Appendix 1 - Response to PIMMELA Questions.pdf

USAID/Philippines PIMMELA Activity RFP. No. 72049223R00001 Amendment 01

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Cover Page and General Questions:

1. Page 1, Cover Letter:

The RFP states, “USAID Philippines also encourages proposals that include partnerships of teams - prime contractor or subcontractor - with international or local partners.” Given USAID’s new Local Capacity Strengthening Policy and Agency-wide push for locally-led development, would USAID please consider prohibiting exclusive partnerships with local partners? This would enable local partners to join multiple Offerors’ proposals, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will be able to work on the resultant Contract.

Response: USAID wishes to promote diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) to the maximum extent possible thus partners should not require exclusive partnerships from their sub-partners. USAID encourages subpartners, especially U.S. Small Business and local indigenous organizations, to participate in multiple offers if it is their desire to do so.

2. Page 1, Letter to all Prospective Offerors: The total estimated cost of the entire award is a maximum of $24.9 million. Can USAID indicate the approximate allocation of funding for work in the Philippines, the Pacific Islands and in Mongolia?

Response: For budgeting purposes, Mongolia should constitute approximately 10 percent of the funding, the Philippines should constitute 40 percent, and the Pacific Islands should constitute 50 percent, given the higher cost of doing business in the Pacific Islands region.

3. Does USAID anticipate a core funding allocation per year, or will the obligation be negotiated annually with each USAID Mission/Technical Office (through the COR) based on a demand-driven service delivery approach?

Response: The total estimated cost for the whole contract will be negotiated prior to award.

Based on the requirement for co-created work planning there will be an element of demand-driven service delivery or build to budget. However, this will be subject to the availability of funds and not changed total estimated cost.

Section B:

4. Page 9, B.4, Fixed Fee (CPFF): Please clarify if Offerors are required to address the % of fee to specific deliverables as part of the proposal, or if this is something that can wait until the successful offeror is selected and specific deliverables are identified.

Response: Offerors must submit the Fixed Fee along with their cost proposal, as instructed in Section L.7 of the RFP.

5. Page 9, Section B.5: Could local organizations without a NICRA submit audited financial statements to substantiate an indirect rate if it is their standard practice to do so?

Response: No. It is stated under Section B.5 Note of the RFP, “Without an approved NICRA, all costs for local organizations shall be budgeted and billed as direct cost”.

6. Section B.6, Advance Understanding on Ceiling Indirect Cost Rates and Final Reimbursement for Indirect Costs, page 9, requires offerors to propose ceilings for their indirect rates. We are deeply concerned about the issue of cost recovery given uncertainties affecting international development during the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. In forecasting indirect cost rates for a five-year period, the contractor must make assumptions about the volume of work that will be generated by USAID, which represents the base for indirect cost rates. At this time, organizations are facing an unprecedented future, with uncertainty about where infections may spike, how work will continue to be adapted, if travel will be possible, to name only a few. All of these factors are outside the manageable control of contractors and their impact and timing cannot at this time be reasonably estimated. Given the fact that we may be facing significant, as yet unknown, events that may have substantial impacts on indirect cost rates, and given that the US Government has been clear that it intends for reasonable, allowable and allocable costs due to COVID-19 to be recoverable contract costs, which includes indirect costs, we respectfully request that the requirement for indirect cost ceilings be removed from this solicitation. Instead, we request that contractors be allowed to recover their indirect costs in accordance with their US Government Negotiated Indirect Cost Rates applicable at the time.

Response: Offerors must follow instructions on RFP Section L.7 Part 2 (6)(I) on indirect costs.

Section C:

7. C.3 Background - Can USAID provide an estimated percent of work that will be performed in Mongolia and the Pacific Islands to help offerors budget appropriately?

Response: This number will fluctuate depending on Mission need. For budgetary purposes, contractors can use: 10% Mongolia, 50% Pacific Islands and 40% Philippines. Bidders should also conduct appropriate budgetary research as travel/transport and other costs are historically higher in the Pacific Islands.

8. Section C.3, Mongolia Background, page 13, provides some information on USAID’s activities in Mongolia. We have the following questions:

a. Could USAID please advise if there are any plans to grow the USAID Mongolia portfolio?

Response: a) Currently there is no plan to expand USAID’s portfolio in Mongolia. However, budget fluctuations could result in program expansion and USAID cannot predict out-year budget expansions or contractions as these budgets are appropriated by the U.S. Congress and allocated by the interagency in Washington, DC.

b. Could USAID provide insight into the maximum number of awards that there would be in Mongolia at any one time during the life of PIMMELA?

Response: Currently, there are 11 active activities in-country under environment, democracy, economic growth, humanitarian assistance and COVID-19 assistance.

c. Could USAID specify if the A/CORs for the Mongolia activities are located in Mongolia or in Manila?

Response: A/CORs for Mongolia are located in Mongolia with the exception of field support for health activities and BHA awards.

