Amendment No.1 Economic Courts Activity 72026319R00005.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) No.: 72026319R00005

Economic Courts (ECA) Activity

Attachment No. 1 - Changes to RFP

The solicitation is hereby amended as set forth below:

1. RFP Cover letter: In the fourth paragraph, delete the first sentence and replace it with the following:

“Prior to the submission of proposals, amendments to this solicitation will be made available through the Government homepage at https://beta.sam.gov.”.

SECTION C

2. Section C.4, OPERATING CONSTRAINTS AND GUIDANCE GENERAL

PROGRAM PARAMETERS (page 16): In subsection C.4.f, entitled “Geographic Focus,” delete this subsection in its entirety and replace with the following:

“The Contractor should focus first on the economic courts in Cairo, Alexandria and

Port Said. The activity may include all eight economic courts depending on the process analysis, cost, time and other factors to be determined through the work planning process.”

3. Section C.4, OPERATING CONSTRAINTS AND GUIDANCE GENERAL

PROGRAM PARAMETERS (page 16): In subsection C.4.g entitled “IT Software,” delete the last sentence its entirety and replace with the following:

“Final determinations of the types of software that [is] optimal will be determined through the development and acceptance of the process analysis as specified in

Sections C.5.b.i, F.6.i and F.7.j.”

4. Section C.5, SERVICES AND TASKS REQUIRED (page 19): In the second paragraph in subsection C.5.b.i, entitled “Objective One: To automate specialized functions within

Economic Courts,” delete the second sentence its entirety and replace with the following:

“The Contractor shall identify, prioritize, and gain consensus from the main activity partners, in particular the MOJ, on the types of functions to automate, in what order, how to implement, and how to promote usage of automated functions by court staff and access to information by the public.”

5. Section C.5, SERVICES AND TASKS REQUIRED (page 19): In the fifth paragraph in subsection C.5.b.i, entitled “Objective One: To automate specialized functions within

Economic Courts,” delete the first sentence its entirety and replace with the following:

“The Contractor will then conduct a "lessons-learned" analysis based on its experience in completing the initial automation work, subject to the time specified in Section F.6.k and the content requirements specified in Section F.7.l.”

6. Section C.5, SERVICES AND TASKS REQUIRED (page 20 ): In the first paragraph in subsection C.5.b.ii, entitled “Objective Two: To improve transparency of functions and decisions of Economic Courts,” delete the second sentence its entirety and replace with the following:

“This will include in what order, how to implement, and how to promote its usage by court staff and the public.”

SECTION F

7. Section F.7, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (page 33): In e subsection F.7.d, entitled “Quarterly Programmatic Reports,” delete the first and second paragraphs and replace it with the following.

“The Contractor must submit to CO and COR a Quarterly report within 30 days after the end of each quarter. The quarterly program reports must be submitted no later than the thirtieth (30th) day after the completion of each quarter. This means that the first three quarterly reports are due within 30 days after December 31, March 31 and June 30 each fiscal year. The fourth quarter program report will be consolidated with the Annual Program report and will be submitted no later than

October 31 of the corresponding year.”

8. Section F.7, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (page 36): Delete the third sentence in subsection F.7g, entitled “Annual Report” and replace it with the following.

“The Annual Report and the Fourth Quarter Report will be consolidated into one report.”

9. Section F.7, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (page 37): In the first paragraph in subsection F.7.l, entitled “Lessons Learned Analysis”, the first sentence, delete

“Deliverable 2” and substitute it with “court automation for Cairo, Alexandria and

Port Said”.

10. Section F.7, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (page 37): In the first paragraph in subsection F.7.l, entitled “Lessons Learned Analysis”, delete the third sentence which currently reads as follows.

“This is known as the ‘main implementation phase.’’

SECTION G

11. Section G.5, INVOICES AND Payment Office (page 44): Delete this section in its entirety and replace it with the following:

“G.5 INVOICES AND PAYMENT OFFICE

The Contractor may submit vouchers for payment monthly. Under the cost reimbursement portion of the contract, the Contractor may invoice for cost incurred at the time of invoice. Fixed fee may be included in these vouchers, but only for deliverables that have been accepted and approved by the COR. Fixed Fee will be paid only upon completion of deliverables, pursuant to FAR 16.306(d).

Electronic submission of invoices is required: acctspayableegypt@usaid.gov.

The SF-1034 (Public Voucher for Purchases and Services Other Than Personal) must be signed, and it must be submitted along with the invoice and any other documentation in Adobe. Subject line shall read Award No. and name of firm [to be filled in at time of award]."

SECTION I

12. Section I.1, NOTICE LISTING CONTRACT CLAUSES INCORPORATE BY

REFERENCE (pages 62-65): Delete reference to FAR 52.219-14, “Limitations on

Subcontracting.”

13. Section I.4, 52.216-24, LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT LIABILITY (page 66):

Delete this Section in its entirety.

