Attachment 11 - RFP QnA Document (AMEND_0003).pdf

RFP No. 72052220R00001

ATTACHMENT 11

RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT

Attachment 11

Q No

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

1 6 B.4, The illustrative totals for GUCs amount to $5M; is USAID amenable to increasing the amounts for the Grants component under this activity?

Currently the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) has only approved $5M for GUCs. Offerors are welcome to propose an additional amount.

However, it would need to be properly justified, clearly linked to the objectives, and reflected in the budget. Moreover, this would be subject to the availability of funds and the approval of the HCA.

2 6 Would USAID provide Offerors with percentage budget estimates they would like to see for each YEMP component?

For reference purposes only, the estimated distribution of the overall budget is as follows: Base Period: 71% / Option Period 1: 4% / Option Period 2: 17% / Option Period 3: 8%. However, offerors can propose a different distribution based on their technical proposal.

3 6 B.4, in the Award Budget by Line Item table, the RFP includes allocations for grants under contracts (GUCs) for Option Period 2 and 3, but not 1. On page 113, under Section L.7.b, Proposed Costs/Prices, the RFP states, “The amount for Grants under Contracts for this activity is $5 million, distributed as follows:

• Base Period: $2 million

• All Three Options Periods (if exercised): $3 million. The offeror has the flexibility to propose the distribution of this amount among one, two or the three option periods.

Would USAID confirm if offerors are able to determine the distribution of $3 million in GUCs over the three option periods, consistent with Section L.7.b?

The proposed Award Budget (Section B.4) must mirror the distribution detailed in Section L.7.b, the GUC values that were originally detailed in Section B.4 were for reference purposes only. Final dollar amount is to be determined at time of award based on the selected offeror’s proposal. Section B.4 is hereby amended to reflect this clarification.

4 8 Under Section B.8.g, the RFP states, “When a Fee Bearing Milestones is not completed or achieved, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan will not be paid.” Furthermore, Section B.8.h states, “When a Fee Bearing Milestones is not completed on time, or requires more cost/effort to complete than projected in the WP and/or MEL Plan, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan will be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer.” Since YEMP is a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF)-type contract structured to incentivize the contractor to meet certain targets while also maintaining flexibility to adapt implementation to achieve these targets, we request that USAID remove this language from B.8, as the language is more in line with a cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract in which the fee is adjusted based on the contractor’s achievement of results.

Should USAID wish to maintain the CPFF mechanism, we also request the addition of the following language to B.8: “The contractor and USAID have the option to re-negotiate targets and the Fee Distribution Plan if there are mitigating external circumstances during the course of contract implementation.” Adjusting the fee distribution plan with each annual work plan as explained in B.8.e allows the contractor to readjust and reallocate efforts and resources, as needed, to achieve the most results attainable within the total estimated cost. Any unpaid fees due to the contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control, such as the changing needs of local counterparts, can be reallocated among other or new deliverables in the upcoming year’s work plan.

USAID intends to award a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion type contract, therefore completion of each milestone identified in the Fee Distribution Schedule is a requirement for payment.

Section B.8(h) is hereby amended to read: “When a Fee Bearing Milestones is not completed on time, or requires more cost/effort to complete than projected in the WP and/or MEL Plan, the portion of the total fixed fee allocated to the Milestone in the Fee Distribution Plan may be subject to adjustment of the fee by the Contracting Officer.”

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

Should USAID wish to tie fees to results, as stated in B.8.g and B.8.h, a CPAF-type contract would be more appropriate and will likely provide better value to USAID. A CPFF-type contract with these specifications could result in the contractor forfeiting the fee associated with a deliverable that was not achieved in a certain timeframe, creating a disincentive to devote additional efforts and resources to achieve that deliverable, thus inadvertently resulting in lowered results.

5 9 Can USAID kindly provide a percentage of funds to be used for formal education vs alternative education?

This will depend on the technical approach proposed by each offeror.

6 9 Can USAID provide a list of any industries or business that Offerors are restricted from working with?

USAID/Honduras does not have these types of lists. Each contractor is responsible to design and perform its own due diligence process in order to work with private sector businesses or industries. We encourage prospective offerors to utilize the use of OFAC Sanctions List to support them in this endeavor.

7 9 The Offeror requests that USAID please clarify if youth currently enrolled in High School and or University meet the requirements for youth at risk for irregular migration.

Yes, if they live in the communities approved by USAID as high risk to out-migration. No, if they do not live in these communities. The communities will be identified by USAID and the contractor at the time of the award. Some flexibility will be needed as new communities may be identified throughout the life of the award, as necessary.

