Attachment 4 Questions & Answers.pdf

U.S. Agency for International Development

U.S. Embassy

Madani Avenue, Baridhara

Dhaka-1212, Bangladesh

Tel: (880-2) 5566-2000

Fax: (880-2) 5566-2909 www.usaid.gov/bangladesh

GENERAL:

1. Please confirm that USAID will provide written notes from the Pre-Proposal Conference held in Dhaka on 28 October 2019.

RESPONSE: Pre-proposal conference notes are included in response to questions received.

2. How does USAID expect to use task orders for this opportunity, given the solicitation asks offerors to propose a strategy and budget for achieving the entire SOO?

RESPONSE: USAID anticipates issuing 2 task orders, Task Order 1 for the assessments and subsequently Task Order 2 for the activity implementation. This is a five year activity.

3. Can an offeror propose scholarships?

RESPONSE: Pursuant to FAR 31, scholarships are unallowable for educational institutions. In addition, the SOO states: “It is not within the scope of this activity to provide school feeding or stipends (including for students and/or teachers).”

4. What is the anticipated start date of the award?

RESPONSE: The anticipated date of award is June 2020.

5. In order to ensure compliance with AIDAR 722.170, would USAID kindly provide its local compensation plan for CCN Staff?

RESPONSE: USAID encourages the offeror to propose and use salaries that are determined per market rate; the proposed rates will be reviewed for the purposes of cost realism and reasonableness.

6. Can USAID please confirm that, per instructions from the bidders’ conference, there will be two task orders under this IDIQ: one encompassing the first round of the four assessments (page 160 of the RFP) and one for implementing tasks and activities informed by the assessments?

RESPONSE: USAID anticipates two task orders.

a) Can USAID please confirm that Task Order #1 is expected to last 12-18 months and that Task Order #2 will be issued, without a gap, following the completion of the initial round of assessments in Task Order #1?

RESPONSE: The period of performance for task order #1 is now anticipated to be from 6 to 12 months.

b) If these instructions are not correct, what is USAID’s expected methodology to determine how many RFTOPs and at what frequency RFTOPs will be issued?

RESPONSE: Answered above.

7. Could USAID kindly share your local compensation plan for Bangladesh?

RESPONSE: USAID encourages the offeror to propose and use salaries that are determined per market rate; the proposed rates will be reviewed for the purposes of cost realism and reasonableness.

COVER PAGE

8. Cover Letter and page 130: We respectfully request that USAID specify a date by which it will respond to Questions from Offerors. We are concerned that the turn-around time for responses will occur very late in the proposal development process, and hence ask that USAID consider responding by no later than 15 November 2019.

Otherwise, we suggest that USAID extends the submittal date by at least an additional week.

RESPONSE: Changes to the proposed submission date is at the CO’s discretion.

Please see attached RFP amendment.

9. Did the pre-proposal conference already take place on Oct. 28th? If so, is there a transcript or summary of the conference available to potential Offerors who were unable to attend? If not, please confirm the correct date of the conference. Also, will USAID allow for remote participation via dialing in?

RESPONSE: The Pre-proposal conference was held on October 28th and notes are attached along with this response.

PART I- THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B- SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

10. Page 10 (B.2 CONTRACT TYPE AND SERVICES): Please clarify the Mission’s reasoning for selecting a Single Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) type contract.

RESPONSE: Specific target numbers are currently unknown until assessments are conducted; the projected task orders are so integrally related that only a single contractor can reasonably perform the work. A multiple award IDIQ contract would not be in the best interest of the Government.

11. Page 12 (B.7(a) LABOR): USAID’s determination that the Contractor will not be authorized to bill directly for IDIQ contract management appears to run counter to USG regulations. First, the IDIQ has performance/reporting requirements that cannot be required without corresponding funding in place without the risk of running afoul of anti-deficiency restrictions, and second, as those activities will be discreetly identified with a specific cost outcome/benefit (the IDIQ), those costs must be charged to that outcome in accordance with government cost accounting principles (FAR 31.201-4). Would USAID consider amending this prohibition?

RESPONSE: The reporting table in section F has been revised which addresses the above concerns. Please see attached amendment #1.

12. Page 14 (B.7 (a) Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates): USAID does not provide labor categories in the RFP, stating that these are to be inserted at the award stage.

However, Section L.10 in the instructions for the preparation of the cost proposal (page 139) requires that “Offerors propose unburdened ceiling daily rates for all labor categories set forth in Section B.7.” In order to clarify this contradiction, and to facilitate comparison of rates across offerors will USAID provide labor categories for the IDIQ?

RESPONSE: The requirement document is a Statement of Objectives whereby the offeror needs to demonstrate how it proposes to achieve the objectives of the activity. This includes contractor personnel.

If not, please confirm that proposed labor categories and corresponding ceilings will be used for cost realism purposes in the cost proposal review rather than cost comparison against other offerors as the establishment of the categories, especially the definition and pricing thereof, will be unique to an offeror’s technical approach which will be evaluated against USAID’s defined criteria whereas labor categories will not.

RESPONSE: The proposed labor categories and corresponding ceilings will be used for cost realism.