9. Section C.3, Pacific Islands Background, Page 13, states: “The PNG and Fiji offices have Deputy SDAs, and locally employed staff with an anticipated expanded presence over the next three years.” We have the following questions:

a. Could USAID please clarify the time schedule and phasing for USAID’s planned expansion in the Pacific Islands?

Response:Please refer to the September 29, 2022 White House U.S.- Pacific Island Country Summit Factsheet:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/29/fact-sheet-roadmap-f or-a-21st-century-u-s-pacific-island-partnership/

b. Could USAID please advise on how many activities are included in the Pacific Islands portfolio? Also, how many activities are anticipated for the Pacific Islands portfolio once USAID has expanded its presence there?

Response: The Pacific Islands portfolio includes approximately 25 awards. The exact number of awards planned for future years may shift with expanding and contracting budgets and is difficult to predict.

c. Once USAID has expanded its presence in the Pacific Islands, how much of the Pacific Islands portfolio will be managed from Fiji versus managed in local offices in other Pacific Islands countries?

Response: Pacific Islands regional awards are ultimately envisioned to be managed by USAID staff based in Suva, Fiji (they are for the most part currently based in Manila), but this transition could take an additional 2-3 years.

d. Could USAID kindly provide information on where the A/CORs for Pacific Island awards are currently based?

Response: A/CORs for Pacific Islands awards are currently based in Manila, Port Moresby, and Suva primarily. With the planned expansion in Fiji and Papua New Guinea (PNG), it is expected that awards will increasingly be managed by A/CORs based in those countries. In addition, a number of “field support” awards have A/CORs based in USAID/Washington with field-based activity managers.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/29/fact-sheet-roadmap-for-a-21st-century-u-s-pacific-island-partnership/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/29/fact-sheet-roadmap-for-a-21st-century-u-s-pacific-island-partnership/

e. Could USAID clarify where the A/CORs for Pacific Islands awards will be located once USAID expands its presence in the region?

Response: Pacific Islands regional awards are ultimately envisioned to be managed by USAID staff based in Suva, Fiji, but this transition could take an additional 2-3 years. As the Mission in Suva, Fiji is stood up and the PNG office is formally established as a Country Office with additional staff, it is expected that awards will be increasingly managed by A/CORs in those countries. However, this transition phase could take an additional 2-3 years.

f. Once USAID expands its presence in the region, where will Program Office functions for the Pacific Islands located?

Response: Once the USAID Mission in Suva, Fiji, is formally established in late 2023, USAID will staff this Mission with Program Office staff, including local staff. However, it is envisioned that this transition could take 2-3 years before the Mission is fully staffed. In this interim period, it is envisioned that MEL functions will be primarily managed from Manila, in close consultation and coordination with USAID staff in Fiji and other Pacific Islands with a USAID staffing or IP presence.

g. Could USAID please provide insight on the time schedule and plan for scaling up USAID staffing in PNG?

Response: The timeline for establishing a Country Office in PNG follows the same timeline as establishing a USAID Mission in Fiji and is subject to Congressional Notification.

h. Does USAID envision a program office in PNG?

Response: While the Country Office to be formally established in PNG does include a USDH Foreign Service Officer Program Officer, a fully staffed program office is not expected in the short term.

i. Will the A/CORs for PNG activities be based in PNG? If so, on what time schedule?

Response: It is expected that as USAID formally establishes a Country Office in PNG with additional staff, that an increasing number of individual awards for PNG will be managed directly by A/CORs based in PNG. This transition could take an additional 2-3 years.

j. Could USAID provide additional information on how many activities are currently active in PNG? Could USAID advise if there are plans to increase the number of activities focused on PNG, if so to how many total awards?

Response: Currently, there are approximately 12 active activities implemented in-country. There are plans for additional activities; however, they are in the preliminary stages of activity design.

10. Page 13, Section C.4, Objectives:

The RFP states, “The activity will support assistance for USAID programmatic objectives as needed for capacity building.” There is no specific objective for capacity building. Is there an assumption that this will be required throughout the five components and therefore requires detailed consideration throughout, and applicable to Mission staff across the 8 offices, and external stakeholders?

Response: Yes, capacity building should be considered as an essential cross cutting component of this activity and as such should be integrated throughout the proposal by Offerors. In addition to capacity building to USAID implementing partners, including local partners, Offerors should also expect to provide CLA capacity building to Mission staff across 8 offices based in Manila, a country office in Papua New Guinea, a new USAID Mission in Suva, Fiji, the USAID field office in Mongolia, in addition to USAID staff based in Palau, Solomon Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Marshall Islands.

11. Section C.5.1 Component 1, page 14, describes the need for support related to a number of reporting needs, including those “required by host governments and other stakeholders.” Can USAID describe reporting needs of these host governments or stakeholders?

Response: Reporting needs of host governments and stakeholders vary by country. In the Philippines, the National Economic and Development Authority, or NEDA, has oversight of Official Development Assistance and MEL and reports on that assistance.

12. Section C.5.1.1.1 Component 1, page 15, mentions that the Contractor will provide performance management assistance to field offices. On page 17 of this section, USAID provides an example of assistance to the country office to perform strategic and performance planning and portfolio reviews. Can USAID confirm that the terms “field office” and “country office” both refer to the eight offices listed on page 12?

