SF30 RFP 72036722R00003 Amendment 01_QandA.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

01 See Block 16C

To: All Offerors RFP 72036722R00003

X X

The purpose of this Amendment No.01 is to:

1. Provide answers to questions received in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72036722R00003, USAID's Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity; and

2. Revise Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72036722R00003. All changes made to the revised RFP are highlighted in yellow. All other terms of the RFP remain unchanged.

Maria Televantos, Contracting Officer

Office of Acquisition and Assistance USAID/Nepal U.S. Embassy, Maharajgunj Kathmandu, Nepal

1 13

02/15/2022

January 31, 2022

Amendment 01

RFP 72036722R00003

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

Request For Proposal (RFP) No.: 72036722R00003 USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

Issuance Date: January 31, 2022 Closing Date/Time for Questions: February 8, 2022, 9:00 a.m. Nepal Time Closing Date/Time for Receipt of Phase One Proposals: March 3, 2022, 9:00 a.m. Nepal Time

General Questions:

1. Is there anything that precludes New Zealand organisations from applying?

USAID: Yes. The procurement of commodities and services financed by USAID with program funds shall meet the requirements of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA). USAID’s statutory procurement authority, Section 604(a) of the FAA establishes a presumptive USAID Principal Geographic Code, Code 937, for all USAID federally financed procurement of commodities and services unless otherwise specified. The Principal Geographic Code for this RFP is 937, which is defined as the United States, the recipient country, and developing countries other than advanced developing countries, but excluding any country that is a prohibited source. Therefore, organizations that do not fall within this geographic code, such as those from New Zealand, are not eligible for this procurement.

2. Does this project require local partners? If yes, do you have a panel of local partners that we could access?

USAID: Local partners will be critical to successful implementation of this contract, and USAID highly encourages utilizing local partners and their expertise. Offerors are expected to conduct market research and outreach to identify the most appropriate local partners and expertise for their proposed technical approach.

3. Is the project delivered entirely on location or is there an option for blended delivery?

USAID: As per Section F.4, the place of performance for this contract is Nepal. All activities will take place in Nepal, and successful implementation will require a fully operational team, including but not limited to staff and key personnel in Nepal. Home office support can be provided from the Contractor’s home country, and short term technical assistance can also be utilized where appropriate.

4. How does border closures impact on the project delivery and is there a workaround?

USAID: USAID expects the Contractor to have a fully operational team based in Nepal and partnerships with local organizations to implement activities. Thus, future border closures should have limited impact on implementation.

5. Could USAID describe how it anticipates that Nepal EGL will work with the anticipated Nepal Equity and Inclusion project (i.e., will the two projects work collaboratively in some areas, or will there be clear divisions in scope)?

USAID: USAID anticipates some geographic overlap between EGL and the Nepal Equity and Inclusion Activity. As per the business forecast, the Equity and Inclusion (E&I) Activity will be implemented in Karnali, Sudurpaschim, and/or Madesh Provinces while EGL will be implemented in

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity the current EGRP II districts of Karnali, Madesh, and Sudurpaschim Provinces plus potentially additional districts as identified by the the Government of Nepal. However, the EGL activity will focus on primary schools and specifically grades 1-3 whereas the E&I activity will focus on grades 6-10. Furthermore, EGL will largely focus on technical assistance to improve quality learning outcomes in the early grades; whereas, E&I will focus on reducing barriers to education for older students and improving their learning outcomes. Where there is potential overlap in system strengthening and support to local governments or school management structures, the implementers of both activities will be expected to work with USAID to identify these areas, deconflict, or develop complementary activities.