SECTION L

14. Section L.6, DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS (page 96): In the first sentence of the second bullet (“Volume II: Cost Proposal”) under subsection (c), delete the phrase “Annexes to the

Cost Proposal” and replace it with “Annexes to the Technical Proposal”).

15. Section L.7, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL (page 97): In subsection L.7.b, entitled “Page Limitation”, revise the bulleted list of components that will not count towards the 25-page limit as follows:

● Delete the bullet entitled “Draft Staffing Plan and Organization chart [3 pages maximum]” and substitute in lieu thereof “Draft Staffing Plan”;

● Delete “Preliminary Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan;

● Add “Key Personnel Position Descriptions”; and

● Add “Draft Sustainability Plan”.

16. Section L.7, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL (page 97): In subsection L.7.b, entitled “Page Limitation”, delete page limitation for all annexes throughout the bulleted list of components.

17. Section L.7, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL (page 97): In subsection L.7.b, entitled “Page Limitation”, after the list of bulleted components, add the following sentence: “There is no page limitation for all annexes.

Offerors should not submit lengthy annexes.”

mailto:acctspayableegypt@usaid.gov

18. Section L.8, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (pages 98-99): Under Factor 1, entitled

“Technical Approach”, delete “draft MEL plan” and replace it throughout this section with

“illustrative MEL plan”.

19. Section L.8, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (page 101): Under Factor 2, entitled

“Management Approach and Staffing”, make the following changes to this Section:

● In the first bullet below the second paragraph under the heading “Chief of Party-

COP”, delete “, preferably in education including legal training.”

● In the first paragraph under the heading “Deputy Chief of Party- DCOP”, delete the third and fourth sentences in their entirety.

● In the first bullet below the paragraph under the heading “Deputy Chief of Party-

DCOP”, delete “education” and replace it with “a relevant field.”

● Delete the second bullet under the heading “Annexes (not included in page limitation)” “Overall Staffing Plan Chart”.

● Add a new bullet under the heading “Annexes (not included in a page limitation) that states “Key Personnel Position Descriptions.”

20. Section L.8, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (page 103): Under Factor 4, entitled “Contractor

Performance Information”, delete the parenthetical information at the end of subsection a.

21. Section L.8, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (page 103): Under Factor 4, entitled “Contractor

Performance Information”, delete subsection a.1 in its entirety and replace it with the following:

1. List in an annex to the technical proposal from two to four of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal (this list should include the contract number if available). Offerors may use Attachment J.6 to provide this information in the annex. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity. Relevancy is defined as contracts for similar type of work in the past 10 years. Offerors should explain the relevancy of any contracts listed in the Technical Proposal Body.

22. Section L.9, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST

PROPOSAL (page 106): In subsection L.9.b.2, entitled “Budget Line Item Headings and

Definitions”, delete the fourth sentence and replace it with “The salary range for local compensation of USAID staff is attached in J.2 for reference.”

23. Section L.9, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST

PROPOSAL (page 106): In subsection L.9.b.3, entitled “Estimated Amounts for the Cost

Proposal”, add a second paragraph as follows:

“The following information is provided for assisting offerors in preparing their cost proposals. The information below is not binding as offerors can propose another approach. Actual costs during implementation will be determined after award consistent with the requirements of the Contract, including but not limited to, the work planning process. USAID/Egypt’s best estimate of the costs of software and hardware combined (no labor, indirect costs or other costs) is as follows:

1. Cairo - $1.25 million total;

2. Alexandria - $750,000 total; and

3. All other economic courts - $300,000 in total for each court”

24. Section M.2, TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS (page 116): In subsection M.2.d, entitled “Factor 4: Contractor Performance Information”, add subsection e as follows:

(e) An offeror’s performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when:

(1) the offeror lacks relevant performance history;

(2) Information on performance is not available; or

(3) the offeror is a member of a class of offerors where there is provision not to rate the class against a sub factor.

When this occurs, an offeror lacking relevant performance history is assigned a “neutral” rating.

Attachment No. 2 - Questions and Answers

Q1. Does the bidder have to be registered at any authority before submitting his proposal?

Response: Any offeror selected for award will be required to comply with all requirements in the contract at the time of award. USAID/Egypt will not be reviewing proposals for compliance with any applicable registration requirements during the solicitation process. Final eligibility will be determined after the completion of the competition and prior to award.

Q2. Are there any restrictions for offering as a prime contractor or subcontractor for Egyptian

Private Sector companies with majority of shares owned by the Egyptian Government?

Response: Pursuant to Section L.5(b) all proposals received will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria in the RFP. If an offer is determined to provide the best value, then a determination will be made whether the offeror is responsible and eligible for award.

Q3. As a new offeror for USAID tenders. Are there any guide or orientation for filling the RFP standard documents?

Response: Each RFP is unique. Section L in the RFP provides detailed instructions on what is required for an offer under this RFP.

Q4. Could there be a meeting with the main stakeholders (economic court, USAID and MOJ) to clarify the unified objectives and accordingly the scope of work?

Response: USAID/Egypt does not intend to organize or support any such meetings prior to award and believes that the relevant stakeholder meetings should take place after the Award.