Response: Currently, the only official Country Office will be established in PNG, with a senior USAID Country Representative. Mongolia will continue to be a field office with a USAID Senior Development Advisor. USAID also has a staffing presence in Palau, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, in addition to a full USAID Mission in Manila and a planned USAID Mission in Suva, Fiji, with a USAID Mission Director.

13. Page 16, Section C.5.1.1, Indicator Development:

The RFP states: “Conduct data quality assessments (DQAs) for higher level performance indicators, and provide auxiliary support to A/CORs and IPs in the conduct of activity level DQAs.” Would USAID please clarify expectations about the nature of that expected auxiliary support, including logistic and administrative details?

Response: Auxiliary support should include training for USAID staff and IPs on how to conduct DQAs, ideally on-the-job/on-site/in person training. The support could also include capacity building on how to address issues that arise from the DQAs and developing a remedy/action plan.

14. Page 16, Section C.5.1.1, Performance Results Analysis:

The RFP states, “Consistent with the new ADS 201 requirement, support [the Office of Program Resources Management] PRM in setting up the Beneficiary Feedback structure at the Mission-level that will actively seek inputs from beneficiaries and stakeholders on ways that USAID can increase the effectiveness and relevance of its assistance.” Would USAID kindly confirm that the Contractor will have access to Activity-level beneficiary feedback data collected by implementing partners, to triangulate with Mission-level beneficiary feedback data?

Response: Offerors should propose how they will assist USAID and IP staff to develop and implement a process to collect required beneficiary feedback. Access to activity-level beneficiary feedback will be made available to the contractor.

15. Page 16, Section C.5.1.1, Performance Results Analysis:

The RFP states, “Develop managerial and detailed dashboards showing results attainment and activity locations, by sector, region, province, municipality, and country.” Would USAID kindly clarify if there are expectations regarding the continuation of use of any existing USAID dashboard platform, or preference for software platforms if these have not been developed to date?

Response: USAID currently uses the DIS system for the Philippines. For the Pacific Islands and Mongolia, a dashboard, platform, or system has not yet been developed. If such a system is developed and put in place by the time the contract starts, the Contractor will be expected to work with Mission staff to use the existing system and fine tune it for optimal use. The contractor is expected to support Mission and IP staff in the use of DIS for the Philippines.

16. Page 17, Section C.5.1.1, Reporting:

The RFP states, “Assist with set up, maintenance, analysis and report generation of the data in the Development Information Solution (DIS) or other Performance Results Trackers, at the implementing partner, Mission and DO level.” Would USAID please confirm the application of DIS and whether this applies across all eight USAID offices in the region?

Response: Currently, the DIS applies only to the Philippines. DIS has not been established for the Pacific Islands or Mongolia.

17. Page 17, Section C.5.1.1, Capacity Building:

The RFP states, “Possible educating of Host Country Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) specialists and strengthening local MEL capacity, especially among existing, or potential new, and/or a network of MEL firms who conduct work with our IPs.” Would USAID please share a list of the MEL firms who conduct work with the IPs?

Response: USAID does not maintain a list of MEL firms for Philippines, Pacific Islands, or Mongolia. As part of work planning, the Contractor will be expected to identify local organizations currently working with IPs or who have the potential to do so. Post award as part of work planning, USAID staff may be able to help identify potential host country government stakeholders and entities with equities in MEL at the regional, national, and sub national levels.

18. Page 17, Section C.5.1.1, Reporting:

The RFP states, “Assist with set up, maintenance, analysis and report generation of the data in the Development Information Solution (DIS) or other Performance Results Trackers, at the implementing partner, Mission and DO level, for purposes such as quarterly and annual review of results by office, Mission-wide portfolio reviews, PPR compilation and analysis and other reporting exercises.” For this and other tasks related to knowledge management under Component 1, does USAID have a preferred platform or should the Contractor propose one?

Response: The Contractor should propose a preferred platform for all Operating Units. Different approaches may be more appropriate depending on the country context. While the Philippines does use the DIS, that platform is not operational for PMP level data, although it is used for the annual PPR for the Philippines only.

19. Pages 18-19, Section C.5.1.1.2, Review of Indicators, Project/AMELPs and Data Quality Assessments (DQA): The RFP states: “Currently, location data for activities implemented in the Philippines is stored in a database and uploaded to DIS. However, ARC-GIS is used for mapping and Tableau is used for analysis…Regardless of the system in use, illustrative tasks include: Support the adoption and use of ARC-GIS mapping database for telling USAID stories;

ensure integration with DIS data and working closely with the USAID GIS systems analyst.”We have the following questions:

a.Does USAID have a preferred and active platform for geo mapping, such as ARC-GIS or Tableau?

Response: USAID has both Tableau and ARC-GIS, as well as a Manila based Data Analyst with whom the Contractor is expected to work in close collaboration.

b.Are ARC-GIS and Tableau USAID’s preferred software for PIMMELA?

Response: Yes.

