ESMP_Amendment_4.pdf

Attachment 1:

Q1: Is this a new requirement? If not, can you provide the incumbent contract information?

A1: Yes, this is a new requirement.

Q2: In Section L.9, on p. 112-113, under the Deputy Chief of Party – Key Personnel

Qualifications, the RFP states that the Deputy Chief of Party must have “a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from an accredited institution in the US.” Will USAID allow for any flexibility around the US university requirement?

A2: The US university requirement is no longer required for the Deputy Chief of Party. Please refer to Amendment No. 2.

Q3: In Section L.9, on page 113, under (6) (a) 1, the RFP states “List in Annex 9 ‘Past

Performance Matrix’ to the technical proposal 3-5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal…” On page 114 under (6) (a) 2, offerors are then asked to provide “Point of contact information for the CO, COR, or Project Manager of the offeror’s two largest, most recently awarded Federal contracts or orders.” Could USAID kindly clarify if in addition to the required 3-5 past projects listed in the matrix, should we submit additional contact information from clients of our two largest recent projects? Or, are the two largest, most recently awarded contracts included in the requested 3-5 past projects (recognizing that they may not be the most relevant examples)?

A3: This is to confirm that the two largest, most recently awarded contracts are included in the requested 3-5 past projects (recognizing that they may not be the most relevant examples).

Q4: In Section C.4, on p.15, under Component 2, Result 2.A., the RFP states, "MPWH maintains an ‘as built’ drawing database for all MPWH school projects.” Could USAID kindly confirm that this is an existing database for MPWH school designs?

A4: The task is to create and maintain a database. There is no existing database, but MPWH has some as-built drawings.

Q5: In Section F.7.e., on p. 29, the RFP references GIS related data and mapping files. For planning purposes, could USAID kindly detail the type of software that is used for the MoE GIS mapping system and when was it last updated?

A5: MoE uses Arc GIS version 10.5 software.

Q6: In Section B.4, on p. 8, USAID provides a CLIN structure and example summary table with the CLINs broken down into one cost element per row. Then in Section L.10, on p. 119 of the

RFP, USAID provides a cost element breakdown table based on sections of the budget, e.g.

salaries and wages, fringe benefits, allowances, etc. Could USAID clarify how you would like us to organize our summary budget in our cost volume?

A6: Potential offerors must submit both structures. The CLIN structure is for purposes of forming the budget in the contract and is divided by results. However; USAID requests that potential offerors submit a detailed budget, as per the sample provided in the RFP for purposes of consistency when conducting the cost analysis. Please link the two budgets as sheets in the same Excel document in order to clarify how you reached to the proposed figures in the

CLIN/Results structure. Please refer to the RFP and Question 4 in Attachment 2.

Q7: Regarding USAID’s Award Management System, please clarify the eligibility criteria for

Jordanian based companies.

A7: All companies, including Jordanian-based companies, are eligible to create an account on the System for Award Management (SAM).

Q8: Is it possible for USAID to consider extending the deadline, due to lower working hours during Ramadan and Eid Holiday.

A8: The deadline has been extended. Please refer to Amendment No 1.

Q9: Is it required that consulting companies must review the building plans and architectural designs for schools that will be constructed in the future?

A9: The contractor is not required to “review the building plans and architectural designs for schools that will be constructed in the future.” This is because the main objective of this RFP is to provide capacity building, and not to design and review building plans.

Q10: If part of a consortium, is it required that every entity must be registered with sam.gov?

A10: Yes; please also see the response to Question A7, above.

Q11: What is meant by Schools at Capacity? May you please provide further explanation?

A11: “Schools at Capacity” refers to the condition when the number of students registered matches the design capacity of the school (e.g., 36 students per classroom in a standard urban school).