Q5. Can USAID provide the number of staff at each of the Economic Courts, including IT staff and whether each of the 8 courts have a WAN connection?

Response: According to an Assessment of Egypt’s Economic Courts conducted in March 2019:

“The ….team visited economic courts in Alexandria and Cairo. The Cairo EC takes up the entire space of a relatively new building in New Cairo, while the Alexandria EC is co-located with the First Instance Court for West Alexandria. EC first instance and appellate courts share each of these buildings. The Cairo and Alexandria ECs have the following number of judges and panels:

Table 1. Number of Judges and Panels in Alexandria and Cairo ECs

Court Judges Civil

Panels

Criminal

Panels

Preparation

Judges

Appeal

Panels/Judges

Alexandria 24 5 2 3 4/12

Cairo 60 10 3 7 12/10

The MOJ provided the assessment team with the information in the above table but did not share similar information for the remaining economic courts in Tanta, Mansoura, Ismailia, Beni Suef, Assiut and Qena governorates. These courts are smaller than those in

Cairo and Alexandria, with fewer judges. However, they are similar in having civil panels, criminal panels, preparation boards and appeals panels. More information on that can be sought during the Process Analysis after the Award.

Q6. With respect to the Deliverable Schedule tied to fee payment (Section B.5), the first three deliverables are due within 120 days. The next deliverable, however, is in 3 years. Would

USAID allow the offeror to develop its own schedule for payment of fixed fee? Can more payment terms be added to the payment schedule regarding the equipment delivery and installation? Or incremental implementation of functions in the same court?

Response: Offerors cannot propose their own schedule for fixed fee. USAID/Egypt points out that the lessons learned analysis is due 18 months after award, which is less than three years.

Because of this fact and that the first of the three court automation deliverables (Deliverables

Nos. 4-6 in Section B.5) may be completed significantly before 36 months, the fee schedule will not be revised. Payment of fixed fee (not cost) will be made upon the successful completion of the deliverables specified in this table. Cost will be reimbursed monthly based on invoices as set forth in Section G.5.

Q7. Would USAID please clarify the logical framework for ECA, including its overall purpose, goals, objectives and expected results, so that offerors can: 1) propose activities that meet all of USAID’s requirements in a manner that will directly contribute to the achievement of

USAID’s intended activity, project and program results; 2) propose activities to achieve measurable results and progress toward project objectives; 3) develop a responsive draft work plan and MEL plan; and 4) prepare competitive proposals with confidence that evaluation criteria and project requirements are aligned?

Response: The RFP addresses this. Offerors are responsible to propose activities that meet all of the specified requirements and to develop a draft work plan and MEL plan that reflects their understanding and proposed technical approach. Of course, offerors’ proposals will not be incorporated into the final contract and the exact activities and services, except those specifically identified in the Section C, will be determined through the work planning process after award.

Q8. Could USAID please clarify whether ECA is meant to improve the quality of justice rendered by the Economic Courts, and if so, would USAID consider adding an objective related to quality of justice to the Scope of Work (e.g., “to improve the quality of judgments and effective application of Egyptian law and international standards to commercial disputes.”)? References to “quality of judgments,” “international standards,” “specialized legal training,” and “increased knowledge of commercial law” in the above-quoted language suggest that it may be an implicit objective of ECA to improve the quality of justice delivered by the Economic Courts. Such improvements could influence the extent to which the law is uniformly and equitably applied in accordance with international treaties or other international trade and commerce obligations, and/or the extent to which judicial decisions are fair, well reasoned, and legally justified. If quality of justice is not envisioned as an objective of the project, would USAID consider eliminating “quality of judgments” from the

RFP, clarifying to which “international standards” it is referring under high-level goal 1

(p.18), and defining how specialized legal training in commercial law topics is meant to contribute to Objective 1?

Response: The high level goals on page 18 of the RFP are goals that we think will be assisted by achieving the three objectives of the Contract. This question has three distinct parts. First, "quality of judgments" is used in conjunction with Section C.4.d regarding sustainability and the

Contractor will be required to provide services under the Contract that are designed to be sustainable, including considering whether the work done will contribute to the quality of judgments coming out of the Economic Courts. Secondly, since the reference to "international standards" is part of a high level goal, not an objective of this contract, there is no need to further define that term at this stage. Thirdly, "legal training" only appears in the RFP in conjunction with the preferred skills of certain personnel, while the reference to "commercial law" is with respect to a high level goal that transcends the Contract Objectives and in connection with

Objective 3. Offerors should review the information available, the requirements and objectives in

Section C and develop a proposal that reflects its own judgment and approach.

Q9. What are the external parties that will integrate with ECs. Are these external parties automated?

Response: Most of the external parties are government entities that need to access information from the economic courts on issues like bankruptcy for example. Most are not fully automated.

Q10. What are the processes of the EC that are currently automated? Please describe each automated process and the technology used? Will these existing systems be replaced? Will data migration be needed?

