Questions & Answers.pdf

USAID/Jamaica Community Violence Prevention Activity RFP No.72053220R00001

Amendment No. 001 Questions & Answers

Q.1. Page 111 (L.6 A. Organization of the Technical Proposal: The RFP indicates that offerors should include a Personnel summary matrix (per Section L) on the expertise of staff, consultants, and other personnel specialists.

However, on page 113, RFP instructs Offerors not to name Key Personnel. Would USAID please provide more information on how Offerors are to summarize the expertise of staff without naming them? And can USAID please provide more information about what should be included in this matrix?

Ans. USAID has amended the solicitation to delete the bullet requiring a personnel summary matrix on page 111.

Q.2. Section L.6.B(b) on page 114 includes a bulleted list of qualifications for key personnel. The final bullet point reads: “Bachelor’s degree in finance, administration, or related area (accounting, management, or compliance) and at least 5 years of experience on similar international, donor-funded programs.” Do these qualifications apply to the Finance and Operations Manager only?

Ans. Yes, as stated in the final bullet on page 114, the qualifications listed apply to the Finance and Operations Manager only.

Q.3. Page 113 (L.6 B (b) Management Approach): The RFP indicates that “The Offeror must not propose individuals to fill these roles; however, the Offeror must certify that the names and CVs of personnel to fill these key roles will be submitted by the Offeror for Contracting Officer approval within five business days of the date of award.” However, in Section M on page 127, RFP indicates that the Offeror will be evaluated in part based on the following criteria, “Proposed Key Personnel have demonstrated technical and personal qualifications, professional competence and demonstrated experience, including experience in successful implementation of similar programs in Jamaica and/or other developing countries”. As such,

• Can USAID clarify how offerors should present Key Personnel’s technical and personal qualifications and demonstrated experience without submitting names or resumes?

Ans. USAID has amended the solicitation to delete the bullet points under Section M.2 (b) on page 127.

• Given that successful implementation of complex crime/violence prevention programs largely depends on competent and experience key personnel leadership, would USAID consider allowing offerors to submit resumes for the Chief of Party and Crime Prevention Team Lead positions to demonstrate the team’s leadership capacity and to further exemplify how the skills of the leadership team will support the technical managerial approach?

Ans. No, offerors are required to follow the general instructions outlined in Section L.6.B (b) on pages 113 - 114.

Q.4. The RFP presents conflicting instructions regarding the presentation of personnel in offerors’ technical and cost proposals. For example:

· Section F.6 (a) on page 18 states that “the Contractor shall propose a staffing structure to support its proposal with key personnel that will best achieve the desired results …”

· Section L.6.B(b), Management Approach, on page 113 states that “the Offeror must not propose individuals to fill these [key personnel] roles …”

· Section L.7, Part 2, on page 118 states that “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long-term, short-term expatriates and for all short-term and long-term cooperating country personnel being proposed.”

Amendment No. 001 Questions & Answers

· Section M.2(b) on page 127 states that “proposed Key Personnel have demonstrated technical and personal qualifications …”

· Section M.4 on page 129 cites “the appropriateness of salary rates in relation to the positions and individuals being proposed …”

Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit candidates for the key personnel positions (or any position) with their proposal submissions and that the successful offeror will provide USAID with key personnel names and CVs of within five business days of the date of award.

Ans. USAID confirms that offerors are required to follow the general instructions outlined in Section L.6.B (b).

Q.5. RFP Section L.7.Part 2.3.A (page 118) states, “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long term, short term expatriates and for all short term and long-term cooperating country personnel being proposed.” Given that RFP Section L.6.B.b states that: “The Offeror must not propose individuals to fill [key personnel] roles,” could USAID please confirm that biographical data sheets should not be included in the proposal and kindly remove this requirement from the RFP and any other references to this effect?

Ans. USAID confirms that biographical data sheets should not be included in the proposal. However, offerors are required to include biographical data sheets in their submission of key personnel for Contracting Officer approval within five business days of the date of award as outlined on page 113.