Q12: In Section L.9, page 112-113 of the RFP states, “Deputy Chief of Party-Key Personnel

Qualifications: a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from an accredited institution in the US;

a master’s degree in civil engineering or engineering management is preferred.” On p. 113 the

RFP also states, "Capacity Building Specialist - Key Personnel Qualifications: a bachelor’s degree in Institutional Capacity Building or Business Administration, Organizational

Development from an accredited institution in the US; a master's degree in Capacity Building is referred." Will USAID allow for the requirement of a bachelor's degree from a US institution for each position to alternatively be addressed by a relevant bachelor’s or master's degree from an accredited US, UK, or European Union-based institution?

A12: The US university requirement is no longer required for the Deputy Chief of Party and

Capacity Building Specialist positions. Please refer to Amendment 2.

http://sam.gov/

Q13: On p. 10 of the RFP, in Section C, there is a link in the footer:

http://www.mohe.gov.jo/en/Documents/National%20HRD%20Strategy-en.pdf

The link does not work. Could USAID kindly provide an operational link or a soft copy of the document?

A13: http://www.mohe.gov.jo/en/Documents/National-HRD-Strategy.pdf

Q14: In Section K.8 I(b), p. 93 of the RFP states that offerors must submit a Disclosure

Statement as required by 48 CFR 9903.202. It is our understanding that a Disclosure Statement does not apply to small businesses though the clause does not explicitly specify. Could USAID kindly confirm whether we are required to submit a Disclosure Statement as a small business offeror?

A14: This is to confirm that small businesses are exempt from the Cost Accounting Standards

(CAS) requirements, including the submission of a Disclosure Statement per the following citation from 9903.201-1 CAS applicability: “(b) The following categories of contracts and subcontracts are exempt from all CAS requirements: (3) Contracts and subcontracts with small businesses.”

http://www.mohe.gov.jo/en/Documents/National%20HRD%20Strategy-en.pdf http://www.mohe.gov.jo/en/Documents/National-HRD-Strategy.pdf

Attachment 2:

Meeting Questions and Answers for ESMP pre-proposal Conference

Time: Wednesday, June 20, 2018, (2:00 – 4:00) pm

Location: Intercontinental Hotel, Ayla conference room 2 nd

Floor

Q1: Does the fee that the offeror proposes becomes a fixed fee after it was established no matter how much the cost of the contract is?

A1: Yes.

Q2: So, it is not going to depend on the cost of the project but it will stay as a fixed fee?

A2: Yes, the fixed fee amount that has been pre-negotiated prior to award does not vary with actual cost. However, if the contractor does not achieve the results, the contracting officer may choose to withhold an amount of the fee or the full amount of the fee until the contractor proves that they have achieved the results. Also, this is a completion-type contract, so if the contractor does not achieve the results within the estimated cost, USAID may request additional effort from the contractor without increasing the fee, should USAID increase the cost of the contract.

Q3: Will the contract be signed with the Government of Jordan or with USAID?

A3: The contract will be signed by USAID. When we say “the Government,” this refers to the

Government of the United States and not the Government of Jordan.

Q4: This is a CLIN budget; however, the RFP also asked that offerors submit a detailed budget broken out to reflect every estimated cost under the major budget categories; this is very elaborate and an extensive exercise in general. Can USAID re-visit this to only include the submission of budget by CLINS?

A4: The RFP requests two structures: one is to be broken down by results, and one by main cost categories. The two structures must be linked together as sheets in the same Excel document in order to clarify how you reached to the proposed figures in the CLIN/Results structure. Please refer to question 6 in attachment 1 and to the RFP.

Q5: Is there a status report or a checklist relative to known standards for the existing conditions? What are the standards and objectives for such engagement? If I am going to propose a solution for a particular condition, I should be aware at least of the existing conditions of the money that is going to be spent.

A5: There is no specific answer for this question; however, there will be an assessment required, and based on this assessment, the baseline will be established. We assume that the offerors will research and develop their knowledge, and will do their “homework” such as pre-proposal investigations or surveys to ensure whether conditions have changed from the statement of objectives. These should be addressed in the PWS.