Section B Questions:

6. Section B.7, pp. 9–10, of the RFP states that 70% of fixed fee will be paid according to completion of project -`s. However, deliverables set as part of the proposal process may change during implementation due to evolving technical needs, newly emerged opportunities, and stakeholders’ priorities. This is recognized by the RFP in Section F.5.2.b(iii), p. 32, which states, “The Contractor must demonstrate flexibility and an ability to respond to immediate needs as well as adapt to uncertainties that may arise.” To account for these potential shifts, we request that USAID consider adding the following language to Section B.7: “The fixed fee schedule may be adjusted during annual work planning to reprogram any unpaid fees from partially completed or non-accepted deliverables from the past year into other or additional deliverables as mutually agreed-upon by the COR and the contractor, ensuring the fee remains fixed.” Adjusting the fee distribution plan with each annual work plan allows the Contractor to readjust and reallocate effort and resources as needed to achieve the most results attainable within the total estimated cost.

USAID: The contract’s minimum deliverables as stated in Section F.7 will remain unchanged as these are the minimum deliverables required for this completion contract. Further, the Contractor must demonstrate flexibility and the ability to respond and adapt to uncertainties as they arise. USAID has only tied a portion of the fixed fee (60% as opposed to 100%) to the achievement of these minimum deliverables in order to permit flexibility in achieving additional or other results as they arise. As stated in Section C, the contract sets out minimum expected outcomes, which permits USAID and the contractor to shift to additional priorities that may arise during the course of implementation that fall within the Statement of Work. Further, USAID will not entertain reprogramming unpaid fees from non-accepted deliverables, as this defeats the concept of paying fixed fee for successful completion of deliverables.

USAID has taken the concern for maximizing flexibility into consideration and has determined that it is appropriate to revise the portion of fixed fee tied to achievement of minimum stated deliverables in F.7 from 70% to 60%. Please see the revised RFP.

Section C Questions:

7. Section C, Terms of Reference: In light of the decentralization and expectations for working at multiple levels outside of the MOEST’s direct authority, does USAID have agreements with the

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity appropriate GON governing authorities that will provide EGL direct access to provincial local governments?

USAID: In accordance with the existing Development Cooperation Policy, USAID will closely work with the federal government to facilitate access and coordination with the provincial and local government levels. USAID and the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MOEST) will enter into a bilateral agreement through an Implementation Letter to facilitate this coordination.

8. C.3.1 Country Context, p.12, Para2 – "While the financial reporting has significantly improved with 750 out of 753 municipal governments using the Sub-national Treasury Regulatory Application (SuTRA) to report financial progress, the number of municipal governments reporting physical progress is very low.” How is USAID defining physical progress?

USAID: Physical progress refers to monitoring progress on activity achievements and outputs.

Examples include: the number of students receiving practice books, number of teachers receiving training, number of students receiving scholarship. USAID anticipates that Technical Assistance at the municipal and provincial level will support local governments to monitor and report on physical progress of EGL activities and related activities under the School Education Sector Plan Joint Financing Arrangement, particularly where Education Management Information System (EMIS) and other systems do not specifically capture needed data.

9. C.3.2 Technical Need Universal Design and Equity and Inclusion, pg. 14 and C.4 Activity Scope and Objectives: How does USAID see EGL’s role on equity and inclusion related to disability, marginalized groups, and minority languages, so as to not duplicate efforts with its upcoming education inclusion and equity project?

USAID: As referenced in question 5, there will be some limited geographic overlap between the EGL and E&I activity. Where this is the case the contractor will be expected to work with USAID and the corresponding E&I implementing partner to deconflict and/or implement complementary activities.

The two awards will be focused on different student populations. EGL will be focused on primary schools grades 1-3, and E&I will be focused on upper primary and lower secondary schools with students in grades 6-10. However, EGL will be expected to apply an equity and inclusion lens to all activities and specifically scale up previously tested interventions on disability inclusive education and mother tongue and/or Nepali second language learners. It will be expected that both awards draw from the evidence based best practice in Nepal in identifying solutions to improve learning outcomes.

10. C.3.2. Technical Need, p 15: Does USAID anticipate having results and recommendations from the effectiveness study of G1 Integrated Curriculum before the start of the EGL?

USAID: Yes, the research study on the Integrated Curriculum will be available before the start of the EGL contract.

