Amendment 1_RFP No. 72016721R00005_Social Contract Activity.pdf

(x)

72016721R00005 x x copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR

OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

N/A

Not Applicable

20521

720167

20521 Washington DC 3820 Pristina Place

USAID/Kosovo

06/03/20210001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

06/03/2021

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Provide answers to the written questions submitted by the interested Offerors.

2. Share the pre-proposal conference presentation slides and notes.

3. This amendment provides minor changes to the original RFP document, which are highlighted for ease of reference.

Attached are:

1)Q&A_SOL#72016721R00005_Social Contract Activity 2)Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation and Notes_Social Contract Activity 3)Amendment 01_RFP_SOL#72016721R00005_Social Contract Activity

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Chad Berkowitz

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

Q&A_SOL #72016721R00005

Social Contract Activity in Kosovo

Questions and Answers SOL #72016721R00005 Social Contract Activity

Q.1 Given the requirements on page 89 of the RFP requiring offerors to comply with USAID/Kosovo's Local Compensation Plan (LCP), will USAID/Kosovo kindly share the LCP? Will USAID also please confirm that the offeror’s compensation plan must be submitted after award and not as part of the proposal?

A.1 USAID provided the minimum and maximum range of Kosovo’s LCP in Section L.10(b)(2) and will not share the LCP itself. Offerors should establish positions and respective salary ranges based on their policies and practices. The offerors are required to submit the activity compensation plan with the proposal.

Q.2 USAID notes that partners must use the Past Performance Information sheet only “for prior contracts not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)” (page 91). Can USAID please confirm that relevant contracts in the CPARS system will also be taken into account in the evaluation of the offeror’s past performance?

A.2 Yes, USAID will review the relevant assessment report from the CPARS to evaluate the offeror's past performance.

Q.3 Section C.3, top of page 12: the RFP states “The learning partner must demonstrate expertise in systems thinking and participatory approaches as well as using complexity-aware monitoring approaches:”

a. Would USAID please clarify whether the learning partner must demonstrate expertise in these areas at the start of the Social Contract Activity, or whether this expertise could be developed over the life of the activity?

b. If the latter, would USAID please clarify whether the learning partner is expected to be a Kosovar organization or if it might be an international Organization?

A.3

a. The learning partner must demonstrate the said expertise at the start of the

Activity.

b. The learning partner may be an international or a local organization or a mix thereof throughout the implementation (e.g., if the goal is to build capacity of a local learning organization).

Q.4 Section F.5 (b) on page 29: Could USAID please confirm that subcontractors may staff key personnel?

Q.4 The Offerors must take into consideration that having a subcontractor provide key personnel may lead to management challenges and create issues with providing technical direction. Therefore, it is encouraged that the Key Personnel be employed by the prime in order to maintain the privity of contract with the prime and ensure appropriate lines of reporting.

Q.5 Section H.10 (e), Consultants on page 45: the RFP states “Unless the consultant is an employee of the contractor, they are considered subcontractors subject to the applicable clauses 52.244-2 requirements.” This language presents significant issues for many offerors, particularly related to NICRAs and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). NICRAs are approved by USAID’s Overhead, Special Cost, and Closeout Branch Division and require many offerors to treat consultants as short-term personnel and apply relevant indirect costs. Should an Offeror begin to treat consultants as subcontractors and apply subcontractor-related indirect costs, this would be viewed as inconsistent treatment of direct costs across U.S. government-funded contracts and would be in violation of the terms of an offeror’s NICRA and CAS. Further, it is industry standard to treat consultants as short-term personnel. Based on these concerns, would USAID please remove the language requiring offerors to treat consultants as subcontractors so that each offeror may classify consultants according to its own NICRA and CAS?

A.5 The original language in Section H.10(e) remains. The intent is to reflect that any personnel/labor not engaged through an “employer/ee” relationship is subject to FAR 52.244-2 requirements.

Q.6 Section L.8 a) Key Personnel on page 86: the RFP notes “Offerors may propose not more than five (5) key personnel roles.” Can USAID clarify whether Offerors may propose less than five key personnel?

A.6 The Offerors may propose less than five key personnel, but must propose at least three key positions as stipulated in Section F.5(a) of the subject solicitation.

Q.7 Section L.10 (a) on page 88 requests an original signature on the SF-33. As proposals will be submitted electronically, would USAID please confirm that an electronic or scanned signature would be sufficient?

A.7 Yes, electronic or scanned signatures would be sufficient.

Q.8 Section L.10 (b)(3)(c) on page 89 indicates that fee must not be applied to grants under contract (GUCs). To minimize the cost of money to the contractor, will USAID utilize a letter of credit for GUCs? If this risk mitigation measure may not be considered, would USAID please allow offerors to propose a lower grants fee?

