Attachment_J.20_RFP_7201118R00001_Q&A.pdf

ATTACHMENT J.20 – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND WEBINAR

RECORDING

USAID is pleased to provide the following answers to the questions submitted by the various prospective offerors electronically and during the solicitation industry day conference and webinar. Please note that duplicated questions were removed. The questions and answers have been aligned with the solicitation format for ease of reference. Further the solicitation has been updated with highlighted changes to demonstrate areas that were affected by the Q&A.

USAID would also like to thank all the prospective Offerors who took part in the Solicitation

Industry day conference and webinar. Please find the following link for the recording of the conference and webinar. Please note that internet connectivity was lost during some portions of the conference; however, what was recorded has been provided as follows:

https://ac.usaid.gov/p2a8mh2ug7d/

I. GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Are there any applicable blanket waivers

USAID Response: The only applicable blanket waiver is under Geographic Code 935. Please

See H.6.

2. What funding streams apply to this contract (e.g. Development Funds for Africa, Economic

Support Fund, etc.)?

USAID Response: Development Funds for Africa

3. Would USAID consider extending the proposal submission date to May 02, given the timeframe provided to develop a slide deck, illustrative dashboard, QASP, and written proposal? Please note that the pre-planned CIES conference, major education development community event taking place March 25-30 involving both bidder and USAID participation, has effectively shortened the proposal preparation time by a week.

USAID Response: The due date for proposal submission has been updated alongside the anticipated timelines to allow offerors additional time for proposal preparation. Please note that no written proposal will be submitted on May 02. Please see Section L.6 for full technical submission instructions.

https://ac.usaid.gov/p2a8mh2ug7d/

Attachment J.20

RFP Q&A/Webinar Recording

4. The RFP does not mention Grants Under Contract. Would USAID confirm it has the authority to permit GUCs, and if so, would allow them in this activity?

USAID Response: GUCs are not envisioned under this Activity, all sub-awards will be in the form of sub-contracts.

5. Does USAID plan to procure the Zambia Educational Publishing House (ZEPH) books? If not, will the contractor be expected to procure these books as part of the Let’s Read, Zambia Activity?

USAID Response: USAID does not plan to procure ZEPH books. The Contractor will provide the necessary teaching and learning materials to achieve the stated goal.

6. Could USAID please clarify what role it expects this activity to play in improving data use for decision-making at the Ministry of General Education’s central level?

USAID Response: The offeror is not expected to play any role in improving data use for decision making at the Ministry of General Education’s central level; however, the offeror will share data/results with the MOGE who will independently utilize such data for decision making.

The contractor will be required to disseminate information to multiple stakeholders which include; but are not limited to, MOGE.

II. QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION B

1. (p.3, Section B.4) Could USAID confirm that the metrics to be met for deliverable No. 7 are the EGRA Results/G2 targets included in the table on page 13?

USAID Response: Yes, the metrics to be met for deliverable No. 7 are the EGRA Results/G2 targets included in the table on page 13. Please note that section B and C have been updated to separate midline and endline targets. The Metric is established by MOGE.

2. (p.3, Section B.4) Meeting the Metrics for deliverable No. 7 will be assessed in Year 3 and in

Year 5. Would USAID clarify if the EGRA Results/G2 targets presented on page 13 are for the end-of-project, i.e., Year 5) and if so please indicate the targets for Year 3?

USAID Response: The Grade 2 targets are to be measured twice. The contractor will be measured on their Grade 2 results in year 2 of implementation [the fee associated is paid in year 3 after results are verified], then again at the end of year 4 [the fee associated is paid in year 5 after results are verified]. This measurement will demonstrate how the contractor’s intervention has improved reading outcomes for two separate cohorts that have moved through the system. Please note that section B and C have been updated to separate midline and endline targets. The Metric is established by MOGE.

3. On page 4, under Section B.4, of the solicitation, the Fee Schedule for Delay of Deliverable table lists “All Key Personnel Furnished” as a deliverable subject to a 2% reduction in Fixed

Fee if delayed by one week, and a 3% reduction in Fixed Fee, if delayed by 2 or more weeks.

However, on pages 122 and 123, under section L.6.3.b., the solicitation states that “The offeror may not propose more than five (5) Key Personnel positions in line with Agency policy. The offeror is to only include the names of the two identified senior Key Personnel positions. All other Key Personnel will be approved post-award and will not be evaluated during the solicitation phase.” Given the time needed to identify and receive approval for the Key Personnel not originally named in the proposal, will USAID kindly confirm that the

Fee Schedule for Delay of Deliverables refers only to the two (2) Key Personnel named in the proposal.

USAID Response: The offeror will furnish the two identified senior Key Personnel positions.

