Questions_and_Answers_Round_2.pdf

1. In reference to the Budget Template and section F. 4 Level of Effort, would USAID please clarify whether short term technical assistance provided by individuals who are not full time employees of the Contractor should be budgeted under "Direct Short Term Labor" or under the “consultant” line item? It is understood that both are part of Short Term LOE.

Answer: They must be budgeted as subcontract labor. We have amended the budget template.

2. Would USAID also confirm that Contractor Home Office LOE should be counted as part of Short Term Level of Effort?

Answer: Yes, if it is direct charged. We have amended the table in F.4 to streamline the LOE categories.

3. USAID/Vietnam should be commended for its desire to use Performance-Based Acquisition (PBA) per FAR Subpart 37-6 for the Learns contract. As the FAR describes when covering the associated Performance Work Statement (PWS), the requirement is that work must be described “in terms of the required results rather that either “how” the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided.” The Learns RFP provides a Statement of Objectives (SOO) upon the basis of which offerors must prepare the PWS. The FAR defines the SOO as, “a Government-prepared document incorporated into the solicitation that states the overall performance objectives. It is used in solicitations when the Government intends to provide the maximum flexibility to each offeror to propose an innovation approach.”

Thus, it appears the PWS is geared towards a proposal containing “required results” while the SOO appears to emphasize the technical approach, or how results will be achieved – in this particular case against the three performance objectives contained in the SOO. Unlike other USG/USAID awards where the required results of PBA are clearly set forth in the solicitation, the nature of Learns by design leaves that specificity until the issuance of specific Job Orders.

Question: Will the Mission please clarify the possible contradiction between the FAR’s description of the use of a SOO focusing on approach and the PWS focused on results when the performance objectives contained in the SOO are necessarily very broad? Will the Mission confirm in lieu of this disconnect that the PWS to be submitted must be devoid of any discussion of the technique approach proposed to achieve the performance objectives?

Answer: There is no contradiction. Please follow the requirements of Section L.

4. The Learns Pre-Proposal Conference Notes contain a section (page 6) on the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). It notes guidance is available in FAR part 46. Subpart 46.4 (46.401) describes the use of QASP to be accomplished generally through inspection either at the “source” or prior to acceptance at the “destination.” Although 46.4 mentions “services” in passing, it is clearly geared to quality assurance of goods/supplies (for the DoD in particular). In short, FAR Subpart 46.4 is not very useful in providing guidance on what USAID/Vietnam wishes to receive in terms of a QASP for the Learns award.

Question: In order to avoid receiving widely varied submissions that could be difficult to evaluate, can be Mission provide any further guidance, oriented towards quality assurance of services, on the nature of the QASP it would like? (The FAR itself does not appear to provide further information.

Other USG websites do, including “instructions for a QASP template,” although this too is oriented towards inspection of goods.)

Answer: No. Offerors are encouraged to review FAR Subpart 46.4 for general requirements and other U.S. Government agencies’ guidance for their reference. And it’s up to offerors to propose QASPs.

5. Will USAID please clarify the instruction that the PWS must demonstrate a capability to meet all the requirements in the SOO, while not including any language that is proposal contractor specific.

Answer: Please refer to number 7 of the round 1 Questions and Answers.

6. On page 5 of the Pre-Proposal Conference Notes, USAID states: “The RFP doesn’t say quantifiable results because it’s a cost reimbursement type contract, but we do have measurable quality standards.” However, page 51 of the revised RFP, under Performance Work Statement, USAID also notes that “The PWS must clearly articulate what actions the Offeror will perform, the quantifiable results of those actions…” Can USAID please clarify whether quantifiable results are expected in the

PWS?

Answer: They are required. The information in Section L is correct. Offerors must provide the quantifiable results in the PWS.

7. As the work will utilize a job order function and staff may be utilized for job orders based on the specific technical need of that job order, can the Offeror safely assume that LTTA staff includes the Offeror’s organizational permanent long-term staff?

Answer: We have amended the categories and streamlined to accommodate disparate systems. We are purchasing productive LOE days provided via key personnel, CCNs, and USNs/TCNs.

8. Can the Offeror reasonably assume that STTA may be broken into different categories and levels that will be correspondingly budgeted for?

Answer: No.