8 10 How will USAID’s approach to the outside investment ratio respond to the possibility of continued economic crisis and potentially limited private sector ability to contribute?

The possibility of an economic crisis and potentially limited private sector investment were taken into consideration when designing this activity. The aim is for the Activity to catalyze an overall outside investment ratio of no less than 1 (USAID) to 2 (outside funding). As detailed in Section M.4, offerors need to demonstrate that the proposed strategy to catalyze said investment is realistic in order to achieve the project goals.

9 14 Section C.3.1, the RFP states: “This has been ongoing with input already received from the private sector regarding a job-oriented secondary completion exam or basic knowledge leveling efforts that meet the requirements for entry-level jobs….input was already received regarding opportunities for internships and entry level positions.” Could USAID kindly make available these citations or data?

This is based on lessons learned from current implementing partners.

The Empleando Futuros 2019 Annual Report (refer to Attachment J.1.7), for example, notes that urban employers are only seeking candidates who have completed a high school degree (P.17).

Household survey data also indicate that those employed in the formal sector typically have completed secondary education.

10 18 Regarding the selection of schools for project involvement, can USAID confirm that formal schools will be selected by the Contractor?

Schools will be selected by the contractor in coordination with USAID within the prioritized municipalities in which USAID will be working.

11 18 Can USAID indicate whether private lower and upper level schools are eligible for selection to be included in project activities?

Yes, they are eligible. This will be a joint decision made by USAID and the contractor.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

12 18 How is a “return” to education or training defined? "Return" to education means an out-of school student that re-enrolls in formal education. "Return" to training means an out-of-school student that re-enrolls in technical or vocational training (offered by institutions such as INFOP.)

13 18 USAID has targeted ages 13-18 for the secondary education component which covers the typical lower and upper secondary yet has also referenced the importance of addressing the transition from 6th to 7th grade which would occur at a younger age for students who go straight through primary education without repetition. Can USAID clarify if the Contractor should focus on younger ages to include the transition from 6th to 7th grade?

The contractor should focus on the transition from 9th to 10th. The project is expected to coordinate with other activities targeting younger populations, as appropriate.

14 18 When referring to the geographic focus on high out-migration areas of Honduras, the RFP mentions that these include San Pedro Sula, La Lima, El Progreso, Choloma, Distrito Central, La Ceiba, Santa Rosa de Copan, Santa Barbara and Puerto Cortes. Can USAID kindly clarify if the areas mentioned include peri-urban or semi-rural areas or are specific to the areas within the city borders?

The areas/municipalities mentioned in the RFP were identified by USAID's Migration team at a particular moment in time, and are for reference purposes only. Offerors may include other municipalities.

The final selection of municipalities will be made in consultation between USAID and the contractor. However, the focus will be on high out-migration areas.

15 18 C.4, Target Population, Can USAID clarify the contractor’s flexibility to proposing working outside of the specified communities at project start?

Refer to Q.14.

16 20 Can USAID kindly provide us with the way that it will measure completion of secondary education? Will this only refer to completion of upper secondary education which would incentivize greater emphasis on upper secondary?

Completion of secondary education will be measured with graduation rates from upper secondary education or equivalent, if recognized by the MOE. Note that we are also open to offerors proposing activities focused on the development of accelerated programs that would result in certificates recognized by the MOE.

17 20 Would USAID consider counting completion of a specific number of grades, of transition and completion of 7th or 10th grade so that the target includes success in helping students move through the system and the target would incentivize getting students through the early grade even though they would not reach upper secondary completion during the life of the project?

The target of 500K includes transition. However, only those students in senior year who graduate will count for the target of 100K.

18 20 USAID has emphasized the importance of basic labor competencies. Is USAID expecting the Contractor to provide training on basic labor competencies and certification of the competencies? Would that kind of training be counted towards the 100,000 target?

Yes, this type of training can be included, and completion of this training can count towards the 500K target. However, it will not count towards the 100K target.

19 20 Regarding the requirements under Component 1 on pg. 20, when USAID refers to the “transition from primary to secondary levels” does this include the transition from 6th to 7th grade within basic education, or only to the transition from basic education to education media (9th to 10th grades)?

The focus only will be on 9th to 10th grades. However, the project must coordinate with other activities working on earlier grades.

20 21 The RFP references service provider and beneficiary placement materials developed by METAS and modified by Empleando Futuros; basic labor competencies and soft skills

Section J, Attachment 1 – Applicable Documents, is hereby amended to add additional links and reference material relevant to this Activity.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER curriculum developed by METAS and Empleando Futuros; and progress and initiatives by USAID activities such as Generando Emprendedores y Sinergias Sostenibles (GENESIS) and Gobernanza en Ecosistemas, Medios de Vida, y Agua (GEMA). Can USAID please provide us with the last quarterly report of final reports of these projects? Is it possible for USAID to provide bidders with access to these materials to enrich YEMP activity design?