Section B and F have been revised accordingly.

4. Section B.4 and Section F.5.2 of the RFP describe Deliverable 1 as “All Key Personnel

Furnished.” Could USAID please clarify whether this phrase should be interpreted as either

“all key personnel are identified and approved by USAID” or “all key personnel are approved by USAID and have assumed their positions”? Would USAID consider this deliverable complete if a member of the key personnel were not available within 30 days but the contractor provided a short-term qualified staff person to assume that member’s role until the member were available?

USAID Response: Please see response to question 03 above and narrative under F.5.2.1.

Further, this deliverable is only complete when the two identified senior key personnel are in-country and ready for activity implementation (reporting for duty). A short-term qualified staff person is not considered acceptable to meet this deliverable.

5. In Section B.4 of the RFP, USAID provides three tables: a fee schedule tied to the deliverable schedule in F.5, a fee schedule breakdown for Deliverable 7, and a fee schedule for late delivery of deliverables. This fee payment mechanism adjusts the fixed fee specified in Section B.3 based on a predetermined, formula-type rating of deliverable completion.

While we appreciate USAID’s clear description of the expected deliverables and results, we are concerned that tying fee to these deliverables and results through this type of fee payment mechanism only provides USAID the best value under Cost-Plus-Award-Fee

(CPAF) type contracts. Under a CPAF-type contract, the amount of fee payable is adjusted based on the contractor’s achievement of results. As the greater the results the contractor achieves, the more fee they earn, a CPAF contract creates an active incentive for the contractor to exceed, rather than simply meet, the required results. Incorporating such a fee payment mechanism into a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) type contract, however, may inadvertently produce less results as the contractor automatically forfeits the fee associated with a deliverable that was not achieved in a certain time frame, creating a disincentive for the contractor to devote additional effort or resources to achieve that deliverable. As the fee is fixed under a CPFF contract, there is an active incentive for the contractor to continuously expend effort to achieve required results throughout contract performance, adjusting resources and implementation as needed, in close consultation with USAID and beneficiaries. The RFP’s current fee payment mechanism may remove the flexibility both

USAID and the contractor need to reprogram activities and effort to be responsive to stakeholder needs, capitalize on windows of opportunities, and achieve greater results.

Since the Let’s Read, Zambia Activity is a CPFF contract structured to incentivize the contractor to meet certain targets while also maintaining flexibility to adapt implementation to achieve these results, we request that USAID remove the fee schedule breakdown for

Deliverable 07 and the fee schedule for late delivery of deliverables from Section B.4 and instead set a fee payment schedule that is adjusted during annual work planning. While the contract’s fee remains fixed, the fee assigned to deliverables in the schedule is adjusted every year based on project needs and USAID’s preferences. Any unpaid fee due to the contractor not achieving a certain result beyond its manageable control, such as the changing needs of local counterparts, can be reallocated amongst other or new deliverables in the work plan for the upcoming year. As USAID uses annual work plans to manage a contractor’s progress towards completing a contract, adjusting the fee payment schedule with each annual work plan allows the contractor to readjust and reallocate effort and resources as needed to achieve the most results attainable within the total estimated cost.

USAID Response: USAID appreciates this comprehensive articulation of the contract type.

A CPAF was contemplated as a potential type of contract type for this activity. However, due to the “completion” nature of multiple deliverables and other factors as identified in the IAP, it was determined that the best contract type for results was a CPFF-Completion Type contract. USAID acknowledges that changes may occur during the life of the award which may impact the fee schedule and associated deliverables dates. Therefore, offeror’s should understand that any contract is a living document that can/will be modified through the life of the award to reflect the changing nature of implementation. While the work plan is a fundamental management document, the fee structure will remain in the contract document to ensure that USAID and the contractor are equally accountable for timely reviews, achievement of results, and meeting the targets established to increase the number of Zambian children reading at grade level.

6. In Section B.4 and Section F.5.2 of the RFP, USAID lists Deliverable 6 as “Reading

Intervention packages developed for each district [by official designated language] agreed to by the MOGE and Approved by USAID.” Could USAID please clarify whether these reading packages must be different for each district (i.e., there must be 52 packages) or different for each of the seven languages of instruction (i.e., there must be seven packages) for the contractor to meet the terms of this deliverable?

USAID Response: The offeror is to provide its proposed approach in customizing the intervention packages. USAID has left the option open to allow for maximum flexibility for the offeror. How the offeror defines the reading intervention packages must be clearly presented.

7. In Section B.4 and Section F.5.2 of the RFP, USAID lists Deliverable 8 as a “Completed and fully functional dashboard of the performance tracking system in place that is reviewed by

MOGE and accepted by USAID.” Could USAID please clarify what portions of the deliverable would be completed in Years 2 to 5? According to Section F.5.2, the “date due” is in Year 1, and the RFP does not seem to indicate any action needed on this deliverable after Year 1.