20. Page 19, Section C.5.2, Third Party Monitoring and Verification Services:

The RFP states, “Performance/outcome monitoring and data verification services are expected on a rolling basis for all activity-level data and twice annually for each Agency-required annual report.” In our experience with USAID and other donors, outcome monitoring is outside the scope of third party monitoring and verification services. Would USAID kindly confirm that outcome monitoring is not required under this component?

Response: The Contractor is expected to work with USAID staff to identify and track appropriate context and/or other outcome level indicators managed by third parties (example World Bank Report) and support Mission staff to incorporate reporting on these indicators at strategic portfolio reviews and during other Mission evaluative/stocktaking exercises. The Contractor is not expected to verify/analyze the quality of data of context level/third party managed outcome indicators, unless the outcome indicator is one that was developed by USAID.

21. Page 20, Section C.5.2, Third Party Monitoring and Verification Services:

The RFP states, “A TPM/TPV work plan to outline third party monitoring efforts, in conjunction with PRM and CORs/AORs, will define the verification and monitoring needs for each activity, with the minimum established in the PMP, or at least a minimum of at least one semi-annual visit per mechanism to on-the-ground activities, unless otherwise specified in the work plan co-creation.” Would USAID please clarify whether this means one visit to one site per activity semi-annually, or one visit per mechanism (that may include a range of multiple, on-the-ground activity sites)? With 40 active awards (page 12), this would seemingly translate to 80 visits annually, or six to seven Activity visits per month (assuming one visit to one on-the-ground activity per award), which would add substantial costs.

Response: The Contractor should propose a method for TPM/TMV that is cost efficient, logistically appropriate, and feasible within the proposed budget.Please see response on question number 83 on budget estimate assumptions. (See also response #31, 83 and 100.)

22. Page 20, Section C.5.2, Third Party Monitoring and Verification Services:

The RFP states, “If required, all field monitoring tasks would be done in close collaboration with USAID staff and only at the request of the Contracting Officer via the M&E COR. If ordered to do so, the Contractor would be responsible for the recruitment, hiring, and training of third party AMELP monitors.”

Would USAID please confirm that the term “AMELP monitor” is the same as a TPM field monitor or enumerator? If not, please provide a definition.

Response: The AMELP monitor is the same as a TPM field monitor.

23. Page 20, Section C.5.2, Third Party Monitoring and Verification Services:

The RFP states, “In the case of TPM and TPV, the activity work plan and AMELP would serve as the basis for monitoring efforts.” We have the following questions:

a.Would USAID please confirm that the Contractor will have access to the full activity-site universe for all IPs in order to develop a framework for random sampling of activity sites?

Response: Yes b.If not, will a framework for random sampling of activity sites be driven by USAID purposive selection?

Response: N/A c.Would USAID kindly confirm that “the activity work plan and AMELP would serve as the basis for monitoring efforts” is in reference to the implementing partner work plan and

AMELP?

Response: Yes.

24. Section C.5.2 Component 2: Third Party Monitoring and Verification Services, Page 19, states: “A TPM/TPV work plan to outline third party monitoring efforts, in conjunction with PRM and CORs/AORs, will define the verification and monitoring needs for each activity, with the minimum established in the PMP, or at least a minimum of at least one semi-annual visit per mechanism to on- the-ground activities, unless otherwise specified in the work plan co-creation.”

We have the following related questions:

a. Could USAID please indicate the number of mechanisms requiring semi-annual visits?

b. Could USAID please clarify in which countries these mechanisms are located and how many mechanisms will be in each country?

Response: Mission currently has approximately 70 awards but only a small subset requiring TPM. TPM may be appropriate in multiple locations depending on accessibility and country context and will be defined at the co-created work planning process. For budgetary estimates -plan on 12 per year (6 for Philippines, 3 for PNG and 3 for Fiji).

25. Section C.5.2, Component 2: Third Party Monitoring and Verification Services, Pages 19-21, describes the TPM and TPV services expected under the project. We have the following related Questions:

a. Could USAID advise on how many TPM activities are envisioned?

b. Specifically, how many TPM site visits will there be?

c. Will these TPM site visits be exclusively in Mindanao? If not, what other locations would be included in TPM site visits?

Response: The number of site visits will be planned in collaboration with the Manila based COR and activity A/CORs. TPM site visits are not exclusively in Mindanao. TPM site visits may include sites in Pacific Island countries that are difficult to access and will vary from year to year according to the needs of USAID.

26. Page 24, Section C.5.2.3, Assessments, Special Studies and Surveys:

The RFP states, “The Offer will conduct a public survey for the Philippines PMP, and possible surveys for the Pacific Islands and Mongolia PMPs.” Would USAID kindly confirm the following:

a.Is this one survey over the period of performance that will seek to understand public perceptions of USAID?

Response: The Contractor should propose, in the work plan, how it will support the Mission to monitor PMP level indicators for which a public survey may be the most appropriate collection instrument.

b.Will this require collaboration with the Development Outreach and Communications (DOC) team, a key stakeholder in this contract?

