Pre-proposal_conference__Q&A_transcript_SOL_72016718R00014.pdf

Pre proposals Conference Q&A_SOL#72016718R00014 Commercial Justice activity in Kosovo

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE Q & A TRANSCRIPT

Q.1 I really was intrigued by what was said about the internal workings and internal coordination within USAID projects, in terms of getting a sense of the culture and how you all work here.

Can you say more about how – you use words like reinforcing and shared objectives – can you talk a little bit more about how that works in practice?

A.1 Yes. How it works is pretty much, if there are areas of intervention that in one way or another touch a topic or an object or a subject that needs to be improved or that needs any interventions, and there are different sides of it, usually those different sides represent two different activities. In this case, and in particular with the upcoming economic governance, the major goal is pretty much creating a safer and more prosperous investment environment, as well as fighting, preventing, and eliminating barriers of economic corruption. But it is being tackled; it will be properly tackled in different aspects. And what that entails is that there need to be very close coordination between the two of them. The goals will be almost the same, but the interventions and the institutions with which we plan to work – they are interconnected but not necessarily the same.

Q.2 One question we had was relating to the oral presentation, and that – both I think it’s good practice, but it’s requested in the RFP – that local personnel would be non-exclusive. So even local key personnel would be non-exclusive, which would mean they would be potentially, and we know in cases they would be, in multiple proposals. And if they’re giving presentations at the orals, then it means they would have to be involved in understanding the detailed strategic and implementation issues of that project. So in discussing with some local personnel, it wasn’t only a concern from the implementing partner side, that that means people that are non-exclusive might inadvertently have information that could be shared, but it could also put them in an awkward position, in having to make the formal presentations to help a project win, when they’re going to be representing two or more bids. So you mentioned that rather than having all the key personnel required, that in addition to the Chief of Party it would be one, which I thought was good, it would provide some flexibility and might help adjust that a bit. But one of their questions was, how all of us would be able to deal with cases where a key personnel, who’s going to be an advocate in the oral presentation, is actually representing multiple bids.

A.2 My technical colleagues, correct me if I’m wrong, but the onus of that presentation is going to be the Chief of Party, right? That’s what we’re really looking for. And obviously the offeror that’s presenting as well, but we want to give a little bit of flexibility. We don’t want to create the situations that you’re talking about, but at the same time we do want to see how those individuals interact, as well. So that’ll be very important at that stage.

Q.3 Probably it’s back to the same topic, but just to discuss a little bit more, for us to get an understanding, because the oral presentation that would be conducted by the Chief of Party, if that’s what you are looking for, still is something that would be done in cooperation with the other team members. And if we are looking for this intervention and it has quite a number of different areas it covers, so it might spread into working with accords with private enforcement and working with business community, and the Chief of Party cannot necessarily represent entirely all these components and subject matters that are to be included with the project. Therefore, it would be nice still to have, in addition to the Chief of Party to have the sole responsibility of presenting the project and making the oral presentation, to be assisted by somebody else on the team and not to leave this entirely on the Chief of Party. Because you know building a tech proposal is a combined effort of several people, from the company, from the experts that we have, and from the future professionals that will be proposed for the project. And you may have somebody that may have the best oral presentation and may be very good at presenting, but not necessarily know the entire context. And these proposals are very short and they may not have all the knowledge to present properly the project. But then it goes in contradiction with the other concern that you may have locals that are in two or three bids. But having this as an opportunity that the Chief of Party can be assisted by, at the choice of the bidder’s, one or two other people in the main hall to give a proper presentation on the subject matter. Because I don’t think one Chief of Party can properly present the entire project if the oral presentation is going to be on substance.

And this would be another sort of question for you. What would be the oral presentation on – to present the substance of the project, the areas of intervention, to describe the project and components of the project? Or simply to present the Chief of Party’s past experience, his background – present himself? Present the company - past performance of the company or consortium? Or just talk about the project? So, where is going to be the focus of that oral presentation, because apparently it plays an important role in the final outcome of the assessment?

A.3 Thank you for that. I think your comment is well understood and it’s a good comment. The question I’ll go into a little bit as well.