USAID Response: USAID expects that a completed dashboard is delivered in year 1and remains functional through-out the life of the project. Functional is defined as a system that is well-maintained and is able to consistently deliver on Objective 03. If USAID is unable to access the dashboard within three times a school term the system will have been determined to be non-functional. The offeror will be responsible for providing USAID a schedule for any maintenance required after receipt of notification that USAID was unable to access/utilize the dashboard. USAID will then try to access/utilize the dashboard once the contractor notifies

USAID that the dashboard is operational. If the offeror fails to maintain a functional dashboard, the contractor’s fee will not be paid out for that year.

8. In Section B.4 and Section F.5.2 of the RFP, USAID lists Deliverable 10 as “School Based

Assessments Tracked through the Performance Tracking System.” Could USAID please confirm that, as part of this deliverable, it expects the contractor to track 114,750 sets of assessment results through the system annually (i.e., nine assessments per year for three grades in 4250 schools)?

USAID Response: Yes.

9. Section B.5 and page 129 of the RFP requests and overall task based budget.

a. Are there specific tasks that should be considered or should the offeror propose their own?

USAID Response: The offeror will propose their own Tasks to achieve the objectives as stated in Section L.6.3(a).

b. Please confirm that USAID is only asking for actual activity costs and that offerors do not need to include or allocate administrative and personnel costs to the activities.

USAID Response: The offeror will provide their estimated overall costs for achievement of Tasks and Objectives. B.5 has been updated to include the objectives.

10. Could USAID please confirm that the contractor must only include the Negotiated Indirect

Cost Rate Agreements (NICRAs) of major subcontractors in the table the RFP provides in

Section in B.7?

USAID Response: That is correct, the table has been updated to reflect major subcontractors.

11. (p.6, Section B.9(a)) The RFP states that “…the compensation for CCN and TCN labor must not exceed the Missions’ Local Compensation Plan must be paid in the currency of the cooperating country.” Could USAID confirm that CCN and TCN labor must be paid in the local Zambian Kwacha (ZMW)?

USAID Response: IAW B.9(a) CCN and TCN must be paid in the local Zambian Kwacha, “Unless otherwise authorized by the Mission Director or AA having programmatic responsibility, the compensation for CCN and TCN labor must not exceed the Missions’ Local Compensation Plan and must be paid in the currency of the cooperating country.” Please review Section L.8 on submission instruction for any such requests.

III. QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION C

1. How many students are we expected to reach (is it 1.4m as in section C.2 or ‘as defined by contractor’ in C.8)?

USAID Response: Based on the current enrollment approximation it will be 1.4 Million.

2. Is there an acceptable subset within the 1.4 million that the contractor can define up to a potential total of 1.4 million, or is 1.4 million the hard target?

USAID Response: USAID is unclear what “sub-set” refers to. Please see response above to

Question 1.

3. (p.9, Section C.3) Annex J.17 indicates that the Education Data Activity will conduct baseline and midline EGRAs for Grade 2. Could USAID clarify if Let’s Read, Zambia will be responsible for collecting endline data?

USAID Response: No. Let’s Read, Zambia is not responsible for collecting endline data.

4. Section C.3 of the RFP states, “The USAID Education Data Activity is specifically responsible for the tracking the reading progress made via the Early Grade Reading

Assessment (EGRA) and measuring reading outcomes under the Let’s Read, Zambia

Activity.” It appears that, according to Attachment J.17, the Education Data Activity contract is responsible only for a baseline and midline EGRA. The table in Section C.8 of the

RFP, however, indicates that an end-line EGRA is scheduled for Year 4. Could USAID please clarify which activity will conduct the end-line EGRA (i.e., the Education Data Activity or the Let’s Read, Zambia Activity) to determine whether the contractor for the Let’s Read, Zambia Activity meets the terms of Deliverable 7?

USAID Response: At this point in time USAID has not yet determined what mechanism to use to conduct the Endline Assessment; however Let’s Read, Zambia will not collect the data as stated in question 3 above.

5. Where can we learn more about Teaching at the Right Level referenced on page 10?

a. What provinces are they operating in?

b. How will they be supporting of Let’s Read if they only overlap in G3?

USAID Response: See attachment J.19 for additional information. Currently, it is not envisioned that TaRL will support this activity aside from a small overlap in G3.

6. What instrument will Ed Data use to evaluate the Let’s Read program, and how will that affect the Performance Tracking System if it isn’t using EGRA?