13. B.6 – This section includes a table that of a cost-reimbursable type contract only and not an IDIQ which USAID already established in section B.4. We respectfully request to remove this table/section. This table can be included in individual TOs.

RESPONSE: The Table in Section B.6 remains as is.

14. B.7(a)(2) – The table is showing only Years 1 through 5 while the performance period is 7 years as per F.2(a)). We respectfully request a revision of the section to include Years 6 and 7.

RESPONSE: Given that the request is for a five year activity under a seven year IDIQ period of performance, the table remains as is.

15. B.7(a)(3) – With respect to the definition of labor categories to be inserted at award, should Offerors define them in their proposals? Please confirm.

RESPONSE: Yes, this is correct.

16. B.7 – Note 2 stated that the CDRs are governed by the LCP, could you provide a copy of the LCP?

RESPONSE: B.7. a.2 (Note 2) deleted the sentence “CCN and TCN labor are also governed by the local compensation plan limitations as further provided in note 3 below”’. Please see attached amendment.

17. B.9 – The table in this section required to propose a ceiling for Overhead and G&A only. Some offerors and sub-offerors may have rates other than these two. Are they required to propose a ceiling for all rates other than fringe?

RESPONSE: Yes.

18. B.11 – Please consider removing reference to L.9.

RESPONSE: The reference is valid.

19. Given this is an IDIQ with TBD task orders and scopes of work, would USAID be willing to provide ceiling daily rate labor categories, detailing for which types of technical experts offerors are expected to propose ceiling daily rates?

RESPONSE: The requirement document is a Statement of Objectives whereby the offeror needs to demonstrate how it proposes to achieve the objectives of the activity. This includes contractor personnel.

20. Per Section B.11 of the RFP, USAID has requested a security plan and budget

(although L.8 specifies the security plan is only required from the successful offeror).

However, without the task order scopes of work, it is difficult to assess these costs.

Could USAID please clarify the requirements for budgeting security costs?

RESPONSE: The Table in section F has been updated; please see attached amendment# 1.

21. Section B.7 states that a “key (full-time) technical manager is not necessary” and the contractor “will not be authorized to bill USAID directly for IDIQ contract management costs.” However, an IDIQ technical manager is required to complete the reports designated in Section F.7.1, such as the Communication and Outreach Strategy, the Gender and Inclusion Strategy, and the Grants Manual. Because the IDIQ only guarantees the minimum order of $25,000, which may not cover everything, would USAID consider issuing a task order for IDIQ management?

RESPONSE: The Table in section F has been updated; please see attached amendment# 1.

22. Section F.7.1 of the RFP requires that the Gender and Inclusion Strategy be submitted within 90 calendar days after IDIQ award, following the completion of community needs assessments. Section F.7.2 gives the timing for the community needs assessments as TBD pending the specific RFTOP. Could USAID revise the deadline for the Gender and Inclusion Strategy to connect to the timing of the community needs assessment?

RESPONSE: The Table in section F has been updated; please see attached amendment# 1.

23. The solicitation states in section B.7. (a), that there will be no overall IDIQ management costs allowed; however in section F.6. (a)(i), the solicitation states that the “Key Personnel that the contractor must furnish for the period of performance of this IDIQ contract are as follows: Chief of Party: 100% LOE.” Is this COP expected to serve as the IDIQ COP, or rather for a task order? If the COP is to serve for the IDIQ, would USAID reconsider the stipulation in section B.7. (a)? If the COP is to serve for the task order(s) could USAID please provide further information?

RESPONSE: Key Personnel apply at the task order level, considering the Task order requirements (assessments and subsequent activity implementation) stated above.

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

24. Page 22 (E.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN): Please clarify whether the QASP is to be developed for the entire project per the proposed design as part of bidder submissions in response to the Statement of Objectives. This requirement does not appear to align with the requirement that different management tools, which would be used to monitor quality assurance, are to be developed for each task order.

RESPONSE: The QASP shall be developed at the TO level. Section F.7.1 REPORTS (IDIQ CONTRACT AND TASK ORDERS) has been revised.

25. Page 22 (E.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN) and Section L.9, page 137: Please provide the Mission’s preferred template for the QASP. To our knowledge, there is no USAID-specific guidance regarding QASPs.

RESPONSE: Note, the requirement for QASP at the IDIQ level has been changed to TO level. Please see attached amen

26. E.1 – We suggest adding FAR 52.246-4 Inspection of Services - Fixed Price, since it appears relevant.

RESPONSE: FAR 52.246.4 Inspection of Services- Fixed Price has been added to the subject RFP. Please see attached amendment #1.

27. E.3 – This section requires submission of a QASP at the IDIQ level. We believe it is more appropriate to be requested with each RFTOP, as needed. We respectfully request a revision of this section, as well as item #15 in the deliverables table in section F.7.1. In addition, the RFP does not allow the Contractor to recover costs for developing this plan under the IDIQ. Moreover, we believe that the QASP is not required for firm fixed price TOs that are deliverable-based.

RESPONSE: The requirement to submit a QASP will be at the Task Order level.

Please see attached amendment.

28. E.4 – The language in this section refers to the IDIQ COR and not the TOCOR.

Please revise to reflect that the MEL plan is required only at the TO level as per #2 in section F.7.1.