Q6: The proposed budget for the RFP is $9.9 million, how was this figure derived? Was it derived in accordance with the evaluation of existing conditions and objectives that are supposed to be met?

A6: This number was determined by the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) which is the U.S. Government's estimate of costs that a contractor may incur in performing services to achieve the Government's objectives. It entails costs associated with the project including labor, travel, home office support, computers, vehicles, and all other costs needed for the performance of the project.

Q7: We really appreciate this approach that we have to conduct needs assessment and based on the results of the assessment; we set the baseline and come up with the design of the project and we become accountable for our performance. While we think that this approach is creative, it makes the offerors extremely accountable for what they propose within the budget limit because we will set a baseline and submit a proposal based on that baseline with a budget without knowing the basis for it. Especially when are dealing with construction of new schools, the baseline may vary significantly and depends upon different factors including the MOE standards and U.S public school standards. In other projects, we have the baseline and we work from there. This approach is very elastic; there are different ways to interpret the offer. How will we manage to work with this approach?

A7: Yes, we understand that there are certain levels of ambiguity at the outset; however, offerors will conduct a needs assessment, and submit a draft quality control plan. USAID will use these and work with the contractor to develop a Quality Assurance and Surveillance Plan (QASP).

This will define clearly by what parameters we will hold the contractor accountable. This is part of the challenge in responding to the statement of objectives; for this reason, offerors must be innovative and creative when submitting their proposals. Therefore, we encourage you to conduct your market research, and consider partnering with other more knowledgeable organizations to get a better understanding of how to best submit a project proposal.

For example, if you are new to the Ministry, we encourage you to partner with other organizations who have done similar work before, or are familiar with how the Ministry works, as this will give you a better idea on how best to prepare your submission.

Q8: Is the performance standard example a template to be followed and implemented?

A8: You can use the performance standard example as a template, or you can propose your own performance standard template.

Q9: I think the risk is on the offeror’s side, as the fee is fixed right at the beginning and then later whatever he the contractor spends, the amount of fee is fixed. Therefore, the level of risk is more on the offeror’s side.

A9: The risk is more on the Government’s side. For example, with fixed-price contracts, the price of the contract is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor's cost experience in performing the contract; this places the contractor at maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss. However, this contract-type – cost plus fixed fee – places the primary risk upon the Government, since the Contractor will be reimbursed for costs spent to achieve the results of the contract, plus a fixed fee amount that represents the contractor’s profit; this removes the risk from the contractor.

Q10: Is this a quarterly paid contract?

A10: No, only the fixed fee is paid on quarterly basis. The contractor may choose to submit their vouchers on a monthly basis.

Q11: Is there going to be a down-payment (advance payment)?

A11: We are not considering an advance payment at this time, but we will assess the organization’s proposal, the reason for requesting such a payment, and its capability to appropriately manage advance payments.

Q12: Why there is a requirement to have a civil engineer degree for either the COP or the

DCOP?

A12: We envision a team with capacity building expertise to conduct trainings, but such a project obviously requires engineers with broad experience because they will be training and working with other engineers. While there is no design or supervision in this project, the Government needs implementing partner staff who know these work processes “inside and out,” and can build sensible & practical tools, such as making a checklist. These engineering staff must also work with experts in how best to organize an overall capacity building approach. Please Note: this is not an engineering contract; this is a capacity building contract.

Q13: Can there be an extension after July 15, 2018?

A13: No, as it was already extended for two weeks.

Q14: Regarding the key personnel requirement it is hard to find a degree in capacity building as it is not something very available in Jordan; can experience in capacity building be sufficient?

A14: In the RFP, other options are stated (not only capacity building); there are other available relevant fields and degrees.

Q15: When it comes to the assessment, there is a lot of emphasis on dealing with the Syrian refugees; there are different levels and different entry points. My understanding from the

RFP is that we are looking at them as one category, but it is not fair to compare schools that have Syrian refugees with the other schools.