Additionally, we intend to share the draft of the Empleando Futuros Final Performance Evaluation, or its majors findings, by October 23, 2020.

21 21 Section C.4, under the headers “Required Indicators” on both pages, state that both Component 1 and Component 3 will measure “Number of youths reached with WFD services and quality secondary to become more productively engaged.” Please confirm that if Option 3 is exercised, Offerors should assume that only one indicator should be applied across both components, so as not to double count.

Yes, offerors should assume that only one indicator should be applied across both components.

22 23 The RFP states that “The private sector has expressed some concern with short-term employment schemes that might support irregular migration and the desertion of workers”, could USAID explain this statement further and provide examples of the short-term employment schemes that should be avoided?

This refers to short-term, poorly compensated jobs that do not provide incentives for youth to stay in the country. Another example is 'cash for work' programs that provide temporary compensation. Informal employment can be counted, however, the goal should be to move in the direction of formal employment.

23 23 The RFP stresses the importance of collaboration with a number of other USAID activities;

in particular it emphasizes the need for aggressive co-management and comprehensive joint planning with the Transforming Market Systems Activity (TMS - pg. 23). The most recent information available for TMS on the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) seems to be the TMS Sixth Quarterly Progress Report and Annual Report (Quarter 4 – FY 2019). Is it possible for USAID to provide bidders with more recent TMS reports, as well as access to any research and studies conducted since the inception of the TMS Activity?

Refer to Q.20.

24 24 Section C.4, under header “Required Indicators,” indicates that Component 2 will measure “Percent of youth with new employment following participation in USG-assisted workforce development programs.” While page 27, Section C.4, under header Required Indicators” indicates that Component 3 will measure “Percent of individuals with new employment following participation in USG assisted workforce development programs.”

Please confirm that “individuals” is synonymous with “youth.”

If yes, please confirm that if Options 1 and 2 are executed Offerors should assume that only one indicator should be applied across both components, so as not to double count.

Individuals is synonymous with youth as described in the target population. One indicator should be applied across both components.

25 25 Section C.4, Activity Objectives, the RFP states, “The Youth Employment for Migration Prevention Activity will use the research conducted by the TMS program to identify sectors and capitalize on the investments done by TMS to enable the business environment.”

Would USAID please share the studies, assessments, and latest annual reports of the TMS program so that all offerors have access to the same information? In addition, would USAID please share the “Empleando Futuros” studies, assessments, and latest annual

Refer to Q.20.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER reports, as well as MESCLA’s “Applying Evidence: Youth Employment in the Honduran Context, Literature Review”?

26 27 One of the requirements listed under “Progress and Initiatives the Activity Must Build On” for Component 3 is that the activity “Expand private sector’s expressed interest expressed (sic) to support the children of their best staff to start entrepreneurial activity”. The specific requirement to target family members of private sector companies could be interpreted as at odds with full and open competition, transparency, and equity. We suggest rewording the requirement to reflect a more open target group, e.g., “Expand the private sector’s capacity to support youth who show entrepreneurial interest, talent, and initiative to undertake entrepreneurial activity”.

Section C.4, Component 3, Progress and Initiatives the Activity Must Build On, is hereby amended to read: “Expand the private sector’s capacity to support youth who show entrepreneurial interest, talent, and initiative to undertake entrepreneurial activity”.

27 27 Can USAID provide more detail regarding Option 2 regarding Component 2? Could USAID please provide more detail beyond Option 2 providing “additional technical assistance.”

For example, under Option 2, are new types of activities envisioned if additional funding is received? If so, how should those be presented in the technical understanding and approach section of proposals?

Additional technical assistance means doing more of the same activities proposed for the Base Period, expanding this effort, or proposing new types of activities. Offerors may propose what they think is appropriate.

28 27 Can USAID please provide more detail regarding Option 3 (b) with respect to the sub-component entitled “Education and Employment Opportunities for Honduran Women”;

specifically, can USAID confirm that if Option 3 is funded it will include the additional PYD activities and support to women’s access to new skills and employment? Should the PYD activities be referred to as 3 (a) in the RFP?

PYD approaches should be integrated throughout all the Activity. It is envisioned that Option 3 will provide more space for additional efforts.

Offerors may propose what they think is appropriate.

29 27 Section C.4, there is a word missing under the indicator listed for Component 3(B):”

Number of youths reached with WFD services and quality secondary to become more productively engaged.” Could USAID kindly explain if this should read “quality secondary education/quality secondary alternative education?