A.8 As stated in the solicitation a fee is not allowed on the cost of GUCs. USAID considers that the management of Grants-Under-Contracts are inherently linked to the objectives of the activity. The cost of their management is already incorporated in the overall cost structure. An additional fee for the management of the GUCs is unreasonable.

Q.9 Section L.10 (d) Part 4-Past Performance: May we provide a list of our most relevant contracts that are in CPARS and include a brief explanation of relevance in lieu of Attachment 2 - the Past Performance Information Sheet?

A.9 Yes, Offerors may provide a list of the most relevant contracts that are in CPARS and provide a brief explanation of their relevance. Attachment 2, the “Past Performance Information Sheet,” should be used for reporting prior contracts that are not in CPARS.

Q.10 Section L.10 (d) Part 4-Past Performance: Please confirm that quality awards may be submitted for relevant contracts that are, and are not, in CPARS.

A.10 Yes, quality awards may be submitted for relevant contracts that are, and are not in CPARS. Please do note, in accordance with Section L.10 (d) Part 4 (1) “For prior contracts not in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), offerors (including all partners of a joint venture) must use the “Past Performance Information Sheet” (included as Attachment 2) to list past performance information…”

Q.11 Attachment 3, Budget Template: USAID has bundled Subcontracts (if any), Grants (if any), and Consultants (if any) under Other Direct Costs. As the application of indirect costs to these four major cost categories often differs, would USAID permit Offerors to list Subcontracts (if any), Grants (if any), and Consultants (if any) as separate major cost categories in the summary and detailed budgets?

A.11 USAID asks that offerors use the budget template as is, with the major categories as presented in the template.

Q.12 Section B.8(1)(a) states: “Payment of the Contractor’s [base] fee is tied to the accomplishment of objectives and deliverables or outputs described in Sections C and F of the contract.” To ensure the base fee under this contract remains fixed and is only adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed, we kindly request the following sentence be added to this section: “Any unpaid fee due to the Contractor not achieving a certain objective or deliverable due to factors beyond its manageable control can be reallocated among other or new objectives or deliverables in the work plan of the upcoming year.”

A.12 The requirement will remain as is; however it may be discussed during implementation if needed.

Q.13 In Section C.6 of the RFP, USAID indicates under the Statement of Work Objective 1 that “B. The contractor shall develop public participation action plans informed by the results of the assessment for each of the pilot municipalities” (p. 18), whereas in Section L.7, the RFP states, “The offeror’s approach to co-developing the municipal action plans with the local government and community stakeholders based on the results of the assessments and facilitating the implementation of the plan’s interventions by the local stakeholders” (p. 86). Can USAID please clarify whether “public participation action plans” or broader “municipal action plans” are required?

A.13 In both instances, the same item is implied - public participation action plans for each of the target municipalities.

Q.14 Clause L.10(b)(3) states that fee is not allowed on the cost of GUCs. This appears to be inconsistent with FAR 15.404-4 and ADS 302.3.6.9, which state, inter alia, that pre-negotiation fee objectives must be determined according to a structured approach that considers contractor effort, risk, and other special factors. Grants require significant effort to administer and carry risks for the contractor. Additionally, our understanding of fixed fee under 10 USC 2306(d) and 41 USC 254(b) discusses fee definitions and limitations in terms of total estimated cost, which would include grants in this case. Given this, we respectfully request that USAID reconsider its agency pre-negotiation fee objective of zero percent on grants and allow offerors to charge a fee that is reasonable and consistent with federal regulations.

A.14. The original language in Section L.10(b)(3) remains. As stated above, a fee is not allowed on the cost of GUCs.

Q.15 Section L.10(b)(3)(a) states, “Offerors may propose the base fixed fee, but not to exceed 2% of the total estimated cost.” Although the use of a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee contract incentivizes increased effort to exceed results, not allowing offerors to propose their own base fee may result in a risk-adverse operating environment for contractors. We therefore respectfully request that USAID considers allowing offerors to propose their own base fee to cover only the contractor’s financing and other unallowable costs incurred in the ordinary course of business. Allowing offerors to propose both a reasonable base fee and competitive award fee will encourage the contractor to exceed expectations and to take important risks.

A.15 The 2% base fee remains and should not be exceeded as stated in Section L.10(b)(3)(a).

Q.16 Section M.3 states in part that offerors’ technical understanding and approach will be evaluated to “...the extent to which the proposal outlines the required information in section L.8.” Given that the RFP’s instructions for technical understanding and approach are found in Section L.7, can USAID please clarify if the M.3 technical understanding and approach evaluation criteria refers to Section L.7, rather than L.8?

A.16 Correct. USAID confirms that the reference is to Section L.7, rather than L.8.