Response: The Contractor will have access to consultation with USAID’s DOC staff across the range of support services provided.

27. Section C.5.2.4, Baseline Data, page 24, requires the contractor to consult with implementing partners to develop performance targets. We have the following questions:

a. Could USAID clarify where the project offices of the implementing partners for activities taking place in PNG are located?

Response: Project offices are located in Port Moresby, PNG. However, some IPs with recent awards may not have yet established a project office in the country and may be managing implementation from a third country, such as another Pacific Island, or the United States.

b. Could USAID provide the number of activities in each Pacific Islands country?

Response: There are approximately 25 activities in Pacific Islands however locations and numbers fluctuate. Core bases are in Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

c. Additionally, could USAID specify where the project offices of implementing partners are located for those activities?

Response: Regional programs with activities in PNG are managed from Fiji, Manila, or elsewhere. A number of “field support” activities are managed by USAID/Washington, and a number of USAID Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance activities are managed by USAID staff in Washington and/or Manila or another location where BHA has staff.

28. Page 25, Section C.5.2.3, Assessments, Special Studies and Surveys, Illustrative Tasks:

The RFP states, “Conducting special surveys or assessments in support of cost analyses and/or government cost estimates, such as salary surveys or market research.” Would USAID please clarify associated expectations of the Contractor, in regard to the level of effort and requests from other USAID offices such as DOC, the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and the USAID Mission Executive Officers (EXO)?

Response: The Contractor is not expected to develop independent government cost estimates, which is an inherently governmental function performed by USAID staff. The Contractor may be asked to assist with market research or other analytical type tasks that relate to the host-country context.

29. Section C.5.2.4 Baseline Data, Page 25, states: “Baseline data, including variables that correspond to key outcomes and impacts, will be collected using best practices methods and analyzed to establish a reference point. Significant attention is required to ensure that baseline data are collected early in the project lifespan before any significant implementation has occurred.” Can USAID provide additional information on the number of baseline data collection exercises/year under Component 3?

Response: The need for baseline data is dependent on the MEL plan for each award. Some awards have indicators for which a baseline is essential. In addition, the Mission-wise PMPs for Philippines, Pacific Islands, and Mongolia all require baseline data at the IR level of the strategy results framework. Baseline data at the DO level are for indicators that are third party managed and tracked/monitored, so the Contractor is not expected to collect baseline data for context level PMP indicators or other third-party managed indicators used by USAID and/or its IPs.

30. Pages 21-23, Section C.5.3, Component 3: Evaluation and Research Services:

The RFP states, “The Mission has averaged six to eight end-of-activity evaluations per year for the past two years…USAID typically supports an average of 10 mid- and end-of project evaluations per year, region-wide.” We have the following questions:

a.Would USAID please confirm that this would result in an anticipated average of between 16 to 18 evaluations per year for this Activity, in addition to the two impact evaluations?

Response: USAID supports approximately 8 -10 evaluations per year, including performance mid term evaluations and performance evaluations for the end of the award.

31. Section C.5.3 Component 3: Evaluation and Research Services, Pages 21 and 23, mention “six to eight end-of-activity evaluations per year,” “two impact evaluations during the course of this contract,” and “10 mid-and end-of project evaluations/year.” Could USAID please clarify the total number of evaluations of each type (performance/impact) the Offeror should include in the budget submission?

Response: The total number of performance evaluations expected per year is on average 8 to 10 and will be determined in collaboration with the Manila-based COR and other USAID staff.

The Contractor should plan for no more than 8-10 per year, and this number will vary from year to year based on the maturity of awards and evaluation needs/requirements of USAID across all operating units.

32. Section C.5.3 Component 3: Evaluation and Research Services, Page 21, states: “The contractor will provide the full range of assistance for evaluations, assessments, research, and other studies and surveys.” We have the following related questions:

a. Would USAID provide additional information on how many assessments and/or special studies in addition to evaluations that the Offeror should budget for under Component 3?

b. How many surveys will be included under Component 3?

c. Could USAID please clarify in which countries the surveys will be required and how many surveys will be in each country?

Response: The Contractor should budget for an average of 3 assessments and/or special studies per year. The number of surveys required will be determined during the work planning process. The Contractor should expect at least 2 surveys for the Philippines over the life of the contract and at least 3 surveys for the Pacific Islands and 1 survey for Mongolia over the life of the contract.

33. Page 16. Section C.5.1.1.1, One of the performance results analysis tasks requires the contractor to develop managerial and detailed dashboards. How often does the Government anticipate the desired activity dashboard being updated by the PIMMELA team?

RESPONSE : Please see response to question No.5.

34. Page 17, Section C.5.1.1.1, The solicitation mentions the generation, management, and use of a knowledge library. Does the Mission already use a central knowledge management or knowledge library system or is this a new requirement?

Response: This Mission does not currently have a central knowledge management or library system.

35. Page17, Section C.5.1.1.1, See preface in previous question. If a system or knowledge tool is currently in use or is preferred, can the Government please share the name of the tool?

Response: There is no such system or knowledge tool currently in use or established for the Mission.