9. If the Offeror’s organizational standard work days/year for permanent staff is not consistent with the designated KP LOE of 4,446 noted under section F.4, may the Offeror shift the remaining LOE into another category to maintain the total LOE of 34,764? For instance, 4,446 days across 3 key personnel over five years equals 296.4 days/year. For some Offerors, leave days may be included in fringe, which would result in a lower number of LOE days per year.

Answer: No, though we have adjusted the LOE table. The requirement is to provide the number of days and they must be productive work days to count towards the LOE. Additional language has been added to Section F.4.

10. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors may include sub categories within the budget template that roll up to the designated line items?

Answer: Confirmed.

11. Can USAID please clarify the definition of Long-Term Technical Assistance (LTTA), i.e. the length of time at which point someone is considered LTTA?

Answer: Please see AIDAR 752.202-1(a) and (d).

12. Can USAID clarify whether second-tier sub-contracts will require consent?

Answer: No, second-tier sub-contracts do not require USAID’s consent.

13. In Amendment 1- Questions and Answers, the response to Question 34 indicates that Letters of

Commitment (LOC) have been removed from the Technical Proposal (as amended in Section L.6).

However, the response to Question 26 indicates that LOCs will be counted towards the 35-page limit of the technical proposal. Could USAID/Vietnam kindly confirm that LOCs are only to be included in the Business Proposal and not in the Technical Proposal?

14. B.8 Payment of fixed fee states – payment of fixed fee shall be allocated based upon the proportion of the level of effort (LOE) specified in Section F.4 that was provided by the Contractor in the period cover by the invoice.

a) Since fixed fee is applied to all direct and indirect costs, can the offeror assume the fixed fee percentage will vary each month to account for reoccurring expenses when the LOE is less than expected. Or how should the offeror recover fee on its ODC’s.

Answer: The fee is fixed at time of contract award. Payment of that fixed fee is solely based on percentage of total LOE provided in the period cover by the invoice.

15. Since this contract is based on job orders – will there always be a job order to cover local full-time staff salaries and benefits over the life of the contract?

Questions related to Section F.4 Level of effort – states the contractor must provide 34,764 days of LOE and provides the following table:

Labor Category Total

LOE

Long-Term - Key Personnel 4,446 Long-Term - CCN 19,800 Long-Term - Expatriate 2,542 Short-Term - CCN 4,562 Short-Term - Expatriate 3,414 Total LOE 34,764

Answer: Yes. We have adjusted the LOE table in Section F.4.

16. Is the Long Term- CCN labor category based on a full-time LOE of 260 working days per year?

Answer: It is based on the total number of productive days to be provided by the contractor.

17. In Section F.4, Long Term- Key Personnel Total LOE of 4,446 equates to 3.42 FTE (4,446/260). Can the offeror provide a whole number of 3 or 4 persons?

Answer: We have adjusted the LOE table in Section F.4. The Government is buying days of LOE, not full time equivalents.

18. In Section F.4, Long Term- CCN Total LOE of 19,800 equates to 15.23 FTE (19,800/260). Can the offeror provide a whole number of 15 or 16 persons?

a. Are we correct to assume and budget for all 15.23 Long Term-CCN for the duration of all 5 years on the contract?

b. It does not seem like USAID will need that many full time CCN given that 10 evaluations, 10 surveys, and 30 MEL training sessions have occurred in the past 5 years and with the need for capacity services as well.

Answer: Please see the answer to Question 17. As a reminder, the specific contract type was chosen due to the uncertain nature or the work and we’re buying the total number of days in each category.

19. Are we correct to assume and budget for a total of 18.65 (FTE) full time positions total for the local office (3.42 Key + 15.23) Long Term personnel?

Answer: Please see the answer to Question 17.

20. Could USAID kindly confirm if labor categories such as local enumerators and translators that are normally hired on a one-off basis are to be included in the Long-Term CCN labor category (19,800 days) or in the Short-term CCN labor category (4,562 days)?

Answer: We have amended the LOE table in Section F.4. Please see the answer to question 11.

21. Could USAID kindly confirm if offerors are allowed to shift LOE days between labor categories in order to provide the highest quality and best value, particularly in terms of shifting between long term staff vs. short term staff?

22. For scheduling, planning and Long-term-staff budgeting, should the offeror articulate in its PWS the concept of the first job order, to engage the fulltime LEARNS office team as well as to cover lease, rentals, and other expenditures? In other words, should the PWS speak to the overall framework of job orders per se?