Q.17 Section M of the RFP lists “local ownership” (Section M.5) as a criterion for evaluation, alongside “technical understanding and approach” (Section M.3) and “personnel and management approach” (Section M.4). Although Section L provides a page limit for the technical understanding and approach (20 pages) and the personnel and management approach (10 pages), a page allocation is not listed for “local ownership.” Would USAID consider adding an additional page allocation for “local ownership”?

A.17 Sections outlining the offeror’s approach for promoting local ownership should be incorporated into both the technical and management sections of the proposal and fit within the current page limit.

Q.18 Section B6, “Advance understanding on ceiling indirect cost rates and final reimbursement for indirect costs”, Page 8. It requires contractors to propose ceiling on indirect cost rates for the duration of the contract. As a small business, we experience wide fluctuations in our indirect rates from year to year. Can USAID please make exception to offerors which are small businesses, since indirect cost rates of small business fluctuate a lot from year to year?

A.18 Please see the exemptions for small business Offerors in Section L.10 of the RFP.

Q.19 Section C.3, “Management Approach”, Page 11 states that “The activity will be implemented by a consortium of two partners who will prepare the proposal and closely collaborate throughout the course of the activity. Could USAID please clarify what proposal it refers to? Does USAID want this collaboration at this proposal stage, for this procurement? If so, how do we collaborate with a partner who is not exclusive, as directed in USAID’s cover letter? Why would one proposal be different from another if the partners and approach are the same?

A.19 The section from section C.3. page 11 quoted in the question refers to the proposal that the offeror prepares in response to this RFP.”. It is expected that the learning partner and the implementing partner jointly develop the technical and management approach encapsulated in the proposal to ensure that the learning activities meaningfully support the implementation at every step. Partnerships are indeed not exclusive for the purposes of this RFP. However, both consortium partners must bring their competitive advantages to the table. Each partner, learning or implementing, must adapt their strategies in response to the strengths and weaknesses of the other. Earnest and thoughtful cooperation between the partners during the proposal development stage will lead to meaningful differences between the proposals.

Q.20 Participation is defined in the Section C, C.1, Purpose, Page 11 “as efforts to involve citizens in the design, monitoring and delivery of policy and programs at the local (municipal and lower) level”. Section C3, Management Approach, Page 12 states that:

“The activity interventions must be co-designed with the local government and community stakeholders based in the target municipalities with the goal for these stakeholders to then implement these interventions and sustain the results with support and facilitation from the consortium partners.” Wouldn’t government also have a role in delivering policy and programs at the local level? How could stakeholders design and implement “policy” without a local institution?

A.20 Public participation for the purposes of this RFP implies cooperation between local government and community stakeholders. Further, as stated in the quotation from section C3, local government is a key local stakeholder which will co-design and then implement relevant interventions from the public participation action plans. However, the plans will also include action points for various members of the target communities, as applicable.

In some cases, there may be more action points for the community members than for the local government. While local governments play a leading role in designing and implementing policy, there are ample opportunities for meaningful engagement of citizens and civic entities (note the definition on page 17) at all stages during the policy cycle.

Q.21 Section C6, Objective 1, “Guidance for the Action Plans”, Page 19 states: “The plans must include measures for sustaining public participation practices that emerge as valuable, effective and feasible beyond the life of this activity. Special attention should be paid to identifying, leveraging and enhancing incentives for the local government and communities to engage with one another and feasible beyond the life of this activity. Institutionalization must not be proposed unless the plans explicitly identify local government and community’s commitment and capacity to follow the institutionalized practices. Can USAID please clarify: Shouldn’t the policy and programs be implemented and institutionalized within local government to be sustainable?

A.21 Too often institutionalization only involves adopting a new regulation, operating procedure, or a rule. However, this is only one piece of the puzzle. The other pieces include absence of strong personal and institutional counter-incentives as well as sufficient capacity and resources for a public official to follow a regulation. If these come into play, there are a myriad of ways in which public officials may circumvent the regulation. In fact, as stated in section C.3, this is one of the problems with public participation in Kosovo- there is ample legal basis, but arbitrary and uneven implementation. Therefore, a big challenge of this RFP is to uncover and activate incentives that would motivate local public officials to comply with existing (or proposed) regulations in an earnest manner as opposed to simply ticking the box.

Importantly, the RFP also calls for similar if not greater attention to ways in which various community members (see definition on page 17) can be incentivised to step up their interaction and collaboration with the local government. Attention to these incentives on both supply and demand sides is viewed as an important way to ensure sustainability of public participation practices.

Q.22 Section C, Objectives, Point C, Page 20 states “Early in the activity implementation, the contractor must establish an Advisory Council composed of representatives of various sectors of Kosovo society in consultation with USAID”. This is a National Advisory Council. Does USAID recommend establishment of the Advisory Councils at municipal level?