A15: We are looking at all public schools in Jordan, whether they serve Syrian, Palestinian, Iraqi, Yemeni, or Jordanian students. Any student registered in the principal system in Jordan considered, as they are all registered in the same system. There is no particular focus on refugees in the RFP.

Q16: Is there any preference for the prime contractor to be a local Jordanian company or there is no preference as long as they have the capacity?

A16: This is a full and open competition; there is no preference. Sometimes the experts in this field are not from Jordan and are partnering with international firms, who may not understand the

Jordanian context. The most competitive approach may be a proposal that has both perspectives:

a local organization that partners with an international firm who has worked in different countries, or an international firm who has done capacity building and partners with a local organization who knows the system in Jordan.

Q17: Is this a follow-up to the questions that were posted earlier? Are the questions going to be posted in amendment #3?

A17: This will be posted in amendment #4.

Q18: Please clarify if CLIN 10, fixed fee should be proposed as a separate CLIN?

A18: In the budget, we will have the fixed fee as a separate CLIN. Payments for the fixed fee will be submitted on separate vouchers.

Q19: I have a suggestion: Give us 3 working days to send you our questions from this meeting, then you answer it back because there are so many confusing questions, and it will be easier to get the questions in writing and then respond to us directly.

A19: No. This RFP was posted on May 9, 2018, and the closing date for the Questions ended on

May 31, 2018. Also, this pre-proposal conference provided the chance to ask questions;

therefore, we believe you have had sufficient time to ask questions. The final questions are accepted in this conference, after which the questions and answers will be posted as an amendment.

Q20: Re-visiting a question mentioned before “Q: Can Architecture and Engineering firms apply to this solicitation? A: Yes, however, due to potential organization’s conflict of interest A&E firms may be precluded from bidding on certain projects that are associated with this program”. There are no renovation projects associated with this program, and this involves 3800 schools in Jordan. It would be unfortunate for the A&E firms working on this to not be able to work on school projects. I mean there will be a process, it cannot be tailor made for the A&E firms.

A20: This was not envisioned for A&E firms; it was envisioned for capacity building organizations. It would be a conflict of interest—either actual or apparent—if a firm is working to build the capacity of MOE, as well as design schools. We would not want even the appearance of special treatment because of the unique capacity building being delivered, and the contractor’s potential ability to influence the Ministries’ decisions.

Q21a: In terms of the subcontractor, what type of subcontracts are we supposed to have with both local subcontractors and international? Since this is a CPFF.

A21a: This will largely depend on your organization’s strengths. If you are a capacity building organization, you may want to reach out to engineering firms in order to get that technical aspect; or if you are an international firm you may want to partner with a Jordanian organization to have a better understanding of the Jordanian context. This really depends on who you are as an organization, what your strengths are, and where you need to fill in for the additional expertise.

Q21b: I meant if we can negotiate time and material contracts for our subcontractors or are we expected to have CPFF subcontracts?

A21b: That is up to you. Whatever you think is appropriate considering the type of services required by the subcontractor. USAID’s direct relationship is with the prime organization and not with the subcontractor.

Q22: Is the subcontractor subject to your approval?

A22: Yes, we do review this as part of your proposal. We will look at the proposed cost(s) including subcontractors as part of our evaluation. However, it is your responsibility to determine whether a given organization is a reliable company, to demonstrate how it fits within the larger proposal, and how your subcontractors will help you achieve the results of the project.

Q23: Is there a specific percentage for the subcontractor?

A23: No, there isn’t, but the total amount of subcontracts must not exceed 70% of the total estimated cost of the contract.

Q24: Can the performance work statement be adjusted during the implementation of the project based on the context as a result outside USAID or the contractor’s control similar to the adjustments to the Work plan and M&E plan?

A24: It could be adjusted, but—prior to the award—we will agree upon the performance work statement (PWS) with the contractor. If you submit a PWS that is close but not quite acceptable to USAID, we might negotiate. Depending upon the proposal, there might be discussions, but during the terms of the contract, it depends on the circumstances and whether it changes the project scope significantly. If it alters the scope, it would not be fair to other offerors who submitted a proposal against the original RFP.

Q25: Do you foresee any procurement under this bid and in terms of any material support that may support the capacity building of the MOE and the MPWH and would you anticipate any plus figure for that material report?

A25: We do not foresee subsequent procurement necessarily; this would depend upon your approach in the PWS. If you propose purchasing large material assets, you would have to prove they are necessary to the project. Otherwise, we have no expectations.

Q26: Where are the amendments posted on?

A26: www.fbo.gov

Q27: Regarding the degree on institutional capacity building, there tends to be more experience based than the degree. The degree is general. How specific is USAID to that degree because it is not very common?

A27: We realize this is a niche area. Hence, USAID is open to considering other relevant degrees, in addition to the relevant work experience.

Q28: To what extent do you expect the offerors to make this assessment? Is a single visit to a school enough? Do you need more than that during the assessment phase? Do you need a structural assessment?

A28: The initial assessment could include more fact checking of the EMIS data, or perhaps find areas where schools are overcrowded and need to be replaced. This does not require any deep structural analysis of the building; it requires a higher level (big picture) approach to build the capacity of the Ministry. As highlighted above, this is not an engineering assessment. It is a planning assessment. Every school needs to be assessed (not visited)

Q29: Let’s suppose USAID has a high technical rating for a proposal but did not reach to an agreement regarding cost. Is there a copyright on the organization’s approach /ideas?

A29: Each proposal is independent and considered proprietary information, so we are only going to evaluate that proposal alone. USAID does not take ideas from other proposals; each one stands or falls on its own merits.

Q30: Are there any specific requirements from a contractual point of view?

A30: You need to be registered in SAM. You have to have a SAM account prior to the award.

http://www.fbo.gov/

Attachment 3 :

List of Attendees:

Name Title Organization

Roger Carstens Country Director Blumont

Eddie Argenal Director of Humanitarian Assistance Blumont

Amin Amin CEO ASK

Laila Ghanim Proposals Manager Bitar Consultants

Imran Shboul Projects Director ASK

Farah Mawla Business Development Manager Al Jidara

Mohammad

Dairanieh Senior Consultant TAG

Ghaith Abu Eid CEO YAS Contracting

Shereen Al Uzaizi ECOP, Managing Director AUGUSTUS

Jamal Al Salah Process & OD consultnat Al Salah Training &

Consulting

Ibrahim A. Ghoul Managing Director IBG Consult

Nermer A. Bitar MSc Architecture Bitar Consultants

Hashem Al Faqith Planning & Project Manager Bitar Consultants

Awni Al Nabulsi Managing Director AL Jidara

Hala Abu Eisheh Business Support Manager GOPA

Rania Haddad Architect ACE

Taroub Malhas Trainer Raneen

Attachment 4 – Presentation Slides

USAID/JORDAN ENHANCING SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND

PLANNING PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

June 20, 2018

Technical Overview: Maggie Northman

Contractual Overview: Zeina Al Twal

Technical Overview

Overall goal:

The overall project objective is to improve the time and budget management as well as overall quality of the school environment in Jordan by enhancing the planning, oversight, and operation and maintenance capabilities of the Ministries of Education and Public

Works and Housing.

MOE vs MPWH – each stage

MOE – planning, early design, operation and maintenance

MPWH – selection of contractors and construction and oversight

Phases of involvement:

1. School planning process (e.g. site selection, staffing)

2. Data for decision making

3. School construction design standards, requirements, design review, and approval processes

4. GOJ procurement of A/E and construction services (tendering procedures and parameters)

5. Construction management and supervision

6. School maintenance, operation, and utilization

Component 1: Assessments

Result 1.A. General Assessment

Result 1.B Behavior Change Study conducted

Result 1.C Needs Assessment of public schools to identify overcrowded and underutilized schools

Component 2: Policy and Systems Strengthening

Result 2.A. Improved policies and procedures at the

MOE and MPWH

Result 2.B. Procedures and requirements developed and implemented that will impact the non-governmental stakeholders