Answer: No, individual job orders will be signed separately.

23. Attachment 6 of the solicitation, about Job Order Management, says “The Contractor will submit a written request for the approval of a Job Order, through the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), to the Contracting Officer (CO) including the request for telework, if any.” This indicates that the ideas for job orders will originate with the offering firm. Should the PWS provide a framework for how concept notes for job orders will be shared with CORs, and then COs?

Answer: We’ve given Attachment 6 as an example of how Job Order Management could look like but you’re required to come up with what you think is best.

24. The solicitation, Q&A and Bidders’ meeting discussion elaborate about Conflict of Interest (OCI) concerns. Does USAID wish for the bidder to include a section discussing the extent of potential COI and mitigation?

Answer: No, OCI mitigation plan is not required until the offeror makes it to the competitive range stage or award stage should there be no competitive range.

25. Will there be an option issued, as amendment for a further option year, i.e. five plus one, as alluded to during the Bidders’ meeting discussion?

26. As the $10-$40 million project value for inclusion as a PPIR is steep, would USAID consider reducing the bottom threshold?

27. PPIRs are to be included in the Cost Proposal.

a. Will USAID clarify what information we will need to include if the past performance information is already in the PPIR system?

Answer: The offeror does not provide information that is already in PPIRS. Please refer to the Section L.7, Part 5 – Past Performance for the instructions.

b. Will a table with chosen past/current projects –similar in scope- will be acceptable.

Answer: No

28. USAID has indicated that Offerors are to use the LOE stated in F. It has also indicated that Offerors should have 3 Key Personnel. Over a five year period of time the average annual LOE for LT Key Personnel is 296.4 days. Would USAID please clarify how this LOE should be interpreted when considering full time equivalents?"

Answer: Please refer to the Question 17.

29. The Q&A, item 20 answers: “Consultants are either employees or subcontractors per the RFP. If they are direct charged labor, they have to be in the LOE calculation.” This remains a little confusing.

When we list our direct-hire expert consultants in our budget, do we list them under a category of “subcontractors?”, or as something else? For part-time CCN hires, we call them subcontractors?

Please elaborate.

Answer: If they’re “employees” then it’s under labor. If they’re “subcontractors”, then it’s under subcontracts.

30. Related to Section L.6.5 (Management and Staffing Plan), would USAID please confirm whether offerors do not need to provide copies of written references for the three key personnel, but rather only names and contact information for the references?

31. Under Question 53 (Q&A), USAID provided a plug figure of $728,500 for all participant training. Can USAID provide more details about what this figure includes? Does it, for instance, include travel and other direct costs but not personnel (LOE)?

Answer: It includes all direct training related costs, except for LOE.

32. Should the set LOE levels be applied to include drivers? Drivers were discussed during the Bidder’s meeting. Bidders could instead list local transport as an ODC.

Answer: The LOE includes all direct charged labor at the contractor and subcontractor level.

33. Question & Answer # 38 states that six-day work-weeks might be appropriate if and only if approved by the COR, but then suggests that Offerors not budget for six-day work weeks. This has implications for per diem calculations for field data collection by evaluation teams. Do we then only assume 5-day work-weeks for all field work at this time?

Answer: Yes.

34. For artistic diagrams and charts, do all fonts need to adhere to the 12” size, or is readability the key criteria?

Answer: Yes

35. Will USAID consider a 10 pt size for charts, tables, graphs, text boxes, etc?

36. Will USAID consider the cover page, Executive summary, Table of Contents outside the page limitation?

37. As job orders are uncertain and the work may be highly variable in terms of cost, would USAID be willing to include a plug figure for Offerors to estimate in-country travel? If not an overall plug figure, could USAID share an estimated number of in-country trips per year for cost estimating purposes?

Answer: We’re providing a plug figure of $1,180,000 for the entire five years.

38. In Amendment 1- Q&A, responses to Questions 44 & 45 (and related questions) indicate that Learns will be building on work conducted under VEMSS which has a monitoring and evaluation focus. Will Learns also be expected to follow on work conducted under the Partner Capacity Development (PCD) activity? If so, could USAID/Vietnam provide clarification on services Learns is expected to capture from PCD?

39. Does the Mission expect its CDCS to be completed on schedule, or might the awardee become involved in facilitating the final stages of CDCS development?

Answer: The Mission is working towards completing the CDCS on schedule. Please refer to Question 66 in the round 1 Q&A.