36. Page 19, Section C.5.2, The solicitation mentions that verification and oversight activities are requested once per year for each activity in the Mission portfolio. It would be helpful to understand if the requests will be relatively random or batched by country since regional travel may be necessary for these activities. Should the contractor assume that requests for the portfolio verification activities will be batched by country to allow the contractor to budget for the completion of multiple verification activities in a portfolio on a single trip?

Response: The Contractor should consider cost efficiencies and what is reasonable. Multiple oversight activities per trip to a particular country reflect an acknowledgement of the need to consider cost efficiencies.

37. C5.2 Component 2: TPM&V - Can USAID provide an illustrative number of expected TPM&V visits to help offerors budget appropriately?

Response: Approximately 12 TPM visits per year are expected. Please see response to question No. 83 on the estimates for budgetary purposes.

38. C.5.2.3 Assessments, Special Studies and Surveys - Can USAID provide an illustrative number of expected assessments, special studies, and surveys to help offerors budget appropriately?

Response: Please see response to Question 83.

39. Page 23, Section C.5.2.2, The solicitation mentions that it foresees up to two impact evaluations during the implementation of the contract. Does the Mission anticipate an impact evaluation beginning in the first year or should contractors plan for impact evaluations in the out years of the contract?

Response: The Mission anticipates that planning for an impact evaluation could be required in Year One.

40. Page 23, C.5.2.2 Impact Evaluations: The RFP notes that “USAID typically supports an average of 10 mid- and end-of project evaluations per year, region-wide.” Can USAID indicate for budgeting purposes the breakdown of evaluations between the Philippines, Pacific Islands and Mongolia?

Response: The approximate number of impact evaluations per year is 0-1 in Mongolia, 3-5 in Pacific Islands, and approximately 3-5 in the Philippines.

41. C.5.4 Component 4 - Can USAID confirm there are no CLA activities in Mongolia and the Pacific Islands?

Response: Currently there are limited to no CLA activities in Mongolia and the Pacific Islands.

However, during the life of this award USAID will be establishing a full USAID Mission in Fiji and increasing presence in Papua New Guinea through establishment of a Country Office as hubs for the Pacific Islands. Mongolia remains a strategic partner thus USAID anticipates the need to integrate CLA for these locations.

42. Page 27, Section C.5.4 Component 4: Collaboration Learning and Adaptive Services, Illustrative activities: The RFP states, “Facilitate the development of planning guides for IPs and assist with sector-specific annual review and updating of guides.” Would USAID please define “planning guides for IPs”?

Response: The Contractor is expected to support IPs with the development and monitoring of AMELPS for awards. Support provided should include guides or SOPs for IPs to use when developing these plans as part of overall capacity building efforts.

43. Section C.5.5 Component 5, page 28, Health MERRLAA refers to “HP’s project sites and database of USAID-assisted health facilities, laboratories, and other assisted entities,” the “OH web mapping databases and OH knowledge library,” and "the CLA/M&E database.”

a. Can USAID please clarify whether these are all existing sites and databases or whether they would need to be developed?

Response: The USAID’s Health Project sites and databases are currently existing. They just need to be updated to reflect the current status of selected health indicators. The information used to update the health indicators come from the USAID implementing partners’ progress report. The databases are for internal use of USAID Office of Health only; the information is used to inform technical guidance to implementing partners and other health program decision-making.

b. Can USAID clarify on which platforms the current sites and databases are hosted?

Response: Current sites and databases are hosted in Google suites. These are offline files and are using google sheets and offline tableau.

c. Can USAID also describe any new web development software or platforms that would be needed to achieve this task?

Response: We do not see any need to develop new web software or platforms to achieve this task.

44. Page 28-29, C.5.5 Component 5: Health MERRLAA last paragraph: The RFP states and lists 10 staff as the team required just for Component 5 work. Please confirm if this is correct given the 4 key personnel positions and the need to also staff components 1-4.

Response: There is one Key Personnel required for Component 5 work.RFP will be amended to read as follows “Offerors should propose the number of staff required to meet the objectives outlined in the solicitation. Ideally, this team would be composed of a Senior Health M&E Director, Senior Health M&E Specialist/Epidemiologist; Health M&E Specialist/Associate; Senior Health Research and Learning Specialist; Health Research Management Associate; Senior Health Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting Specialist; Learning & Capacity Building Specialist; Health Data Management Specialist; Health MEL Coordinator, Senior Health Policy Advisor, and providers of on-demand Short-Term Technical Assistance. Utilization of local labor is highly desired. Contractor may propose alternative staffing that best meet these requirements in an innovative or cost saving manner.”

45. C5.5 Component 5: Health MERRLAA - The RFP specifies, regarding team structure supporting Component 5, “Ideally, this team would be composed of a Health Team Leader;

Senior Health M&E Specialist/Epidemiologist; Health M&E Specialist/Associate; Senior Health Research and Learning Specialist; Health Research Management Associate; Senior Health Engaging, Learning and Adapting Specialist; Learning & Capacity Building Specialist; Health Data Management Specialist; Health MEL Coordinator, Senior Health Policy Advisor, and providers of on-demand Short-Term Technical Assistance.” This is 10 team members for Component 5. Can USAID clarify approximately what percentage of contract activities it expects Component 5 to comprise?

Response: Component 5 is estimated to be 20% of the contract activities.

Section D:

No questions received.

Section E:

No questions received.

Section F:

46. Section F.3, Place of Performance, page 35, states “the contractor will perform the full scope of these functions where USAID activities are implemented in the Philippines, Pacific Islands and Mongolia. The four largest USAID-staffed offices are located in Manila, Philippines; Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea; Suva, Fiji, and Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.” Section H.8 Additional Personnel Compensation Requirements, (a).3 Limitations, page 57, states: “For this Contract Labor Cost for Locally Engaged Staff (LES) shall not exceed the thresholds in the U.S. Embassy Kathmandu local employee compensation plan (LCP). Contracting”. We have the following related questions.

a. Can USAID clarify if the LCP for USAID/Nepal is applicable to this solicitation?

Response: There was an error in the RFP. LCP for USAID/Philippines, Mongolia and Pacific Islands will be applied for the solicitation. The RFP will be amended to correct the error.

b. Can USAID please clarify whether the Local Compensation Plan for Philippines will apply to personnel hired in any of the fourteen focus countries named in Section F.3 of the RFP?

Response: No. The Local Compensation Plan for Pacific Islands and Mongolia will be used for areas other than the Philippines. The RFP will be amended to include the LCPs that includes PNG and Fiji, the bigger islands of the Pacific Islands.

c. If not, will USAID kindly provide the appropriate Local Compensation Plan applicable to Philippines, Pacific Islands and Mongolia?

Response: Copies of LCP have been included as attachment to the amended RFP.

47. Page 35, Section F.3, The solicitation mentions that contractors are encouraged to have a headquarters in Manilla with meeting space to accommodate at least 60 attendees. Often, reserving large size meeting space at office buildings is limited to a fixed number of reservations per year and is part of a lease negotiation. How often per year does USAID anticipate having meetings, presentations, or events that require space for up to 60 people?

Response: USAID anticipates requiring meeting space for up to 60 people approximately 10-15 times per year maximum.

48. F.4 Authorized Workday and Workweek - Section F. 4 reads: “The standard work week is from Monday through Friday. The Contractor is authorized up to a five-day work week for long term staff.” Would USAID be amenable to changing this provision to accommodate offerors who use total time accounting? As such, we respectfully request this section to read “The standard work week will be in accordance with Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices”.

Response: Per FAR 22.103-1, Outside the United States and its outlying areas, a workweek longer than 40 hours is considered normal if (1) The workweek does not exceed the norm for the area, as determined by local custom, tradition, or law; and (2) The hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek are not compensated at a premium rate of pay.

49. Page 36, Section F.5.1, Key Personnel, Chief of Party (COP):

The RFP states that the COP candidate must possess the following minimum experience qualifications, “At least five (5) years of experience related to research, evaluation, statistics, and/or monitoring projects related to development” and “At least five (5) years of experience leading a similar Monitoring and Evaluations contract covering multiple countries.” PIMMELA will require intensive management on the part of the COP as this covers 14 non-bordering countries, all with distinct and diverse languages, cultures, operating styles, etc. The other key personnel will be at senior levels and highly qualified to produce quality MEL deliverables. The requirements for the COP also limit the diversity of candidates that Offerors can present. Would USAID consider lowering each requirement for MEL experience to three (3 years), as long as COP candidates demonstrate sufficient managerial experience to oversee a contract of this size, scope, and complexity?

Response: No - USAID retains the 5 years of experience for this requirement. Offerors should be aware that proposed COPs with senior level and experience will be considered more competitive than those with less experience.

50. Section F.5 Key Personnel, Page 37, states: "USAID has identified four positions as key personnel: the Chief of Party, the Senior Monitoring and Evaluations Director, a Senior Health Monitoring and Evaluations Specialist, and a Lead Evaluation Expert as Key Personnel." The Offeror has the following related questions:

a. For the Senior Monitoring and Evaluations Director, Section F.5 Key Personnel also uses the titles Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Director (Evaluation is singular) and Senior M&E Specialist. Can USAID confirm if this position is a Director or a Specialist?

Response: The RFP identified the Senior Monitoring and Evaluations Director and the Senior Health Monitoring and Evaluations Director as both part of the key personnel positions.

b. For the Senior Health Monitoring and Evaluations Specialist, Section F.5 Key Personnel also uses the title “Health Team Lead”. Can USAID please clarify what the appropriate title for this position is?

Response: Please refer to Section F.5 of the RFP on the identified key position titles. The appropriate title is Senior Health Monitoring and Evaluation Director. The RFP will be amended to correct inconsistencies in position titles.

c. Section F.5 Key Personnel does not make further mention of a Lead Evaluation Expert. Can USAID please confirm that this position is not intended to be a key personnel position?

Response: Please refer to Section F.5 of the RFP on the identified key position titles.

d. Section F.5 Key Personnel mentions a CLA Director, which is also referred to as a Senior Research and Learning Specialist. Can USAID please confirm that the correct title for this position is CLA Director?

Response: The correct title is CLA Director.

51. Section F.5 Key Personnel, 1. Chief of Party (COP), Page 37, requires the Chief of Party to have “Preferably a Master’s Degree in social sciences or related field with at least ten (10) years of progressive experience in project management of similar development programs; or a Bachelor's degree in the similar field with at least fifteen (15) years of progressive experience in project management of development programs development projects.” To open up greater opportunities for more diverse candidates, would USAID consider removing the phrase “in project management of similar development programs?” This would allow offerors to propose candidates with more diverse experience in various positions, covering a range of sectors such as the humanitarian sector and the private sector.

Response: USAID requires project management experience for similar development positions for the COP position. USAID will not consider proposed COPs without this level and type of experience.

52. Section F.5 Key Personnel, Chief of Party (COP), Page 37, requires, “At least five (5) years of experience leading a similar Monitoring and Evaluation contract covering multiple countries.”

Would USAID please consider replacing the requirement with “At least five (5) years of experience leading Monitoring and Evaluations endeavors”? Given the limited number of multi-country M&E contracts, we believe updating this requirement will give offerors access to a wider and more diverse pool of candidates, who bring other experiences that equip them to lead multi-country initiatives. Similarly, not all robust monitoring and evaluation activities are contracts, so revising the wording to reflect other M&E endeavors would also help ensure the broadest possible pool.

Response: USAID will amend the RFP to read “At least 5 years of experience leading MEL efforts covering multiple countries through management of MEL awards or other MEL endeavors.”

53. F.5 Key Personnel -p. 37 of the RFP reads, “USAID has identified four positions as key personnel: the Chief of Party, the Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Director, a Senior Health Monitoring and Evaluations Specialist, and a Lead Evaluation Expert as Key Personnel.” p.

37-40 list a COP, a Senior M&E Director (referred to as a Senior M&E Specialist in the text on p.

38), a CLA Director (referred to as a Senior Research and Learning Specialist on p. 39), and a Health Team Lead. Can USAID confirm that the four KP are COP, Senior M&E Director, CLA Director, and Health Team Lead?

Response: See response to question No. 50.

54. F.5 Key Personnel - For the Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Director role, would USAID consider adding the following minimum education requirement, as an alternative to holding a Master: Bachelor's degree in the similar field with at least fifteen (15) years of experience?

Response: The required experience for the Senior M&E Director position has been amended to read, “ At least ten (10) years of demonstrated experience in performance management for international development programming, preferably in developing countries; monitoring and evaluation if s/he holds a Master’s degree, or at least fifteen (15) years of demonstrated experience in performance management for international development programming, preferably in developing countries; monitoring and evaluation if s/he holds a Bachelor’s degree.”

55. Section F.5 Key Personnel, Senior Monitoring Evaluation Director, Page 38, requires “At least five years of experience in a supervisory and/or management position that includes providing technical and management oversight to sub-contractors.” Would USAID please consider replacing the requirement with: “At least three years of experience in a supervisory and/or management position that includes providing technical and management oversight to sub-contractors.?” Based on an analysis of the market and in line with USAID’s localization strategy, we believe lowering the years of experience requirement for this position from five years of team leadership experience to three years of team leadership experience, will provide USAID with a larger and more diverse candidate pool, including current country nationals.

Response: USAID will not revise this requirement from 5 years to 3 years.

56. Section F.5 Key Personnel, Page 40, the qualifications for the Health Team Lead include: “At least ten (10) years of work experience in designing, implementing, and managing complex monitoring systems, and performance and impact evaluations.” Would USAID please consider removing the requirement of impact evaluations from the requirement for this position so that Offerors may consider CCN health team leader candidates who have experience with performance evaluations but not necessarily impact evaluations.

Response: The RFP will be amended to update this requirement, eliminating impact evaluations for this Key Personnel position.

57. Section F.5 Key Personnel, page 37, in the first paragraph lists different titles for the four Key Personnel positions from the position titles indicated subsequently with their qualifications.

Can USAID confirm the titles of the 4 Key Personnel positions are: Chief of Party, Senior Monitoring and Evaluations Director, CLA Director, and Health Team Lead?

Response: See response to question No. 50.

58. Section F.5, Key Personnel, page 38, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Director qualifications require “setting-up and/or strengthening national health information and monitoring systems.” Would USAID consider rewording this requirement of “setting-up and/or strengthening complex monitoring systems” to allow candidates with experience in other sectors to be considered since the position will oversee “all monitoring, evaluations, assessments, and research”, not only those related to Component 5?

Response: The RFP will be amended to revise this experience requirement so that candidates with experience in other sectors can be considered.

59. Page 37, Section F.5, The solicitation mentions that there are four key personnel positions:

(1) the Chief of Party, (2) the Sr. Monitoring and Evaluations Director, (3) Senior Health Monitoring and Evaluations Specialist, and (4) Lead Evaluation Expert.