PIMMELA Amendment 02 with response to clarifications.pdf

Issuance Date (original): November 23, 2022 Deadline for Questions: December 9, 2022

06:00 (Manila Time) Issuance Date (Amendment 2): January 13, 2023 Closing Date/Time of Offers: January 20, 2023; 15:00 Manila Time (original) Closing Date/Time of Offers: January 27, 2023; 15:00 Manila Time (Amendment 1)

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 72049223R00001 Amendment 2 Philippines, Pacific Islands and Mongolia Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity (PIMMELA)

To All Prospective Offerors:

The purposes of this Solicitation Amendment 1 are to: (a) provide clarifications; and (b) amend the specific sections in the solicitation impacted by these clarifications.

No further clarifications will be entertained after this amendment.

Sincerely, Jennifer L. Crow Supervisory Contracting Officer Regional Office of Acquisition & Assistance

USAID/Philippines PIMMELA Activity RFP. No. 72049223R00001 Amendment 02

RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS

1. The answer to Q. 2 notes that “for budgeting purposes…the Philippines should constitute 40 percent [of the funding].” Further, the answer to Q.45 indicates that Component 5 (which is focused on the Philippines only) is estimated to be 20% of the contract activities.

This would imply that only 20% of contract funding would be available to fund all the activities of components 1-4 that take place in the Philippines. Could USAID confirm that this is correct?

RESPONSE: Question 45 only pertained to Component 5, Health being 20% of the contract and does not include other components (1 to 4) for the Philippines. Twenty Percent (20%) of the Forty Percent (40%) cost estimate for the Philippines should be estimated for Component 5.

2. The answer to Q 40 says “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.” This is inconsistent with the answer to Q.108 which clarifies that only two impact evaluations are expected over the life of the award. Could USAID confirm that the Q40 figures refer to performance evaluations and not to impact evaluations and that the numbers in Q. 108 are correct?

RESPONSES:

A. There are two impact evaluations over th e life of the project.

B. The approximate number of performance evaluations per year is 0-1 in Mongolia, 3-5 in

Pacific Islands, and approximately 3-5 in the Philippines.

3. Annex 4: Appendix 1 Response to PIMMELA Questions (Q&A) document page 27, question (Q) # 95b states “Can USAID also please confirm that any discussion of STTA can be included in Annex 4: Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan, and that it is not required in the Management and Staffing Approach? Response: Yes, Offerors can include details about STTA assignments in Annex 4.” Then, on page 32, Q #115 states, “Could USAID kindly confirm that the narrative and the description of roles, responsibilities and Level of Effort (LOE) for each technical position referenced here should all be included in Annex 4: Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan? Response: Yes, these details can be included in Annex 4.” Would USAID kindly consider allowing Offerors an additional 2 pages in Annex 4 to provide this additional information?

RESPONSE: Yes. RFP to be amended.

4. Annex 5: Q&A document page 25, Q #85 states, “Personnel references are not included in the two-page CV limit.” On page 29, Q #102b states, “The RFP will be amended to extend the CV page limit to 3 pages.” Further, on page 31, Q #110 states, “Past performance references [of key personnel] may go beyond the two page resume limit but should not exceed 1 additional page.” The Amendment 1 RFP, page 110 states, “Offerors must include CVs (max 3 pages per CV) for all key personnel, including three references.”

Please confirm that references are not included in the 3-page CV limit.

RESPONSE: RFP to be amended to make requirements consistent. Maximum 3 pages CV + maximum 1 page reference for a total of no more than 4 pages maximum per key personnel.

Which equates to 16 pages maximum for all. Offerors are encouraged to be succinct and do not need to hit the maximum.

5. Annex 5: Q&A document page 25, Q #84 states, “Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to include this information [the roles, responsibilities, and minimum position qualifications of all key personnel positions, and an explanation of why the key personnel are appropriate for the contract] as part of Annex 5: Resume of Proposed Key Personnel, which has a 15-page limit…? Response: Yes, this is allowed.” Later, on page 27, Q #92 states, “Would USAID kindly consider allowing CVs to be three (3) pages each for a total of twelve (12) pages in Annex 5? Response: Yes, USAID will amend the RFP to allow three-pages CVs for proposed Key Personnel.” On page 29, USAID’s response to Q #102a, states that “CVs and references are the only items to be included in Annex 5.” The roles, responsibilities, and minimum position qualifications for all key personnel are listed in Section F of the RFP and would take up valuable space in the technical proposal. We would like to confirm that Offerors can provide this information in Annex 5, which maintains a 15-page limit?

RESPONSE: Yes. However, Annex 5 will have a maximum page limit of 20 pages in its entirety.

This would allow for: (4 key personnel resumes and references) plus roles, responsibilities, qualifications etc.) [See also response to clarification 4].