A.22 This is left at the discretion of the offerors. However, if municipal-level councils are envisioned, the proposal should outline what would be their role as opposed to the national council.

Q.23 Section C.6, Objective 1 Deliverables, Page 21 states that: “Municipality-specific public participation action plans must describe the division of responsibilities between the consortium partners and local partners. The leading role of the latter in implementing the plans must be clear”. Can USAID please clarify this? Couldn’t one of the consortium members be a “local” partner?

A.23 The deliverable in question intentionally draws attention to the fact that throughout the entire implementation period the consortium partners should be careful not to assume roles and responsibilities that will make them indispensable in promoting and maintaining public participation practices. In other words, both consortium partners must think of their exit strategy upfront and find an implementation approach as well as build the expectations of the stakeholders on the ground that align with that exit strategy. To this end, the consortium partners are asked to facilitate rather than lead the change processes in the target municipalities. The face of the activity must be the government and community stakeholders on the ground, not the project staff. Thus, some items in the municipal public participation action plans will be performed by the consortium partners staff. However, the bulk of the action points in the plans must be for the relevant government and community stakeholders to implement. While the content of these plans will be determined at a later stage, the proposal must describe how the consortium partners envision the process of co-developing such plans with local stakeholders as per Section L.7. (For a longer overview of USAID’s vision for facilitation approach, see the discussion paper referenced in section C.3. of the SOW.)

Note that the RFP gives the offerors significant freedom with regards to which local stakeholders to engage and how to structure that engagement (section C.3). Note also that many of the key government and community stakeholders specific to each municipality will become evident after the rapid public participation assessment is completed. Nonetheless, the offeror is asked to outline ways in which pre-identified and potential local stakeholders may be involved in the implementation of the plans, as is outlined in section L.8.c. Finally, as stated in section C.5., when involving the local stakeholders it is important to consider their individual and institutional incentives for public participation over financial incentives, which are short-term and unsustainable.

Either of the consortium partners can be a local entity as long as the said entity has demonstrated technical and management expertise to fulfil the responsibilities ascribed to it in the proposal. However, it is unlikely that the local entity acting as a consortium partner will stay in the target municipalities after the activity ends. It is therefore paramount to co-design and implement the interventions in the action plans with and through the government and community stakeholders located in the target municipalities.

Moreover, introducing public participation practices that stay in place after the activity ends necessitates working with a wide range of local government and community stakeholders as opposed to a single consortium partner.

Q.24 Section C6, Objective 2, Page 22 states that “The role of the consortium partners must always be that of a facilitator and a convener rather than an implementer.” Could USAID please clarify those roles of the consortium partners? Isn’t one of the partners an implementing partner, and the other a learning partner?

A.24 See the answer to Question 23.

Q.25 Annex E, Mobilization Plan (including Start-Up Plan) and in Section F.6 in RFP, Page

30. Could USAID please recommend a page limit for this plan?

A.25 It is up to the Offeror’s discretion as to the number of pages for the Mobilization Plan.

Q.26 Section H10, “Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation”, Page 44, The compensation plan shall state the salary ranges for all proposed positions with the proposed/negotiated rate. Can USAID please provide Local Compensation Plan for Kosovo?

A.26 Please see the answer to question 1.

Q.27 In Section L.6, Page Limitation, Page 84 states that “the technical proposal is strictly limited to no more than 30 pages”, while Section L.7, Page 85, Technical Understanding and Approach states that the Technical Approach is up to 20 pages. Section L.8, Personnel and Management Approach, Page 86 also states that “The offerors must submit the Personnel and Management Approach (up to 10 pages)”. Can USAID confirm that 30 pages are the total amount for the technical approach including the 10 pages personnel and management approach?

A.27 Correct. 30 pages is the total amount for both.

Q.28 Section 6, “General Instructions for the preparation of the Technical Approach”, Page 84, Organization 1. states that “Cover letter not to exceed one [2] page” Can USAID correct this?

Q.28 Yes. The cover letter is not to exceed two (2) pages. See Amendment 1 of the RFP.

Q.29 In Section L.7, “Technical Understanding and Approach”, Page 85, Paragraph 4, should include “The offeror’s approach to co-developing the municipal action plans with the local government and community stakeholders based on the results of the assessments and facilitating the implementation of the plan’s interventions by the local stakeholders.

Is the offeror an implementer or facilitator? Can USAID please clarify?

Furthermore, In Section L.8, “Personnel and Management Approach”, c) Management and Staffing Plan Paragraph 1, Page 87 states: “The proposed management structure should be clear, feasible, efficient, and should promote implementation by and not merely in consultation with the local stakeholders, while demonstrating commitment to building local capacity. Is the offeror supposed to implement (as an implementing partner) or promote implementation? Can USAID please clarify?