So in terms of the comment that you made – yes, it would be nice that they’ll be a team and that the team will present together. Certainly, we expect the Chief of Party to take the lead, but he or she will have some assistance with that team approach. So we understand what you’re saying and we hope that we’re accommodating to some extent with our requirement.

In terms of the content of the presentation, those instructions will be shared as we’ve stated.

We’ve left it pretty open in our solicitation. We’re looking at possibly 4 questions – one where we would maybe ask the qualifications, experience, just an introductory statement from the members of the panel, particularly the key personnel that may be present, then the other questions would be related to the actual activity itself. That's kind of what we're envisioning, but we don't have the exact questions at this time, of what we’ll be asking then.

But that’s where we’re headed.

Q.4 If [The RFP] indicates that there will be about a month between stage 1 submission and stage

2 submissions. In your best guess, when do you think will you notify the successful offerors of their successful candidacy for stage 2? So, saying it another way, how much time do you think the individual offerors would have from the point of notification until September 28?

A.4 We had talked about a lot of variables, like depending on how many proposals we get, and that will also indicate how long it will take for us to review. I would say, when I’m looking at this now, realistically, probably what will end up happening is – technical people, jump in at some point – I think what’ll end up happening is that it takes a couple weeks to do that review, and so this is a little bit ambitious. Probably we will, realistically, send out the notices by the end of September, I don’t think any time before. Unless we don't have a lot of proposals. If we anticipate even 10 or 12 proposals, that’s very substantive, that will take a little bit of time Anything less than 10, we could probably do it within about a month.

Q.5 So I guess, another way then that I could ask the question would be, how much time do you intend to give the potential offerors to prepare their stage 2 proposals?

A.5 I think, realistically, we would maybe give them another 2 weeks. Because we hope that you’re already working on it, so that by the time that you receive notice, that you would fine-tune whatever you’re working on, that you’re not starting it from that point. No pressure here from the technical office. So that’ll adjust the dates, so that’s why we wrote “on or about.”

Q.6 I had a question about the interrelation between stage 1 and stage 2. I know in the RFP you've stated that offerors will receive a pass or not pass, and then go on to stage 2, but then “pass” is anything satisfactory or above, which indicates that there will be some kind of variation.

And I know that offerors are not allowed to make any changes or adjustments to stage 1, but I wonder, from an implementer perspective – of course, a pass doesn’t indicate to me where I ranked among those three adjectival – but there could be some weaknesses that I could address, that would potentially have cost implications as well, and I wonder what considerations have been taken in account in that respect to overall best value evaluation of bids?

A.6 The way that we’re looking at it is: So if you do proceed to stage 2, if we do open a competitive range, or if we open discussions at the end of stage 2, then we would share those weaknesses at that point and you will be given an opportunity to address those weaknesses.

So it wouldn’t be right up front, and so you may not know where you stand in terms of receiving a pass, but if you make it to toward the end of stage 2 and if a comp range is established, then you would.

You have bid before and submitted proposals before, complete together with the cost and the complete proposal. Just consider this as separate. At that point when you propose a cost or the technical proposal, you didn’t know whether you had weaknesses or not. So pretty much that’s it. Now we are just dividing because we want to have a better technical aspect of it, but the submission of the cost will be pretty much the same. This is my understanding of how this will go. And on another note, with this method we consider that for the managerial aspect of it, it’s a better opportunity for all the bidders to actually demonstrate more than they could in the traditional planning stages.

Q.7 Would you please find it appropriate to share the level of commitment from the Government of Kosovo? Because with the journey to self-reliance, the factor of commitment is a big factor, so what is the commitment of the Government to go ahead with the expected legislative changes in order to make this activity a success?

A.7 We consider that there is a lot of commitment from the Government of Kosovo, considering that the Government of Kosovo is currently conducting what they are calling the Functional Review of the Rule of Law sector, which will also entail analysis and finding a way forward with legislation as well. To us that is a very clear indication that the Government of Kosovo does want to invest into its better future, so there is commitment, yes.

Q.8 Will USAID share if the latest forecast information in terms of the range is expected to stay consistent for this particular tender or if that has changed?

A.8 We’re going to try to fine-tune it a little bit and we will release it with the Q&A.