11. C.4 Activity Scope and Objective, Objective 1, pg. 17-18: Does USAID anticipate a mix of Minimum Package and Full Package of support across the 38 + 10 districts/schools, based on their cohort history with EGRP/EGRP II and demonstrated need?

USAID: This decision will be made in consultation with the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MOEST).

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

12. C.4 Activity Scope and Objective, Objective 2, pg. 19: What is the status of PETCs in terms of its official mandate/scope, structure and staffing and their structural relationship (not current practice) with CEHRD, CDC, and/or Provincial Government in relation to the MOEST and the decentralization structure? Can USAID provide the official guidance?

USAID: USAID does not have more information than what is currently publicly available.

13. Section C.3.4, p. 16 indicates: “The EGL activity must also complement USAID’s Government to Government (G2G) support through the Multi-Donor Joint Financing Arrangement (JFA) to support implementation of the GON’s new education sector plan and in scaling up NEGRP and numeracy foundational skills under the integrated curriculum.” Could USAID provide a description of its planned G2G support?

USAID: USAID is currently working with the MOEST and other development partners (DPs) involved in the education sector to finalize the planned G2G support. USAID anticipates continuing to support the MOEST to scale up early grade learning through Joint Financing Arrangements.

Please see https://www.usaid.gov/nepal/cdcs, the USAID/Nepal Country Development Cooperation Strategy, for more information on the Education portfolio in Nepal. Please also see https://moe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/SSDP_MTR_Independent_Evaluation_Final.pdf, Mid-term Independent Evaluation Report for the GoN’s School Sector Development Plan.

14. RFP Reference: C.3.4, Page Number: 16 of 162. Relevant RFP Language: The EGL activity must also complement USAID’s Government to Government (G2G) support through the Multi-Donor Joint Financing Arrangement (JFA) to support implementation of the GON’s new education sector plan and in scaling up NEGRP and numeracy foundational skills under the integrated curriculum.

Question: Following the mention of G2G on page 16, there is no further mention of the G2G component of USAID’s assistance to the education sector in Nepal. Can USAID provide further details regarding the amount of G2G funding anticipated and the likely investments/support that such funding would cover? Specifically, would G2G funding flow down to LGs to help cover Teacher Professional Development and school support related costs?

USAID: USAID is currently working with the MOEST and other development partners (DPs) involved in the education sector to finalize the planned G2G support. USAID anticipates continuing to support the MOEST to scale up early grade learning through Joint Financing Arrangements.

USAID is unable to share the amount of G2G funding anticipated at this time. Please see https://www.usaid.gov/nepal/cdcs, the USAID/Nepal Country Development Cooperation Strategy, to find more information on the Education portfolio in Nepal. With regards to funds flow, USAID anticipates that G2G funds will flow to local or provincial governments via conditional grants for specifically identified activities as in the previous JFA.

15. RFP Reference: C.3.5, Page Number: 16. Relevant RFP Language: USAID’s support through EGL will be related to supporting MOEST in scaling up NEGRP and numeracy foundational implementational skills to improve learning outcomes, ensuring the most marginalized groups have access to education through “pro-poor” school interventions, supporting the expansion of ICT services Question: On page 16, the RFP mentions that the EGL activity will support “the expansion of ICT services”. Can USAID provide more details/information around which ICT services it hopes to expand?

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CDCS-NEPAL-DECEMBER-2025-EXTERNAL_030821.pdf https://moe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/SSDP_MTR_Independent_Evaluation_Final.pdf https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CDCS-NEPAL-DECEMBER-2025-EXTERNAL_030821.pdf

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

USAID: EGL will support schools to expand ICT services that will improve teaching and learning processes in the classroom where appropriate. USAID anticipates this support to occur primarily through GUCs.