A.29 Please see the answer to question 23.

Q.30 Section L.10, Page 88 states: “The detailed budget narrative must specifically explain the link between the estimated costs and proposed technical approach”. So, the cost element breakdown must be linked with the proposed interventions and program activities under each objective of SOW.” RFP states two objectives of SOW as: OBJECTIVE 1 (years 1- 3): Develop, test, and evaluate public participation action plans in five pilot municipalities. OBJECTIVE 2 (years 3 - 5): Scale up successful public participation practices to at least 10 additional municipalities. Since year-3 overlaps in both objectives, can USAID please review this requirement of the budget narrative explaining the cost element breakdown per objective?

A.30 As stated in the Section L.10 “The Offeror must submit a detailed budget narrative that supports item for item the cost estimates proposed in its detailed budget.” Therefore, the Offerors must provide a narrative for all projected costs for each year irrespective of overlaps in objectives. The Offerors should reflect estimated costs for both objectives in year-3.

Q.31 Section L10, “Instruction for the preparation of the cost proposal”, Page 89, (3) Award Fee point c), If the offerors propose the use of GUCs in their proposal, a fee is not allowed on the cost of GUCs. Can USAID reconsider this and allow us to charge 2% fee on grants?

A.31 USAID will maintain the language in Section L.10 which states that a fee will not be allowed on the cost of GUCs, and failure to comply with this instruction may be grounds for exclusion from further consideration.

Q.32 Section M2, “Technical Evaluation Criteria”, Page 92, mentions a section on “Local Ownership” after the technical and the personnel and management approach. Can USAID clarify whether “Local Ownership” is a separate section with its own page limit?

A.32 Please see the answer to Question 17.

Q.33 FAR 15.404-4 describes ceiling on fee to be 10% of the cost. Can USAID clarify whether this is the maximum fee percentage to be proposed, which includes both Base Fee and Award Fee?

A.33 The referenced FAR regards contracts for other cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, where the fee shall not exceed 10 percent of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee. In this case, USAID has limited the maximum base (fixed) fee up to 2% of the total estimated cost, while there is no limit for Award Fee; it is at offerors discretion the proposed amount of the Award Fee.

Q.34 Would USAID consider extending the submission deadline to give bidders more time to prepare their responses?

A.34 USAID will not offer an extension to the submission deadline.

Q.35 Section J, Attachment 4 “USAID Form 1420-17 Contractor Bio Data Sheet” is listed as an attachment. Could USAID please clarify for what positions should this be requested?

Additionally, could USAID please confirm if the attached form is the most updated one and if that should be the form to use, where salary employment history is requested?

A.35 As stated in Section L.10(h), Offerors must provide Biographical Data Sheets (Attachment 4) for all key personnel. The linked form in Attachment 4 is the most recent updated form.

Q.36 Does the Offeror need to provide cost justification for Home Office personnel and non-key personnel (biodatas, salary records, local salary surveys, etc.)?

A.36 No, unless specifically requested by USAID. However, do note that Offerors must submit “their proposed staffing plan covering all planned positions and the corresponding salary rates” as part of the proposal activity’s compensation plan in accordance with Section L.10 (b)(2).

Q.37 Based on the Kosovo Social Contract Activity Pre-Conference where USAID officials stated that Past Performance Records (PPRs) would be enough to disqualify proposals regardless of any other considerations, why wouldn’t USAID ask for PPRs upfront as a means to pre-qualify proponents?

A.37 USAID will evaluate an Offeror's Past Performance in accordance with section M.6 of the RFP.

As stated in section M.6 5), “Offerors determined to have unsatisfactory past performance will be ineligible for award.”

Pre-Proposal Conference

SOL#72016721R00005

June 15, 2021

House Rules

● The Solicitation governs.

● This conference is an additional opportunity to hear from

USAID about its priorities and expectations under the Solicitation. Questions about technical priorities and expectations are welcome.

● Please post your questions into the Q&A section at any point during the conference.

● Questions in the Q&A section that have not been answered during the conference will be answered along with other written questions submitted in accordance with the Solicitation.

● The slides from the conference will be shared with all registered attendees. However, this session is not recorded.

Agenda

• Opening Remarks

• Technical Overview

• Procurement Overview

• Question and Answer Session

Opening Remarks

• Disclaimer: The information contained in this presentation and answers to the questions are for informational purposes only. In the event of a discrepancy between the information contained herein and the RFP documents and its Amendments, the RFP and its Amendment documents will take precedence.

Technical Overview

The goal of the Social Contract Activity is to introduce sustainable practices for public participation in order to improve Kosovo citizens’ quality of life and strengthen their partnership with the municipal government.