Section C.4, Component 3, Required Indicators, is hereby amended to read: "Component 3(B): Number of youths reached with WFD services and quality secondary education to become more productively engaged." Please note that this also includes alternative education.

30 27 Section C.5, USAID states the Base Period will cover Component 1 and Component 2, and Component 3 would be introduced in Option Periods 1 and 3. Additionally, on page 50, Section F.8.3, USAID states the Senior Innovations, Entrepreneurship and Youth Employment Officer will provide technical oversight to Objective 3. If Objective 3 is Component 3, is it USAID's expectation that this key personnel position would not begin until an Option Period?

It is recommended that this key position be considered from the beginning as it will provide technical expertise on youth employment more generally, in addition to advising on the entrepreneurship component. However, the offeror can make this determination.

31 27 Section C.5, Base Period states: “The expected target for Component 1 under the Base Period is 450,000 youth engaged, disaggregated by gender, age, rural/urban communities and returned migrants.” Further, page 28 states: “The expected target for Component 2 under the Base Period is 50,000 youth employed or in full-time formal/alternative education or social entrepreneurship."

Question: We respectfully request clarify concerning what the counting of the 500,000 youth engaged would mean in terms of practical calculation during project

If properly justified, option b seems to be the most appropriate based on the choices and information provided. However, this will depend on the technical approach proposed by each offeror.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER implementation. Which one of the below scenarios or an alternative scenario would best apply?

a. Counting of each individual youth engaged under the project only once across components throughout the entirety of the project and not counted individually for each activity under the project; (1 student active in Year 1 and Year 2 under 2 different activities is counted as 1 Youth Engaged)

b. Counting of each individual youth engaged under each activity of the project but only once for the entire project period (1 student active in Year 1 and Year 2 under 2 different activities is counted as 2 Youth Engaged) across components.

c. Counting of each individual youth engaged under each activity and multiple time periods across components (1 student active in Year 1 and Year 2 under 2 different activities is counted as 4 Youth Engaged)

32 28 The RFP describes that, if exercised, Option 1 will provide TA for Component 3(A), which will identify social and growth entrepreneurship ideas by youth and work on alliances between key actors (private and public sector, investors and lending institutions) to start enterprise incubators. But we notice that in the Award Budget By Line Item on page 6, there is no provision of grant funding for this Option. Does this imply that the project would not be able to provide some catalytic grants that spur enterprise incubation? Could grant funds from the Base Period be accessed for this purpose?

The proposed Award Budget must mirror the GUC distribution detailed in Section L.7.b. For additional guidance refer to Q.3.

33 28 Under Component 3(B) entitled “Education and Employment Opportunities for Honduran women”, notes that additional funding may be available. o Is the potential “additional funding” that may be available, beyond the funding for Option 3 (that is funds in addition to the $38,5000,000 CPFF Base total plus the three options)?

Additional funds will NOT be available. Section C.5, OPTION 3 PERIOD, is hereby amended to read: "Subject to availability of the funds, the Activity will provide an opportunity to advance leadership opportunities for young women and adolescent girls through a special sub-component under Component 3(B) entitled “Education and Employment Opportunities for Honduran women”."

34 28 On page 28, a set of Option Periods is presented. Can USAID clarify how it would prefer Offerors to present their technical response to Options 1, 2 and 3?

USAID prefers the offerors to present one technical response that would include the three Options.

35 30 Given the interest in building on past investment (p. 30), will USAID release the results of the Empleando Futuros performance evaluation prior to the YEMP due date so that offerors might benefit from lessons learned during implementation of Empleando Futuros?

We intend to share the draft of the Empleando Futuros Final Performance Evaluation, or its majors findings, by October 23, 2020.

However, given the focus on scale and systems, this Activity is very different from the current Workforce Development Activity (known as Empleando Futuros).

36 30 Given that MESCLA subcontractors work is protected by an NDA and that the RFP states an interest in building on past investment (p. 30), will USAID confirm that MESCLA subcontractors that contributed to Empleando Futuros performance evaluation do not have a competitive advantage if USAID is not able to release the results of the performance evaluation prior to the proposal due date?

Refer to Q.35.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

37 31 Section C.6, Grants under Contract, the RFP states “GUCs may be considered for non-governmental institutions, civil society organizations (CSOs), and academic and research institutions in instances where these associations support the goal for at-scale reach” but does not mention government entities. ADS302 allows for solely in-kind grants to government entities without any additional approvals. We request that USAID revise this line to include government entities so that offerors have the flexibility to propose in-kind grants with academic and research institutions that are categorized as government entities.