Response: These specifics will be determined after the Award as part of doing the Process

Analysis specified in Sections C.5.b.i, F.6.i and F.7.j .

Q11. Economic courts will have litigators’ service center or they will access the economic courts services through the portal?

Response: That will depend on the consultations with the Ministry of Justice.

Q12. Is it required to keep the physical case file or only depend on the digital case file?

Response: That will depend on the decision of the Ministry of Justice according to the rules and procedures they have to follow. They have not made a decision on that yet.

Q13. To overcome the failure of litigants to appear both at the initial hearing and the preparation board sessions, could SMS notifications be considered?

Q14. Which kind of e-payment methods required to be implemented?

Q15. Is handling the current open cases in scope or not?

Q16. Is it required to automate the “Arbitration and mediation” work and “preparation panels work” in addition to the courts functions.

Response: This will depend on the initial consultations with the Ministry of Justice.

Q17. Page 12 “IT Equipment” - Specifying the required IT equipment will depend upon some factor (ex.: no of EC staff, no of annual cases, no of papers per case, average of size of audio

& video evident attached with cases……etc.). this information is not available now and we have to make some sort of analysis to get them. Is it available to establish site survey for the

EC in the next 2 weeks? This information will affect the ICT equipment’s prices and have to be available before bidding.?

Response: This determination can only be done after the Award, and through the initial Process

Analysis. Please note that for the purposes of submitting a proposal, offerors are only expected to provide their best estimate of these costs, with the actual requirements being specified after award.

Q18. Page 13, “the maximum extent practicable best practices and international standards in court service” - Is there a list of features to satisfy what’s stated?

Q19. Page 14 - Concerning Gender Analysis, will the Ministry of Justice and government of

Egypt approve and help in getting this information?

Response: USAID/Egypt expects the Ministry of Justice and other parts of the Government of

Egypt to cooperate in getting the information necessary to conduct the gender analysis.

Q20. Page 15 (C.4.e Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL))” - “….The contractor must convene forums to share knowledge and also use existing forums within Egypt….”. If possible, provide examples of these knowledge forums already existing within Egypt.

Response: Examples include, but are not limited to,: AmCham, Egyptian Federation of Industries or other trade industry groups; Egyptian Bar Associations or professional associations; local or international academicians.

Q21. Section C.4.g, IT Software (page 16), of the RFP states, “Using open source software will help guarantee the MOJ is not required to use only one company for upgrading and maintaining the software.” Could USAID kindly confirm that the use of open-source software is preferred rather than required, assuming that source code can be provided and recognizing that customization will likely be required to integrate with other systems?

Response: Section C.4.g clearly indicates, as explicitly stated in the last sentence, that final software decisions will be made after award in consultation with the MOJ and other stakeholders like the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT). Offerors are encouraged to consider various software options and present to the Ministry of Justice pros and cons of options, consistent with the guidance in Section C.4.g.

Q22. Under Section C.4.g IT Software (p.16), the RFP states that the “Contractor will be expected to make cost effective recommendations for supporting technology, such as servers, cloud-based solutions, block chain technology and data architecture.” Section C.5.b

Technical Services (p.18), says “the contractor will deliver recommendations, plans, development, installation, capacity building, ICT hardware, software and helpdesk support, and training to relevant stakeholders and counterparts, including the Ministry of Justice

(MOJ), Economic Courts, and other relevant line ministry staff.” Would USAID please confirm whether the Contractor would be expected to procure hardware for participating

Economic Courts, the MOJ, and other relevant GOE institutions?

Response: Yes, this is USAID/Egypt’s current expectation.

Q23. Section C.4.g IT Software (p.16) states, “Final determinations of the types of software that

[is] optimal will be determined through the development and acceptance of the process analysis as specified in Sections C.5.b.ii, F.6.i and F.7.j.” Can USAID confirm that the referenced “process analysis” is described under C.5.b.i Objective One (p.18)? If so, would

USAID consider changing the section identification language in the above sentence under IT

Software from “C.5.b.ii” to “C.5.b.i?

Response: Section C.4.g has been revised above to correct this reference.

Q24. Automation almost always changes some attributes of legally mandated procedures, and thereby often requires amendments to existing procedural, codes, regulations and/or court rules. Failure to address any legal and/or procedural issues related to automation can result in increased case burden and backlog, exacerbation of existing unpredictability of court procedures and costs for commercial litigants. Such failures could place the sustainability of automation investments, and confidence in the courts, at risk. Would USAID kindly clarify whether offerors should propose, in response to Section C.5 Services and Tasks

Required, assistance to identify and address any necessary legal and procedural amendments associated with automation initiatives?

Response: Offerors should develop their proposals based on the information in the RFP and otherwise available to them, consistent with, among other requirements, the Statement of Work in Section C and the evaluation instructions in Section L.