• continuous learning and adapting

• a systems approach to facilitators and barriers to public participation that are specific to the target communities

• working with and though local government and community actors

A phased approach with a pilot stage dedicated to needs assessment, designing interventions and testing them

• OBJECTIVE 1 (years 1-3): Develop, test, and evaluate public participation action plans in five pilot municipalities.

• OBJECTIVE 2 (years 3 - 5): Scale up successful public participation practices to at least 10 additional municipalities.

Provide limited support and monitor participation practices in the pilot municipalities

HIGHLIGHTS

• a strong consortium consisting of a learning partner and an implementing partner

• a robust learning and adapting plan and USAID’s preparedness for flexible and agile implementation

• attention to the personal, social and institutional incentives of key government and community players as well as their capacity

• preference for existing groups, processes and platforms as opposed to creating new ones

• interest in the entire chain of communication between citizens and local governments

HIGHLIGHTS

• representativeness and do-no-harm principles

• coordination with other donors - carefully assess which previous/ongoing interventions can be built upon

• core competencies to be distributed in the staffing mix and not all concentrated only in the key personnel (L.8)

• proposal flexibility: what vs how and may vs must in the solicitation

• Full and Open Competition

• Period of performance is five (5) years;

• Place of performance is Kosovo.

• Cost Plus Award Fee (FPAF) type contract (Base

Fee and Award Fee Pool)

• Award Fee Plan

• Base Fee Payment Schedule

Procurement Overview

Fee:

• Base (Fixed) Fee TBD by the offerors and should not exceed 2% of the total estimated cost.

• The maximum award fee pool TBD by the offerors.

Award Fee Schedule

Period of Performance Evaluation Period*

(Start/End date)

Estimated Percentage of Award Fee Available

Estimated Amount of Award Fee Available

Earned Award Fee Amount

First Evaluation Period (end of Year 1) /2021 -/2022 TBD TBD

Second Evaluation Period (end of Year 2) /2022 -/2023 TBD TBD

Third Evaluation Period (end Year 3) /2023 -/2024 TBD TBD

Fourth Evaluation Period (end of Year 4) /2024 -/2025 TBD TBD

Fifth Evaluation Period (end of Year 5) /2025 -/2026 TBD TBD

Maximum Award Fee Available 100% TBD

General Instructions

• Offerors’ cost and technical proposals must be compliant with instructions in Section L of RFP

• USAID will evaluate proposals in accordance with evaluation criteria in Section M of the RFP and make an award based on best value.

Technical Proposal:

Technical Proposal is limited to 30 pages. The page limit does not include Cover/Title page, Table of Contents, List of Acronyms, Section Dividers, Executive Summary, and Annexes. Technical Proposal must be organized as follows:

1. Cover Letter (not to exceed one [2] page) and must list proposed

2. Executive Summary (not to exceed two [2] pages);

3. Table of contents;

4. List of acronyms;

5. Technical Understanding and Approach (up to 20 pages);

6. Personnel and Management Approach (up to 10 pages); and

7. Annexes

Annexes to the technical proposal must be separately tabbed and identified and are limited to the following:

Annex A: Key Personnel Position Descriptions, (see Section L.8) Annex B: CVs/Resumes of the identified Key Personnel and References (see Section L.8) Annex C: Signed Letters of Commitment from Each Key Personnel Candidate (see Section L.8) Annex D: Organizational Chart for Social Contract Activity (see Section L.8) Annex E: Mobilization Plan (see Section L.8)

EVALUATION CRITERIA

• For overall evaluation purposes of this RFP non-cost criteria (Technical Understanding and Approach, Personnel and Management Approach, Local Ownership and Past Performance) when combined, are considered significantly more important than cost factors.

• Technical Criteria are presented by major category, in descending order of importance.

1) Technical Understanding and Approach;

2) Personnel and Management Approach, including Oral Presentations if applicable, and

3) Local Ownership

Procurement Overview (cont.)

1. Technical Understanding And Approach The Offerors will be evaluated on the basis of the extent to which the proposal clearly reflects a thorough understanding of the activity Statement of Work and its purpose. The extent to which the proposed approach reflects Kosovo context, skillfully uses systems-thinking to uncover, track, and address local facilitators and barriers to participation, strategically leverages individual and organizational incentives to participation, and supports adaptation rooted in robust collaboration between the learning and implementing partners will be assessed.

2. Personnel and Management Approach The Offerors will be evaluated on the basis of extent to which the proposed staffing plan and management structure are sufficient to implement the proposed approach and the extent to which the staffing plan and the Key Personnel meet the requirements outlined in the SOW and in section L of this RFP.