40. During the Bidders’ meeting, USAID said that the contract awardee would not be physically embedded in the mission, but would be “emotionally” part of it. Could USAID please speak to this further? Does USAID envision contractor staff visiting the Mission for task meetings multiple times per week? Does the Mission prefer the contractor to have facilities, conference rooms, and other auspices near the Mission to facilitate and host coordinating events that include Mission staff?

Answer: Yes, the contractor will integrated into all aspects of the Mission’s implementation of the Program Cycle. The contractor could join multiple meetings per week at the Mission, depending on number and nature of tasks assigned. The Mission prefers the contractor to have offices in close proximity to the Mission.

41. The Bidders’ meeting included references to rapid assessments and “fact finding.” Does the Mission envision that rapid assessments will be in the form of rapid, independent job orders?

Answer: Job orders will be required for all activities.

42. The Bidders’ meeting references the “cognizant government ministry” for implementer registration.

Is one Ministry pre-determined, and if so, would USAID state which this is, or whether USAID has a preference or advice?

43. Would USAID suggest the likelihood of impact evaluations by sector? Does USAID anticipate that it will welcome any impact evaluations under this award related to the remediation of dioxin, landmines, UXOs, or agent orange?

Answer: The Mission does not currently have any plans to conduct any impact evaluations..

44. In the absence of seeing the new CDCS, can the Mission say anything about new sectors or directions or priorities that are not already in the present/past CDCS?

45. Are any impact evaluations already planned, with baseline data collected and IPs involved?

Answer: Refer to question 43.

46. Is the current VEMSS contract conducting field monitoring or verification in any sector, and if so, which?

Answer: VEMSS has supported field monitoring and data verification for all technical offices in the Mission.

47. The bidder’s PWS is expected to specify quality standards. Could the Mission please speak to quality concerns it has identified in recent history?

48. In cataloging quality standards, is the Mission looking for these to be Vietnam-specific, or in reference to ADS, AEA or other industry standards?

Answer: This is up to the offeror to propose.

49. USAID ADS guidance encourages Data Quality Assessments periodically for all programs of a significant size. What has been the recent history of DQAs being requested and completed during the prevailing contract?

Answer: VEMSS has provided support for approximately 15 DQAs across the entire portfolio.

50. Can USAID comment about the extent to which services under this contract will be sought by the USAID office in Ho Chi Minh City?

51. Is it reasonable for bidders to anticipate that they will have a role in reviewing and providing guidance about the quality, integrity, disaggregation, scope, specificity, frequency, comparability and usefulness of data in the new Development Information Solution system? Otherwise, how will the awardee engage in monitoring information?

Answer: Yes.

52. The Q&A references “10 surveys” as indicative. Could the Mission further suggest how many surveys will be nation-wide? How many will be related to polling or public perceptions?

Answer: This is not known, hence the contract type that was selected.

53. What does “Participant Training” mean to the mission? What kinds of events might it include? Is USAID expecting all training to be within Vietnam?

Answer: Please refer to ADS 253 for a definition of Participant Training.

54. Would USAID clarify whether bidders should plan on providing any NGO/CSO capacity building support to any Vietnamese organizations beyond those receiving USAID funding?

Answer: No, offerors should not plan on providing support to those not receiving USAID funding.

55. Would USAID clarify whether any capacity building/institutional strengthening support of partners and key stakeholders will be requested beyond training about monitoring and evaluation, project life-cycle and other learning-related USAID concepts? For example, does USAID envision support will be requested to help local civil society/non-governmental organizations to meet USAID financial management and other compliance requirements, or to be more competitive in pursuing outside funding?

Answer: Please see answer to Question 72 from round 1.

56. Q&A answer number 51 references the recent contract conducting “30 MEL training sessions.”

Would USAID please elaborate by what it means by MEL training session? Are these fully within USAID for USAID staff? Or are they also for implementers or government counterparts? Are they events about findings by sector? Have they included DQA training?

Answer: These MEL trainings were for USAID/Vietnam’s Implementing Partners, and included events about findings by sectors and DQA training.

57. For those bidders not currently familiar with the USAID/Vietnam Mission, and in regard to the

QASP, which offices or roles will be involved in implementing the QASP, besides the COR and CO for this particular contract? Should it reference different program offices as well?

Answer: This is up to the offeror to propose.