16. Section C.4, p. 18 states, “This activity must move away from direct service delivery.” Can USAID clarify what it means by “direct service delivery”? For example, Section C.4, p. 20 says, “The Contractor must work with children, parents, teachers, municipal governments, schools, SMCs, and other relevant stakeholders...” Could USAID clarify whether the guidance from Objective 1 on p. 18 applies to Objective 3 on p. 20 and whether direct engagement or training of these audiences constitutes direct service delivery?

USAID: EGL’s primary focus will be to integrate education interventions that have been piloted and tested already into the education system of Nepal through technical assistance to ensure sustainability and scale of approach. However, under Objective 3, USAID will be providing direct service delivery through supporting schools and communities directly through Grants Under Contract to implement approaches to improve learning outcomes.

17. Section C.4, p. 18 states, “This activity must move away from direct service delivery”. Because the RFP includes 10 extension districts, can USAID confirm whether “intensive support” (p. 17) to these 10 districts consists of direct investment in these areas?

USAID: It is anticipated that the offeror will provide GUCs to schools in the 10 extension districts to support direct service delivery to implement evidence based best practices in schools.

18. Section C.4, p. 20 says: “Building on the experiences of EGRP and EGRP II in directly implementing both nation-wide activities to support changes in the classroom and schools and use of small grants at the school level, the Contractor must transfer funds in the form of small to medium-sized grants to schools...”. Can USAID clarify what percentage of the total Grants under Contract fund is expected to be school-level grants?

USAID: The full GUC value of $10 million as noted in Section B.4 is expected to be provided directly to schools through Grants Under Contract.

19. RFP Reference: C.4 and H.27, Page Number: 20 and 67. Relevant RFP Language: Building on the experiences of EGRP and EGRP II in directly implementing both nation-wide activities to support changes in the classroom and schools and use of small grants at the school level, the Contractor must transfer funds in the form of small to medium-sized grants to schools for improving classroom environment.

“3. GUCs to Partner Government Entities (for example, ministry, municipality, schools, etc.) to provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) may be authorized if they meet the conditions, requirements, and approvals described in ADS 302.3.4.13 and ADS 220. CO authorization must be provided before proceeding with GUCs to Partner Government Entities. If authorized, the total value of all GUCs that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) to a particular partner government entity (for example, ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $300,000 for the duration of the prime contract.”

Question: USAID has stated under Objective 3 that small and medium size grants will be issued to schools. On page 67, the RFP also states that grants to “a particular partner government entity (for example ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $300,000 for the duration of

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity the prime contract.” Could USAID please define what it means by “government entity” in this context and confirm that school-level grants would not be measured in aggregate against the $300,000 threshold?

USAID: “Government entity” refers to all federal, provincial and local level government organizations including schools. It is anticipated that each selected entity will receive a maximum of US $ 4,000 during the life of the project to implement their institution improvement plan. Each school is considered a different government entity, thus grants to different schools would not be measured in aggregate against the $300,000 threshold.

20. RFP Reference: C.4, Page Number: 18 & 19. Relevant RFP Language: Page 18 – Minimum Expected Outcome: Municipal governments are using school report cards to improve learning outcomes of students and increase accountability . . .

Page 19 – Minimum Required Indicator: Percent of schools using their EMIS generated school profiles for preparing or updating their School Improvement Plans and budgeting.

Question: On page 18, the RFP refers to “school report cards”, while indicator #3, listed on page 19, mentions “Percent of schools using their EMIS generated school profiles . . . “Can USAID confirm that the terms “school report cards” and “school profiles” refer to the same concept? If not, can USAID provide additional information about how they differ?

USAID: School profiles refer to the previously generated EMIS profiles under EGRP II. School report cards could potentially draw from this data to allow local governments or schools to enhance accountability and engage the community to improve learning outcomes of students in addition to using data for informing planning and budgeting.

21. RFP Reference: C.4, Objective 3,Page Number: 20, 152. Relevant RFP Language: The Contractor must work with children, parents, teachers, municipal governments, schools, SMCs, and other relevant stakeholders to scale up Early Grade Reading, Early Grade English, Early Grade Mathematics, and disability inclusive education to enhance access to and quality of education in early grades.