USAID Response: Education Data will use the EGRA instruments. The performance tracking system is an opportunity to track progress in implementation towards project outcomes. Further, this is an early detection mechanism that will help ensure that the contractor is on track and able to respond to schools that are under-performing.

7. (p.10, Section C.5) In the table under Ministry of General Education, multiple MOGE directorates are named as collaborators. Would USAID specify which directorate or group in the MOGE will be the LRZA official point-of-contact?

USAID Response: Depending on the technical approach proposed by the offeror, the directorates or groups may change. Therefore, the contractor must ensure they elaborate within the technical approach any group within MOGE they anticipate will be required to coordinate with.

8. (p.10, Section C.6) The RFP states that “The Education Data Activity will provide distinct assessment, data management, research, and evaluation services to monitor and track the progress of Let’s Read, Zambia via EGRA.”

a. Annex J.17 specifies that the Education Data Activity will collect EGRA data to respond to Indicator ES. 1.1 (percent of learners who demonstrate reading fluency and comprehension of grade-level text at the end of Grade 2 with USG assistance) (p.7).

Will the Education Data Activity also be collecting other school performance data (e.g.

SSME), as well as from the school and/or community? Could USAID specify the other data it will be collecting when it administers the EGRA tests?

USAID Response: Yes. Education Data will collect the Snapshot of School

Management Effectiveness data as part of the EGRA and once the EGRA is finalized within Education Data it will be shared with the Let’s Read, Zambia contractor.

b. Could USAID confirm if the Education Data Activity will also collect student performance data in other grades (e.g. Grades 1 and 3)?

USAID Response: No, Education Data will not collect student performance data in other grades, only in Grade 2.

c. Annex J.17 indicates that the Education Data Activity will test oral English listening comprehension and vocabulary (p. 6-7). However, USAID/ Zambia’s response to RFI comments and questions in Annex J.16 indicates that the focus of Let’s Read, Zambia is teaching reading in local languages (p. 2). Could USAID clarify whether the Let’s Read, Zambia will be responsible for oral English instruction to Grade KG-3 students?

USAID Response: No, Let’s Read, Zambia will not be responsible for oral English instruction. The Education Data Activity will be updated accordingly.

d. Annex J.17 indicates that the Education Data Activity will conduct research studies on the (1) value-added of students using technology to improve learner performance and

(2) comparative impact of teacher and student use of tablets (p10). Could USAID clarify if Let’s Read, Zambia is expected to budget for and implement these interventions?

USAID Response: These are “potential” areas which have not been finalized under

Education Data. The final research will be based on the Let’s Read, Zambia’s offeror’s approach which may include the use of ICT.

9. Section C.6 of the RFP references a “planned USAID district governance strengthening activity.” Could USAID please provide any details about this planned activity as it relates to the Let's Read, Zambia Activity?

USAID Response: Currently USAID is in the design phase of this activity and does not have further information to share. Once information becomes available it will be shared accordingly via the business forecast.

10. Section C.7 of the RFP lists the target number of head teachers, deputy head teachers, and zonal in-service coordinators who should receive continuous training. Given that not all head teacher, deputy head teacher, and zonal in-service coordinator positions will be filled throughout the duration of the contract, would USAID be willing to measure the target individuals reached in terms of a percent (100 percent) rather than a specific number?

USAID Response: USAID will measure based on the actual numbers of individuals who receive continuous training. This can be represented as both a percentage and the numeric value.

11. (p.12, Section C.8, Objective 1) Could USAID clarify how a cohort is defined? Is it a grade level or is it the year a group of students enter primary school?

USAID Response: A cohort is a group of students that move through the system. However, if the offeror defines this differently, please ensure it is clearly stated within the technical approach.

12. (p.12, Section C.8, Objective 1) Could USAID provide the study, analysis, or report that elaborates that a uniform system is one of the largest failures which have been determined through previous interventions?

USAID Response: This is based on observations and reflections of the past USAID Education activities and overseas development assistance associated with Education in the Zambia context. This does not mean that previous interventions failed, rather that we can establish more customized approaches to ensure maximum impact.

13. (p.12, Section C.8, Objective 1) Could USAID clarify what is meant by a uniform system?

USAID Response: A uniform system is a “one size fits all approach.”

14. (p.12, Section C.8, Objective 1) USAID/ Zambia’s response to RFI comments and questions in Annex J.16 indicates that the MOGE is not expected to provide any resources, including teaching and learning materials. Would the Mission review the cost implications of including the provision of complete sets of teaching-learning materials for every classroom, including

KG, which is extremely costly and may detract from other required activities, especially considering training expenses (whose costs are significantly affected by the high MOGE per diem rate even as governed by the provision detailed in Annex J.18) in the Offeror’s budget?