Section C.6, Grants Under Contracts, is hereby amended to include the following sentence: "In-kind grants may be considered for Government of Honduras entities if they contribute to the Activity objectives".

38 35 Could USAID please provide the anticipated start date of the award? May 2021

39 35 Can USAID please provide an estimated start date for budgeting purposes and to inform the draft year 1 work plan?

Refer to Q.38

40 36 F.5 (c), Can USAID clarify that COR approval will not be required for each STTA to work a 6-day work week?

Additional approval is NOT required.

41 36 Under Section F.6, Reports and Deliverables or Outputs, the RFP states that the MEL plan is due “60 calendar days after award” and the annual work plan is due “90 days after award.” We kindly request that the MEL plan also be due 90 days after award to enable us to develop both the MEL and work plans concurrently, and to allow adequate time for baseline collection.

The MEL Plan can be submitted 90 days after award. Section F.6, Requirements Table, Row 4 and Section F.6.4 are hereby amended to read: "90 calendar days after award".

42 37 F.6.1, Is the draft Rapid Mobilization and Quick Startup Plan the same as the Draft Mobilization Plan referenced on pg. 107, L.6 (b)?

Yes.

43 39 F.6.2, (9), USAID states that “The contractor will develop a research plan.” Can USAID provide examples of research conducted by the USAID Migration Team as well as requirements of a research plan so that Offerors can budget staff time and resources appropriately?

The research plan is just a proposal to answer some key questions that are important for the achievement of the activity´s goals. It should not require additional resources on the part on the offeror.

44 41 Will USAID please confirm whether the Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (MEL Plan) should be included in an annex in addition to the Technical Understanding and Approach?

Refer to Q.63.

45 41 Section F.6.4 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan states: “The Contractor may be expected to include specific evaluation activities throughout the life of the Activity. These could include performance or impact evaluations. For all external evaluations, the Contractor is expected to cooperate fully with the evaluators.”

Question: Please confirm that USAID expects to utilize its own resources for external, mid-term, and endline evaluations.

External resources will be used for impact and/or performance evaluations. However, please keep in mind that very likely the contractor will need to contribute some resources to support coordination (i.e, staff time to coordinate/engage, etc.).

46 46 Section F.6.16, the RFP states that block grants will be a part of the activity. Would USAID confirm that block grants are anticipated under YEMP and provide additional information?

Section F.6.16.1 is hereby amended to remove "Block Grants" from the list of categories.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

47 49 Section F.8.a, states that the Senior Innovations, Entrepreneurship and Youth Employment Officer “may be one or two positions, depending on the proposal of the offeror. The offeror may decide when to hire this position given the potential for a phased approach.”

Please confirm that if the Offeror splits this position, it is up to Offeror to decide which position will be a Key Personnel position. Please confirm that the Offeror may also refine the position descriptions and qualifications based on how they choose to split the positions.

The offerors may refine the position description of Senior Innovations, Entrepreneurship and Youth Employment Officers. However, it must meet the minimum mandatory requirements and at least one SIEYE Officer must be considered Key Personnel. Alternatively, the offerors may propose a different position description for the second SIEYE Officer, or choose not have a one altogether. Lastly, offerors may propose additional Key Personnel positions, but not fewer than those required.

48 49 SectionF.8(a), USAID has stated that the key personnel Senior Innovations, Entrepreneurship and Youth Employment Officer position could be one or two positions.

Should an offeror opt to split this into two positions, would the education, skills and experience requirements apply to both candidates or just one?

Refer to Q.49.

49 50 F.8.3, Would USAID prefer that the Senior Innovations, Entrepreneurship, and Youth Employment Officer be a Honduran national as opposed to an expatriate candidate?

We have no preference.

50 50 Given the Deputy Chief of Party must be Honduran (section F.8.2), would USAID consider revising the language proficiency requirements to ILR Level 3 for English and IRL Level 4 for Spanish?

Section F.8.2 is hereby amended to read:

"ILR Level 4 – Full Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing (or equivalent) in Spanish is required.

ILR Level 3 – Working Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing (or equivalent) in English is required."

51 50 Page 50, F.8.2 Key Personnel, Deputy Chief of Party states: “The DCOP will be responsible for management of the technical activities on the project and must be Honduran….

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY:

ILP Level 4 - Full Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing in English is required.

ILP Level 3 - Working Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing in Spanish is required.”

Question: To ensure the engagement of Honduras Cooperative Country National candidates with deep technical expertise and strong management skills in the DCOP role, we respectfully request that USAID Honduras revise the language proficiency requirement to:

ILP Level 4 - Full Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing in Spanish is required.