EDO will find a way to support teaching of English as a subject, although our support of the Nepali language as a medium of instruction will continue, but again without excluding any of the community schools in the program districts or palikas.

Question: On page 20, the RFP states that the Contractor must work with stakeholders to scale up Early Grade English. On page 152, the RFP states that “EDO will find a way to support teaching of English as a subject, although our support of the Nepali language as a medium of instruction will continue, but again without excluding any of the community schools in the program districts or palikas.” Given that many schools have chosen to utilize English as a medium of instruction, can USAID specify what support the contractor is expected to provide for those schools in relation to English and Nepali?

USAID: EGL will support the GON in implementing its policy related to medium of instruction in early grades in mother tongue or in Nepali as appropriate. However, it is expected that EGL will also, where appropriate, support English as a subject in schools where that is relevant and appropriate in the early grades.

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

Section F Questions:

22. RFP Reference: F2. Period of Performance, Page Number: 26. Relevant RFP Language: The period of performance is five years, effective from contract award date, from TBD to TBD.

Question: Can USAID indicate an anticipated start date of the contract for budgeting purposes?

USAID: The anticipated start date of the contract is September 1, 2022.

23. Section F.5.3(d), p. 35 indicates that the successful offeror will be expected to conduct a midline and endline survey to measure EGL progress. Could USAID clarify what it expects to serve as EGL’s baseline — the EGRP endline administered by NORC or EGRP II’s endline? Could USAID confirm the administration date of the assessment it expects to serve as EGL’s baseline?

USAID: The RFP has been revised to clarify that USAID requires a baseline survey. Much of the education data can be collected directly from the most recent EMIS reports or from GON data. Since much of the education data exists, the Contractor is expected to use this information to establish a baseline for key indicators and conduct a survey only where it is appropriate and education data does not exist. Please see the revised RFP.

24. F.5.3 Other Deliverables, pg. 35: Please clarify that a Baseline Survey is not a required deliverable. Has one already been completed? Can you please share the available Baseline Survey report or data?

USAID: The RFP has been revised to clarify that USAID requires a baseline survey. Much of the education data can be collected directly from the most recent EMIS reports or from GON data. Since much of the education data exists, the Contractor is expected to use this information to establish a baseline for key indicators and conduct a survey only where it is appropriate and education data does not exist. Please see the revised RFP.

25. F.6 REPORTING AND DELIVERABLE MATRIX, pg. 37, “Endline Survey: Completed within 30 days prior to contract end date.” Can USAID clarify the timing of the Endline Survey due date as the Final Report is due 60 days before the contract end date?

USAID: USAID is amenable to this suggestion and has revised the due date for the Final Report to be in line with the Endline Survey Report. Please see the revised RFP.

26. RFP Reference: F6. Reporting and Deliverable Matrix, Page Number: 36-37. Relevant RFP Language: Mobilization plan due within 15 days of the contract start date Question: Will USAID allow for mobilization plan to be submitted within 30 days of the contract start date?

USAID: USAID is amenable to this suggestion and has revised the due date for the Mobilization Plan to within 30 days of contract start date. Please see the revised RFP.

27. RFP Reference: F6. Reporting and Deliverable Matrix, Page Number: 36-37. Relevant RFP Language: First Year Annual Work Plan due within 60 after the contract start date.

Question: To allow for consultations with GON, USAID, and other implementing partners, will USAID consider allowing Offerors to submit the First Year Annual Work Plan within 90 days after the contract start date?

USAID: USAID is amenable to this suggestion and has revised the due date for the submission of First Year Annual Work Plan to within 90 days after the start date. Please see the revised RFP.

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

28. Can USAID confirm that the deliverables developed in Section F.7, pp. 38–39, were developed in coordination with government partners and cover all districts, including 10 extension districts?