Q25. The RFP refers repeatedly to various phases of implementation, including an “assessment phase” (See Section C.4.F Geographic Focus, p.16), a “pilot phase” (See Section C.4.F

Geographic Focus and multiple references in Section C.5.b.i Objective One, p.19 and C.5.b.ii

Objective 2, p.20), and a “main implementation phase” (See Section F.7.l Lessons Learned

Analysis, p.37). None of these phases is defined. Similarly, the RFP refers repeatedly to

“pilot and scale up,” but also does not define these terms. Would USAID please define each project phase clearly with respect to the activities that occur under each phase, identification of the beginning and the end of each phase (or criteria to determine the beginning and end of each phase), and the scope of each phase (e.g. whole project or separate phases for mini-projects and/or multiple incremental automation initiatives)? Alternatively, would USAID consider eliminating references to phases and allow each offeror to propose its own strategy to complete the project tasks, deliverables, objectives and high-level goals (and/or expected results for each objective as defined in an amended RFP), and determine whether to pilot larger, comprehensive automation initiatives or multiple smaller automation projects concurrently, and how best to accomplish the project requirements taking into account recommendations in the USAID EC Assessment, other evaluations, and international best practices?

Response: Section C.4.f , C.5.b.i, C.5.b.ii and F.7.l have been revised above to eliminate confusing discussions of phases.

Q26. It appears that none of the services, tasks or activities envisioned under Section C.5 (pp.

16-21) and ECA objectives would contribute to increased public awareness of Economic

Courts statistics (case statistics or other statistics), as described in high-level goal 8. Would

USAID consider eliminating “statistics” from high-level Goal 8 so that it reads: “Increased public awareness of Economic Courts case decisions” or alternatively, adding activities to

Objectives 2 and/or Objective 3 aimed at producing, making accessible, and conducting public outreach to draw attention to public-facing statistics and reports on Economic Courts’ performance?

Response: As stated repeatedly in Section C.5, the Statement of Work is not intended to specify all of the activities that will be necessary; the annual work planning process will determine the activities necessary to implement the Activity.

Q27. Page 17 refers to procurement or lease of necessary, facilities, supplies, and services as necessary to perform the contract. Can USAID clarify this language, e.g., equipment is not mentioned. Alternatively, can USAID provide a plug figure for the estimate for the equipment, software, supplies, and facilities related to the implementation of the IT software case management system?

Response: Section C.5.a on page 17 refers to management and administrative services, not technical services such as the implementation of the IT software case management system. The reference in Section C.5.a does not specifically reference equipment or supplies, but procurement of these to support administration and management by the Contractor is authorized by the reference to “all general management and administrative support” in the first sentence of this subsection.

Q28. Page 17 (C.5.b Technical Services) “….Upgrades will also improve internal court management, allowing court personal less time on time consuming administrative tasks….”

Administrative tasks fall under ERP software category and it’s not directly linked to Judicial

Processes, would that mean that an ERP system is required in the scope of the project ?

Response: It is not expected that ERP software will be directly applicable in this context.

Q29. Technical Services (p. 17) says, “ECA will support the GOE in upgrading and automating the Economic Courts’ functions and processes (case management and document filing systems) ….” Section C.5.b.i Objective One (p.19), says, “Based on information in the process analysis, the Contractor shall support the GOE/MOJ to automate as many courts as feasible given the time and money available. The Contractor shall select the Economic

Courts in Cairo, Alexandria and Port Said for process improvements and determine cost estimates for installation and maintenance of case management system and document filing system(s).” In these same sections, the RFP states an incremental approach, beginning with

“an Off the Shelf (OTS) software package to address basic court functions … while tailoring modules for Economic Courts and scaling up interventions as the application proves successful and as requisite technical support systems become available” (p.18). Does “the application” (in bold text above) refer to the OTS basic court function software, to the tailored modules, or to both?

Response: Both.

Q30. In principal, some basic court functions can be automated without installation of a more comprehensive case management or a document filing system. Is there a distinction between the referenced “case management and document filing systems” on one hand and the

“software packages to address basic court functions on the other hand?” If yes, could USAID please explain the distinction and whether USAID envisions the Contractor installing the case management system and document filing systems concurrently with introduction of the basic court functions software, and/or does USAID view these installations and implementations as separate or integrated projects?

Response: USAID/Egypt currently views these as integrated; however, the successful Offeror must assess both the capacity and systems of the MOJ to make an accurate determination if this is indeed the best approach.

Q31. Page 18 - “The contractor will deliver recommendations, plans, development, installation, technical assistance, capacity building, ICT hardware, software and helpdesk support, and training to relevant stakeholders and counterparts. According to required training, it may be required to prepare a training lab in one or more of the courts. The EC have to provide the suitable place for the lab/s?

Response: This could be possible after consultations with the Ministry of Justice and as determined by the annual work planning process after award.

Q32. Page 18, “an incremental approach is required starting with off the shelf product”- Does this mean that project scope will be to reengineer/automate certain functions and it will be followed by others that raises the level of automation? Accordingly, what is the level of automation for this project that will be satisfactory?

Response: That will depend on the consultations with the Ministry of Justice and other stakeholders and as determined by the annual work planning process after award.