Q.6. Page 111 (Section L.6): RFP provides a list of items that are not included in the page limitation and should be provided as an annex to the technical proposal. One of the items on this list is Small Disadvantaged Business participation program target information. On page 115, RFP is referencing a Small Business Goal Plan, a Small Business subcontracting goals/plan, and Small Business Utilization management plan. Could USAID please clarify that these are in reference to the same requirement – a Small Business Utilization Plan – that is to be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal and should include a completed table for which a template is provided on page 115?

Ans. USAID has amended the solicitation to delete the bullet on page 111 which requires Small Disadvantaged Business participation program targets information and the requirements for Small Business Goal Plan and Small Business subcontracting goals/plans on page 115. Offerors are required to submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9.

Q.7 On page 10, B.4 Budget, Total Construction is included as one of the budget categories. Will USAID please confirm that it does not anticipate construction costs under this activity?

Ans. USAID confirms that it does not anticipate construction costs under this activity.

Q.8. Page 112 (L.6 B (a) Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Technical Approach): The RFP indicates that “The Offeror must identify the portion of its budget that will be set aside for Windows of Opportunity to respond quickly and efficiently in situations of unanticipated crises, changing dynamics or unanticipated needs at the community or program level.” Does USAID envision using this ‘Windows of Opportunity’ fund for communities that are not within the three to five communities of program focus?

Ans. Yes, the “Windows of opportunity” fund may be used for communities that are not within the three to five communities of program focus.

Q.9. Page 112 (L.6 B (a)): Under Section L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, the RFP indicates that “the Offeror must identify the portion of its budget that will be set aside for Windows of Opportunity to respond quickly and efficiently in situations of unanticipated crises.” However, in the same section, on page 110, Amendment No. 001 Questions & Answers the RFP instructs that the “technical proposal must be entirely separate from the cost proposal and it must not include cost information in the content of the technical proposal.” Could USAID confirm that Offeror’s technical proposal should not specify the portion of the budget set aside for Windows of Opportunity fund, but that this information should instead be presented in the cost proposal?

Ans. USAID confirms.

Q.10. RFP Section L.7.3.G. (page 119) also states: “Offeror must provide information sufficient to determine reasonableness of costs proposed for each year. Detailed information on proposed grant activities must be provided in the budget narrative.” Additionally, Attachment J.2 Budget Template separates out U.S. from non-U.S. grants under contract and then specific subgrant activities with separate line items. We compete our grants to strategically support implementation throughout the contract and deepen impact, so we are not able to determine reasonableness of grants under contract costs proposed for each year at the proposal stage. Similarly, we are not able to provide detailed information on proposed grant activities in the budget narrative since it will be a competed grants program.

As such, we request that these requirements and references to specific sub-grant activities in Section L and Attachment J.2 be removed.

Ans. Offerors are advised that Attachment J.2 is a recommended budget template which may be used as applicable.

Q.11 On page 129, Section M.4 Cost/Price Evaluation, USAID notes that cost reasonableness will be evaluated by examining the appropriateness of salary rates “in relation to the positions and individuals proposed.” Since offerors are not required to submit individual personnel or biodata forms, can USAID confirm salary rates will only be evaluated based on appropriateness in relation to the positions?

Ans. USAID confirms that offerors are not required to submit individual personnel or biodata forms with their proposals. The solicitation has been amended to delete the words “and individual” at M.4 1. on page 129.

Q.12. Page 125 (L.7 Part 12 - Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan): Please confirm that the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan (Attachment J.3) should be included as part of an annex under the technical proposal and not the cost volume?

Ans. USAID confirms that Attachment J.3 should be included as an annex under the technical proposal.

Q.13. Section L.6.B(b) on page 114 states that the Mobilization Plan is required as an annex, but it does not appear in the list of technical proposal elements exempt from the technical proposal’s 20-page limit. Please confirm that offerors may submit the requested Mobilization Plan as an annex that will not count against the 20-page limit.