USAID Response: The Mission is aware of the cost implications; however, teaching and learning materials are critical to achieving improved reading outcomes. The offeror must determine the appropriate balance between teaching-learning materials and other intervention areas it proposes.

15. On pg. 12 of the solicitation, it states that “The contractor will define the number of students that will receive the intervention package and delineate by year and grade” (C.8, Objective 1: Reading Intervention Package). Could USAID please confirm if there are a minimum number of schools/zones/districts that must be targeted in the first year of implementation? Does USAID expect offerors to meet the metrics for 76% or more of the

75% of students sampled in years 3 and 5?

USAID Response: The Contractor will determine the best way of targeting and implementing this activity to ensure the results are met. The contractor will define the numbers of schools etc. within their technical approach.

16. (p.13, Section C.8, Objective 2) Please note that these targets for emergent readers far exceed current student performance levels, as well as performance level of many USAID reading programs. Could USAID kindly;

a. reconsider the performance level targets or the percentage of students meeting them, so they are more feasible, USAID Response: The performance level metrics are set by the Ministry of

General Education; however, USAID updated objective 2 and separated the targets via midline and endline.

b. untie the contractors’ fee payment from these targets, and

USAID Response: USAID will not untie the fee as the target has been lowered and separated into midline and endline.

c. explain the process it will follow for determining whether targets have been met?

USAID Response: Through the results of the separate bilateral USAID Education

Data Activity EGRA, please see Attachment J.17.

17. (p.13, Section C.8, Objective 2) Could USAID confirm if the Grade 2 targets in the table delineating EGRA results are for the end-of- project and for every language?

USAID Response: Targets delineated in section C.8 are expected to be met at the end of

Year 2 and end of Year 4 in every official language of instruction.

18. (p.13, Section C.8, Objective 2) Could USAID confirm that an AMELP (per Section F) is not required for the proposal?

USAID Response: The AMELP is not required for the proposal.

19. In Section C.8 of the RFP, objective 2 does not include pre-primary indicators. If USAID does not have indicators for pre-primary, should offerors use those provided for primary?

USAID Response: Offerors may propose customized indicators for any area of their technical proposal which is not reflected within the current list.

20. (p.13, Section C.8, Objective 3) In Zambia, a school term is the equivalent of a trimester.

Could USAID confirm that USAID intends to collect data once a term (i.e., trimester), three times a year? The RFP states that data will be collected “three times a school term” which would mean data is collected and reported on nine times per year, presenting challenges for both data processing and use.

USAID Response: Yes, USAID confirms that the Offeror collects data three times every term (i.e. nine times per year) based on the Primary Literacy curriculum.

21. (p.13, Section C.8, Objective 3) The RFP indicates that the contractor will establish a school-based performance tracking system. USAID/ Zambia’s response to RFI comments and questions in Annex J.16 stresses that the system will help MOGE districts and schools to support problem issues (p. 7). Could USAID clarify to what extent USAID expects the contractor to finance its implementation and operation over the course of the project?

Could USAID clarify the MOGE’s responsibility in financing and operating the system, which is intended to provide it with data it acts on?

USAID Response: The Ministry of General Education is not responsible for financing and operating the system. The contractor is expected to utilize project resources and collect this data on student progress for their and USAID tracking purposes as well as share relevant information with the ministry, if/when applicable.

22. The baseline parameters described on page 13 imply testing in every school. Does this mean no sampling of schools? What about sampling of classrooms within schools? Or of children within classrooms?

USAID Response: The “baseline” is the first collection of the School Based Assessments data for each school (per grade level) which is uploaded into the performance tracking system and then continuously updated tracking progress over time.

23. Dashboard updates are required in real time (page 13). Will allowance be made for data cleaning and verification or is intended to be a truly live reporting system?

USAID Response: All data that is uploaded into the tracking system must be verified, cleaned, and accurate. Real-time reflects the need to have accurate up-to-date data within a reasonable timeframe from when the School Based Assessments are collected.

24. (p.14, Section C. 9) The RFP states that “USAID/Zambia is also promoting disability inclusion by training teachers for special needs children and developing teaching and learning materials for learners with disabilities.” Could USAID clarify if the contractor is expected to integrate disability inclusion into this activity?

USAID Response: Yes, the contractor is expected to integrate disability inclusion into the activity. Mainstream Zambian Primary Schools have teachers instructing children with special needs. The contractor’s technical approach will have to address how they anticipate working with this population. USAID through the Government to Government Activity has distributed literacy and learning materials for such learners. The contractor is not expected to produce any

Literacy materials for students with special needs.

25. (p.14, Section C.9) Could USAID clarify whether it expects Let’s Read, Zambia to train and work with special needs teachers assigned to work exclusively with special needs children or whether it wishes the project to train and support regular classroom teachers to work with mainstreamed special needs children?