Q33. Under Section C.5.b Technical Services (p.18), the RFP says that the theory of change is:

“If Egypt’s Economic Courts are automated and their administrative and judicial staff are provided specialized training on legal topics and change management, commercial disputes can be resolved quickly to improve the environment for foreign direct investment.” While the GOE and USAID seek to improve the environment for foreign direct investment, can

USAID confirm that the primary purpose envisioned is improvement of the business development environment or commercial sector environment, and that the primary beneficiaries of the project are the Economic Courts and their users and stakeholders, the majority of whom are Egyptian businesses and lawyers, who seek to resolve commercial disputes?

Response: The objectives of the Contract is as stated in Section C.2 of the RFP. Achieving- the objectives of the Contract should lead to improvement of the business development environment or commercial sector environment in Egypt. The primary beneficiaries of the project are the

Economic Courts and their users and stakeholders, the majority of whom are Egyptian businesses and lawyers who seek to resolve commercial disputes.

Q34. Our concern is that the outcome of improving the environment for foreign direct investment described in the current theory of change may not capture the more central (and measurable) outcome of improving the commercial environment for all businesses in Egypt, including the timeliness and predictability of the commercial justice system. With this in mind, would USAID consider rephrasing the theory of change on page 18?

Response: USAID/Egypt stands behind the theory of change as stated and it will be critical to any work performed by the successful offeror.

Q35. Page 18 (C.5.b Technical Services) “….2. The Economic Courts improve timely enforcement of decisions….” If possible, provide examples of these knowledge forums already existing within Egypt.

Response: “The Economic Courts improve timely enforcement of decisions” is a high-level goal expected to be achieved through services and deliverables specified in the contract.

Q36. C.5.b lists as a result to be achieved: “Increased knowledge of commercial law by judges, court staff, and other stakeholders.” Does USAID expect court staff (and other stakeholders) to receive substantive training in commercial law? Or does USAID expect that court staff receive relevant training in case management?

Response: USAID/Egypt currently expects court staff to receive training on automated functions within the courts to include case management, and that judges would receive training on key legal issues and contemporary laws. This will need to be specified after award through the work planning process with consultations with MOJ and other stakeholders in order to make an accurate determination if this is indeed the best approach.

Q37. Would USAID consider rephrasing high-level Goal 2 (p.18) from “The Economic Courts improve timely enforcement of decisions” to the “Economic Courts increase the efficiency of court functions and processes related to enforcement of judgments?” Improving the timeliness of enforcement of decisions as a whole will likely require interventions beyond the resources, activities and identified counterparts in the SOW?

Response: USAID/Egypt will not revise this goal. USAID/Egypt expects that achieving the objectives of the Contract will lead to improvement in this area.

Q38. In addition to language referencing heightened accountability on page 18, Section C.5.b.i, Objective One (pp.18-19) says “ECA will automate functions that slow case processing and adjudication times, and are open to corruption or interference from low level clerks or officials. Applying process reengineering, the Contractor shall analyze the underlying issues that drive delays and examine loopholes that can easily be closed to eliminate low-level corruption.” Are increased accountability and/or a reduction in corruption in the

Economic Courts an objective or high-level goal of ECA? If so, would USAID consider rephrasing Objective Two to read: “To improve transparency of judicial decisions and reduce opportunities for corruption in case processing in Economic Courts” and/or

Objective Three to read “To bring about organizational change within the Economic Courts to support greater efficiency, transparency and accountability?

Response: No. USAID/Egypt has determined its objectives and is looking for offerors who are interested in helping USAID/Egypt achieve these objectives.

Q39. In connection with question 1.c above, would USAID consider adding a high-level goal such as “To increase accountability and reduce corruption in the Economic Courts” to the

RFP?

Response: No, The eight goals specified in Section C.5.b on page 18 represent high level goals that can be achieved to some extent by conducting activities and providing services relating to the three Objectives for the Contract specified in Section C.2. In this case, reduced corruption should occur as a result of performing work related to the three Contract Objectives. It is not the intention of the solicitation to have offerors conduct more general anti-corruption activities beyond activities authorized under the three components/objectives specified in Subsection

C.2.b.

Q40. Section C.5.b.i Objective One: To automate specialized functions within Economic Courts

(p.19), says, “The ICT system shall be implemented in concert with other reforms, including using automation as a management tool, backlog reduction, and enhanced court information management services.” Would USAID kindly confirm that the Contractor should also support the referenced “other reforms”?

Response: That will depend on the consultations with the Ministry of Justice and other stakeholders and as determined by the annual work planning process after award..

