Q&As_to_FBO.pdf

Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 72016819R00007 Questions and Answers October 23, 2019

Q1: Section B.6 Option to Extend Term of the Contract, p.8 top – Would USAID please confirm that the sentence, “The two one-year extension options may be combined or exercised individually,” was included in error?

A1: The subject sentence has been deleted. Please see Amendment 2 for corrections.

Q2: Section B.9 Multi-Year Contract and Cancellation Ceiling, paragraph (b), p.9 – Would USAID please confirm that the table should refer to base years 2, 3, 4, and 5 because the proposed contract does not have a base period and option periods?

A2: Section B.9(b) table has been corrected to refer to base years 2, 3, 4 and 5. Please see Amendment 2 for corrections.

Q3: Section F, Deliveries or Performance, p.28ff – Would USAID please confirm that a period of performance clause or sub-section is missing from this section of the RFP?

A3: Period of Performance clause added. Section F renumbered. Please see Amendment 2 for corrections.

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.

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.

Q6: 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 confirm that training of relevant government personnel is required? Section C does not address training, but it is listed as Deliverable A.2.13.

A6: The training of relevant personnel from different levels of government and agencies is required as for any other IT system.

Q7: Section C.3 Specific Technical Requirements/Tasks, sub-sub sections A.3.c Other Requirements for A.3 (first four bullet points) and A.3 Result 5 (outcome), Increased technical capacity and knowledge of the PPA staffers, p.20; and A.4.b Analyze technical capacity of the PPA staffers and identify “gaps” in knowledge that can be addressed through targeted capacity building programs, using the best EU practices as a guiding document, p. 21 and A.4 Result 4, p.22; and Section F.7.1 Deliverables/Reports Submission Schedule, A.3.14 and A.4, p.33 – Would USAID please clarify any differences in the purpose, content and/or expected results of the analysis of technical capacity of PPA staff and training/capacity building delivery for PPA staffers under Sections A.3 and A.4? Analysis of technical capacities and training/capacity building activities targeting PPA staffers are requirements under both A.3 and A.4. However, Section F.7.1 includes deliverables for PPA staff technical capacity and training only under Activity Component 3.

A7: Tasks under A.3 and A.4 are designed to complement each other. Analysis and technical capacity building under the A.3. are related to the SWAT analysis of the PPA core business and PPA’s daily operations. Analysis and technical capacity described under A.4 mostly focus on transparency and accountability components/segments of the PPA and its processes. Hence, this may include EU best practices in info sharing, PR, etc., in addition to technical capacity of PPA personnel.

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

Q9: Section C.4 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL), pp.22-23 – Would the Mission kindly confirm that offerors may develop more than one new outcome indicator?

A9: Offerors may propose as many outcome indicators as they wish. USAID's general guidance, however, is to keep the total number of indicators to a minimum necessary for activity management. The only five required outcome indicators are the two purpose-level indicators (see Q/A 8 for description) and at least one indicator for the three sub-purposes.

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.

Q11: Section F.7.1 Deliverables/Reports Submission Schedule, Activity Component A.3, A.3.14, pp.32-33 – Would USAID consider revising the deliverable under A.3.14 by eliminating “Increased technical capacity and knowledge of the PPA staffers (training/education)” as this language appears to describe a result (outcome) rather than a deliverable, and there is already a deliverable listed (“Training plan for the PPA staffers developed and accepted by the PPA and USAID”).

A11: This will be eliminated under the Amendment 2.

Q12: Section F.7.1 Deliverables/Reports Submission Schedule, pp.30-33 – Would USAID please confirm that the set of deliverables is a complete and accurate reflection of the work detailed in Section C.3 Specific Technical Requirements/Tasks?

A12: No. See Q/A11, please.

Q13: Section F.7.1 Deliverables/Reports Submission Schedule, Activity Component A.4, p.33

– Would USAID kindly revise the set of deliverables to remove any item that is not a tangible deliverable and instead requires deliverables such as shown in the below table?

The deliverables for Component 4 do not fully capture the substance of Component A.4, and the stated deliverables for A.4.2 and A4.3 appear to be results, which will be measured through the logical framework and MEL Plan, rather than tangible deliverables.

Additionally, there appears to be an extra word in the stated deliverable for A.4.2.