6. Past Performance: Q&A document page 26, Q #91, and page 28, Q #96 are in reference to Contractor Performance Information and all past performance information. The responses to Q #91 and 96, parts a and b, both state: “Please see response to Question No. 28.” The response to Q #28 on page 10 is not related to past performance. The response to Q #28 states, “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.” Would USAID please a) provide the correct references in response to questions 91 and 96 or b) provide responses to Q #91 and Q #96?

RESPONSE to Question 91: The correct reference is response to question No. 83 which states, “ Yes, please use the past performance template. An optional summary list of forms/or matrix provided may be included.”

RESPONSE to Question 96: Offerors to mention briefly their past performance information, with the caveat to see Annex 7 for more pertinent information.

7. OCI Mitigation Plan: Q&A document page 33, Q #119 states, “An OCI mitigation plan is required with the initial proposal submission.” Later on page 34, Q #126, it states, “The RFP states that OCI mitigation plan is required if an offeror makes competitive range. As such, the Offerors are not required to submit OCI mitigation plans with their proposal.”

The Amendment 1 RFP, page 121, Part 10 - OCI Mitigation Plan, states, “Offerors in the competitive range, or should there be no competitive range, the apparently successful offeror, will be required to submit an OCI mitigation plan…” Would USAID please confirm that Offerors are not required to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan with their initial proposals?

RESPONSE: The RFP language is clear - “Offerors in the competitive range, or should there be no competitive range, the apparently successful offeror, will be required to submit an OCI mitigation plan…” . No OCI is required at time of initial offer submission.

8. Impact Evaluations: Q&A document page 12, Q #40 states, “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.” Later on page 31, Q # 108 states, “Offerors may use the following estimates for budgeting purposes…b) Two (2) impact evaluations over the life of the award.” The Amendment 1 RFP, page 21, Section C.5.2.2 Impact Evaluations, states, “The Mission foresees no more than two impact evaluations during the course of this contract, though teams may request additional impact evaluations due to changing business needs.”

Would USAID please confirm that the approximate number of impact evaluations over the life of the award is two?

RESPONSE: See Response to Clarification #2.

9. Special Studies: Q&A document page 11, Q #32 states, “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.”

Later on page 31, Q #108 states, “Offerors may use the following estimates for budgetary purposes:...f) Approximately eight (8) surveys over the life of the award and approximately five (5) special studies or analyses per year.” Would USAID please confirm

a) the number of special studies per year, and b) the number of surveys over the life of the award?

RESPONSE: For budgetary purposes please estimate: A) 3 special studies/assessments per year (12 for life of project if options exercised) B) 8 surveys for the life of the project (estimated 4 Philippines, 3 Pacific Islands and 1 Mongolia).

10. Annex 2: Q&A document page 26, Q #90 states, “USAID will revise the language [Annex 2: Year One Work Plan] to a 90-day start up plan, that will include the co-development of a Year One work plan in collaboration with the COR and other USAID staff.” The Amendment 1 RFP, top of page 108, Section L.5(e), was revised to state, “Annex 2: Year One Work Plan 90-day start up plan, that will include the co-development of a Year One Work Plan in collaboration with the COR and other USAID staff (not to exceed 5 pages).

Pages 108-9, Section L.5.1, Annex 2, does not provide a revised title or revised description of Annex 2 to reflect the change stated in the Q&A. Would USAID kindly revise the description of Annex 2 in Section L.5.1 to reflect this changed requirement?

RESPONSE: Amendment 1 already updated this information. Annex 2 was revised to read:

Annex 2: 90-day start up plan, that will include the co-development of a Year One Work Plan in collaboration with the COR and other USAID staff (not to exceed 5 pages).

11. Amendment 01, Section L.5 Instruction for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Page 111 states, “ Annex 4: Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan (not to exceed 5 pages) The Offeror will submit an organizational chart showing lines of reporting among long term team members. A second chart will demonstrate the relationship between the Offeror and other offices (e.g. Offeror’s headquarters office, USAID, consortium partners, etc.). The third chart will be a Staffing Plan showing titles and names that will form part of the activity team.”

We understand that the charts in Annex 4: Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan Matrix” to represent: Chart 1) a traditional organizational chart showing reporting relationships; Chart 2) a diagram showing the relationship between the offeror and other offices; and Chart 3) a staffing plan, in the form of a table showing roles and responsibilities for each position. However, given USAID’s response to Question 116 which states that the third chart should be in the form of an organizational chart, we are confused by how this differs from the first organizational chart. Can USAID please clarify the distinction between Organizational Charts 1 and 3?

RESPONSE: The difference between Chart 1 - Organizational Chart - is an abbreviated chart showing key leadership reporting between key personnel and long term team members (ie. core leadership team), Chart 3 - as noted in amendment 1 an organizational chart is preferred over table or list view this as your expanded organizational chart with names (if available) and titles.