary Matrix (p.107)?

Answer 4.

USAID has amended the RFP to delete the single reference to a “personnel summary matrix.”

Question 5.

Please clarify whether the Mobilization Plan annex (p.109) is subject to the 25-page limit for the technical proposal.

Answer 5.

This Mobilization Plan will not be counted towards the 25-page limit.

Question 6.

Please clarify what is required as an annex to the technical proposal: a) Small Disadvantaged Business participation program targets information (per p.107); or b) Small Business Goal Plan (per p.109-110).

Answer 6.

Both the Small Disadvantaged Business participation program targets information (per p.107); and the Small Business Goal Plan (per p.109-110) have been removed from the RFP.

The amended RFP lists required Annexes to the Technical Submission.

Question 7.

The RFP states that offerors “must provide copies of any enforceable agreements with subcontractors” (p.110). As these are confidential agreements that USAID is not a party to, we request that USAID remove this requirement.

Answer 7.

USAID confirms that this requirement is removed from the RFP.

Question 8.

Please confirm that filling out the Past Performance Matrix (Attachment 7) and Past Performance Information Form (Attachment 8) is only required for those contracts that are not in the CPARS, and that for contracts that are in the CPARS providing the contracts’ names and numbers shall suffice.

Answer 8.

Each Offeror must adhere to the amended RFP’s express requirements with respect to the submission of the Past Performance Matrix and the Performance Information Form inclusive of contracts that are in CPARS. The RFP has been amended to reflect this requirement to facilitate USAID’s ready access to and understanding of the Offeror’s Past Performance Information.

Question 9.

Please confirm that font size 9 may be used in textboxes as well as in tables and charts.

Answer 9.

USAID confirms that font size 9 Times New Roman may be used in textboxes as well as in tables and charts, but not lower.

Question 10.

Please confirm that biodatas are not required as key personnel will not be named in the proposal.

Answer 10:

USAID confirms that a biodata sheet is not required and any such requirement is removed from the RFP.

Question 11.

Given FAR 15.403-1(b)(1) and that adequate price competition is anticipated for this full and open procurement, will USAID consider removing the requirement(s) listed under RFP Section I.1, page 56, for certified cost or pricing data per FAR 52.215-21?

Answer 11:

USAID hereby confirms that it has removed the requirement for certified cost or pricing data.

Question 12.

Attachment J.9 RFP Page 69, would USAID provide the full LCP salary ranges?

Answer 12:

No. USAID is not at liberty to disclose the full LCP salary ranges. USAID provided the Local Compensation Plan salary ranges as follows: The current Local Compensation Plan for USAID/North Macedonia starts from a minimum Range of €11,023 to maximum of €63,717 (gross).

Question 13.

Please confirm disclosure of lobbying activities is only to be submitted by those firms with lobbying activities to disclose under the Cost Proposal/Part 3, and that firms that have no lobbying activities do not need to submit the SF-LLL.

Answer 13:

Each offeror must adhere to all solicitation requirements and conduct its own due diligence to ensure compliance with the solicitation. Nonetheless, USAID understands that a firm that does not engage in lobbying does not need to submit a form related to lobbying.

Question 14.

RFP Section L.9, Part 2 (3) (K) Fixed Fee states that offerors “must” explain the basis of fee, in accordance with FAR 15.404-4, with regards to the applicable factors of technical, management” etc. However, FAR 15-404-4, (c) (5): 5) states that “The contracting officer shall not require any prospective contractor to submit breakouts or supporting rationale for its profit or fee objective but may consider it, if it is submitted voluntarily.” Accordingly, we ask that the RFP language be revised.

Answer 14:

USAID confirms that the language requiring an explanation for the basis of the fee has been removed from the RFP.

Question 15.

Can USAID provide an anticipated start date for budgeting purposes?

Answer 15:

At this time USAID can not forecast the exact timing; however, a good faith approximate start date for this activity is on or around April/May 2023.

Question 16.

Attachment J.2/Budget Template, RFP Section B.4, and RFP Section L.9 Part 2 (3) cost categories, are not consistent with one another. There are several discrepancies from different naming of the cost category (“Salary and Wages” vs. “Personnel”) to cost categories themselves merged and separate (Equipment and Supplies, for example), to a missing B.4 cost category (Construction). May offerors align/adjust as appropriate?

Answer 16:

The RFP has been amended to reflect the fact that there is no mandatory budget template that the offeror must utilize when submitting its budget. The budget template was illustrative and intended to serve as a starting point. The budget template has been removed from the solicitation by this amendment. The Offeror may utilize its own budget template and adjust its own budget as the Offeror finds it necessary and appropriate in order to make an accurate submission of its cost proposal. Any cost proposal, inclusive of the budget, must strictly align with FAR, AIDAR, and solicitation requirements. The Offeror should give due consideration to key cost categories ensuring clarity and ease of understanding of budget lines and elements.