Oral Presentations:

If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that having oral presentations is in the best interest of the Government, the oral presentations will be evaluated against the factors below:

● Knowledge and presentation of the technical proposal. The extent to which the presenters demonstrate knowledge of the technical proposal and nuanced understanding of how the proposed approaches and interventions will achieve the stated objectives. The extent to which the presentation and the answers to the USAID questions are clear and cohesive.

● Team dynamics. The extent to which the presenters demonstrate the ability to work in a constructive and cooperative manner as a single team. The extent to which the presenters have a common understanding of the technical approach and management structure included in the proposal.

3. Local Ownership The Offerors will be evaluated on the basis of the extent to which the proposal presents a clear and feasible vision and strategy for giving the local government and community stakeholders a leading role in planning and implementing the activity’s interventions with a clear focus on sustaining participation practices after the activity ends.

Past Performance

● Past performance will be evaluated using an adjectival rating system as presented section M.6 of the RFP.

● Offerors determined to have unsatisfactory past performance will be ineligible for award.

Cost Proposals Evaluation of the cost proposal will include a price analysis to establish reasonableness of the Offeror’s price (including the competitiveness of the proposed fee); and a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the Offeror’s understanding of the work, and the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

Timeline

• Solicitation Issued: June 3, 2021

• Pre-proposal Conference: June 15, 2021

• Questions Due: June 18, 2021

• Answers to Questions: June 23, 2021

• Proposals Due July 19, 2021

• Award: November, 2021*

* On or about

QUESTIONS?

SOL #72016721R00005

Pre-Proposal Conference for Social Contract Activity Request for Proposals (RFP) SOL#72016721R00005

Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 3:00pm – 4:30pm

Note takers: USAID/Kosovo’s Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance (ROAA)

Conference participants: 25

The pre-proposal conference was accessible to any potential offeror.

These notes are not intended to be comprehensive.

These notes are not intended to deviate from the solicitation.

The solicitation is controlling.

House rules and opening remarks: Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance

Throughout the conference it is clearly stated by ROAA that the solicitation governs, and in the event of any discrepancy between the information contained herein and the solicitation, the solicitation will take precedence.

● The Solicitation governs.

● This conference is an opportunity to hear about U.S government priorities and expectations. There is a window of opportunity to submit quotations in the Q&A window of this conference.

● We will share the slides of today's conference. The session is not being recorded.

We will avoid acronyms to ensure everyone's understanding.

● Questions raised in the Q&A section that have not been answered during the conference will be answered along with other written questions submitted in accordance with the Solicitation.

Technical Overview: USAID/Democracy and Governance Office

● This conference reviews what is provided in the solicitation. The solicitation governs. I will go through the priorities and highlight them for you. However, other components of the RFP are just as important as these key takeaways.

● The three main highlights in solicitations are:

○ learning and adapting (big focus on CLA)

○ a systems approach to facilitators and barriers to public participation that are specific to the target communities

○ Working with and through local government and community actors (IP’s will play a facilitating role instead of implementing).

● The activity will have a phased approach/objectives:

○ Pilot Stage - dedicated to needs assessment, designing interventions and testing them

○ Scaling Up - roll out to additional communities and scale up; the way you design it depends on you as the implementing partner.

● When referring to consortium, we do not mean in the legal aspect, but a partnership consisting of a learning partner and an implementing partner.

● In reference to capacity building, we emphasized in the solicitation that the implementing partners should work with capacities on the ground and the existing local resources. This does not preclude you from creating new platforms and gateways, however consider first utilizing the existing resources in the community and build up on those capacities rather than create new one; chances of sustainability are higher through this route.

● In your proposal, make it clear how the grievances will be solved.

● It is highly important to understand who is working in the municipalities you will be working in and how you can collaborate with them.

● Section L allows for some flexibility, however pay close attention to the key words of may and must - where the word may is stated, there is more room for creativity and flexibility on your part as offerors.

Procurement Overview: Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance

● Base fee is 2% of the total estimated cost.

● Award Fee Pool - to be allocated through 5 evaluation periods; evaluated at the end of each year.

● Award Fee Plan provides details of the award fee process.

● Page limits are listed in the Solicitation and should be strictly followed. Ensure to closely review Section L to understand page limits and Annexes.

● Proposals must be submitted in the format stated in the RFP and if not followed you may be excluded due to non-compliance.

● Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation. Offerors determined to have unsatisfactory past performance will be ineligible for award.

● Cost Proposal - there is adequate guidance in the solicitation on how to submit a cost proposal. USAID will conduct price analysis on cost proposals to determine reasonableness.

● The proposed fee should be competitive with market rates. Award fee pool is at your discretion based on the complexity of the technical approach.

● Provide written questions by June 18 and we will answer all questions accordingly and provide an amendment to the solicitation per the RFP dates.