USAID: USAID engaged with the GON during the design of this activity. Yes, deliverables cover all districts including 10 districts that will be jointly identified in consultation with the MOEST.

29. Section F.7, pp. 38–39 outlines program deliverables to be aligned with fixed fee payments.

Would USAID consider allowing offerors to propose program deliverables in line with their technical approaches, either to replace or add to those in Section F.7?

USAID: No, the deliverables in Section F.7 are the minimum deliverables that the Contractor must deliver for this completion contract. While USAID expects the Contractor to be flexible and adapt to circumstances as they arise and complete additional deliverables within the scope of the SOW throughout implementation, these minimum deliverables cannot be replaced.

30. F.7 Program Deliverables, pg. 39: Please confirm that the “Research Report” is the same as the “Midline Survey.

USAID: The research report is different from the Midline Survey Report. Any research to be conducted will be identified during the Annual Work Planning phase jointly with the GON every year. For example, a survey needs to be conducted to establish baseline information related to the percentage of students achieving a minimum grade-level proficiency in reading in all target districts.

The Midline Survey Report will be able to assess the progress that the project is making across the identified areas. The deliverables for objective 3 are clarified in the revised RFP.

Section H Questions:

31. Section H.27(3), p. 67 states that “GUCs to Partner Government Entities (for example, ministry, municipality, schools, etc.) to provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) may be authorized if they meet the conditions, requirements, and approvals described in ADS 302.3.4.13 and ADS 220.” Per ADS 302.3.4.13, our understanding is that COs must verify that these types of GUCS have been approved in a Determination and Findings. Can USAID confirm that a PAD or D&F has been conducted by USAID for the public schools/government entities to which it anticipates the contractor to issue non in-kind grants, or that one will be conducted by USAID during implementation?

USAID: The Determination and Finding will be conducted by USAID during implementation. The Contractor will be expected to play an instrumental role in providing input for the various D&F requirements.

32. We respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from section H.27(11):

“Copies of all reports received from grantees will be promptly forwarded to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR),” given that there is no requirement for the COR to receive grantee reports in the GUC authorizing language for ADS 302. We also respectfully request that USAID remove the following sentence from the same section: “At the conclusion of the contract, the Contractor must consult with the Contracting Officer for direction as to which records must be transferred to USAID.” Although USAID retains the rights to visitation and inspection for three

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity years after the grant completion date, all records under this contract are considered property of the contractor and must be retained in accordance with the contractor’s records retention policies that originate from audit requirements.

USAID: The H.27 (11) has been removed. Please see the revised RFP.

33. H.27 Grants Under Contract, pg. 69: “12. Grants must not include construction, infrastructure, renovation, or rehabilitation projects.” In seeking to (pg. 20) “support changes in the classroom and schools and use of small grants at the school level, the Contractor must transfer funds in the form of small to medium-sized grants to schools for improving classroom environment and teaching and learning in classrooms.” Can USAID confirm that these are not to be used for classroom refurbishment or rehabilitation as activities like replacing windows or doors, fixing roofs or fences improves safety/security and quality of learning environments?

USAID: Grants provided to schools must be used for improving teaching and learning processes in classrooms and must not include construction, infrastructure, renovation, or rehabilitation projects.

34. H. 30, Page 70, refers to the US Embassy Kathmandu Local Compensation Plan (LCP) for Cooperating Country National (CCNs) and Third Country Nationals (TCNs). Can USAID share the most recent LCP?

USAID: As stated in Section L.8.b.3.i. of the RFP, the ceiling on the reimbursable salary paid to CCNs and TCNs is 6,061,566 NPR. Offerors are expected to conduct their own market research and use their established policies to propose justified CCN salaries.

35. H.30 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, pg. 71: We request that subclause e) Consultants be deleted as pay scales is an employment concept that does not fit with consultants or explain the purpose and expectation under this RFP related to level of expertise (e.g., Junior, Mid-level, Senior).