Q41. Language on page 20 appears to suggest that the Economic Courts’ functions and proceedings themselves, rather than the automation order to facilitate achievement of high-level goal 4, “Improved data collection and analysis used to improve function of Courts”

(p.18), would USAID consider adding to activities under Objectives 1 and 3 assistance and training aimed narrowly at data collection, analysis and reporting, and application of quantitative and qualitative analysis to court data for policymaking and operational improvement? In our experience, such data is regularly used for the purposes of reporting and day-to-day management, but more sophisticated analysis aimed at identifying route causes of efficiency problems to target specific elements of case processing and other operations with viable solutions requires appropriate statistical analysis software, training, and qualified personnel to develop and utilize applied operational research. In addition to ensuring appropriate human resources for data entry to enable automation, human and institutional capacity building is needed to ensure that courts are able to use data resulting from automation for ongoing process improvement and policymaking, both during and after the end of the project. Alternatively, would USAID consider eliminating high-level goal 4 thereof, should improve transparency. Given the language under Objective Two, we understand the RFP to mean that USAID is seeking to increase transparency of legal proceedings and accountability of the judicial system (and judges) to court users by making key court documents and information about cases more accessible to commercial lawyers, parties, scholars, and potential commercial investors. This would allow these stakeholders to hold the judicial system more accountable, and allow them to gain access to past decisions interpreting the law so that they can better assess how it might be applied to their business circumstances. Is our reading correct? If so, would USAID consider adjusting the referenced language? If not, would USAID kindly revise the referenced language on pages 17 and 20 to clarify the requirements so that offerors can propose responsive and complete activities?

Response: USAID/Egypt will not make any such changes to Section C at this time. Offerors are only required at this stage to submit a proposal that is consistent with the RFP and presents their knowledge, understanding and expertise. Final resolution of specific activities will occur after award through the work planning process, including consultations with the MOJ and other stakeholders.

Q42. Per Section F.7.g (page 36), in order to avoid redundancy, we’d like to request that the fourth quarterly report be replaced with the annual report?

Response: Section F.7.d and Section F.7.g have been revised above to make this change .

Q43. In Section F.7.k Sustainability Plan (pp.36-37), the last paragraph has a blank for the due date of the Plan. However, Section F.6.j states that the Sustainability Plan is “to be submitted with the second Annual Report.” Would USAID consider revising Section F.7.k so that the submission deadline therein is consistent with the statement in F.6.j that the Sustainability

Plan is to be submitted with the second Annual Report?

Response: A draft sustainability plan is required with the proposal and should be included as an annex. The final plan is to be submitted with the second Annual Report. Please refer to the revised language on page 97 in the RFP.

Q44. Section F.7.l Lessons Learned Analysis (p.37) states that “the Contractor will conduct a

‘lessons-learned’ analysis based on the experience in completing Deliverable 2. However, under Section F.6 Deliverables Schedule (pp. 30-31), there is no “Deliverable 2.” Would

USAID please revise this sentence to clarify on the completion of what the lessons-learned analysis should be based.

Response: Please refer to page 20, section C.5.b.i Objective One: To automate specialized functions within Economic Courts: “The Contractor will then conduct a "lessons-learned" analysis based on the experience acquired during the first 18 months of the activity, subject to the time specified in Section F.6.k and the content requirements specified in Section F.7.l.”.

Section F.7.l is revised to delete the reference to Deliverable 2.

Q45. Section G.5, Invoices and Payment Office (page 44), of the RFP states, “Contractor shall submit separate invoices for the quarterly fees as per attachment XX (to be added at time of award).” We request that USAID consider amending Section G.5 to allow for the fixed fee to be invoiced on a monthly basis, rather than quarterly (upon COR acceptance and approval of completed deliverables) due to the cost responsibility and associated risk in taking on this contract?

Response: Section G.5 has been revised above to address this issue.

Q46. Under Section G.5 Invoices and Payment Office, Financial Tracking and Vouchering (p.

44): The first paragraph provides in part, “…The Contractor should be prepared to track the use of these multiple financial resources and performance measures associated with these funds….” Are the performance measures to be negotiated after contract award?

Response: Section G.5 has been revised above to remove this requirement.

Q47. The RFP includes in Section H.8 AIDAR 752.245-71 Title to and Care of Property and at

Clause I.10 AIDAR 752.245-70 Government Property—USAID Reporting Requirements.

Is USAID expecting to provide government property to the successful Offeror? If so, what will be provided? If USAID is not supplying government property to the successful

Offeror and, pursuant to AIDAR 752.245-71, all nonexpendable property procured by the

Contractor with contract funds is to be titled in the name of the cooperating government, what government property is to be reported pursuant to AIDAR 752.245-70?

Response: No. USAID/Egypt does not expect to furnish any property to the Contractor. Non-expendable property such as IT equipment will be procured by the Contractor with USAID funds during the life of the contract. Title of this equipment and other equipment purchased by the

Contractor with USAID funds will be decided during award.

Q48. Section I.1 Notice Listing Contract Clauses Incorporated by Reference includes FAR

52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting. This clause is normally applicable to small business set-asides. Was this clause included in error?

Response: Section I.1 has been revised above to remove this clause. .

Q49. Section I.4, Limitation of Government Liability (page 66), incorporates FAR 52.216-24

(Limitation of Liability). This FAR prescribes that this clause be included when a letter contract is contemplated. Because prior sections of the RFP describe a CPFF-type contract instead of a letter contract, would USAID consider removing this FAR clause?

Response: Section I.4 has been revised above to delete this section.