RESPONSE: The MEL plan is required at the Task Order level.

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

29. Page 24 (F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE): This section states that the period of performance for the IDIQ is seven years. However, in Attachment J.1, section 3 (page 157) the statement of objectives states that “Esho Shikhi is a five-year activity.

Please confirm that offerors should design a five-year activity in its technical proposal and that the summary and detailed budget and budget narrative should similarly reflect a five-year activity.

RESPONSE: A five year activity budget is correct.

30. Pages 27-29 (F.7.1 REPORTS): The table on these pages distinguishes between reports associated with task orders, and those associated with the overall IDIQ. This raises the following issues:

· The multiple reports and management tools that must be prepared for potentially concurrent (or even slightly staggered) task orders increases the level of effort and number of persons required to produce several reports.

· There is likely to be overlap and duplication among the different reports and management tools. For example, in the development hypothesis set forth by USAID in the RFP (p. 157), the higher student outcome and some output indicators will result from the combination of achievements under the four results. One MEL Plan is needed to both capture and coordinate MEL activities.

· Reporting by individual Task Orders is unlikely to provide a coherent picture of the overall project accomplishments, progress, activities and synergies. An annual work plan should address the entire project, as staff and resource allocation will cross over multiple results, activities and possibly task orders. A single work plan allows for coordination.

· Separate financial reports, following USAID’s requirements, will exponentially increase the complexity of tracking, reporting and analyzing costs, as well as increase the margin for error.

Could USAID please clarify the rationale for reporting and management tool development by task order? We respectfully request that USAID reconsider this requirement.

RESPONSE: The Table in Section F has been updated; please see attached amendment #1.

31. Pages 29-36 (F.7.1 (1) Annual Work Plan through (19) Other Reports): The narrative for the deliverables on these pages appears to apply to the project as a whole, rather than by individual task order. This does not seem to be consistent with what is proposed in the Reports Table (page 27). For example, the Work Plan, MEL Plan, and quarterly/annual/final progress and financial reports, Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator and Closeout and Demobilization Plan are most appropriate for the project as a whole. Further, we are not sure how IDIQ-specified activities (such as a QASP) can be done for the project as a whole if other essential reports and management tools are only done by task order. We respectfully request that USAID provide greater clarity regarding the Reports Table and the Reports narrative(s).

RESPONSE: The Table in Section F has been updated; please see attached amendment #1.

32. Page 37 (F.7.2 DELIVERABLES, 1. Community Assessment) and page 161:

Please define what USAID expects the Offeror to address in terms of “the education landscape.” If it is referring to specific guidance, please provide the citation.

RESPONSE: Education landscape here refers to the overall education scenario/picture in each target community and the needs assessment is supposed to record it. Education landscape represents a broader realm than individual schooling alone. It addresses salient dimensions of schooling, particularly those that point to the importance of local culture and other contextual dimensions.

33. Page 39 (F.8.2 Request for Task Order Proposal): Please clarify how the RFTOPs will be developed and task orders linked to the awarded offeror’s proposal for the project, given that a design and budget is being requested for the entire project under the current RFP.

RESPONSE: See section F.8.2. a, c, and f.

34. F.6 –The requirement to provide Key Personnel (KP) appears to be conflict with B.7, which states that no key technical manager for the IDIQ is required. Moreover, specific KP will be proposed only at individual TO level. In light of that, it is suggested that USAID remove this requirement or make it applicable only to individual TOs.

RESPONSE: The offeror is required to propose Key Personnel to accomplish task order requirements. Offerors should use its discretion in proposing a key personnel structure that will meet the task order contract requirements. IDIQ management costs can be reimbursed under the indirect cost category.

35. F.7.1 – This section requires numerous deliverables at the IDIQ level while they are more appropriate for individual TOs and the Contractor will not be able to directly bill IDIQ management cost. Therefore, would USAID please revise the deliverable table to request them only at the TO level (e.g., Closeout and Demobilization Plan, Environmental Mitigation & Monitoring Report, QASP, BIP/MP)?

RESPONSE: The Table in Section F has been updated; please see attached amendment #1

36. F.7.1(3) – The Communication and Outreach Strategy appears to duplicate the BIP and MP. Would USAID consider removing this additional requirement?

RESPONSE: The requirement stands as stated.

37. F.7.1 – Would USAID consider specifying which deliverables are not applicable for FFP TOs (e.g., accruals)?

RESPONSE: The applicability of the deliverables and/or any changes will be determined at the TO level and will be done in accordance with the USG regulations and policies.

38. F.7.1(16) – Would USAID consider removing reference to Section L.

RESPONSE: Section L.12 states instructions for the preparation of the Branding Strategy and Marking Plan (BSMP).

39. F.7.2 – Please confirm whether the deliverables listed in this section are required only at the TO level.

RESPONSE: Yes, that is correct

40. F.8.2 – Would USAID consider removing the requirement to submit PPI specific to TOs. In a singled-award IDIQ, this would appear to be unnecessary.

RESPONSE: No, F.8.2. e. Past performance information specific to the task order requirement may be requested.