USAID: USAID expects contractors to have policies in place to ensure fair, reasonable and consistent rates are provided to consultants. USAID has not included a requirement to provide approval for consultant rates, thus USAID intends on maintaining the language in H.30(e).

Section I Questions:

36. RFP Reference: I.2, Page Number: 74. Relevant RFP Language: Clause 52.215-2 Question: Per FAR 15.403-1: Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data, could USAID confirm that certified cost or pricing data is not required because the proposal will have been competitively bid and received adequate competition, thus satisfying FAR 15.403-1(b)(1)?

USAID: FAR Part 52.215-2 is Audit and Records - Negotiation. The clause in question might be 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data which was not originally included in Section I.2. The certified cost or pricing data is not required by this RFP.

Section J Questions:

37. Attachment+J.2+REC+Asia+21=120. Pages 2, 6, and 11 include an additional objective not included in the RFP - “Supplemental Objective 4: Support Continuity of Learning During

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

Disaster” with four Illustrative Key Activities. As some of the illustrative key activities are not included in the RFP, does USAID want offerors to integrate “continuity of learning during disasters” across the three objectives listed in the RFP or treat it as its own discrete objective?

USAID: Offerors must follow the Statement of Work, Section C and note that continuity of learning during disasters is incorporated throughout the SOW. In accordance with C.4 and C.5 of the RFP, the Contractor must be “shock responsive” to appropriately respond to the impacts of emergencies and disasters in the education sector. The Contractor must be flexible and prepared to adapt EGL interventions during crises to ensure children have access to learning during school closures and for out-of-school children who have not yet returned to schools. Similarly, EGL interventions must be adapted to mitigate the learning loss of students due to crisis linked school closures. The EGL must support the GON in building the resilience of the education system to respond to crises and ensure students’ access to safe learning spaces.

Section L Questions:

38. L.4, pg. 117-118: We kindly request USAID provide anticipated dates or an estimated timeframe for Phase 1 Institutional Capacity selection to assist applicant planning.

USAID: The Phase One evaluation is estimated to be concluded by March 31, 2022.

39. L.6. pg. 120: Instructions for Preparation of the Phase 1 proposal limits the submission to five pages including the cover page. We respectfully ask that the pages be exclusive of the cover page.

USAID: The cover page is included in the page limit, but the RFP has been revised to increase the page limit to six pages. The first sentence of L.6 is revised to “The Phase One proposal submission is limited to six (6) pages including the cover page and must be written in plain English.”

40. Section L.7(b), p. 121 states that the cover page, table of contents, and acronyms list are all included within the 50-page limit for the Stage II technical volume. Because these 50 pages also include the annexes, we respectfully request that USAID consider removing this front matter from the overall page count.

USAID: USAID determined that the 50-page limitation is sufficient for all aspects of the technical proposal, including the cover page, table of contents and acronym list. The Phase Two Technical Proposal is limited to 50 pages. As per Section L.7(b), the required aspects of the technical proposal, including the required annexes, are included in the page limit.

41. Per Sections L.6 and L.7 (pp. 120–125), major subcontractors are defined as subcontractors expected to perform at least 20% of the total value of the proposed contract. We respectfully request that major subcontractors be defined as subcontractors that are expected to perform at least 20% of the total value of the proposed contract or as subcontractors otherwise defined by the prime to be essential to successful activity implementation.

USAID: The RFP has revised the definition of major subcontractor. Major subcontractors are defined as subcontractors expected to perform at least 10% or a prominent part of the technical effort.

Offerors must clearly identify which subcontractors they are putting forward as major subcontractors in the cover page of the proposal (both Phase 1 and Phase 2). Please also see the answer to Question

no. 42.

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

42. RFP Reference: L.6, Institutional Capability, M.2 Phase One Advisory Evaluation Factor Page Number: 120, 137. Relevant RFP Language: This must include the Offeror and its proposed major subcontractors’ relevant institutional experience in performing the services listed in Section C in a similar environment, including taking a similar program to scale. Institutional Capability: The extent to which the Offeror’s (and any major subcontractor’s) demonstrates its experience and capacity to successfully manage similar activities of comparable scope, size, and complexity.