Ans. USAID confirms that the Mobilization Plan should be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal. The solicitation has been amended to reflect this on page 111.

Q.14. Attachment J.1.5.2 and J.1.5.9, requests that Offerors develop a robust MEL Plan with indicators, including baselines and targets where possible, as well as a learning agenda. However, RFP Section L.6.A. provides no dedicated annex for such information. Would USAID kindly consider adding a MEL plan annex excluded from the 20-page technical proposal limit to allow Offerors sufficient space to respond to this request?

Ans. Yes, the MEL Plan will not count towards the 20-page technical proposal. The solicitation has been amended on page 111.

Q.15. Page 126 (M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria): Could USAID kindly provide offerors with more information regarding the brief 30-minute presentation, as stated “the offeror will be expected to do a brief presentation, Amendment No. 001 Questions & Answers approximately 30 minutes, on their proposal to the core team at USAID/Jamaica. This can be done in person or via Video Teleconferencing?” Specifically,

• Can USAID please clarify who, on the offerors side, should be part of this presentation?

• Is there a format that USAID will be following for the presentation?

• Is there a timeframe of when this presentation will take place? For example, a month after submission?

• Lastly, will all offerors be asked to provide a presentation or only offerors whose technical proposal qualified them for the presentation?

Ans. In accordance with Section M.2, Offerors included in the competitive range will be provided with details of the requested 30 minutes proposal presentation to USAID/Jamaica. The solicitation has been amended accordingly.

Q.16. RFP Section M.2.a. and M.2.b. (pages 126-127) refer to L.8. instead of L.6. Could USAID please confirm that M.2.a. and M.2.b. should refer to L.6.?

Ans. USAID confirms that the correct reference should be L.6. The solicitation has been amended accordingly

Q.17. Page 127 (M.2 (b) Quality and Experience of Key Personnel and Consultants/ Management Approach): The RFP states “the designated key personnel (Project Director and technical specialists) have demonstrated ability to achieve the results described under the four components”. However, according to Section L page 113, the Key Personnel are COP, Crime Prevention Team Lead, M&E Specialist, and Finance and Operations Manager.

• Can USAID clarify the inconsistency in titles of Key Personnel from what is found on page 127 (Project Director and technical specialist) to what is found on page 113 (COP, Crime Prevention Team Lead, M&E Specialist, and Finance and Operations Manager)?

Ans. The key personnel titles are as stated on page 113. The references on page 127 have been deleted and the solicitation has been amended. (See response to question 3 above).

• Can USAID clarify which four components the RFP refers to?

Ans. USAID has deleted this reference from the solicitation.

• Due to the diverse nature of the work done by a Finance and Operations Manager, would USAID consider having offerors separate these roles into two positions: a Finance Manager and an Operations Manager, with both positions designated as Key Personnel?

Ans. No.

Q.18. RFP Section L.6.B.b. (page 114) lists the education and years of experience requirements for each key personnel position. The final circular bullet states: “Bachelor’s degree in finance, administration, or related area (accounting, management, or compliance) and at least 5 years of experience on similar international, donor-funded, programs.” Could USAID please confirm that the end of the sentence should read “to qualify as the Finance and Operations Manager”?

Ans. USAID confirms and has amended the solicitation on page 114.

Amendment No. 001 Questions & Answers

Q.19. The first bullet of Section M.2 (b) on page 127 describes how USAID will evaluate proposed key personnel based on demonstration of several different qualifications. However, per Section L.6 on page 113, USAID states that “the Offeror must not propose individuals to fill these roles.” Please clarify how offerors can fulfill this evaluation criterion for its potential, but not proposed, staff.

Ans. USAID has amended the solicitation to delete the bullet points under Section M.2 (b).

Q.20. Is there an upper or lower age limit of beneficiaries who are targeted in CVP?