41. The RFP specifies the COP and four other positions TBD as Key Personnel. Could USAID please clarify whether offerors are required to propose a COP for the IDIQ proposal or if the COP should be proposed under a later task order?

RESPONSE: The offeror is required to propose Key Personnel to accomplish task order requirements. Offerors should use its discretion in proposing a key personnel structure that will meet the task order contract requirements. IDIQ management costs can be reimbursed under the indirect cost category.

42. Similarly, are other key personnel positions to be named at the IDIQ proposal stage or under subsequent task orders?

RESPONSE: Key Personnel positions to be named at the IDIQ stage considering the Task Order Requirements.

43. Please confirm that offerors are allowed but not required to define and name up to four additional Key Personnel.

RESPONSE: Yes, that is correct. The maximum number of key personnel is five (5).

44. Section F.7.1 Reports (IDIQ Contracts and Task Orders)

a) Please confirm that development of the seven reports linked to the IDIQ (Communication and Outreach Strategy, Gender and Inclusion Strategy, Grants Manual etc.) will be funded as part of a subsequent task orders.

RESPONSE: The Table in Section F has been updated; please see attached amendment #1.

b) On pages 27-28, the RFP states that a Gender and Inclusion Strategy is due 90 days after IDIQ contract award date. Page 31 indicates that the strategy is to be developed based on the findings of the Community Needs Assessments, which is to be completed within the first year (page 160).

Would USAID consider changing the due date of the Gender and Inclusion Strategy to be 60 days after the completion of the Community Needs Assessments?

RESPONSE: Agreed, due date is changed to 60 days after completion of the Community Needs Assessment. Please see attached amendment.

c) In the reports table, rows 11 and 13 require submission of “closeout and demobilization plan, and final report (IDIQ and task order)” to the TOCOR.

Assuming that there is no overlap of task orders, Could USAID please confirm that contractors do not need to submit two sets of separate reports for the IDIQ and task order?

RESPONSE: The Table in Section F has been updated; please see attached amendment #1

d) Under sub-section 8 “Financial Report” (page 33) the RFP states that the contractor will be required to list “significant expenses incurred during the period”. Could USAID please define “significant expenses”?

RESPONSE: Expenses over $500.

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

45. In section G.8.c., page 53, the Contractor is directed to inform the USAID TOCOR of all meetings with the Government of Bangladesh, counterparts, donors, and other organizations and to seek concurrence from the TOCOR well in advance. In order to implement activities under Result 3 of the Performance Objectives listed in Attachment J.1 (pages 162-163), regular engagement with a variety of government stakeholders is necessary. In addition, coordination with a wide range of other actors is stressed in Attachment J.1 section 8 (pages 164-165).

a) Could USAID please provide additional details on how this concurrence is envisioned as to still enable effective and regular stakeholder engagement?

RESPONSE: The main objectives of regular engagement with government of Bangladesh officials are to ensure their active role in the project and also share progress with them on a regular basis. Offerors will be required to reflect that effectively in the proposal and describe how it will be done.

b) Could USAID please define the term “other organizations” more specifically, in order to facilitate efficient work?

RESPONSE: The specific definition of “other organizations” will depend on the proposal. For example, MoPME will be the line ministry of the activity and, if Early Childhood Development is included, MOWCA (Ministry of Women and Children’s Affairs) would also be included, and defined as other stakeholder.

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

46. Page 58 Section H.10(a)(1): The restriction, especially as it might apply to initial/new hires, is administratively burdensome as it is unrealistic to expect candidates to accept a new position at the same annual salary as they have been previously receiving. This approach is also inconsistent with USAID’s new focus on market-based compensation rather than salary history. We request that that the last sentence of H.10(a)(1) be deleted.

RESPONSE: The last sentence has been deleted

47. Page 58 Section H.10(d): The limitation on annual salary increases to “not more than three (3) percent” is inconsistent with historical inflation trends and may negatively impact staff’s purchasing power and standard of living by virtue of being employees under this award. Please consider increasing this rate to six (6) percent.

RESPONSE: The contractor will be required to seek approval for increases in salary over 5%.

48. H.10(d) – The annual salary increase limitation of 3% conflicts with AIDAR 752.7007, which allows compensation in accordance with the offeror’s established policies and practices. Would USAID consider removing this 3% limitation?

RESPONSE: The Contracting Officer’s review and approval will be required for an increase in annual salary over 5%.

49. H.15 – Paragraph (b) requires considering the Mission’s LCP. Could you provide a copy thereof?

RESPONSE: USAID encourages the offeror to propose and use salaries that are based on market rate and the proposed rates will be reviewed for the purposes of cost realism and reasonableness and will require Contracting Officer’s approval for all programmatic staff.

50. There appears to be a typo on p. 81 - section H.32 should be re-numbered to H.34.

RESPONSE: Agreed and revised. Please see attached amendment.

51. We respectfully request that USAID remove the salary increase restrictions included in Section H.10, because it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation, which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices.

The salary restriction above may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices as required by AIDAR 752.7007, which governs all USAID cost-reimbursement contracts.

RESPONSE: The last sentence from H.10 a (1) has been deleted. Please see attached amendment.