ILP Level 2 - Working Professional Proficiency in Reading, Speaking, Listening and Writing in English is required.

Refer to Q.50.

52 57 H.8 (a) and (d), Given that the new biodata form no longer requires historical salary information, will USAID consider removing references to CO approval needed for proposed

Although the historical salary information is no longer a requirement, the RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED SALARY needs to be provided in Block 16, including the rational/justification for proposing a salary higher

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER that are higher than 5% of either the current salary or wage received during the preceding year?

than 5% of either the current salary or wage received during the preceding year, particularly in accordance with proposed salary escalation rates. Moreover, this provision complements AIDAR

752.7007 and does not preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices.

53 57 Under Section H.8.a, Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, the RFP states, “If, during contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds 5% ceiling of the individual’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, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required.”

We request that the above-mentioned restriction for salary increases be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the RFP under Section H.7 (page 57), which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The limitation on salary increases may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.700.

Refer to Q.52

54 57 Section H.8 (a)1 it states: “If, during contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds 5% ceiling of the individual’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, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required.” 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 these laws prohibits employers from seeking salary/wage history of any prospective employee before making an 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.8 subsection (a) on page 57 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

Refer to Q.52

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER history is not a reliable determinant of reasonability, especially for women. The limits in Section H.8 subsection (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.

55 58 Under Section H.8.d Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, the RFP states “(d) Annual Salary Increases - One annual salary increase (includes promotional increase) of not more than 5 percent may be granted after the employee's completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services under the contract.”

We request that the above-mentioned restriction for salary increases be removed from the RFP as it appears to be inconsistent with AIDAR 752.7007, Personnel Compensation, incorporated in the RFP under Section H.7 (page 57), which stipulates that personnel compensation be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, with reimbursement subject only to the USAID Contractor Salary Threshold. The limitation on salary increases may preclude contractors from following their established policies, procedures, and practices, as required by AIDAR 752.700.

Refer to Q.52

56 60 Section H.20, state that YEMP will undergo an impact evaluation. Please confirm that all costs associated with the impact evaluation will be covered by the USAID/MESCLA project (or its successor, if it has ended).

Refer to Q.46.

57 67 Section H.18.f, Grants under Contracts, the RFP states, “The Contractor shall award such grants only to US, non-US, or non-governmental organizations. It is anticipated that the approved amount of such grants shall not exceed $100,000 for US and $200,000 for Non- US, unless an exception is provided in writing by the contracting officer.” ADS302 states “total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs.” We request that USAID remove the ceiling for non-U.S. grants to allow for greater flexibility in determining the size of grants during implementation.

Section H.18 is hereby amended to read: "It is anticipated the total value of an individual grant to a U.S. NGO must not exceed $100,000.

This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs."

58 82 Is USAID able to provide information related to the presence/penetration of covered telecommunications equipment and services in the local market? For example, are major phone and internet service providers in country compliant with Section 889?

USAID does not have this type of information at the moment, therefore we are not able to provide any official communication on the presence/penetration in the local market. USAID encourages prospective offerors to conduct their own due diligence to ascertain this information.

59 89 In the sample work plan included in Attachment 8, the fourth column of the table is labeled “Involved.” Would USAID clarify what information should be included in this column?

Person(s), Entity(ies) and/or Institution(s) responsible to execute the task in reference.

60 89 Attachment J.8 – May the offeror use legal-sized paper to present the work plan? Yes, however the page limitation remains the same.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

61 103 Is there a limit on the number of attachments (per email) for the electronic submission? No, as long as each email does not exceed the 10 MB limit and files are not be zipped.

62 103 Please confirm that documents which require a signature may be submitted in pdf. Yes, documents requiring a signature may be submitted in pdf format.

63 105 Section L.6, USAID notes that the Technical Approach must be limited to 35 pages.

However, it is later noted that the MEL, Work Plan, and Past Performance Summary are Annexes. Can USAID please clarify if the entire Offeror proposal must be 35 pages, other?

Can USAID clarify which documents should be listed as Annexes? (It is our understanding that the following are meant to be submitted as annexes and are therefore not included in the 35-pages limit: Management and Staffing Plan, Draft Mobilization Plan, Staffing Organigram, Quick Start Up Plan, Draft Work Plan, Draft MEL Plan, Resumes and References of Key Personnel, Letters of Commitment from Key Personnel, Mandatory Reference -- Key Individual Certification for Key Personnel, Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan, and Past Performance Summary.)