Ans. While youth development programs often focus on young people in the 15-24 age range, stakeholder consultations indicate that youth should be targeted at a younger age as some youth get involved in or are the victims of crime and violence at an earlier age. CVP programming should therefore engage a broader cohort of beneficiaries in the 10-29 age group.

Q.21. Does USAID have a definition of ‘community’ as it pertains to the 3 to 5 communities that the project is intended to work in?

Ans. USAID/Jamaica does not have a specific definition of a ‘community’ for the CVP activity. USAID recognizes that communities vary in their size, structure, and characteristics. As such, we are open to a clustering of ‘hot spot’ neighborhoods that are within the same geographic space, where it makes sense, and in keeping with the narrow and focused approach outline in the SOO and in line with the new direction of the CBSI program.

Q.22. Page 135 (4.4 Relationship to Other Activities): The RFP indicates “as part of this capacity strengthening, LPD will pilot some activities with targeted organizations. The contractor must closely coordinate with this activity.

This CVP activity will build upon prior investments and complement the LPD activity in order to advance community-level youth crime and violence prevention”. If the USAID-funded LPD program is already building the capacity of a local organization that CVP engages with, should CVP plan for capacity-building support to that organization?

Ans. LPD is USAID/Jamaica’s capacity building activity. LPD will use pilot activities as part of strengthening the capacity of select local organizations advancing youth crime and violence. CVP is not a capacity building program though we recognize that limited capacity strengthening outside of what LPD provides might be necessary for program impact. It is therefore essential for both LPD and CVP to closely coordinate.

Q.23. In Attachment J.2, Allowances are accounted for under Fringe Benefits. For offerors who do not account Allowances under Fringe Benefits, would USAID allow/provide an edited template that places Allowances in the ODC category or in a stand-alone category?

Ans. USAID provided a standard budget template with the solicitation. Offerors may edit the template as required to suit their proposal.

Q.24. Is there an incumbent for this requirement?

Ans. There is no incumbent.

Q.25. Section L.6.B(c), Contractor Performance Information, on page 116 states that the offeror shall provide a list of names and relevant information for contracts that are not in CPARs. Please confirm that offerors are to present this information using the Past Performance Information Form (Attachment J.5, page 152) only for projects that are not in CPARS.

Amendment No. 001 Questions & Answers

Ans. USAID has corrected the attachment on page 152 to read Attachment J.7. We confirm that Attachment J.7 should be used for projects that are not in CPARS. The solicitation has been duly amended.

Q.26. RFP Section L.6.B.c. (page 115-117) outlines the components of the Contractor Performance Information but does not reference the specific RFP attachments to be used. Could USAID please confirm that the following components are required as an annex to each offeror’s technical proposal: (1) Attachment J.6 Past Performance Matrix, (2) Attachment J.7 Past Performance Information Form, and (3) a narrative describing awards/certifications and performance using small business concerns?

Ans. USAID confirms.

Q.27. Given that USAID support to crime and violence prevention and related democracy and governance programming has been delivered through assistance awards, will USAID please confirm that offerors may include recent and relevant assistance awards in offerors’ past performance submissions?

Ans. Offerors may include recent and relevant assistance awards in their past performance submission. However, offerors must demonstrate their ability to manage acquisition awards in support of crime and violence prevention.

Q.28. Section L.6.B(a) of the RFP on page 112 describes requirements for the PWS/Technical Proposal Body. The list of required information “for each proposed intervention” includes “an illustrative Work Plan.” Section M.2 (a) on page 126 states that the offeror will be evaluated through its “technical understanding of the problem, as demonstrated through the technical proposal and a draft work plan.” Please clarify whether this evaluation criterion is to be met through presentation of work plans for each intervention or through a comprehensive draft work plan. If a comprehensive draft work plan is required, please confirm that offerors may include this as an annex that does not count against the technical proposal page limit.