52. Section H.8.E states that “the contractor shall award grants only to non-governmental organizations.” Can USAID kindly confirm that solely in-kind grants to government entities will also be allowed under this contract, pursuant to ADS 302.3.4.13?

RESPONSE: Yes; however, all GUCs will be subject to the approval process in accordance with USAID regulations and policies.

53. Pages 13 and 58 of the RFP include salary limitation language. On page 58 it states:

“Salaries and wages may not exceed the Contractor's established policy and practice…. Nor may any individual salary or wage, without approval of the Cognizant Contracting Officer, exceed the employee's current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years.” Several U.S. states either have enacted, or are considering enacting, legislation that supports the federal Equal Pay Act. The intent of this legislation is to reduce gender inequity in compensation by putting in place measures that do not perpetuate historical differences in pay between genders when hiring. One of the key provisions of offer of employment. Consistent with the Equal Pay Act, and as part of USAID’s Effective Partnering and Procurement Reform recommendations, a new SF1420 form was released in September 2019, which does not capture salary history. Again, the intent of the recommendation is to address possible gender inequities in salary negotiation. A corollary benefit is that administrative costs for both the contractor and USAID staff in processing prior approvals will be reduced. It appears that the intent of Section H.10 on page 58 is to ensure that compensation is reflective of the labor market, is determined to be reasonable, and is cost effective. While criteria such as the Mission’s Local Compensation Plan, documented market research, and USAID approval of a contractor’s salary scale and personnel policies can establish this reasonability as required by AIDAR 752.7007, an individual’s salary history is not a reliable determinant of reasonability, especially for women. The limits in Section H.10 (a)(1) give an individual’s salary history greater weight than these other more reliable sources of market value, could serve to perpetuate gender inequities in compensation. We request that the RFP be amended to remove this requirement, and to rely instead on criteria other than salary history as tests of reasonableness.

RESPONSE: The last sentence has been deleted. Please see attached amendment.

54. In section B.8 on page 15, the RFP indicates that the labor rates are fixed for all contract years, while in section H.10 on page 58, the RFP indicates that annual salary increases cannot exceed three percent. Are salaries fixed, or can they increase annually?

RESPONSE: Base Salaries are fixed; however, they may be increased annually due to the contractor salary/wage policies. An increase over 5% will require Contracting Officer’s approval.

55. In the description of Grants Under Contracts on page 57, the RFP states that “The Contractor shall award such grants only to non-government organizations” Do eligible non-governmental organizations require formal registration as an NGO in Bangladesh or are local community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, and/or school-affiliated groups eligible to receive a GUC?

RESPONSE: Eligible non-governmental organizations require formal registration as an NGO in Bangladesh.

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

56. I.12 – It appears that solicitation provision FAR 52.204-24 belongs in section K.

Please confirm that Offerors to complete and submit it along with other required representations.

RESPONSE: Yes, the provision has been moved to section K and offeror’s representation is required. Please see attached amendment.

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND REFERENCED BY LINK

57. A subcontracting plan is required, but there is no plan template attached to the solicitation (Attachment J-9 is not attached). Therefore, could USAID provide a Word version of the SB Subcontracting Plan template, and a Excel version of Attachment 1 to the template?

RESPONSE: The template was attached with the RFP; the Offeror is requested to check the RFP post again.

58. Please confirm that Offerors must propose subcontracting goals in all categories?

RESPONSE: Offeror is requested to follow the template where the requirement is clearly stated.

59. On page 149 under section J.10 – Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Concerns, the RFP notes that an award “cannot” be made without approval of that plan by OSDBU. Will USAID seek that approval, or should the Offeror seek it?

RESPONSE: USAID will seek the approval.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

60. Page 130 of the RFP (L.7 Submission/Delivery Instructions): We note that the preparation of emails containing Offeror Proposals requires the subject line to include the RFP number listed as “72038819R000018 - Esho Shikhi,” whereas the document header lists the RFP number as “72038819R00018”. Please confirm which RFP number is correct.

RESPONSE: 72038819R00018 - Esho Shikhi

61. Page 133 (L.9 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT, Factor 1): Please clarify if USAID requires individual school communities within all eight upazilas to be selected, rather than school-communities within a targeted group of upazilas (i.e., less than eight).

RESPONSE: A response is at the discretion of the offeror.

62. Page 135 (L.9, Factor 4: Contractor Performance Information): This section defines a major subcontractor as one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s proposed cost. As the detailed budget required in response to this RFP is illustrative and the proposed cost will be determined according to individual task orders issued after award of the IDIQ in response to specific task order objectives, please confirm that the Offeror may make the major subcontractor determination at the task order stage and submit the required major subcontractor documentation at that time.

RESPONSE: No; major subcontractor should be determined at the time of the RFP submission. We anticipate a request for Task Order proposal #1 to be issued soon after the IDIQ contract is awarded.

63. Page 138. USAID indicates that “The cost proposal must be submitted in Excel format, with accessible unlocked formulas, no hidden references, and the budget notes must be submitted in MS Word text.” Please confirm that summary budget and detailed budget should be submitted in Excel format and budget notes and other supporting documentation may be submitted in Microsoft word or PDF.

RESPONSE: That is correct.

64. Page 139 (L.10 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL, (b) Part 2-Proposed Costs/Prices): Please confirm that proposed labor category and indirect rate ceilings will be used for cost realism purposes in the cost proposal review rather than cost comparison against other offerors as the establishment of the categories, especially the individual pricing thereof, and indirect rates will be specific and unique to an offeror’s internal accounting structure and therefore incomparable against other unique presentations.

RESPONSE: Indirect costs are never used for cost comparison purposes between offerors. Labor categories and indirect cost rate ceilings will be used for cost realism purposes.

65. L.8(g) – Would USAID consider excluding the Executive Summary from the 30-page limit? Also, please confirm that the Executive Summary is only a summary of the critical elements of the technical proposal and will not be evaluated against any of the evaluation factors.

RESPONSE: The Executive Summary is an integral part of the proposal and it will be considered within the 30 page limit.

66. L.9 Factor 1 – Is there a page limitation, or a minimum length required, for Technical Approach section in general, and the proposed PWS in particular?

RESPONSE: The offeror is required to use its own discretion.

67. L.9 Factor 1 – We understand that the deliverables and results (e.g., targets and number of beneficiaries) will depend on the amount of funding provided through the TOs. So, should Offerors propose on the assumption that full IDIQ ceiling will be utilized? Please confirm.

RESPONSE: No; Offeror should propose its best approach at a reasonable cost which cannot exceed the total IDIQ ceiling.

68. L.9 Factor 2 – Please confirm that Offerors are expected to describe the overall IDIQ management approach and staffing plan, not the TO level staffing needs.

RESPONSE: Yes, that is correct, the overall IDIQ management approach and staffing plan.

69. L.9 Factor 2 – Since there will be no direct billing for IDIQ management costs, and no need for Key Personnel (KP) at the IDIQ level, may Offerors simply present illustrative KP and non-key staff position for potential TOs?

RESPONSE: Yes.

70. L.9 Factor 4 – Please clarify the definition of a major subcontractor. Is the standard 20% of the total proposed cost. Please confirm that the total cost refers to the IDIQ ceiling.

RESPONSE: Major subcontractor is the one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the offeror’s total proposed cost: the total proposed cost refers to the cost proposed in response to this IDIQ RFP.

71. L.9 Factor 4, 4. (i) – There is a reference to section (d); however, that section is not found in the text. Please clarify to what (d) refers.

RESPONSE: The section (d) would be section (4), the section itself. Please see attached amendment.

72. L.10 – On p.139 this section states that the “cost proposal must reflect the entire set of resources for the Offeror to accomplish the Performance Work Statement”. Does this mean to utilize the full IDIQ ceiling amount stated in section B.4?

RESPONSE: No; offeror will propose the total estimated cost required to perform the offeror’s technical proposal. Offeror shall not consider the ceiling as its total estimated cost. The total estimated cost proposed cannot exceed the IDIQ ceiling amount.

73. L.10(b) – This section requires Offerors to propose CDRs for all labor categories set forth in section B.7. Section B.7(a)(2), in turn, does not provide a listing of labor categories and states “TBD”. Are Offerors required to propose these labor categories for inclusion into the resultant contract?

RESPONSE: Yes, offerors are required to propose the labor categories required for the PWS that will be proposed in response to the Statement of Objectives.

74. L.10(b) – This section requires to submit “historical biodata forms used (within the past five years)”. Please note that the new biodata sheet AID Form 1420-17 does not contain the salary history. Does USAID require Offerors to use the old form?

RESPONSE: No (new form was attached as Attachment J5).

If yes, the form limits the salary history to three years only. Please advise. In addition, may Offerors justify CDRs by means other than by having to provide biodata forms, especially since most of the positions would be TBD?

RESPONSE: Offerors should provide sufficient documentation for the CDRs they propose, in addition to biodata forms.

May Offerors also identify the source of historical data used, e.g., payroll records, but not have to provide copies of these documents with the proposal?

RESPONSE: Offerors must certify that sufficient documentation exists to support the rate.

75. L.10(b) – Should Offerors prepare the Labor Overview Chart and budget utilizing the full IDIQ ceiling amount stated in section B.4?

RESPONSE: No; Offeror should prepare the Labor Overview Chart and budget utilizing the total estimated cost it proposes for the full activity; the total estimated cost proposed should be based on and aligned with the technical approach contemplated, and cannot exceed the IDIQ ceiling amount.

76. L.10(b)(5)(M) – May Offerors be permitted not to include cost reasonableness for each GUC, and only provide an overall justification for the proposed GUC amount.

RESPONSE: The requirement stated in the RFP remains valid.

Also, is there a minimum or maximum amount that Offerors must allocate for all GUCs?

RESPONSE: No.

77. L.10.(b) – May Offerors submit requests for consent to subcontract only for major subcontractors (as defined in the RFP) during the proposal stage?

RESPONSE: Yes; the offeror should submit request for consent to subcontract in accordance with FAR 44.2 Consent to Subcontract at all stages.

78. Are Offerors required to utilize the ceiling in section B.4 for the preparation of the Summary Budget on p.141?

RESPONSE: Offeror’s budget shall reflect the total estimated cost proposed by the offeror to accomplish the tasks proposed.

79. L.10(b) – Will USAID evaluate the proposed CDRs or the Summary Budget as part of the cost proposal evaluation, source selection and trade-off?

RESPONSE: Yes, as part of cost realism.

Will the total of proposed Summary Budget requested on p.141 be used to evaluate the best value regardless of the IDIQ ceiling stated in section B.4?

RESPONSE: Yes, the Summary budget should coincide with and reflect the detailed budget proposed in the excel format.

80. L.10(b) – The IDIQ period of performance (PoP) is 7 years, while the Summary Budget has only 5 years. Could USAID confirm whether the budget is required for 5 years of 7 years? May Offerors add columns for Years 6 and 7.

RESPONSE: 5 years.

81. Could USAID remove the requirement to price out the entire IDIQ by component for the IDIQ-level proposal, because the individual task order scopes of work are expected to be demand-driven and developed over the IDIQ period of performance?

RESPONSE: Agreed. Please see attached amendment.

82. Section L.9 states that the offeror “must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor…” (page 135). Can USAID clarify if the offeror should submit performance information for all partners and subcontractors, even though they are not considered to be major subcontractors under the IDIQ?

RESPONSE: Performance information should be submitted for major subcontractors proposed.

83. In Section L.8.(d), the solicitation asks for a technical proposal “describing in sufficient detail the approach the offeror commits to carry out to achieve the Objectives stated in the SOO. Section L.9. under Factor 2 Management Approach and Staffing Plan, requests a “Management Approach and Staffing plan that clearly describes how the technical experience, operational assets and organizational structure of the offeror will achieve the SOO objectives.” The guidance on the cost proposal in Section L.10 requests a fully detailed budget, including a breakdown per Objective. If USAID is planning to issue more than one task order, proposed organizational charts, management structures and detailed budgets that address the entire SOO would not necessarily fit these task orders. Could USAID please clarify how it intends to use the task orders, and revise the guidance on the technical and cost proposals?

RESPONSE: The requirement has been revised to remove the breakdown of the budget by Objective. Please see attached amendment.

84. The budget summary format included in pages 141 and 142, seems to require the budget by Objectives while the budget format provided as an attachment in Excel does not. Please confirm whether or not the budget is required by objectives.

RESPONSE: The requirement to provide a budget by Objective has been removed.

85. Page 139 of the RFP states: “Offerors must propose unburdened ceiling daily rates for labor categories/groupings set forth in Section B.7.” However, the section referenced does not contain any labor categories. Please explain. If there are specific labor categories, please provide these.

RESPONSE: Offerors are required to propose the labor categories required in response to the Statement of Objectives.

86. Under Technical Approach Annex 2 (page 137), the RFP calls for a LOE table for the full contract performance period for Key Personnel and professional-level positions. Could USAID please confirm that the contract performance means LOE envisioned under two task orders?

RESPONSE: Yes, that is correct.

87. For purposes of developing the detailed cost proposal budget and budget narrative, are offerors to create a detailed budget for the entire period of performance with the assumption that the budget (and subsequent SOWs/PWS) will be negotiated through RFTOPs and obligated through the resultant task orders?

RESPONSE: Yes, the assumption is correct.

88. The cover page indicates a 7-year base period however the budget template (Attachment J.6) and section L.10.b (pages 141-142) indicate only a 5-year budget period required for the cost proposal. Could USAID please clarify if offerors are expected to submit a 5-year or a 7-year budget?

RESPONSE: Only a five year budget is required.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

89. Page 154 (M.3 COST PROPOSAL EVALUATION): USAID states that it will consider “administrative costs versus funds going towards program implementation”.

We respectfully request that USAID provide its internal evaluation guidance on this point of consideration as “administrative” is a highly subjective determination that often is affected by presentation of costs more than the beneficial outcome of the cost presented.

RESPONSE: Program implementation includes, but is not limited to, task and activities directly contributing to the achievement of results and objectives.

90. M.2 Factor 4 Past Performance - There is an internal contradiction here for which we request clarification. Paragraph c) says that USAID will initially determine the relevancy of PPI, but then paragraph d) again includes it as subfactor #7. Would USAID consider removing subfactor #7?

RESPONSE: The requirement remains as stated.

91. What is the expected weighting or point allocation between the criteria listed on page 151 of the RFP?

RESPONSE: Adjectival ratings will be used in the evaluation of proposals.

Moreover, as stated in Section M.2 Technical proposal evaluation criteria: “Technical Approach” is the most important factor. “Management Approach and Staffing Plan,” “Institutional Capability,” and “Contractor Performance Information” are of equal weight. The weighting of factors can be distributed as follows:

Evaluation Criteria (%)

1. Technical Approach 40

2. Management Approach and Staffing Plan 20

3. Institutional Capability 20

4. Contractor Performance Information 20

ATTACHMENT J.1: STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

92. Page 157 (2. Scope): Please confirm that the definition of “pre-primary” is a reference to the official year of schooling prior to Grade 1 in government primary schools.

RESPONSE: Yes, Pre-Primary does refer to the official year of schooling prior to grade 1 as in government primary education.

93. Page 157 (3. Period and Place of Performance): It appears that many upazilas in Cox’s Bazar will have donor-funded learning programs, including McGovern-Dole.

Please confirm it is acceptable to select school communities where other donor learning programs, including those funded by USG, are operating?

RESPONSE: The answer is ‘Yes’ and Esho Shikhi will build on the existing best practices, strengthen the current practices and NOT duplicate any ongoing programs.

94. Page 162 (Result 1: Learning Opportunities Increased): Please provide further clarification about the definition of “stipend” and its application to teachers. First, does the proscription of teacher stipend payments apply to teachers in any type of school (e.g., government, non-formal, private, religious)? Second, does the prohibition of stipend payments for teachers include any of the following and, if so, which ones:

· “Plus-ups” of teacher salaries (increasing take-home pay)

· Payment to teachers for extra-curricular activities outside of school hours

· Payment for para-teachers (hired by SMCs, NGOs or project)

· Payment for classroom assistants

RESPONSE: Page 162 (Result 1) clearly mentions, “It is not within the scope of this activity to provide school feeding or stipends (including for students and/or teachers). So, there will be NO point of payment as plus ups, payment for extracurricular activities. If the provision of para teacher is included in the proposal, it will be a different issue than stipend. The activity does not restrict offerors to create the provision for “Para-Teacher”.

95. Page 164 (7. Operating Constraints): References and text related to Capital Improvements cited in the Draft Statement of Objectives have been eliminated from the RFP. Please clarify whether smaller-scale capital improvements—if appropriately needs-based—are to be expected or permitted under the project. For example, are Offerors precluded from supporting WASH infrastructure?

RESPONSE: No; capital improvements are no longer a requirement. USAID anticipates identifying specific capital improvement needs based on the results of the needs assessments, but not at this stage.

96. Page 165 (8. Coordination): Given the increasingly crowded playing field in reading and other quality improvement interventions by other groups, it would be helpful if USAID could clarify where it sees Esho Shiki’s value-added and opportunities, given the overlap of the RFP specifications with current and planned programs and interventions by other donors and organizations. Further clarification is also requested about attribution and accountability for project objectives. If, for example, another organization is providing reading inputs and support in an Esho Shikhi school community, to what extent is the Esho Shikhi implementer responsible for learning outcomes in reading in that school-community?

RESPONSE: Esho Shikhi aims to NOT duplicate any ongoing activities; but rather build on and/or strengthen those activities. Offerors may propose alternative approaches if there is the possibility of duplication, however, USAID does not encourage offerors to exclude any school for this reason.

97. Page 169 (19. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan): Please clarify how USAID envisions the Esho Shiki implementer to conduct learning assessments in school communities where learning assessments are already being conducted by another organization as part of its reading improvement program.

RESPONSE: We are cognizant of the fact that some organizations are conducting some learning assessments in some of the schools in Cox’s Bazar. However, it is USAID’s understanding that these are sporadic assessments being conducted in some schools, not all. As Esho Shikhi’s aim is to NOT duplicate any ongoing activities or efforts, the learning assessments conducted in all of the intervention schools will provide for a better holistic insight and comparability.

98. Can USAID please clarify what the "baseline conducted by the contractor at the start of award" refers to (page 157)? Will there be separate baselines conducted for each task order, as Section F.7 notes that each task order will have its own Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan?

RESPONSE: Each Task Order will have its own MEL plan and a Baseline-Midline- Endline will be conducted for Student Learning Assessments {F 7.2 (4), page 37}. A Community Needs Assessment {F 7.2 (1), page 36} will be conducted at the start to inform needs based intervention and to set the specific targets of the activity.

99. Can USAID please clarify whether the principles of Positive Youth Development are applicable given the targeted age group (generally ages 10 and under) in the Esho Shikhi Activity? The RFP makes frequent reference to Positive Youth Development principles and policy. Although "youth" begins at age 10 per USAID's Youth Policy, it is difficult to engage primary school students under age 11 as "key community stakeholders in activity work planning and implementation" (p. 167).

Response: Under F 7.1 (6- Quarterly progress report) page 36, the activity includes, “Discussion of cross-cutting issues such as gender, inclusion of people and children with disabilities, and youth development.” As stated in SOO under point 12 (Gender and Inclusion), “Esho Shikhi must implement the principles of Positive Youth Development by engaging youth as key community stakeholders in activity work planning and implementation. The activity must also be consistent with the goal of USAID’s Youth in Development Policy (2012): “to improve the capacities and enable the aspirations of youth so that they can contribute to and benefit from more stable, democratic and prosperous communities and nations”.”

100. The RFP indicates that the contractor must "conduct a needs assessment of schools and communities in order to inform needs-based interventions. The assessment must be designed and planned in consultation with USAID and the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education" (page 161). Three other types of assessments are required to inform activities. Can USAID please clarify the expectations for an implementation timeline (especially the commencement of interventions), as such an extensive study will take time and must be performed before interventions are designed?

RESPONSE: USAID anticipates implementation of the activities under Task Order #2 at 7 to 13 months after award of Task Order #1.

101. On page 162, the RFP states that “the contractor must conduct baseline, midline, and endline assessment on learning outcomes for a representative sample of each cohort of beneficiary schools and/or…