The total page limit entails all the documents that will be used for evaluation purposes, it includes the Technical Proposal and the Annexes detailed below (each document must comply with its corresponding page limit). Section L.6(a) is hereby amended to read as follows:

"The Technical Proposal and the items identified in "Annexes" (below) are limited to forty (40) pages in total".

"The 40-page limit includes:

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

▪ Technical Understanding and Approach (not to exceed 15 pages)

▪ Management and Staffing Plan (not to exceed 5 pages)

ANNEXES:

▪ Staffing Organigram (not to exceed 1 page)

▪ Quick Start Up Plan (not to exceed 3 pages)

▪ Draft Work Plan (not to exceed 6 pages, legal size: 8.5 inch by 14 inch)

▪ Draft MEL Plan (not to exceed 5 pages)

▪ Past Performance Summary (not to exceed 5 pages, legal size: 8.5 inch by 14 inch) – Offerors may use the sample table provided in Section J Attachment 7.

OTHER ANNEXES/DOCUMENTS (not Included in the 40-page limit):

▪ Key Personnel Package: Resume, References and Letter of Commitment (not to exceed 4 pages per individual). Total number of pages of the entire package will vary depending on the number of Key Personnel proposed. However, it must comply with the page limitation per individual and it will be considered for evaluation purposes.

▪ Title Page, Cover Letter, Table of Contents, Acronym list, Executive Summary, Dividers, and any other Annexes or Appendices. All appendices/annexes to the Technical Proposal must be written in English. All information from appendices/annexes must be referenced in the technical proposal and summarized and included in the annex

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER section."

Refer to Q.64 and Q.67 for clarifications regarding Key Personnel Resumes, References, Letters of Commitment, Certifications and Biographical Data Sheets.

64 105 May offerors include the statements from key personnel (RFP Section L.5, page 105) in the same annex as key personnel resumes and references?

Key personnel Letters of Commitment may be included with the Key Personnel Resume and Reference Annex. Notwithstanding, all together the Resume, References and Letter of Commitment for each Key Personnel candidate must not exceed 4 pages

65 105 Section L.5 refers to the Key Individual Certification. Would USAID please clarify the section of the cost proposal where these should be provided?

Refer to Q.67.

66 105 In the sample work plan included in Attachment 8, the third column labeled “Resources” instructs offerors to include direct cost information related to activity implementation.

However, Section L.6 on page 105 notes that cost information must not be included in the content of the technical proposal. Would USAID please clarify its instructions for the preparation of the draft work plan?

The Draft Work Plan submitted as an Annex to the Technical Proposal should not include costs. Notwithstanding, in accordance with Section F.6.2. the cost of each task/activity must be included on the Work Plan that will be submitted 90 calendar days after award date.

67 105 Section L.5, states that Key Personnel must complete the Mandatory Reference – Key Individual Certification. Please confirm that these certifications should be included in the Cost Proposal along with the Biographical Data Sheets.

Biographical Data Sheets must be included as an Annex to PART 2, and the Key Individual Certifications must be included in PART 3 of the Cost Proposal, respectively.

68 105 Section L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal states: “Major subcontractors are those expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort, and/or whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the total estimated contract cost.” Later, page 117, Section L.7(j), Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, Part 10 - Letters Of Commitment (Major Subcontractors) states: “Major subcontractors are those expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort.”

Question: Can USAID kindly confirm major subcontractors are those that are expected to perform at least 20% of the technical work?

Major subcontractors are those expected to perform at least 20% or a prominent part of the technical effort, and/or whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the total estimated contract cost. Section L.7(j) is hereby amended.

69 106 Section L subsection (a) Organization of Technical Proposal) Can USAID please confirm that the following sections are to be presented as an annex: Staffing Organigram, Quick Start Up Plan, Draft Work Plan, Draft Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan, Past Performance Summary.

Refer to Q.63 for the amended page limitation.

70 106 Section L subsection (a) Organization of Technical Proposal on Page 106) – Can USAID please clarify if the Past Performance summary listed as a part of the Technical page count should be included as a narrative in the technical or as mentioned as an annex?

Refer to Q.63 for the amended page limitation.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

71 106 Section L.6.a, Organization of Technical Proposal, the RFP states that the past performance summary should not exceed two pages. On page 108 and 109 (L.6.b.3) the RFP requires four additional items related to past performance: “(a) List in an annex to the technical proposal up to four of the most recent (in the last 3 years) and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal for the offeror and up to two for each major subcontractor”…“(b)If extraordinary problems impacted any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explanation and the corrective action taken”…“(c) Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work”… and “(d) Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns.” Would USAID please confirm that offerors can include all past performance-related items in an annex with no page limitation?

Refer to Q.63 for the amended page limitation.