● Oral presentations - if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that having oral presentations is in the best interest of the Government, the oral presentations will be conducted and evaluated in accordance with the RFP.

The presentation concluded here. Participants were provided an opportunity to ask questions.

Questions Raised During the Conference:

1. The solicitation mentions a public participation assessment as well as a mid-term assessment. Would USAID kindly discuss the difference between these assessments?

Could USAID please confirm if the learning assessment also envisions a public participation assessment?

USAID Response: The solicitation includes three assessments. The assessment at the start of the pilot stage looks at the barriers and facilitators for public participation within the context of each target municipality. The results of the assessment inform the interventions of the municipality-specific public participation plans. The same type of assessment, with modifications as needed, is performed at the start of the scale-up stage of the activity. The learning assessment performed between the pilot and the scale up stage serves a different dual purpose. In short, it should analyze the progress achieved in the target municipalities with regards to introducing sustainable public participation practices and identify best strategies for scaling the successful approaches to new municipalities.

2. Thank you for the presentation. For the Contracting Office: Under Past Performance Information, would USAID accept information about cooperative agreements that fit the specifications, as well as contracts?

USAID Response: Yes. The offeror may provide info about their Cooperative Agreements whether is active or implemented in the past. The information must be relevant to social contract activity; Offerors may provide information on Cooperative Agreement that they are implementing.

3. Thank you for the detailed presentation. The consortium will be established with two partners: an implementing and a learning partner. In the course of implementation of the activity could these partners change/exchange their roles based on their capabilities?

Thanks.

USAID Response: It is up to the partners how it is designed.

4. Can USAID say anything about its vision for the Advisory Council? What role would USAID expect to have on this Council?

USAID Response: It is at the discretion of the Offerors to propose the vision of the Advisory Council. There is a wide range of options; we see the AC as a body that can help us interpret data; a neutral body that can help settle any disagreements. These are all examples for Advisory Councils - however the answer is that it is flexible and up to the IP to propose the vision of the AC. It depends who the AC is comprised of, can help you stay abreast of what is going on...rules are multiple and we see it productive to having an Advisory Council

In closing, ROAA reiterated the importance of sustainability and local ownership.

Thank you for participating.

Request for Proposals (RFP) No.: Amendment 1_SOLICITATION No. 72016721R00005

Issue Date: June 3, 2021

Pre-Proposals Conference: June 15, 2021 at 3:00 pm Kosovo local time.

Questions Due Date: June 18, 2021 at 5 p.m., Kosovo local time.

Answers to the questions Due Date: June 23, 2021

Proposals Submission Due Date: July 19, 2021 at 5pm, Kosovo local time

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) SOLICITATION No. 72016721R00005

Social Contract Activity

Dear Prospective Offeror:

The United States Government, represented by the U.S Agency for International Development (USAID), through the Regional Office for Acquisition and Assistance in Kosovo, is seeking proposals from qualified organizations to implement Social Contract Activity in Kosovo, as described in section C of this solicitation.

This is USAID/Kosovo Democracy and Governance portfolio activity, and the goal of the activity is to introduce sustainable practices for public participation in order to improve Kosovo citizens’ quality of life and strengthen their partnership with the municipal government.

USAID/Kosovo anticipates awarding one Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract as a result of this solicitation covering an estimated period of five (5) years from the date of the award. The principal geographic code for this contract is 937. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541990. This requirement is subject to the availability of funds.

Subject to availability of funds, USAID estimates funding available for this contract up to $15 million.

USAID’s intent is to maximize the best value obtainable and is in no way obligated to make an award within the maximum estimated amount. Offerors should not strive to meet the maximum amount; rather, offerors should propose the best technical/management solution, and costs that are appropriate, realistic, and reasonable, and in accordance with the proposed approach for achieving the activity objectives.

This procurement will be conducted under full and open competition, pursuant to Part 15 of the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR Chapter 1). All types of organizations are eligible to compete;

USAID encourages the participation to the maximum extent possible of local Kosovar organizations, small business concerns, veteran owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran small businesses, HUB zone small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, women-owned small business concerns and small business concerns in this activity as the prime contractor or as subcontractors. USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements as this limits USAID’s and Kosovo’s ability to receive the best services. This applies to personnel and subcontractors, international and local organizations.

Only electronic proposals will be accepted. Any questions regarding this solicitation and the proposals must be submitted in via email to Dukagjin Hasani at dhasani@usaid.gov and Fiolla Radoniqi at fradoniqi@usaid.gov by the date and time specified above. If your organization decides to submit a proposal in response to this solicitation, detailed requirements for Offerors’ proposals are outlined in Section L of mailto:cberkowitz@usaid.gov

SOLICITATION No.