USAID Response: USAID expects the contractor to reach both; special needs focused teachers, as well as regular classroom teachers within target schools.

26. (p.15, Section C.10) The RFP directs that Let’s Read, Zambia will be “implemented within

MOGE policies and structures.” However, in response to RFI comment and question in

Annex J.16 which asks whether the project will work through government systems and personnel (p.8), USAID/Zambia indicates that the Offeror is expected to deliver the interventions. Could USAID confirm that the contractor may work with and through

MOGE personnel to deliver interventions?

USAID Response: Within the RFI, the question related to the use of government systems and the amount of resources that MOGE would allocate for this effort. The contractor is responsible for ensuring quality of interventions being provided and leveraging all resources to help supplement the MOGE pool of teachers.

IV. QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION F

1. (p.23, Section F.5.2) The RFP specifies a September contract award date and expresses concern about the timing challenges of introducing the intervention package January 2019.

Nine of the eleven deliverables are due within 90 days of award. We are concerned that the

Mission has not allowed sufficient time for the collaborative development of quality plans and products for the reading intervention packages (60 days) and the fully functional school-based performance tracking system dashboard (60 days). Moreover, the 120-day timeline allowed for collecting baseline data at all schools is not sufficient to train personnel and collect data. Could USAID reconsider these timelines and/or allow the Offerors to propose timelines that allow for such collaboration, training, and data collection?

USAID Response: USAID believes the timeline is sufficient for the stated deliverables.

Delays will affect implementation and the overall schedule. With the assumption that the award will be complete by September 30, the contractor must have the implementation package ready by January to begin implementation. Any delays will cascade through the award.

Deliverable 09 has been updated to reflect 180 days after contract award.

2. (p.26, Section F.5.2 7) Could USAID clarify whether the Let’s Read, Zambia contractor is expected to collect and report EGRA data? The RFP states that “this deliverable will be verified through the separate bilateral USAID Education Data Award,” which implies that the Education Data Activity will review and ascertain the veracity of data collected by Let’s

Read, Zambia, although the scope of work in Annex J.17 indicates that the Education Data activity will collect EGRA for Grade 2. At the same time, we note that the school-based assessment for the performance tracking system, to be developed by the contractor, “is not the EGRA” (p.13).

a. Could USAID clarify whether the Let’s Read, Zambia contractor is expected to collect and report EGRA data?

USAID Response: No, USAID does not expect the contractor to collect EGRA data. The Let’s Read, Zambia contractor is expected to collect school-based assessment data. School based assessments are a MOGE policy requirement and schools are mandated to assess students three times a term.

b. At the same time, we note that the school-based assessment for the performance tracking system, to be developed by the contractor, “is not the EGRA” (p.13).

USAID Response: Yes, the tracking system is not EGRA based because the contractor will not be required to conduct EGRA.

3. (p.26, Section F.5.2 11) USAID requests a status report on the Parent, Community, and

Private Sector Engagement plan that shows both qualitative and quantitative changes over time. Could USAID provide more details as to the types of changes they would like to see measured under this component?

USAID Response: USAID expects the proposed interventions to lead to improved reading levels. The specific measurement benchmarks and types of changes over time will be proposed by the contractor based on the proposed approach and evidence-based strategies.

4. (p.32, Section F.9) Could USAID reconsider allowing Key Personnel staff to be provided by both prime and subcontractor personnel, who comprise the project team and bring complementary skills? We believe that allowing both prime and subcontractor personnel to serve as Key Personnel will strengthen the Offerors’ teams to address a diverse set of issues requiring specialized skills sets and experience.

USAID Response: Key Personnel must be provided by the prime contractor, as when they are employees of the sub-contractor, it can create an inappropriate relationship and privity of contract between USAID and the sub-contractor.

5. (p.32, Section F.9) Could USAID confirm that fewer than five staff may be named as Key

Personnel?

USAID Response: Yes.

6. Section F.9 Key Personnel: On page 32, the RFP states that “All key personnel must be employed by the Prime Contractor and fully attributed to this activity.” However, in

Section L.7. Oral Presentation Instructions, page 127, the RFP gives an example of possible key personnel to include: “COP/DCOP or Education Expert/Project Director.” In this example, will USAID confirm that a home office-based Project Director is an acceptable example of key personnel? Please also define key personnel that are “fully attributed.”

Does USAID expect that all Key Personnel are full time on the project?

a. In this example, will USAID confirm that a home office-based Project Director is an acceptable example of key personnel?

USAID Response: There is not enough information here to provide a determination, please see responses below.

b. Please also define key personnel that are “fully attributed.”

