RES-ist_Draft_RFP_(_72016819R00TBD)_Q&As.pdf

RES-ist Draft RFP (#72016819R00TBD) Q&As—

Q.1: For the component A.2.a. Inspection Services Information Management System (IMS), the contractor must develop a new IMS for all inspection services in RS and FBiH and replace the current software platform with the new software solutions. Is it expected that the new system should be developed for all inspection services (such as food and safety inspection, market inspection, agricultural inspection, traffic inspection, veterinary inspection, labor inspection, health inspection etc.) or it will be required only to develop modules listed in the SOW i.e. inspection services at the border, modules for self-assessment of businesses and citizens, etc.?

A.1: Already addressed in the SOW.

Q.2: For the component A.2.b Municipal Pilots the project must coordinate closely with the

WB and its implementer to develop similar IT solutions in other BiH municipalities. Is it expected that the project will use the existing WBG e-Construction Permits software based on PHP platform which will be implemented in Banja Luka and Gradiska, or the contractor should provide/develop similar e-construction permit software solution?

A.2: We expect the project to use the existing WBs software platform and expand it to selected pilots.

Q.3: If the existing WBG e-Construction Permits software should be used would it be free of royalties and intellectual property rights?

A.3: We expect WBG software platform will be shared without royalties. However, we recommend that prospective bidders confirm this with the WB.

Q.4: Please kindly confirm that there would not be specific requirements on key personnel and the offerors will have the liberty to choose the profiles of key- and non-personnel as well as their team composition in accordance with their approach and the objectives defined in the solicitation.

A.4: See Question/Answer 10.

Q.5: On page 108, Section L.7.B.4 it references a requirement for past performance information for “all relevant contracts for the past 10 years”. Would USAID accept past performance information for efforts similar to the proposed activity from both contracts and cooperative agreements?

A.5: Yes, for all relevant awards for the past 10 years. Please note that assistance is not as relevant to this activity as acquisition awards.

Q.6: On page 109 Section L.7B.4 (4) Preparation of the Cost Proposal there are a number of bullets outlining items to be included in the cost proposal. One is a draft branding implementation strategy and marking plan. Should we use Responsive E-Services (RES-ist) Activity” as the activity name in the plan?

A.6: Yes, please.

Q.7: On page 27 Section F.4 Key Personnel it indicates “to be completed at the time of award based upon the successful Offeror’s proposal” Is it up to us to propose the key personnel and to define the requirements for each of our key personnel? Also we did not see an Organogram in the instructions for the technical proposal. Is it possible to include in an annex?

A.7: Yes, Offerors are to propose the key personnel requirements and propose personnel meeting those requirements at any time during the contract life (initially immediately after contract award).

Q.8: On page 105 Section L.7 Proposal Preparation and Submission Special Instructions (4) provides an RFP number 72016819R00TBD – is this the final RFP number? Also (5) indicates proposals should be submitted by May 7, 2019 – this will be revised? And (9) should the offer be valid for six months? 11( c) is a screen shot of our current SAM registration acceptable and do we need to submit Section K filled out through Section K.2 (d) on page 89?

A.8: RFP number will be finalized in the official RFP posting. Proposal submission date is updated in the final RFP. By submitting the offer, the offeror is certifying that SAM is up to date and the certifications required have been completed in SAM (per K.2(d)).

Q.9: On page 106 in Section L.7.B (a) Technical Proposal Page Limitation it indicates a

“Technical Proposal Limit of 50 pages.” Does the technical proposal page length include the following on pages 107-108?

L.7.B.1 Factor 1 Detailed Workplan (see Section M.4 (a) L.7.B.2 Factor 2 Management Approach (see Section M.4 (b)) L.7.B.3 Factor 3 Sustainability Plan (See Section M.4 (c ) L.7.B.4 Factor 4 Past Performance (See Section M.4 (d)

A.9: No, these are additional. Please note that the Technical Proposal Limit has been changed to “70 pages.”

Q.10: Can we add as annexes to the technical proposal curriculum vitae of key personnel, short bios of non key personnel, an organogram, and letters from local partners and other graphics or tables that will not be counted in the 50 page limit?

A.10: Key Personnel are not a part of the technical evaluation criteria. For Factor 2, Management Approach, the offeror should provide whatever information that will demonstrate the knowledge and personnel (or ability to obtain it). Please note that the Technical Proposal Limit has been changed to “70 pages.”

Q.11: On page 107 there is “Section L.8.7.1.b Explains potential risks and mitigation measures to either prevent an event from occurring and/or fixes the “crisis” and allows forward movement on this contract.” Should this be part of the detailed draft workplan? Cited in L.7.B.1 or this a separate section or does it not belong here?

A.11: This should be part of the Workplan section as indicated in the RFP L.7.B.1.b Draft Work plan.

Q.12: On page 111 in Section I Salary and Wages you state “Please note that no waivers to the

U.S. Mission’s Local Compensation Plan will be provided. The maximum annual rate is BAM 102,948”. What if a highly qualified candidate has a salary history above the LCP maximum annual rate as the IT and e-gov sector is highly competitive? Can you also provide a copy of the US Mission Local Compensation Plan?

A.12: No waivers to the LCP will be provided. The LCP ranges will be provided in the RFP.

Q.13: Is it possible to answer the questions in an amendment or provide an amended RFP prior to the release of the RFP anticipated in the USAID business forecast on September 22, 2019?

A.13: Questions provided with RFP.

Q.14: On page 6 in Section B.6 Option to Extend Term of the Contract discusses two one year options to extend the contract. It states. “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. Further on page 8 Section B.9 Multi-Year Contract and Cancellation Ceiling(2)(b) it states “(b) If cancellation under the clause at FAR 52.217-2, “CANCELLATION UNDER MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS (OCT 1997)” occurs, the contractor will be paid a cancellation charge not over the cancellation ceiling defined as follows:

Program Year: Cancelation Date Cancellation Ceiling Base year 2 TBD $TBD

A.14: Corrections provided with RFP.

Q.15: Section L.7.C (3) Extension Options discuss “six one month extension options.” It then discuss that the “The offerors must provide the same cost and pricing information for the extension options as provided for the three plus two year contract period, based on the information and requirements set forth below.”

A.15: Corrections provided with RFP.

Q.16: On page 108 Section L.7.B.4 (1) potential Government Funding it states . “USAID anticipates receiving up to $[5.5-6.5 million] to fund this activity over the five year contract term? Can you clarify that we should budget for three years plus two one year options? Or five years and six one month options? Per our comment about we do not believe a contract with a $6 or $6.5 million ceiling with $4.5 million in hardware and software costs will allow us to budget a 5 year RES-ist Activity.

A.16: The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options, shall not exceed five (5) years plus six one month periods.

Q.17: On page Section B.11. Payment of Fixed Fee – should we propose in our cost proposal the objective/deliverable and output that will be tied to an amount of fixed fee?

A.17: Yes, please.

Q.18: On Page 107 in Section L.7.B.1 Factor 1 Detailed Workplan (see Section M.4 (a) it states

“Proposals must include a detailed work-plan in Gantt chart format that covers the entire life of the contract and include the following (listed in descending order of importance)”. Per our question above should we develop a workplan for three years and two one year options? A five year workplan with six one month options? Also does it make sense to provide detailed Gantt charts beyond year one since each year the workplan will be revisited?

A.18: Please propose a detailed DRAFT Workplan for a period of five years with six additional one month periods.

Q.19: On page x Section L.7.B.4 (1) potential Government Funding it states . “USAID anticipates receiving up to $[5.5-6.5 million] to fund this activity over the five year contract term” . On page 12 in Section C.2 Scope of Activity A.4 is states “It is estimated that an approximate 75% of the project budget (up to $4.5 million) will be spent on procurement of the hardware and development of software applications for the systems described below, including software licenses. The Contractor must research, identify, and procure the hardware and software. In some cases, possible cost-share with the host government could be further explored.”

A.19: Please see RPF for changes, L.6.c.1), and C.2.A.4.

Q.20: As we outline below we think many activities under the Activity are potentially stand alone projects (e.g. customs, social register).

A.20: A vast majority of the databases involve multiple layers of government and different agencies and stand-alone projects would be difficult.

Q.21: Cybersecurity is missing from the draft scope of work and it is essential to all software development today.

A.21: Added to the SOW under C.3 SPECIFIC TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS/TASKS

Q.22: Change management is missing. The process of developing new software also depends on mapping the existing business process and agreeing with stakeholder institutions to modify and simplify the business process. Otherwise the new software just bakes in bad business process.

A.21: Added to the SOW

Q.22: It is not clear that there is agreement with the institutional partners in BiH, RS, and FBiH at different levels of government who will receive the assistance that they are fully on board and thus this heightens the political risk involved that some of these initiatives

A.22: USAID held consultations with all stakeholders when drafting the SOW. USAID will sign an MOU with all BIH authorities at project start.

Q.23: There is a misalignment in many cases between activities and expected results and outputs.

A.23: Activities and expected results and outputs aligned.

Q.24: Task A.1. -- On page 12 Section C.3. A. 1. It states “When the preconditions are created, work on the conditions for provision of services within Institutions in BiH be establishing and/or consolidating registers of services, businesses, citizens, e-maps etc., within the current project framework scheduled for completion by 2021.”

Do you mean that all relevant data and registries, as preconditions for the electronic services in BiH, need to be ready by 2021, but it is not clear what and by which time need to be ready for completion? Can you clarify the meaning of the sentence.

A.24: Offerors are not expected to adjust all "registers and services". Offerors are expected to work with BIH institutions on adjusting their legal and procedural processes to accommodate e-signature reform. RFP reworded to reflect the change.

Q.25: On page 12 it states “Assisting local authorities in drafting amendments to the state legislation and relevant corresponding entity legislation to ensure harmonization in accordance with the EU regulations, with focus on enabling e-signature and Certifying Authority (CA) accreditation country-wide. The implementer should explore the current readiness of the potential CA authorities, such as the Agency for Information Society in RS, Indirect Tax Authority (ITA), Agency for Identification Documents, Registers, and Data Exchange (IDDEEA), etc. The goal would be to align the existing sector laws, regulations and corresponding administrative procedures with the e-signature law.

Have you consulted with the EU which funds IDDEAA activities? It would be essential to have their buy in to advance this activity?

A.25: All donors are in tune with this. FBiH and State level institutions (IDEEEAA being one of them) are supportive of e-signature. . RS has a different vision for this reform but it is still supportive of the overall goals. The implementer will have to recommend the solution that is acceptable to all parties.

Q.26: On page 13 A.1 states: “In coordination with the State Council of Ministers (CoM) and the two entity interoperability groups, assist institutions at the different levels of the government to draft and sign interoperability agreements and protocols. Assist the local governments to improve vertical and horizontal interoperability among institutions is established for each service through agreements and protocols that regulate legal, semantic, process, and technical cooperation among institutions.

You note in Section J that the RS has already adopted an e-signature law. Apparently they have also moved ahead with a local contractor to implement it and may be issuing digital certificates within months. What makes you think they will change direction and “align existing sector laws, regulations and corresponding administrative procedures” with the BiH State level e-signature law? Please clarify as this may be a major political risk that we would be unable to advance this activity in the RS.

A.26: All 3 levels of the Government have law on e-signature and recognize the need for it. The contractor will have to find a viable and acceptable solution that satisfies all three levels of the Government. Presently, BiH does not have the Certifying Authority, and even if it does their certificates would not be recognized internationally.

Q.27: A.2. -- On page 14 in Section A.2.a, “The contractor must develop a new IMS for all inspection services in RS and FBiH.”

Have the RS and FBiH governments been consulted and agreed to discard their operating systems and software and they agreed that their software should be vertically linked to the BiH state level customs? If not, this may be an implementation risk. Please clarify.

A.27: All Interventions have been designed in coordination with the local authorities.

Q.28: Also clarify the scope of the proposed intervention to “embed(ded) the modules for the inspection services at the border, in order to improve customs inspections in terms of time and cost, while offering more transparent inspection services for the foreign trade.” The customs and inspection services task is not well developed. We do not disagree that inspection services in both entities and customs service could be improved but the scope of what is being asked is not that well defined. We are concerned that delving into customs may be very open ended. An activity that started with an assessment that led to a review of the business process and change management of the business process that then possibly be developed into a software solution of limited scope may be more doable.

A.28: Answer: The Contractor must assess the current situation in the inspection services and determine the requirements. All USAID interventions are designed in coordination with local authorities. It is up to implementer to assess the current situation in the inspection services. There are no open ended tasks as inspections have very concrete requirements.

USAID assistance related to the IMS inspection services is limited to the entity inspections only. (See SOW A.2.a)

Q.29: On page 14 A.2.a, “The system must include modules for self-assessment of business and citizens to enable better understanding of the legal requirements…” The legal requirements for what? Each inspectorate has its own set of legislation governing the functioning of that area - for example building inspection, financial inspection, health inspection. Legal requirements can range from the terms for the establishment of a certain company in that area to the legal requirements for logging complaints to inspections? Can you clarify?

A.29: Legislation is often too complex and too demanding on small businesses. Often there are multiple laws governing operation of a small shop or businesses. This section addresses this situation by helping Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) and citizens to better understand the requirements for certain legal actions controlled by the inspections. In reality, these can be reference check lists that list all legal requirements, equipment, documents etc that SME or citizen must provide before starting a business, or must have in a shop at all times, etc.

Q.30: On page 14 A.2.b. “Municipal Pilots. The contractor is expected to create the state-of-the-art/ enterprise systems and serves required number of departments within a selected local government, while coordinating and linking a broad range of activities such as cadaster, planning, development, geographic information system (GIS), building safety services, finance, public utilities, fire safety, and public health.”

We understand from the expected results 5 and 6 that the focus may be only to expand the World Banks pilot e-construction permit work in Banja Luka and Gradiska to the other 3- 5 pilot municipalities. Can you confirm our understanding and clarify what you are expecting in terms of all of the other areas listed to linked including a broad range of activities such as cadaster, planning, development, geographic information system (GIS), building safety services, finance, public utilities, fire safety, and public health?

A.30: In order to expand e-construction permitting to other 3-5 municipalities, you will need to link all of the mentioned organizations, offices and agencies into an IT system that will facilitate electronic clearances and approvals in the territory of the subject municipality.

Q.31: On page 15 Section “A.2.c. Creation of a centralized e-social register system”

Also per the Expected Results on page 16 “Result 7 (outcome) Created e-social integrated registers of social benefits and beneficiaries for the RS and FBiH and Result 8 Reduction in the number of beneficiaries and reduction of public expenditures related to the social benefits.”

We think the creation of a centralized e-social register system could be a project of its own. Creating such a system would be highly complex and require working with all levels of government, departments and integration with Ministries of Finance. The technical challenge aside we believe that this activity has even greater political risks given all of the institutions and levels of government that would need to cooperate. A more phased approach of undertaking an in-depth assessment, a mapping of the business process and then providing some recommendations for a possible system(s) seems more.

A.31: We agree that this is a complex task that will require participation of multiple ministries and agencies, social benefit funds etc. However, USAID expects registers as final outcome and not just assessments.

Q.32: On page 17 A.3 .b(1) Activity A.3 Social Witnesses Engagement /Module (Audience participation in procurement process): Social witnesses are non-government organizations and individuals selected by the government through public tendering.

We think this will definitely require new legislation to allow the Civil Society Organizations to have access and to realize the expected result on page 19 – “3(b) that social witness organizations (are) participating in the procurement process” can play this role. Can you clarify? and also the risk that new legislation may not be easy to achieve.

A.32: Yes, this would probably need new legislation as this modality does not exist in BiH.

(Added to the RFP)