Ans. The evaluation criterion is to be met through presentation of a comprehensive draft work-plan. Offerors may include the draft work-plan as an annex that does not count against the technical proposal page limit. The solicitation has been amended on page 111 accordingly.

Q.29. On page 112, the RFP requests that offerors include an illustrative Work Plan for each proposed intervention.

However, on page 126, the RFP requires offerors to submit only one draft work plan. Can USAID please confirm that offerors are only required to submit one illustrative Work Plan that includes all proposed interventions within the activity?

Ans. Offerors are required to submit one illustrative work-plan that includes all proposed interventions within the activity.

Q.30. RFP Section F.5. calls for several work plans: a five-year work plan, a first-year work plan, and annual work plans thereafter. To streamline these deliverables and ensure the project maintains the flexibility requested in the RFP’s Statement of Objectives, would USAID consider revising Section F to require one work plan within 30 days of award that covers the period from startup to the end of the current fiscal year, and then annual work plans thereafter?

Ans. The solicitation has been amended on pages 15 - 16 to require one work plan within 30 days of award that covers the period from startup to the end of the current fiscal year.

Q.31. Attachment J.1, Section 4.3 on page 133 references the “CBSI guidelines.” Could USAID please make this information available to offerors?

Amendment No. 001 Questions & Answers

Ans. No.

Q.32. Attachment J.1, Section 5.2 on page 137 references the CBSI results framework and indicators and Section

5.9 on page 139 references the CBSI indicators. Could USAID please make the current CBSI results framework and indicators available to offerors?

Ans. USAID is in the process of updating the current CBSI framework. Offerors should utilize the information contained in the solicitation to develop their proposals.

Q.33. Attachment J.1, Section 5.3 on page 137 states that “the Contractor must make provision for a Grants Under Contracts (GUC) component to support partners within the local system.” Can USAID provide a plug figure for the GUC component?

Ans. Offerors should make a proposal in accordance with their technical approach.

Q.34. Please clarify the applicability of FAR 52.232-32, Performance-based Payments, to a cost-reimbursement contract. In reviewing the appropriate sections of the FAR, we note that per FAR 32.1000 (a), performance based payments do not apply to payments under cost reimbursement contracts and according to FAR 32.1003, conditions for use, “The contracting officer may use performance-based payments only if the following conditions are met...:

(b), The contract is a fixed-price type contract...” Since this FAR clause is not applicable to this contract type, please consider removing it from the list of clauses incorporated by reference.

Ans. USAID confirms that the clause is not applicable. The solicitation has been amended on page 69.

Q.35. Section 4.4 notes the importance of past USAID programs, such as COMET II and the “materials already produced” during its implementation. The Development Experience Clearinghouse has some materials from COMET II, but no quarterly or annual reports past September 2016. Would USAID kindly share all relevant recent quarterly reports, annual reports, work plans, MEL reports, and any other important project technical materials?

Ans. USAID/Jamaica will upload the final report of the COMET II project as an attachment to Amendment No.001.

Q.36. Similarly, Section 4.4 also notes the importance of a planned government-to-government activity. Could USAID provide more detail on this activity? For example, could USAID confirm that the G-to-G activity will be responsible for any community-based policing efforts and child diversion efforts related to juvenile justice, and that CVP should not engage directly in these efforts? Better understanding the scope of this G-to-G activity will ensure offerors propose the most appropriate approach for CVP.

Ans. USAID/Jamaica is in the development stage of a Government to Government (G-to-G) relationship with the GOJ to focus on community based policing and child diversion efforts. USAID/Jamaica envisions the activity scope of CVP will be complementary and not duplicative to the work being done through the G-to-G arrangement.

Q.37. RFP Section L.7. states that the cost proposal should not include VAT. Could USAID clarify whether the implementer would be VAT-exempt and if not, whether the implementer would be able to bill this?

Ans. The implementer would be VAT-exempt.

END OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS