Q&As Amended_22Nov19 (Ver2).pdf

Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 72016819R00007 Questions and Answers

November 22, 2019

Q4: Section C.3 Specific Technical Requirements/Tasks, sub-sub-section A.2.c Creation of a centralized e-social register system, p.16; and Section F Deliveries or Performance, sub-sub-section F.7.1 Deliverables/Reports Submission Schedule, p.32 – Would the Mission please clarify whether a digital benefits card is a required or optional element for RES-ist? The language in Section C is “may” but the language in Section F indicates that this is an integrated part of the that task.

A4: Digital social benefit card is an optional feature. However, the contractor must ensure interoperability between relevant social benefit databases and cross-referencing that would enable easy identification of the users that misuse the system by using multiple social benefits.

Digital benefits card requirement deleted.

Q5: Section C.3 Specific Technical Requirements/Tasks, sub-sub-section A.2.c Creation of a centralized e-social register system, p.16 – Would USAID kindly clarify how offerors should cost out and plan for an optional implementation of a digital social benefit card? Such efforts are tremendously intensive with respect to budgets, personnel, hardware, and time.

A5: The cost and time associated with this intervention will be considered during the review of proposals. Deleted.

Q8: Section C.4 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL), pp.22-23 – Would USAID please clarify the means by which the MEL contractor will collect data on citizen satisfaction and business satisfaction? The National Survey of Citizens’ Perceptions does include a lengthy question on satisfaction with government services (P2a-gg), a question about overall satisfaction with different levels of government (P4a-d), and even two questions on corruption (P9a-c, P10a-b), but these are highly problematic and misleading outcome indicators for several reasons: much of RES-ist’s work would be transparent to citizens; any RES-ist items that affect citizens are only a small part of a citizen’s direct engagement with any level of government; the sample does not allow for statistically useful disaggregation at the cantonal or municipal levels; and the survey questions are based on beliefs instead of actual experience, but the latter has been the norm for public administration reform and anti-corruption research for almost a decade. The business or enterprise survey was not available for review, but as with the last point it needs to have a sufficient sample size and appropriate question wording to be a meaningful indicator.

A8: As stated in the draft logframe, USAID MEL contractor will develop an indicator measuring citizen satisfaction. However, in accordance with the same document, the RESist contractor will be required to develop two outcome indicators measuring the Activity's purpose.

One of those indicators is temporarily called just for the purpose of the RFP, "an indicator measuring change in businesses' perception on corruption and transparency in RESist targeted government-led processes". The stated data source for this indicator is "RESist survey of businesses”. Therefore, offerors should properly budget for it. The other purpose-level indicator to be developed by the RESist contractor is an e-governance scorecard. This indicator must be developed collaboratively with RESist-targeted government institutions. See Q/A4.

Q10: Section F.4 Key Personnel, p.28; and sub-sub-section L.6.B.2.Factor 2 Management Approach, and sub-section L.6.C Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, Point 4, top of p.91, along with pp.92-93 – Would USAID kindly clarify whether offerors should propose any personnel, whether identified as key or not?

A10: USAID expects to receive proposal which includes key personnel. Please indicate the key positions held, not the personnel by name.

Q42: We noted there are limited instructions in Section L.6.B.2 Factor 2 Management Approach on personnel including “demonstrates how the personnel and level of effort (long term, short term, consultants, subcontractors) will be obtained throughout the life of the activity and will be shifted between the individual tasks to ensure coverage and completion of all components.” There does not seem to be any language about the evaluation of personnel in M.4

(B) Management Approach. Our question is should there be some evaluation language about key and other personnel. Also if we propose key and non key personnel should we include the curriculum vitae of the key personnel in an annex and short bios of non key personnel as well as an organization chart and other information such as short position descriptions?

A42: See Q/A 10, 52, 58. Please indicate the key positions held, not the personnel by name.

Q52: Page 28, Section F.4 Key Personnel, states: “Key Personnel – To be completed at the time of award based upon the successful Offeror’s proposal.” Can USAID please confirm that Key Personnel are not being evaluated at the proposal stage, and therefore offerors are not required to name Key Personnel in their proposals?

A52: Q/A 10, 42, 52, 58. Please indicate the key positions held, not the personnel by name.

Q58: Page 91, Section L.6.C 4 (a) Preparation of the Cost Proposal, states: “Biographical Data Sheets…are required for all Key Personnel.” Can USAID please confirm that biographical data sheets are not required to be included in the cost proposal given offerors are not required to name key personnel?

A58: Q/A 10, 42, 52, 58. Please indicate the key positions held, not the personnel by name.

Q59: Page 102, Section M.4 (b) Factor 2 explains the evaluation criteria for the Management Approach. Would USAID evaluate position descriptions as part of Factor 2 if offerors provided them?

A59: USAID will evaluate position descriptions for key and supporting positions and proposed personnel required to meet the objectives under the Factor 2. No, USAID will not evaluate PDs as part of the Factor 2.

Q61: In sub-section A. 4 of Section C.2 Scope of the Activity, the RFP says that “It is estimated that $4.5M of the budget will be for hardware, software, licenses, and IT related works/programming for most of the items). Of that, an estimated $2.5 million will be used for procurement of hardware and software licenses.” Is it acceptable for the cost proposal budget to treat this as a “plug” number for the proposal stage?

A61: All figures listed in the proposal are just rough cost estimates and as such should be considered with reserve. The prospective contractors should come up with their own estimates for each IT system/intervention based on data that they gather. The technical merit and the cost of proposal will both be scored by USAID. Yes, it should be a plug figure.

Q63: If USAID has set this award as a total small business set aside how is USAID calculating the small business requirement? 51% of total contract value or 51% of labor (not including ODCs)? As there is a large subcontracting element - nearly 50% of total award - that is very likely to go to non-US based small businesses (so similarly situated would not apply), using any subcontractors or partners would be difficult. May we recommend that 51% of labor be used to calculate the small business portion?

A63: Limitations on Subcontracting (Jan 2017) impose 50%. Per 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.