Question 17.

Section B.4, page 8: The contract budget table provided in Section B does not include rows for certain cost categories such as Allowances. Would USAID permit offerors to modify the table provided in Section B of the RFP to include all cost categories required in Section L (pages 113-117)?

Answer 17:

See Answer 16.

Question 18.

Section J.1, page 125: The RFP references “…support [to] accountability mechanisms within the purview of the government and quasi-governmental accountability mechanisms.” Would USAID please provide a definition or clarification for a quasi-governmental accountability mechanism and provide an example?

Answer 18:

This language has been omitted. The RFP language “quasi-government” is replaced by “State institutions”.

Question 19.

Section J.1, page 128: Under Objective 3, the first expected result is “Perception of corruption in the public sector reduced due to enhanced digital services.” While PAC will work on the digital transformation of services—which indirectly addresses perceptions of corruption amongst other things—activities directly influence perceptions of corruption directly appear out of scope (i.e., through public communications campaigns, engagement with the media, or grants to civil society), especially considering the activities contemplated by the Citizens Against Corruption project. Would USAID consider an alternative indicator that measures the efficacy of the digitally transformed services, which directly measures the impact of the Contractor’s intervention?

Answer 19:

Yes. Offerors should propose relevant and meaningful indicators measuring the impact of the Contractor’s interventions.

Question 20.

Section J.1, page 128: Would USAID please provide greater clarity on the guiding principles of collaboration with the private sector and youth engagement considering the anticipated companion project, Citizens Against Corruption? The published Initial Environmental Evaluation indicates that the Citizens Against Corruption activity will have a component dedicated to “private sector engaged in the fight against corruption” and two components broadly focused on civil society strengthening for the fight against corruption and civic awareness and education. Given USAID’s separate investment in the Citizens Against Corruption Activity, would USAID please elaborate on what types of interventions with youth and private sector actors are contemplated under this solicitation?

Answer 20:

USAID/North Macedonia expects all of its various activities to seek opportunities and collaborations to advance the overall goals of the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). Partnership Against Corruption Activity’s work is focused on supporting the national government and anti-corruption bodies to mitigate and reduce vulnerabilities to corruption, and support national actors to take action on corruption where it exists. The Partnership Against Corruption Activity should seek to meaningfully collaborate with other USAID investments in the anti-corruption space and leverage its partnership/relationship with national level actors to further goals and activities that engage the private sector and youth in combating corruption.

Question 21.

Section J.1, pages 128-129: Given the importance of donor collaboration and leveraging of efforts, please confirm that the implementing partner for PAC will coordinate with other USAID-or donor-funded activities working at the local self-governmental level and/or state-owned enterprises (as opposed to managing interventions directly at the local self-government level or focused on state-owned enterprises).

Answer 21.

The Statement of Objectives calls for both close coordination and direct interventions. The Statement of Objectives as written and incorporated in the RFP is controlling.

Question 22.

Section L.5, page 105: USAID provides a required subject line for submission of proposals.

Please confirm that Offerors may also include identifying information (such as the Offeror’s name and whether the email relates to the cost or technical volume) in the subject line when submitting proposals.

Answer 22:

USAID confirms that Offerors may also include identifying information (such as the Offeror’s name and whether the email relates to the cost or technical volume) in the subject line when submitting proposals.

Question 23.

Section L.6.A, page 106: As with tables and charts, may offerors use a font no smaller than 9 point for textboxes?

Answer 23:

USAID confirms that the offerors may use a font no smaller than point 9 for textboxes.

Question 24.

Section L.6.A, page 107: Please confirm that font and paper size requirements do not apply to the past performance matrix.

Answer 24:

USAID confirms that font and paper size do not apply to the past performance matrix.

Question 25.

Sections L.6.A and L.7: May offerors include a two-page Executive Summary summarizes key elements of offerors’ proposals and does not count toward the 25-page limit?

Answer 25:

The RFP does not require an Executive Summary. A one page cover letter is requested and does not count towards the page limitation. In the event that an Offeror voluntarily elects to submit an Executive Summary within its Technical Proposal, it will count towards the page limitation governing the Technical Submission.

Question 26.

Section L.6.A and L.6.B (pages 106-109): Per page 107, USAID allows offerors to provide a personnel summary matrix on the expertise of staff, consultants, and other personnel specialists as an annex that does not count against the 25-page limit for the technical proposal. USAID is also clear that offerors must provide information on key personnel titles, roles, and qualifications in the technical body (page 109). There are no further instructions for the Personnel Summary Matrix. Please confirm that offerors should use the Personnel Summary Matrix annex to provide information on the expertise of illustrative staff, consultants, and other personnel that may be mobilized in long- or short-term roles on the activity.

Answer 26:

The reference to a “personnel summary matrix” has been deleted in the amended RFP. The offeror may incorporate insights into personnel expertise in its Management Approach in a manner consistent with the requirements of the amended RFP.

Question 27.

Section L.7.A, page 108: On page 108, USAID states that indicators must measure 1) increased effectiveness of internal processes within individual justice sector institutions; 2) improvement in the quantity and quality of cases resolved as a means to reduce impunity; 3) increased collaboration among justice sector actors within the various institutions for enhanced accountability and effectiveness; and 4) increased sustainability through strategies that address political culture and institutional constraints that impede sustainability. These results, particularly the first three, focus on the justice sector and appear inconsistent with the results outlined in attachment J.1. Would USAID please either clarify the link between these results and the SOO or confirm that offerors should disregard these four bullet points on page 108 and instead propose indicators that measure results vis-à-vis the expected results included in the SOO?

Answer 27:

See Answer 3.

Question 28.

Section L.7.A, page 108: The RFP requires that each proposed intervention include “An illustrative Work Plan for the intervention.” Would USAID please confirm that it wishes to see the proposed timeframe for the intervention?

Answer 28:

The RFP has been amended to an illustrative Year One Annual Work Plan covering the first twelve months of award implementation as an Annex to the Technical Submission. The Work Plan must include a schedule of interventions and tasks planned to be conducted.

Question 29.

Section L.7.B, page 109: USAID states that Offerors must not propose individuals to fill Key Personnel roles. However, Section L “Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal,” Part 2 – Proposal Costs/Prices (p.113) notes that “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long-term, short-term expatriates and for all short term and long-term cooperating country personnel being proposed.” Also, in Section J – List of Attachments, Attachment J.2 – Budget Template, the instructions for budgeting Direct Labor - Salaries and Wages note that Offerors should indicate the candidate’s name if a candidate has been identified. Please confirm that Offerors should not list the names of proposed personnel in the budget (key or non-key, long- or short-term) and, as such, should not provide biographical data sheets for any identified candidates?

Answer 29:

No individuals should be named with respect to Key Personnel role anywhere in an Offeror’s technical or cost submission. The RFP is amended to eliminate any reference to naming specific proposed personnel as well as any need to submit a biodata sheet. As per answer 10, USAID confirms that biodata is not required and the RFP has been amended to delete any requirement for the submission of a biodata sheet.

Question 30.

Section L.7.B, page 109: The RFP requires offerors to submit a Mobilization Plan as an Annex. However, the Mobilization Plan does not appear in the list of items “not included in the page limitation” provided on pages 106-107. Please confirm that the Mobilization Plan may be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal, and that it is not included in the 25-page limitation.

Answer 30:

As per Answer 5, USAID confirms that the Mobilization Plan must be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal and that it is not included in the 25-page limitation.

Question 31.

Section L.7.B, page 109: Please confirm that offerors may provide the required QASP as an annex to the technical proposal that is not included in the 25-page limitation (as suggested on pages 106-107 of the RFP).

Answers 31:

USAID confirms that offerors may provide the required QASP as an annex to the technical proposal and that the QASP is not included in the 25-page limitation.

Question 32.

Section L.7.B, pages 109-110: Please confirm that offerors may respond to the “Subcontracting: Small Business Goal Plan” and “Management Plan: Small Business Utilization” instructions in the form of an annex or annexes to the technical proposal that are not included in the 25-page limitation (as suggested on pages 106-107 of the RFP).

Answer 32:

As per Answer 6, USAID confirms that the “Subcontracting: Small Business Goal Plan” and “Management Plan: Small Business Utilization” are removed from the RFP.

Question 33.

Section L.7.C, page 110: USAID provides the following among a list of most relevant indicators of performance: “managing a portfolio of multiple subawards with local organizations; earning trust and buy-in from justice sector leaders in challenging environments; strengthening traditional justice mechanisms, formal judicial sectors, access to legal aid, and judicial professionalism; conducting rights awareness campaigns; enhancing community reconciliation; and strengthening the capacity of civil society organizations.”

Respectfully, we request that USAID review and revise these relevant indicators of past performance as they appear better suited to the requirements of a justice sector strengthening programming with a significant community engagement component.

Answer 33:

See Answer 3.

Question 34.

Section L.7.C, pages 110-111: Please confirm that a narrative on Contractor Past Performance is not required within the 25-page technical (that is, past performance information may be referenced in the technical proposal but that all required past performance information is to be included in annexes to the technical proposal).

Answer 34:

USAID confirms that Past Performance information is not required within the 25-page technical proposal. Past performance information may be referenced in the technical proposal, but all required past performance information must be included as an Annex to the Offeror’s Technical Submission.

Question 35.

Section L.7.C, pages 110-111: With reference to the “up to three of the most recent and relevant contracts” to be provided as past performance in an annex to the technical proposal, would USAID please confirm that offerors should 1) include all submitted past performance references (up to 3) in the past performance matrix (Attachment J.7) and 2) separately provide the past performance information form (Attachment J.8) for any submitted references that are not in CPARS?

Answer 35:

Each Offeror must adhere to the amended RFP’s express requirements with respect to the submission of the Past Performance Matrix and the Performance Information Form inclusive of contracts that are in CPARS. The RFP has been amended to reflect this requirement to facilitate USAID’s ready access to and understanding of the Offeror’s Past Performance Information.

Question 36.

Section L.9, page 119: The RFP provided title of Cost/Business Proposal Part 10 is “Letters of Commitment (Major Subcontractors)”. Further this part states: ‘The Cost/Business Proposal must include a letter, on subcontractor letterhead, and signed by an authorized representative of each subcontractor.’ Could USAID please clarify if the Cost/Business proposal must also include letters of commitment from proposed non-major subcontractors?

Answer 36:

Letters of commitment from proposed non-major subcontractors are not required. The RFP has been amended to delete any requirement for the submission of letters of commitment.

Question 37.

Section L.9: Would USAID please confirm that offerors should use the exchange rate of 1 USD = 60 MKD in preparation of cost/business proposals?

Answer 37:

Cost proposals must be in United States Dollars (USD) only.

Question 38.

Section L.6.A, Organization of the Technical Proposal, pages 106-107, specifies certain proposal sections that do not count against the 25-page limitation. May the offeror include a two (2) page executive summary that does not count against the page limitation?

Answer 38:

The RFP does not require an Executive Summary. A one page cover letter is requested and does not count towards the page limitation. In the event that an Offeror voluntarily elects to submit an Executive Summary within its Technical Proposal, it will count towards the page limitation governing the Technical Submission.

Question 39.

L.6.A, Organization of the Technical Proposal, page 106, states: “The font used in tables and charts may be adjusted as appropriate but must be no smaller than 9 pitch." Would USAID please confirm that offerors may also use 9 pitch font for text boxes and graphics?

Answer 39:

USAID confirms that offerors may also use 9 point for text boxes and graphics.

Question 40.

Sections L.6 and L.7 refer to annexes but do not list them. Would USAID kindly provide a list of the annexes to be included within the technical proposal and which do not count against the page limitation?

Answer 40:

Please read carefully the changes made within the RFP in section L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL under A. ORGANIZATION OF

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

AUXILIARY MATERIAL TO THE TECHNICAL SUBMISSION

(The below auxiliary material is not subject to the 25-page limitation governing the Technical Submission itself.)

Title Page Not to exceed 1 page.

Cover Letter Not to exceed 1 page.

Table of Contents Not to exceed 1 page.

Acronym list Not to exceed 1 page.

Dividers Not to exceed 1 page.

TECHNICAL SUBMISSION

(The Technical Submission containing the Performance Work Statement and the Management Approach is subject to a 25-page limit.)

Performance Work Statement

Management Approach

ANNEXES

(None of the Annexes are included in the page limitation for an

Offeror’s Technical Submission.)

ANNEX A: Illustrative Year-One Annual Work Plan

ANNEX B: Mobilization Plan

ANNEX C: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

ANNEX D: Past Performance Information & Past Performance Matrix

Question 41.

Section L.6.A, Organization of the Technical Proposal, pages 106-107, specifies certain proposal sections that do not count against the 25-page limitation. Could USAID please confirm that the following technical proposal sections should be submitted as annexes to the technical proposal body?

● Personnel summary matrix (per Section L) on the expertise of staff, consultants, and other personnel specialists.

● Management Structure Organizational Chart(s)

● Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) (See ATTACHMENT J.6)

Answer 41:

The reference to a “Management Structure Organizational Chart” has been deleted in the amended RFP. The RFP states that the Offeror’s submission must include: “The overall plan for the management and implementation of the activity must include a sound organizational structure and effective management of local or other subpartner interventions.” No separate “Management Structure Organization Chart(s)” is requested in the amended RFP. The Offeror may fulfill the requirement to convey a “sound organizational structure” within its Technical Submission whether in a narrative or chart format so long as the solicitation requirements are met. The content on the “organizational structure” is subject to the page limitation governing the Offeror’s Technical Submission.

The reference to a “personnel summary matrix” has been deleted in the amended RFP.

USAID confirms that the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan must be submitted as an Annex to the Offeror’s Technical Submission.

USAID confirms that the annexed Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan will not be counted towards the 25-page limit.

Annexes are not subject to the page limitation governing the Offeror’s Technical Submission.

Question 42.

Section L.6.A, Organization of the Technical Proposal, page 107, states that a "Personnel summary matrix (per Section L) on the expertise of staff, consultants, and other personnel specialists" is not included in the page limitation. The rest of the solicitation does not mention a personnel summary matrix. We have the following related questions:

● Would USAID kindly clarify the information requirements for the personnel matrix?

● Could USAID confirm that offerors should include the personnel summary matrix as an annex to the technical proposal?

Answer 42:

See answers 40 and 41 above. The reference to a “personnel summary matrix” has been deleted in the amended RFP.

Question 43.

Section L.7, Content of Technical Proposal, subsection (a) Performance work statement (PWS), page 107, indicates that the summary chart listing proposed interventions should indicate a period of performance for each intervention. Could USAID clarify whether an offeror’s PWS should indicate the expected start and end date for all proposed interventions within year one or across all five years of PAC?

Answer 43:

The RFP has been amended to remove any requirement to state the period of performance for each intervention. However, the Illustrative Year One Annual Work Plan should include relevant information on planned interventions and their schedule during the first year of implementation.

Question 44.

Section L.7, Content of Technical Proposal, subsection (a) Performance work statement (PWS), page 108, specifies information requirements for each proposed intervention in the PWS. We have the following related questions regarding these requirements:

a. Should the illustrative work plans be for the full duration of the proposed interventions (e.g., for the full five years if that is the period of performance for the proposed intervention)?

Answer 44 (a): The RFP has been amended to request the submission of an illustrative year one Annual Work Plan focused on the first twelve months of implementation.

b. What is the level of detail expected of the illustrative work plan under each proposed intervention (i.e., unit of time and granularity of activities)?

Answer 44 (b): The Offeror’s Year One Annual Work Plan should propose illustrative interventions, approach, timeframe, resources and expected results.

c. Should indicators and semi-annual targets extend for the full period of performance for each proposed interventions (as an example, given the expected results stated in the statement of objectives, there may be 12 proposed interventions, meaning there would be 20-24 indicators, and if interventions would stretch on average for 4 years each, there would be 160-192 semi-annual targets to be provided in the PWS)?

Answer 44 (c): The RFP has been amended to eliminate any requirement to propose two indicators per intervention. Instead, the offeror is called upon to propose illustrative indicators. USAID understands that the indicators will be finalized after the award date in the MEL plan.

d. Should the plan for synergies and avoiding duplications with existing USAID/NMKD, USG and other donor-funded activities relate to the overall approach, or is it expected that for each proposed intervention every other relevant activity should be identified and mentioned (there may be potential for considerable overlap across the proposed interventions)?

Answer 44 (d): The offeror’s plan may relate to the overall approach.

e. Is the plan for coordinating the implementation of the proposed interventions with GOM at all appropriate levels envisaged as an overall plan for PAC (i.e., part of the approach to implementation) or at the level of each proposed intervention?

Answer 44 (e): The plan for coordinating the implementation is envisioned as an overall plan for the Partnership Against Corruption Activity.

Question 45.

Section L.7, Content of Technical Proposal subsection, (a) Performance work statement (PWS), page 108, includes a number of areas that must be measured by the proposed set of indicators which focus heavily on justice sector institutions, case selection and an increase in prosecution rate. Yet the statement of objectives and the expected results place more of an emphasis on mitigation and prevention and engaging with accountability and anti-corruption institutions. We have the following related questions regarding these requirements:

● Should this be understood to mean that there is an expectation for a greater emphasis on justice sector institutions and actual prosecution of corruption cases?

● Could USAID provide a definition of justice sector institutions for the purposes of

PAC?

Answer 45:

See Answer 3.

Question 46.

Section L.7, Content of Technical Proposal, subsection (a) Performance work statement (PWS), page 108, requires that offerors provide two indicators for each intervention. We are concerned that Offerors may include a large number of interventions, resulting in an overwhelming number of indicators which will be unwieldy and difficult to manage, something that goes against ADS and Learning Lab guidance for MEL plans. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to propose an appropriate group of indicators at the objective level rather than the intervention level?

Answer 46.

The offeror should propose an illustrative list of indicators. The offeror need not propose two indicators per intervention. The RFP is amended accordingly.

Question 47.

USAID requires both a QASP and a MEL plan for PAC. This means there will be two measurement systems for the project, each of which will require considerable contractor and USAID time and effort to administer.

● To avoid potentially duplicative measurement systems, save time and effort, honor USAID’s goal of results-based management and best allow for adaptive management based on high-level results in the MEL plan, would USAID consider eliminating the QASP requirement?

● If not, could USAID provide guidance on how to distinguish between what should be measured in the QASP and what should be measured in the MEL plan, such that the QASP and MEL Plan are not redundant with each other?

Answer 47:

The Offeror bears the responsibility of aligning its submission with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements and the solicitation. The MEL Plan typically shows how the contractor will monitor its performance. The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is also required and is the document government personnel use to assess contractor performance. As stated in the QASP template, “The purpose of the QASP is to provide the Government and contractor with evaluation criteria that determines whether or not the performance standards for a specific contract have been met.”

Question 48.

Section L.7, subsection (b) Management Approach, page 109, referencing QASP instructions of attachment J.6 state that the QASP shall cite the same performance objectives as stated in the performance requirements section of the PWS: "The Performance Requirements Summary Matrix, paragraph <enter number> in the Performance Work Statement includes performance standards." Section L instructions do not require a performance requirements section of the PWS. Adding a performance requirements section to the PWS would take up considerable space that could be better utilized describing offerors’ technical approach and interventions. Further, the performance requirements will be listed in the QASP, such that adding a section to the PWS to include performance requirements would be redundant.

Could the Mission kindly confirm that the PWS is not required to include a summary matrix repeating the performance requirements listed in the QASP?

Answer 48:

This solicitation uses a Statement of Objectives (SOO) approach with the contractor called upon to develop a Performance Work Statement (PWS). The QASP must align with any performance objectives and thresholds in the PWS. As noted in the QASP template, “This template has been developed to assist requiring activities with creating a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).” As stated in the solicitation, “The QASP must align with the PWS and focus on the quality and timeliness of the output to be delivered and not just on the steps required or procedures used to provide the service.” The Offeror bears the responsibility to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation and solicitation requirements.

Question 49.

Section L.7, (b) Management Approach, page 109, indicates that offerors should submit a Mobilization Plan as an annex. Would USAID please confirm that the Mobilization Plan is excluded from the page limitation?

Answer 49:

As per Answer 5 and Answer 30 and as stated in the amended RFP, USAID confirms that the Mobilization Plan may be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal and that it is not included in the 25-page limitation.

Question 50.

Section L.7, subsection (b) Management Approach, page 109, includes a listing for personnel qualifications beginning with "Demonstrated legal and justice sector expertise" and ending with "Proficiency in addressing factors that maximize gender and social inclusion." However, these justice-focused qualifications seem out of sync with the statement of objectives which do not currently include a justice-sector component. Would USAID please omit these personnel qualifications from the RFP and allow offerors to propose key personnel positions and associated qualifications they deemed appropriate to carry out the statement of objectives?

Answer 50:

The RFP has been amended to reflect relevant qualifications for key personnel.

Question 51.

Section L.7, subsection (b) Management Approach, page 110, pertaining to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, requests that offerors include within the technical proposal's management section "copies of any enforceable agreements with subcontractors that are identified in the table below." As the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is to be submitted in the Cost Proposal, per Section L.9, Part 6, page 118, could USAID please confirm this requirement should be excluded from the technical proposal?

Answer 51:

Correct. Subcontractor agreements are not required, and the solicitation has been amended accordingly.

Question 52.

Section L.7, subsection (b) Management Approach, page 110, pertaining to the Small Business Utilization, requires offerors to submit its Small Business subcontracting goals/plan for ensuring the maximum practicable participation of Small Business concerns in the performance of this contract. These requirements are in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requested under Section L.9, Part 6, page 118, under the Cost Proposal submission requirements. We wish to note that the requested Small Business Utilization goals include budget and pricing information, such as percentage of amount subcontracted and percentage of total contract value for each subcontractor, and that this information should not be included in the technical proposal, in accordance with the instruction in L.6, which state: “The technical proposal must be entirely separate from the cost proposal and it must not include cost information in the content of the technical proposal.” Therefore, we request that the requirement to submit a Small Business Utilization Plan be removed, as the Cost Proposal instructions in section L.9, Part 6 also require the submission of the same information.

Answer 52:

Please see Answer 6. These requirements have been removed.

Question 53.

Section J, List of Attachments, page 69, references "ATTACHMENT J.9 - SALARY RANGE from LOCAL COMPENSATION PLAN" and provides a basic salary range for the Local Compensation Plan; however, it does not appear this attachment was included with the solicitation. Would USAID please provide the referenced Local Compensation Plan?

Answer 53:

As per Answer 12, USAID has provided the Local Compensation Plan salary ranges as follows: The current Local Compensation Plan for USAID/North Macedonia starts from a minimum Range of €11,023 to maximum of €63,717 (gross). USAID is not at liberty to disclose the full LCP salary ranges.

Question 54.

Section B.4, Budget, page 8, has summary budget line items that differ from those in the budget template in Attachment J.2. Would USAID please provide a revision of Section B.4 or of the template, reflecting the same budget line item structure?

Answer 54:

See answer 16. Section B.4 has been updated in the amended RFP.

Question 55.

The RFP makes no specific mention of grants under contract as a mechanism for engaging or partnering with local organizations. Can USAID please confirm whether grants under contract are approved for this Activity?

Answers 55:

As per Answer 1: No, offerors should not propose to utilize Grants Under Contracts. Grants Under Contracts are not envisioned under this RFP.

Question 56.

Section L.5.d (page 105) cites the required email subject line for use when submitting proposals. For the convenience of the recipient, please confirm that Offerors may add relevant information (such as the Offeror’s name and whether the message relates to the technical or cost/business volume) to the email’s subject line.

Answer 56:

USAID confirms that offerors can add relevant information such as the offeror’s name and whether the message relates to the technical or cost/business volume to the email’s subject line.

Question 57.

Since proposals will be submitted electronically, please confirm that electronic signatures are acceptable (including in situations where the RFP specifies that “an original” signature is required, such as the SF 33 to be submitted as part of the cost/business proposal).

Answer 57:

USAID confirms that electronic signatures are acceptable.

Question 58.

The RFP defines a major subcontractor as:

a. Performing 20% or more of the contract or deemed critical by the offeror in achieving the objectives and tasks in the contract (Section B.5)

b. Expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort (Section L.6)

c. Once whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost (Section L.7 and L.8.2)

Since Section B.5 will form part of the resulting contract, please confirm that the definition found there should be used by offeror’s when designating Major Subcontractors.

Answer 58:

The solicitation’s definition of a major subcontractor is controlling and should be consistently applied.

Question 59.

Section L.5 paragraphs (b) and (c) require OCR on PDF files submitted. Please confirm if this is just meant for the Technical Proposal or if it is also meant for the Cost Proposal PDF?

Answer 59:

USAID confirms that the optical character recognition (OCR) requirement for PDF files is for the Technical Proposal.

Question 60.

Will USAID please confirm that “public sector employees” (referred to in Section J.1, Page

127) includes civil servants, administrative servants, and political appointees?

Answer 60:

USAID confirms that “public sector employees” (referred to in Section J.1, Page 127) includes civil servants, administrative servants, and political appointees.

Question 61.

Section L.7.c.1 (page 110, Contractor Performance Information) states “The offeror...must provide performance information *for itself...and each major subcontractor*...List in an annex to the technical proposal *up to three of the most recent and relevant contracts* for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal”

a. Please confirm that other mechanisms (such as cooperative agreements or grants) may also be used to demonstrate relevant past performance.

b. Please confirm that offerors may submit up to three relevant projects for the prime and up to three additional relevant projects for each Major Subcontractor in their consortium.

Answer 61:

a. USAID confirms that other mechanisms (such as cooperative agreements or grants) may also be used to demonstrate relevant past performance.

b. USAID confirms that offerors may submit up to three relevant projects for the prime and up to three additional relevant projects for each Major Subcontractor in their consortium.

Question 62.

Section L.7.a states that the PWS must include “At least two proposed indicators per intervention and semi-annual targets for each indicator.” Will USAID consider changing the requirement to “at least two proposed custom indicators PER OBJECTIVE”?

Answer 62:

As per Answer 46, the offeror should propose an appropriate set of illustrative indicators.

The solicitation has been amended to remove any requirement to propose at least two indicators per objective.

Question 63.

Section L.7.b, page 110 requests “copies of any enforceable agreements” with envisioned small business subcontractors. In the event that such agreements would contain cost data, would USAID consider moving these to the cost volume?

Answer 63:

This requirement has been deleted from the RFP through this amendment.

Question 64.

Regarding the small business utilization plan table requested on RFP page 110:

a. The table requires the proposed subcontractor’s DUNS # in column 2. Please confirm that the Unique Entity Identifier should be provided instead, since the UEI is now the official entity identifier used across the federal government.

b. Please confirm that the table itself is to be submitted in the Small Business Subcontracting Goal annex to the technical volume.

Answer 64:

a. USAID confirms that the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) should be provided instead of the DUNS, since the UEI is now the official entity identifier used across the federal government.

b. Both the USAID Requirement a) Small Disadvantaged Business participation program targets information (per p.107); and b) Small Business Goal Plan (per p.109-110) are removed from the RFP.

Question 65.

Cost instructions (Section L.9, Part 2, Item 3.A on page 113) require submission of contractor employee biographical data sheets. Since individuals may not be proposed in the Technical

Volume to fill Key Positions (L.6.b, p109), please confirm that biodata sheets are *not* required.

Answer 65:

As per Answers 10 and 29, USAID confirms that biodata sheets are not required and any such requirement is removed from the RFP.

Question 66.

To allow flexibility in technical design, is USAID open to grants as part of their solution and if so can you include the Grants Under Contracts standard clause? In addition, will USAID permit government entities to be grant recipients?

Answer 66:

As per answer 1 and 55: No, offerors should not propose to utilize Grants Under Contracts.

Grants Under Contracts are not envisioned under this RFP.

Question 67.

The Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form (LLL) is included as RFP Attachment J.4;

however, it is not referred to in Section L.7 (Cost/Business proposal instructions). Please clarify where Offerors should submit Standard Form LLL within their cost volume.