Question: Will USAID confirm that offerors may include the institutional capabilities of non-major subcontractors? Would USAID change the instructions in Section L and the criteria in Section M to allow the contractor to speak to capabilities of non-major subcontractors?

USAID: Offerors must provide the institutional capability information for the prime and proposed major subcontractors. As noted in the answer to Question no.41, USAID has revised the definition of major subcontractor as subcontractors expected to perform at least 10% or a prominent part of the technical effort. Offerors must clearly identify which subcontractors they are putting forward as major subcontractors in the cover page of the proposal (both Phase 1 and Phase 2). Please see the revised

RFP.

43. RFP Reference: L.7, Annex A, Page Number: 123. Relevant RFP Language: Provide in the “Past Performance Matrix” attached to this RFP (Attachment J.4) as Annex 1 to the technical proposal up to five (5) of the most relevant contracts. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar type of work, and complexity/diversity of tasks and must be within the past three years. It should be clear whether the work by the Offeror was done as a prime Contractor or as a subcontractor.

Question: Due to the volume of information required for the Past Performance Matrix, would USAID allow offerors to submit Attachment J.4 – Past Performance Matrix – in MS Excel format as a separate attachment to the technical proposal that does not count against the 50-page limit?

USAID: Annex A, the Past Performance Matrix, is not excluded from the page limit. As stated in Section L.7, Offerors may use legal 8 ½ x 14” size paper for the Past Performance Matrix (Annex A of the proposal) to make the spreadsheet more reader-friendly.

44. L.7. Instructions for the Preparation of Phase Two Technical Proposal, Annex A : Past Performance, pg. 123: Provide in the “Past Performance Matrix” attached to this RFP (Attachment J.4) as Annex 1 to the technical proposal up to five (5) of the most relevant contracts.” Would USAID please confirm if only contracts are permissible or if other mechanisms of assistance can be included as examples of past performance?

USAID: Offerors should submit the most relevant examples of past performance. As stated in L.7 “The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar type of work, and complexity/diversity of tasks and must be within the past three years.” While contracts are considered most relevant, Offerors may include other mechanisms of assistance if they meet other indicators of relevance.

45. Section L.8 states that the provided detailed budget table on p. 126 should also be used for individual subcontractors. Would USAID clarify whether the detailed budget table should be for major subcontractors or all individual subcontractors?

USAID’s Early Grade Learning (EGL) Activity

USAID: USAID requires the same cost element breakdown in the form of a detailed budget for the prime and major subcontractors. For other subcontractors, sufficient budget and cost narrative information should be provided to allow USAID to determine the realism/reasonableness of the costs.

46. RFP Reference: L.8 Instructions for Cost Proposal, (i) Part 9 - Consent, Page Number: 133.

Relevant RFP Language: USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.

Question: In order for USAID to receive the best services and for local organizations to be considered by more than one offeror, would USAID please revise the language for exclusive local partnership agreements to “prohibit” rather “discourage”?

USAID: This is a very important point as it is important for USAID to receive the best services.

USAID wants local organizations and key personnel to have an opportunity to implement the eventual contract with whoever the apparently successful offeror is, and exclusive agreements create a major barrier. USAID has emphasized this point by adding it to Section L.7(b) and by revising the language in Section L.8(i). The language is revised to “USAID strongly discourages the use of exclusive agreements as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.” Please see the revised RFP.

47. Will a second Q&A opportunity be allowed for the Phase II submission process?

USAID: No. The RFP presents information regarding USAID’s requirements and instructions for the preparation of proposals for both phases. The Advisory Notification is the only notice USAID will provide from Phase One and debriefings will not occur at the end of Phase One. Offerors will have at least 30 days from the notification to prepare and submit Phase Two proposals.

(End of Questions and Answers) (End of Amendment 01 of RFP 72036722R00003)