USAID Response: Fully attributed has been defined.

c. Does USAID expect that all Key Personnel are full time on the project?

USAID Response: USAID’s assumption is that Key Personnel are those positions critical for the successful implementation and would be fully attributed to this activity. However, with the exclusion of the two identified Senior Key

Personnel, the offeror may propose other key personnel that are not full time.

This must be fully described within the Key Personnel and Management

Framework sections.

V. QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION H

1. Section H.3(d)(1) and (2) holds U.S. staff to an annual salary increase of not more than 3 percent of the current labor pool and third-country national (TCN) and cooperating-country national (CCN) staff to one salary increase of not more than 5 percent. Stipulating the annual salary increase in the RFP may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR

752.7007, incorporated in section H.2, which states that “Direct compensation of the

Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” Specifying the maximum amount for annual salary increases may result in offerors deviating from AIDAR

752.7007. We respectfully request that USAID remove these salary increase restrictions, thereby allowing offerors to submit cost proposals in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and practices.

USAID Response: H.3 remains unchanged.

2. Would USAID please consider removing Section H.32, Nonexpendable Property Purchases and Information Technology Resources, of the RFP from the resulting contract? Cost-reimbursement contracts are managed with the understanding that the work proposed is based on an estimate of costs for the anticipated work and that not all costs can be planned and executed with a level of accuracy sufficient to hold to exact line items in the contract budget. Adjustments in technical activities will likely require the contractor to deviate from the original cost proposal. Thus, limiting the contractor’s ability to purchase non-expendable property (NXP) and information technology (IT) resources to what is listed in the contract could result in delays in implementation while the contractor waits on approval. In addition, could USAID please remove the language on program-funded IT investments with a threshold of $100,000 or more from the RFP/contract. According to several contracting officers, the Institute of Risk Management (IRM) approval requirement under ADS 548 has been removed. Please contact Freddy Blunt at fblunt@usaid.gov for confirmation

USAID Response: We are currently looking into this and will ensure it is appropriately updated prior to award.

VI. QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION I

Would USAID please strike I.5 from the contract given that the clause only applies to letter contracts, as per the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) prescriptive language?

USAID Response: Removed, good catch!

VII. QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION J.

1. Could USAID confirm that Attachment J.11 should only be used if Offerors are instructed to provide a 35-page written technical proposal?

USAID Response: Yes, USAID confirms that attachment J.11 should only be used when offerors are instructed to provide a written proposal.

2. For the 35 page Technical proposal described in Attachment J.11, would USAID clarify whether the Key Personnel Letter of Commitment and potential replacement CV should be included within the 35 page limit, or should be included in an Annex? Would USAID please also clarify whether the skills matrix should be included in the 35 page technical proposal, or in an Annex?

USAID Response: The letter of commitment, CV, and skills matrix will count towards the

35 page limit.

3. (p.7 of Attachment J.11, Section L.5.7) Could USAID clarify what is meant by an “overlap in positions (within the prime/sub structure)?”

USAID Response: “overlap in positions (within the prime/sub structure)” refers to positions with similar roles and responsibilities being proposed by both the prime and sub-contractors.

For example, if both the prime and sub are proposing labor category entitled M&E Specialist. It must be clear as to distinction of the roles and responsibilities at the prim and at the sub-level and the need for M&E specialists at both levels.

4. (p.8 of Attachment J.11, Section L.5.8) The instructions provided about the QASP in Annex

J.11 differ from those provided in the RFP on page 26 (F.5.2.5). In the former, it appears that the QASP is intended to present the Offeror’s self-monitoring plan (“Offeror’s internal monitoring system”), while in the RFP it appears to require that the Offerors develop a plan that can be used by USAID to “monitor and evaluate the contractor’s performance. Could

USAID clarify what is required?

USAID Response: Attachment J.11 and the instruction in RFP L.6.3(d) are the same. Section

F, has been updated to reflect the narrative of both the attachment and RFP instruction as it relates to the QASP.

5. (p.8 of Attachment J.11, Section L.5.8) Could USAID provide a QASP template and guidance?

USAID Response: There is no standard USAID QASP template. A QASP is designed to respond to the specific and unique monitoring and surveillance requirements of an activity based on the offeror’s approach. There are several examples of QASP’s available via google search and DAU; however, please note that each QASP is different and is a tailored document.

VIII. QUESTIONS RELATED TO SECTION L

1. (p.119, Section L.2.j.b) Could USAID confirm that the 35-page technical narrative

(Attachment J.11) will not be required for inclusion in the resulting contract if there is award without discussion?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the 35 page technical narrative will not be required for inclusion for the May 02, 2018 submission. However, as L.2.j.b notes, “If the Contracting

Officer contemplates that award without discussions is possible; s/he may request the offeror in consideration to furnish their written proposal for purposes of making the award. The written proposal may not deviate from the slide deck or incorporate approaches that were not initially presented.”