Answer 67:

Each Offeror should comply with the RFP. There is no specific instruction as to where this disclosure form as applicable must be situated within the Offeror’s submission. It can simply be transmitted to USAID with the Offeror’s email transmission.

Question 68.

Does the illustrative work plan mentioned in Section L.7.a (Page 108) cover all five years of the project or just the first 12 months?

Answer 68:

The illustrative work plan should cover the first twelve (12) months of the Activity.

Question 69.

Will USAID please clarify which types of organizations are considered “sub-partners”, as referenced in Section L.7.a (Page 108)?

Answer 69:

The RFP has been amended to delete the express reference to sub-partners.

Question 70.

Will USAID please provide an Anticipated Award Date?

Answer 70:

As per answer 15, at this time USAID can not forecast the exact timing; however, an approximate start date for this activity is on or around April/May 2023.

Question 71.

Will USAID please confirm that offerors may submit a 2-page Executive Summary that will not count towards the technical page limit?

Answer 71:

The RFP does not require an Executive Summary. A one page cover letter is requested and does not count towards the page limitation. In the event that an Offeror voluntarily elects to submit an Executive Summary within its Technical Proposal, it will count towards the page limitation governing the Technical Submission.

Question 72.

Section F.5 “Reports and Deliverables or Outputs”; (p.16) The table under this section lists Annual Work Plans to be due within 90 days of signing the contract, whereas, page 17, "(2) Annual Work Plans is due within 30 days of signing the contract". Could USAID please confirm the correct due date.

Answer 72.

The table in Section F.5 (p. 16) has been updated to reflect forty-five (45) days for year one of the Work Plan and AMELP. Subsequent Annual Work Plan, AMELP and QASP must be submitted within thirty (30) calendar days after the beginning of each fiscal year.

Question 73.

General

The RFP does not reference if Grants Under Contract are contemplated under this contract, however, the budget (line 93) includes "grants subtotal." If GUCs are contemplated, USAID is kindly requested to provide the following:

● The grant fund amount

● Include the grants under contract (GUC) authorizing language, as per ADS

302.3.4.13, into the RFP.

● Clarify if GUCs can be issued to partner government entities outside of “in-kind” grants, technical assistance, and other activities provided to or on behalf of the partner government entity."

● USAID confirmation of its intent to approve the use of a letter of credit (LOC) for the anticipated grant fund.

● Please incorporate a clause authorizing Grants under Contracts (GUCs) into Section H, so that the selected implementer is authorized to implement the requested Grants program under ADS 303?

● The Subcontract Budget tab includes "Grants subtotal". Please clarify if GUCs are contemplated under subcontracts

Answer 73:

As per answer 1, 55 and 66, Offerors should not propose to utilize Grants Under Contracts.

Grants Under Contracts are not envisioned under this RFP.

Question 74.

Sections L.6.A “Organization of Technical Proposal”; p.107 and Section L.7 (b) “Management Approach”; p.109 Section L.6A of the RFP instructs offerors to submit “a Personnel Summary Matrix on the expertise of staff, consultants, and other personnel specialists” as a proposal annex.

Under Section L.7 (b) the RFP requires information on Key Personnel titles, roles, and qualifications.

Can USAID please confirm whether offerors should submit both a Personnel Summary Matrix as an annex and Key Personnel information within the body of the Management Approach?

Answer 74:

Key Personnel information must be submitted within the body of the Management Approach.

The amended RFP deletes the reference to a personnel summary matrix.

Question 75.

Section L.7 (c) “Contractor Past Performance”; p. 110

The RFP requires offerors to provide past performance information for up to three recent and relevant contracts. For offerors with limited past performance in contracts implementation, will USAID accept past performance information for USAID assistance awards? Similarly, will USAID accept past performance information for other USG donors and for non-USG donors?

Answers 75:

USAID will accept past performance information for assistance awards and past performance information for activities funded by other USG donors and for non-USG donors.

Question 76.

Section L.9 Part 2 (3) (A) “Personnel"; p. 113

The RFP states that "Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long term, short term expatriates and for all short term and long term cooperating country personnel being proposed".

Per AIDAR 752.70001 Biodata are only required for:

All individuals to be sent outside the United States, or (2) any employees designated as “key personnel”. There is no USAID requirement for the use of the form beyond what is prescribed in AIDAR clause 752.7001.

We kindly request USAID to revise the requirement for providing biodata to only expatriate staff and key personnel.

Answer 76:

As per Answer 10, 29 and 65: USAID confirms that Biodata sheets are not required and have been removed from the RFP.

Question 77.

General- This is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion contract and not an IDIQ, however, the contract includes a few references to "task orders". Please remove the reference to Task Orders.

Answer 77:

The references to…