Result 2.C. MOE and key stakeholders engaged in assisting schools

Component 3: Human Resources, Staff

Development, and Training

Result 3.A Staffing plan developed for directorates within MPWH and MOE

Result 3.B Best Management Practices and

Communication Implemented and Sustainable at the

MOE and MPWH

Component 4: Sustainability of Increased Capacity

Result 4.A MOE And MPWH Capacity Built And

Sustainability Plan Developed

Questions

Contractual Overview

Topics:

- Contract Type

- Statement of Objectives

- Performance Work Statement (PWS)

- Performance Standards

- Draft Quality Control Plan

- Technical Evaluation Criteria – Section M

- Cost Evaluation – Section M

- Instructions to Offerors – Section L

- General information

Type of Contract: Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee

(CPFF), completion-type, performance based contract

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee:

• Circumstances do not allow the agency to define its requirements sufficiently to allow for a fixed-price type contract

• Uncertainties involved in contract performance

Completion Type:

• Describes the scope of work by stating a definite goal

• Requires the contractor to complete and deliver the specified end product

• If work cannot be completed within the estimated cost, the

Government may require more effort without increase in fee

• Duration: 4 years

• Total Estimated Cost: Not to exceed $9.9 million.

• Place of Performance: Jordan

Statement of Objectives:

• Describes the what and not the how – top level objectives

• Offers design flexibility

• Does not become part of the contract*

*The offeror proposes a Performance Work Statement that is used in the resultant contract.

Performance Work Statement

• Describes what work they will be conducting and how the work will accomplish the stated results.

• Must be written in contractual language, indicating that the Contractor “must” or “shall” undertake enumerated tasks and obligations.

• The PWS will be part of the resultant contract.

• The PWS must be organized in the same order as

Section C.4 of the SOO (Component 1; Component

2; Component 3; and Component 4.)

• Offerors must propose services and performance standards for each result.

Performance Standards

• Performance standard is a quantitative or qualitative basis for describing an aspect of the contractor’s performance.

• They must be:

- Achievable

- Measurable

- Relevant

- Mutually understood by the Government and the

Contractor

Performance Standard Example:

Outcome Sample Required Service Performance Standard

Capacity building Provide skills development training for MOE staff.

Proposed training objectives and participant materials are submitted for review 30 working days in advance of the training.

80% of training participants report that:

• Instructors were thoroughly knowledgeable.

• Lectures, class exercise and participant materials were highly effective.

• Overall training met or exceeded their expectations.

Draft Quality Control Plan:

• Must demonstrate how the offeror will meet the quality standards established in the Performance

Work Statement (PWS).

• Must include performance standards, acceptable quality level, and monitoring method.

• USAID/Jordan will consider the proposed plan while developing its Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

(QASP) which will provide Government surveillance and oversight of the contractor’s efforts in meeting the performance standards required by the contract.

Technical Evaluation Criteria: (Descending Order of importance) – Section M

A) Technical Approach

B) Management Approach

C) Personnel Qualifications and Experience

D) Past Performance

*Technical evaluation criteria is more important than cost.

Cost Evaluation:

The cost proposal will be judged on:

(i) whether it is realistic and consistent with the technical proposal;

(ii) allowability, allocability and reasonableness.

(iii) overall cost control (avoidance of excessive salaries, excessive home office visits, and other costs in excess of reasonable requirements); and

(iv) amount of proposed fee.

Instructions to Offerors:

• Offerors must follow the instructions in Section L when preparing their proposals.

• If an Offeror does not follow the instructions, the

Offeror's proposal may be eliminated from further consideration.

General Information

• The Government intends to evaluate Offerors in accordance with the evaluation criteria and make contract award to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the “best value” to the Government.

• The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with Offerors in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

• The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

• This procurement will use a tradeoff analysis set forth in FAR

15.101-1to make the award and best value determination.

Questions

Attachment 4 - Presentation.pdf