Activity Component Four—

A.4 Increase the technical capacity of the governmental institutions to work with wider public and empower the selected watchdog organizations over the government-led processes for increased scrutiny

A.4.1 Analysis of “modus operandi,” technical knowledge, access to information, and data collection, analysis and dissemination capacity and activities of partner CSOs

4 months after contract start

A.4.2 CSO Training Plan 6 months after contract start

A.4.3. Plan for integrated approach to information collection and dissemination by RES-ist developed systems that includes active participation of CSOs

20 months

A.4.4. Practical Manual for CSOs on Data Collection, Analysis and Dissemination

36 months after contract start

A.4.5. Final Assessment of CSO technical knowledge, access to information, and data collection, analysis and dissemination capacity and activities.

60 months after contract start

A13: Table revised and accepted. Please see Amendment 2 for changes.

Q14: Section G.8, Invoicing Instructions, p.45 – Would USAID kindly clarify whether paragraphs 1 and 2 are alternative ways to submit an invoice or contractors should submit both ways?

A14: Invoicing instructions 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. The contractor is to submit invoices in both paper and e-format.

Q15: Section G.8, Invoicing Instructions, p.45 – Would USAID please clarify where contractors should sign on the SF-1034? There is no place or section on the SF-1034 that requests a contractor signature.

A15: Please see G.7(a)(2) for instructions.

Q16: Section L.5 Explanation to Prospective Offerors, p.85 – Would USAID kindly confirm that the deadline for questions is 9:00 a.m. Sarajevo time, October 9, 2019 in accordance with the RFP cover letter, and not April 19, 2019 as written in this section?

A16: Yes.

Q17: Section L.6.B Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, sub-section a.i, Technical Proposal Page Limitation, p. 87 – May offerors provide additional information, not specifically identified in Section L, in an annex or annexes? If so, would such annexes count toward the page limit for the Technical Proposal?

A17: No. Also see Q/A 32, and Q/A 33.

Q18: Sub-sub-section L.6.B.1.b Factor 1 Detailed Draft Work-plan, Risk Mitigation Plan, p. 88

– Would USAID consider eliminating the word “not” from the last sentence so that it reads “… and mitigate the risk that the processes/systems are abandoned for lack of buy-in by users?”

A18: No.

Q19: Sub-sub-section L.6.B.1.b Factor 1 Detailed Draft Work-plan, Risk Mitigation Plan, p. 88

– Would USAID kindly provide guidance on how offerors should address in the Risk Mitigation Plan the possibility that domestic factors delay or prevent harmonization vertically and/or horizontally across government levels/agencies/units? BIH has experienced such obstacles in past donor-funded projects that relied upon the passage and implementation of legislation or regulations.

A19: Offerors should conduct their own research and propose what they think is the most appropriate Risk Mitigation Plan.

Q20: Sub-section L.6.B.b. Specific Instructions, pp. 87-88; and Sub-sub-section L.6.B.1.b Factor 1 Detailed Draft Work-plan, Risk Mitigation Plan, p. 88; and Section M.4 Evaluation Factors (a) Factor 1 Detailed Draft Workplan, p.102 – Would USAID kindly clarify whether the risk mitigation plan and change management plan should be two separate plans or one combined plan and whether they will be equally weighted for evaluation purposes, or the risk mitigation plan will be weighted more heavily since it is listed before the change management plan in Section L? According to Section L.6.B.6, “The technical proposal must be organized according to the evaluation factors in Section M, listed below in descending order of importance.” Sub-sub-sub-Section L.6.B.1.b Risk Mitigation Plan describes the required risk mitigation plan, and then the second sentence says, “Offerors should also develop a change management plan….” (emphasis added).

Section M.4 Evaluation Factor 1 – Detailed Draft Workplan states, “The potential risks and plan for mitigation or correction, as well as the proposed change management plan, will be evaluated on the extent to which they are realistic and comprehensive.”

A20: The RFP states two separate plans. The sub-factors for Factor 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance.

Q21: Section L.6.B Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, sub-section a.i, Technical Proposal Page Limitation, p. 87; and Sub-sub-section L.6.B.4 Factor 4 Past Performance, p.89 – Would USAID please clarify whether the information required under L.6.B.4 item 2(b) and (c) should be included in an annex along with the list of relevant awards for the past 10 years required under L.6.B.4?

A21: Yes.

Q22: Section L.6.B Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal, sub-section a.i, Technical Proposal Page Limitation, p. 87; and Sub-sub-section L.6.B.4 Factor 4 Past Performance, p.89 – Would USAID kindly confirm that information required under L.6.B.4 Past Performance Information does not count toward the page limit for the Technical Proposal? Counting Past Performance Information against the technical proposal page limit would put firms with extensive performance over the past 10 years at a substantial disadvantage.

A22: Confirmed.

Q23: Sub-sub-section L.6.B.4 Factor 4 Past Performance, p.89; and Section M.3 Method of Evaluation, p. 101 – Would USAID kindly clarify the definition of subcontractors, whose past performance information is required under Section L and harmonize L.6.B.4 and M.3 to ensure that offerors are able to provide USAID with complete information for the evaluation of the past performance of offerors’ subcontractors as they are defined in Section L? L.6.B.4 requires past performance information for each “major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the offerors total proposed cost).” Section M.3 states that “the past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture member’s ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement)…. A critical subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor providing at least 20% support for technical compliance.”

A23: 15%. Also, see Qs 35, 36, and 57.

Q24: Section M.3 Method of Evaluation, pp. 100-102 – Would USAID kindly add the referenced tables in Section M.3? At the bottom of page 100, the RFP references “scales in Tables 1 and Table 2 as replicated below.” However, there are no tables in Section M.3, and we were unable to identify relevant tables in AIDR 715.3.

A24: Relevancy criteria pg. 100. Confidence Assessment Rating Method pg. 104.

Q25: Section M.3 Method of Evaluation, pp. 100-103; and Section M.4 Evaluation Factors, (d) Factor 4 Past Performance (rated on a risk scale), pp. 102-105 – Would USAID please clarify whether the past performance assessment of “the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture’s members ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s present and past work record” as described on page 101 is the same as a rating “on a risk scale,” noted on page 102?

A25: Past performance will rated as stated in the Factor 4 of Section M.4.

Q26: Section M.3 Method of Evaluation, pp. 100-103; and Section M.4 Evaluation Factors, (d) Factor 4 Past Performance (rated on a risk scale), pp. 102-105 – Would USAID kindly confirm whether the (d)(1) Degree of Relevancy, as defined above on page 103 refers to the description under M.3 Method of Evaluation on page 101?

A26: See Q/A25.

Q27: Can this task be solved with software as a solution and does it require a team familiar with the topic or can any analytical team qualify for the job.

A27: Unfortunately, not. Many tasks require individuals or teams that are more or less familiar with the topics, or they will familiarize themselves with the topics in order to implement the reforms. These are rather technical issues and improvements to the existing processes are a must.

Q28: What is a payment schedule? This information is needed to establish initial level of funding for this project.

A28: Please see Section B of the RFP.

Q29: Is number of systems to be newly develop known at this time or is it to be determined as a part of analysis?

A29: Please read the RFP.

Q30: Is number of systems to be integrated with known at this time or is it to be determined as a part of analysis?

A30: Please read the RFP. The analysis is required to determine the number of systems to be integrated.

Q31: Will modifications for integrations with existing systems be performed by personnel of this project or will be performed by current vendors of said systems?

A31: Please read the RFP. USAID does not have clear preference of in-house developed systems over the outsourced ones.

Q32: May we add a list of acronyms, cover page, a cover letter and table of contents that will not count toward the 70 pages.

A32: Please see Q/A 17 and 33.

Q33: Can we also add whatever annexes we believe are appropriate to respond to Factors 1-4?

For example curriculum vitae, organization chart, tables, letters from partners and other attachments if it is within the 70- page technical proposal limit?

A33: Please see Q/A 17 and 32.

Q34: We received Attachment J.4.Momitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan and Attachment

J.3 Activity Logical Framework. The instructions in Section L for the technical proposal do not address that we need to provide a draft MEL Plan and Log Frame. Can you confirm that we do not need to provide a draft MEL Plan and Log Frame as part of the technical proposal?

A34. Confirming, the draft Activity Logical Framework (Attachment J.3) and draft Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation (MEL) Plan are not part of the Technical Proposal.

Q35: We want to clarify if a major subcontractor represents 15% of total costs or 20%. In Section L.6.B.1 Factor 4 Past Performance it states “The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the offeror’s total proposed cost), for similar in accordance with the following.” In Section

A35: 15%. Also Q/As 23, 35, 36, and 57.

Q36: Section M.3 Method of evaluation it refers to “critical subcontractor.” It states that “A critical subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor providing at least 20% support for technical compliance. Can you please clarify the percentage for a major subcontractor and the difference between a major subcontractor and a critical subcontractor if there is a difference?

A36: 15%. Also, see Q/As 23, 35, and 57.

Q37: In some cases the Expected Results under Section C A.1 – A.4 line up with Section F deliverables and in other cases not. For example Section C. A.1 “Expected Result 3 (Output) Improved technical capacity in the appropriate ministries, agencies and other relevant governmental institutions relevant for facilitation of the e- signature platform.”

Does not have a comparable or similar deliverable in Section F. A.1 – should there be a deliverable about building the technical capacity of the appropriate ministries, agencies…?

A37: MEL plan will be developed to measure progress towards results and the final outcome.

Q38: Do you want to add deliverables to section F to match any of the mismatch with Section C expected results?

A38: USAID is reviewing/harmonizing the noted RFP sections.

Q39: In terms developing the workplan and the Gantt chart(s) do you want us to specify that we should follow Section F Deliverables and the Expected Results outputs can be captured in the MEL Plan?

A39: There needs to be a detailed work plan in Gantt chart format for year one. Then, Gantt chart and basic workplan in general to cover activities.

Q40: Under A.3 (on page 17) Assistance to the Public Procurement Agency it states the following: “Beneficiary: State of BiH, Republika Srpska, Federation of BiH, selected Cantons” Under Expected Results for A.3 (page 20) it states the following: “Result

1(outcome): Improved and centralized procurement practices in 4 Cantons through four centralized IT procurement systems.” Also under Section F A.3.2 on page 33 it states “A.3.2. Four centralized IT procurement systems installed in 4 pilot Cantons” We understand the pilots in the four Cantons under A.3.a. Can you confirm when you state the “Beneficiaries” which represent multiple levels of government that this applies to A.3.b(2)Contractor/Vendor Past Performance Report and it states “For All governments… that this refers to the Beneficiaries State of BiH, Republika Srpska, Federation of BiH and the four Cantons? Does it apply to Brkco and other Cantons and municipality level governments?

A40: The line that lists beneficiaries is relevant for all tasks under A.3, to include not only the cantonal procurement systems but also the social witness system and contractor's performance reporting. Similarly, the centralized procurement systems in 4 cantons will benefit not just these 4 cantons but also other levels of the government such as FBiH, and state PPA. The RFP listed the direct beneficiaries of the intervention.

Q41: What levels of government are the beneficiaries for A.3.b(1) Social Witness activity? Or are the beneficiaries the citizens of BiH? and not the government?

A41: The ultimate beneficiaries of all anti-corruption and interventions for enhanced transparency should be the citizens of BiH.

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

Q43: In Section L (page 90) 2) Other Price and Cost Detail Instructions state discusses “The five year proposed cost must be based on the information set forth below. In Section B. 6 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract on page 7 it discusses “Contractor hereby grants to the U.S. Government option to extend services under the contract for six additional one-month periods.” And at the top of page 8 “The two one-year extension options may be combined or exercised individually. Upon exercise of such options by the Government, the costs and fees evaluated at contract award will be increased by the amounts specified below for each option year to extend.”

A43: See Amendment 2.

Q44: We understand that in addition to the five years you want six one month options priced.

Do you however want the five year contract pricing to be a priced as a base period of three years and two one year options?

A44: The five year contract pricing to be a priced as a base period.

Q45: In Section L. 6.C.4.xii Indirect Costs (ii) on page 94 it states “The most recent two fiscal year pool and base cost compositions along with derived rates, the bases of allocation of these rates and an independent certified audit by a certified accounting firm of these rates.”

A45: USAID could not ascertain the question.

Q46: The USAID Procurement Executive Bulletin No. 2015-02 states “In the absence of a NICRA or audited financial statements which are most preferred, USAID may accept a “reviewed” financial statement with a certified accountant review prior to the submission of proposed indirect rates. Further, if the SB offeror receives an award, the office of Overhead Special Costs and Closeout Branch (OCC) within the Office of Acquisition and Assistance, Cost Audit and Support (CAS) Division, will issue a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) after award3 of the contract establishing provisional indirect cost rat e(s).”

A46: USAID could not ascertain the question.

Q47: In Section L.6.C. Proposed Costs/Price x Enviromental Compliance Costs on page 94 it states “Under this separate cost category the offeror must indicate its illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities. For the purposes of this solicitation, offerors should reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal.” Can you specify what activities may have environmental costs? We also did not see attached the Initial Environmental Examination so we do not know if RES-ist has a categorical exclusion or not. Please provide the IEE. We note that one activity is to assist in the development of construction permitting e-services but there is no mention of any construction being requested of the implementer. Please clarify and specify whether any activities will have environmental costs?

A47: According to the Program Appraisal Document (PAD) 2.2 level IEE and the PAD 2.2 amended IEE, this activity was granted Categorical exclusion. The contractor will be encouraged to procure electronic equipment with the highest energy-efficiency standards required for the implementation of this activity, as well as to ensure that proper safeguards are in place which will ensure safe disposal of electronic devices, proper segregation of the electronic waste, and recycling whenever possible.

Q48: If there is a delay answering the questions then will you consider an extension?

A48: There is no delay in answering the questions.

Q49: The FBO solicitation states that this is a total Small Business Set-Aside. However, the cover page of the RFP states this is a full and open competition. Can USAID please clarify which this is?

A49: Please see Amendment 1 for eligibility restrictions; posted on FBO. gov on October 3, 2019.

Q50: Would USAID allow offerors to include a cover page, table of contents and acronym list in their technical proposals that wouldn’t count toward the page limit?

A50: Please see Q/A 32 and Q/A 33.

Q51: Would USAID allow offerors to include an executive summary in their technical proposals that wouldn’t count toward the page limit?

A51: Please see Q/A 32, Q/A33 and Q/A 50.

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

Q53: Page 33, Section F.7.2 Annual Work Plans, states: “The Contractor must provide to USAID for review and approval a draft work plan for the first year’s activities, schedules and targets.” Can USAID please provide a deadline for submitting the draft work plan?

A53: 60 days after award.

Q54: Page 34, Section F.7.3 MEL Plan, states: “As a part of the initial work plan, the Contractor must provide to USAID for review and approval a draft Monitoring, Learning, and Evaluation Plan (MEL Plan) (Attachment J.4) that allows for measuring implementation progress against performance indicators and related targets and benchmarks. The MEL Plan must be based on the draft Activity Logical Framework (Attachment J.3).” Can USAID please confirm that neither a MEL Plan nor a draft Activity Logical Framework are required to be submitted in the proposal?

A54: See Q/A34

Q55: Page 87, Section L.6.B a.ii Technical Proposal Page Limitation, states: “8-point type is acceptable for graphics and tables provided that is legible.” Could USAID please confirm that offerors can use 8-point for textboxes as well?

A55: Yes, please.

Q56: Page 88, Section L.6.B.1 Factor 1 – Detailed Draft Work-plan requires offerors to submit: “Proposed timeline and events showing how the offeror will develop and deploy multiple independent systems that are based on diverse and complex databases, as listed in the SOW. Proposals must include a detailed work-plan in Gantt chart format that covers the first year of the contract. Proposals must include a Gantt chart format for all activities and basic workplan for the remaining years of the contract (to show a sequencing of events).” (emphasis added) We have the following related questions:

a. Could USAID please clarify how the Gantt chart that covers the first year should differ from the Gantt chart that covers all of the activities?

b. Could USAID please confirm if a work plan narrative is required to accompany the Gantt chart?

A56: a. Proposals must include a Gantt chart format for all activities and basic work plan for the remaining years of the contract (to show a sequencing of events).

b. Yes.

Q57: Page 89, Section L.6.B.4 Factor 4 – Past Performance, states that a major subcontractor is one whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the offeror’s total proposed cost. However, Page 101, Section M.3 Method of Evaluation, states that a critical subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor providing at least 20% support for technical compliance.

Can USAID please clarify its definition of a major subcontractor?

A57: 15%. Also Qs 23, 35, and 36

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

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.

Q60: Section B.8 Ceiling on Indirect Cost Rates (If Applicable) requests that the main offeror propose ceilings on indirect costs. Since this is a small business set aside solicitation, could USAID please confirm if small business are required to propose such ceilings on indirect costs?

A60: Yes.

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.

Q62: We thank USAID for providing the basic salary ranges of the local compensation plan, but in order to better use such plan “as market research and for establishing salary ranges appropriate for the each position” as instructed under subsection (b) of Section H.5 Personnel Approvals of the RFP, and to ensure full compliance with AIDAR requirements that contractor CCN staff salaries and benefits should not exceed those paid by the USAID Mission to CCN direct hires, could USAID consider providing a detailed copy of the Local Employee Compensation Plans by FSN levels and steps?

A62: No.

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%.