Q50. Please confirm that, as long as the budget item format, definitions and template of standard cost elements per Attachments J.1 and J.3 are being followed, subcontractor costs may be presented in a separate spreadsheet - not interspersed with the costs of the prime contractor making it difficult to see what the subcontractor's total costs are?

Response: Section L.9.b.2 states:

Offerors should allocate the costs of all subcontracts that are not firm, fixed price to the appropriate cost category in the attachment. For example, international personnel costs for a cost-plus-fixed fee contractor should be allocated to the Personnel category, International Staff subcategory as appropriate.

This means exactly what it says and it would violate this instruction to segregate, for example, a subcontractor’s personnel costs from other personnel costs. The details on how this is presented is not specified, but the bottom line is that, for example, all personnel costs must be included in the personnel cost category, regardless of whether they are incurred by the prime or a non-fixed price subcontractor. Section L5.b states in pertinent part: “If an

Offeror does not follow the instructions set forth herein, the Offeror's proposal may be eliminated from further consideration.”

Q51. Attachment J.1, Budget Item List and Definitions, references “grants, if any.” Could

USAID please clarify whether it envisions grants under contract for this project and/or whether offerors may propose grants to local organizations to contribute to achievement of

ECA objectives?

Response: Grants under contracts is not authorized under the Contract contemplated by the RFP.

Q52. Under Attachment J.1, Equipment - will USAID provide a plug figure for equipment for beneficiaries?

Response: Section L.9.b.3 has been revised above to add some information on estimated costs for hardware and software combined. This information is for the purpose of proposal preparation and actual costs will be determined after award based on actual performance, the process review, the work planning process and other factors .

Q53. Under Attachment J.1, USAID has included Direct Program Activities, Training, and MEL under Contractual. Does USAID want these categories included under Contractual even if these activities are not being subcontracted, or should such non-subcontracted activities be shown under ODCs instead?

Response: Yes. Contractual should cover direct program activities, training, consultants, consultants for MEL design and sub-awards. Even if direct program activities are not sub-contracted, they should still be under Contractual. If permanent staff is providing the activities or training, their costs should be included under Personnel.

Q54. Please confirm that SF33 and Section K Reps and Certs should only be included in the cost proposal and not in the technical proposal.

Response: The SF 33 and section K representation and certifications should only be included in the Cost Proposal and not in the technical proposal.

Q55. Please clarify whether Section K Reps and Certs and NICRA or audited balance sheets, profit and loss statements, etc. are required for Egyptian non-major subcontractors.

Requiring such information at the proposal stage might be a burden for smaller organizations who have limited experience working on USAID-funded contracts?

Response: As stated in section L.9.e. of the RFP the Offeror must address each of the elements in FAR 44.202-2 in order for proposed subcontractors to be considered by the Contracting

Officer for consent of sub-contractors to be granted with the initial award.

Q56. Can USAID confirm it is acceptable to use a font other than Times New Roman in tables, graphics, and text boxes?

Response: Yes, fonts other than Time New Roman can be used in tables, graphics and text boxes.

Q57. Under Section L.7.b Page limitations (p.96), the list of components of the Technical

Proposal that will not count toward the 25-page limit includes an “Illustrative Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan” (MEL). Section L.8 Technical Proposal Factor 1, Annexes lists a “Draft MEL plan” (p.98) and a “Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan

(MEL)” (p.99). Is the required MEL for the Technical Proposal “illustrative” or “draft”?

Response: While the difference in meaning between “draft” and “illustrative” is not significant in this context, for the purpose of clarity an illustrative MEL plan is required at the proposal stage. Section L.8 has been revised above to delete this section.

Q58. Please clarify the requirement for two Organization Charts (appearing as bullets 7 and 8 in the list on page 97).

Response: Section L.7 has been revised above to only require one organization chart.

Subject to any restrictions in the RFP, offerors should utilize these annexes to best describe, for the organization chart, the organization of their team to implement this activity and, for the staffing plan, to provide a detailed staffing plan that demonstrates that the offeror can field a team with the skills to successfully implement its technical approach..

Q59. Please clarify whether a BIP/MP is required with the proposal. It is included in the list of annexes on page 97 (with a two-page limit). However, page 111 states the following: “The

BIP and MP will not be included in any proposal submitted by offerros, either initial or, in the event that discussions are held, in a revised proposal; instead, the BIP and MP will be submitted after the proposals have been finally evaluated at the request of the Contracting

Officer, negotiated and subsequently included in and made a part of the resultant contract.”

Response: The BIP and MP is removed from the list of annexes. It will be requested at the award stage. Section L.7 has been revised above to delete this annex.

Q60. Under Section L.7.b Page limitations (p.96), the list of components of the Technical

Proposal that will not count toward the 25-page limit excludes the Draft Sustainability Plan.

Section L.8 (p.99), however, states that the Draft Sustainability Plan is “not included in page limitation.” In addition, the actual Sustainability Plan is only required to be submitted with the second annual report (per page 31) and should be developed in consultation with the

COR(p…