72 106 The items, with page limits, in the bulleted list on page 106 under Section L.6 (a) add up to more than the 35-page limitation for the technical proposal. Would USAID please clarify which of the following items should be submitted as annexes? Staffing Organigram, Quick Start-Up Plan, Draft Work Plan, Draft MEL Plan, Past Performance Summary

Refer to Q.63 for the amended page limitation.

73 106 Is the Past Performance Summary mentioned in the list on page 106 under Section L.6(a) separate and different from the Past Performance Chart? Would USAID please clarify whether offerors should describe past performance in a two-page narrative in the body of the proposal?

The Past Performance Table provided in Section J Attachment 7 is a sample, not a requirement, which offerors may use to provide the information requested under Section L.6.

Refer to Q.63 for the amended page limitation.

74 106 Section L.6 (a) refers to “any other Annexes or Appendices.” May offerors include annexes or appendices other than those specified by USAID?

Yes, however information contained in any additional Annex/Appendix will be used for reference purposes only, it will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

75 106 Section L.6 (a) notes that the page limit for the Draft Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) plan is three pages. Given the importance of MEL to successful project implementation, would USAID consider expanding the page limit of the MEL section to five pages and/or excluding the indicator table from the page limit for this section?

Refer to Q.63 for the amended page limitation. The indicator table should be included within this limitation.

76 106 The Offeror requests permission to include non-exclusive Letters of Support from local organizations and institutions that in the Annex of the Technical proposal, which is not included in the 35-page limitation.

Refer to Q.74.

77 106 Page 106, Section L.6.a Organization of Technical Proposal states: “The Technical Proposal must contain the following sections within the 35-page limitation: … Draft Year 1 Work Plan and Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan.” Further in the solicitation, page 107, Section L.6.b states: “The Draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan with proposed indicators and targets and the Draft Year 1 Work Plan must be submitted in the Annex.”

Refer to Q.63 for the amended page limitation.

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

Question: Please confirm that the Draft MEL Plan and the Draft Y1 Work Plan should be included as annexes and do not count in the 35 page limit of the Technical Proposal.

78 106 Section L.6.a Organization of Technical Proposal states: “The Technical Proposal must contain the following sections within the 35-page limitation: … Work Plan.”

Question: The Offeror requests that USAID please clarify whether there are evaluation criteria for Draft Work Plan because there are no corresponding evaluation factors in Section M for the Draft Year 1 Work Plan. Should these plans have no associated evaluation criterion we request that USAID consider moving these plans to the annex for submission and include guidance on page limitations, if any.

Section M.4, Factor 1, sub-factor d) is hereby amended to read: "The extent to which the proposed Work Plan and MEL Plan demonstrate effective approaches to implementation and to monitoring, evaluating, learning and adapting from implementation. The MEL Plan proposed indicators must comply with ADS 203.3.4.2, and provide objective evidence that an intended change is occurring. Both the Work Plan and the MEL Plan must address mitigation measures to respond to changing political conditions, waning political commitment or other potential changes in the context, and describe how the Contractor would adapt interventions."

Refer to Q.63 for guidance on page limitation.

79 106 Section L.6, L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (a) states:

“Offerors may use the sample table provided in Section J Attachment 7…” The referenced attachment, Sample Past Performance Table, includes a column labeled “award type.”

Later, page 120, Section M.4, Technical Evaluation Criteria, Factor 3- Past Performance (a) states: “USAID will utilize existing databases of contractor performance information and solicit additional information from the references provided in Section L.6 of this RFP and from other sources if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an offeror’s performance.”

Question: Can USAID confirm based upon the Sample Past Performance Table the “award types” column should indicate “acquisition” and “assistance” for consideration of past performance?

Yes.

80 106 L.6.(a) - May the offeror include an executive summary that does not count against the 35-page limit?

Yes, however information contained the Executive Summary will be used as reference purposes only, it will not be considered for evaluation purposes.

81 107 On page 107, Section 2 (Management and Staffing) the RFP notes that this section should include a “rapid project start up”. On page 106 section L.6 (a) the RFP notes that the Management and Staffing Plan should be 5 pages and a Quick Start Up Plan is 3 pages. Can USAID clarify? Should these be two separate plans?

These are two separate plans.

82 108 Section L.6 (b) (3) Past Performance state that Offerors must include description of quality awards or certifications and performance using small business. Please confirm that the description of quality awards or certifications and performance using small business sections are not subject to the two-page limit.

All past performance information must comply with the established page limitation. Refer to Q.63 for the amended page limitation.

Q No

Page Ref QUESTION/COMMENT USAID’s ANSWER

83 108 Section L.6 (b)3 it states that the offeror must “list in an…