2. (p.119, Section L.2.j.c) Could USAID confirm the timeline for submission of written technical proposals should the Contracting Officer determine discussions are necessary during competitive range?

USAID Response: USAID approximates 2-3 week turnaround; however, this will depend on the degree of discussions required.

3. Section L.5 of the RFP requires that the oral presentation slide deck be submitted in

Microsoft PowerPoint and that submission emails not exceed 10MB in total file size. Could

USAID please clarify whether the presentation will be in high definition or regular definition given that the resolution of the PowerPoint will affect its size?

USAID Response: USAID has no preference in the definition as long as it meets the requirement in L.6.3(a) which states “All information must be easily readable when printed and/or presented.”

4. Section L.5 Proposal Submission Instructions, (d) Electronic Submissions (pg. 120). The RFP states that “Oral Presentation slide deck must also be submitted in MS PPT alongside the

Volume I submission.” Does USAID intend that the Volume I Technical Proposal will include the slide deck?

USAID Response: Yes, so there will be one pdf version of the entire Volume I (including the oral presentation slide deck), and a MS PPT attachment of the slide deck as well, so that USAID may easily upload for the oral presentations.

5. Section L.6.3 (a) of the RFP states: “The PBWS sub-headings must follow the same organization as in the SOO in Section C.” Could USAID please clarify whether this refers to headings C1 through C13 of Section C or whether offerors should organize the PBWS by the subheadings in C8? Could offerors include additional subheadings along with the designated headings in Section C?

USAID Response: C1-C13; however, the offeror must not simply repeat what is written in the SOO. Further in the same section L.6.3(a) it states “The offeror may add further sub-headings after each identified objective, if needed.”

6. (p.122, Section L.6.3.a) The RFP states that the “offeror will demonstrate a preview of the performance tracking “system” and/or dashboard.” Could USAID clarify the extent that the dashboard of the performance tracking system and/or dashboard should be developed for inclusion in the technical proposal?

USAID Response: USAID expects offerors to present a representation of the dashboard.

USAID does not expect the offerors to incur considerable costs to demonstrate the preview, rather wants a working knowledge of what the system will be.

7. Section L.7 Oral Presentation Instructions—On page 127, the solicitation states that

“offerors are required to furnish their two identified senior Key Personnel positions [ex, CoP/DCoP or Education Expert/Project Director, depending on how the offeror defines their two senior Key Personnel] to present their submitted slide deck. One other member of the offeror’s team may come as a silent observer and help with running the slides. Only the two identified senior positions will be allowed to present.” Additionally, on page 123, under section L.6.3.c., the solicitation states that “the Slide Deck will include Institutional

Capacity as a sub-factor of the Management Approach.” To ensure that presentations most accurately represent offers’ organizations (and fully address Clarification Questions that are asked during the presentation), will USAID permit offerors to select a team member who has been a part of the proposal development and design process to help with running the slides and present alongside the two senior Key Personnel?

USAID Response: No, only the two senior key personnel may present and respond to questions.

8. Page 129 of the RFP states: “Detailed budgets are only required for the offeror and major subcontractors.” Please confirm that the other cost documents (budget narrative, Reps and

Certs, etc.) would also not be required from the same subcontractors that don’t qualify as major subcontractors (20% of budget).

USAID Response: Yes, that is correct; please note that the prime offeror will be responsible for all responsibility determinations and certification checks for both Major and non-major subcontractors prior to entering into sub-contract.

9. Are the Evidence of Responsibility and the Policies and Procedures also required from the major subcontractors for submission or only from the prime offeror?

USAID Response: No, the prime offeror is responsible for vetting all sub-contractors as described above.

10. (p.124, Section L.6.4(a)) The RFP states that, "The Offeror (including all partners of a consortium) must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor." Could USAID clarify if performance information is required of the Offeror and all subcontractors or Offeror and only major subcontractor?

USAID Response: Offeror and Major Subcontractors. The term consortium applies when there is a joint venture arrangement being presented.

11. (p.124, Section L.6.4(a)(I)) In order to facilitate ease of reading and formatting to an 8.5x11 page with one-inch margins, would USAID consider a format other than Attachment J.9 for the past performance information requirement, such as the Past Performance Short Form?

USAID Response: J.9 may be formatted to A3 (11.69 x 16.54). Section L.5(d) has been updated to reflect this change as well.

12. (p.124, Section L.6.4(a)(I)(i)) Could USAID confirm that Offerors should only include the most recent PPIRS report for a given project?

USAID Response: Yes. USAID will accept multiple PPIRS for the same project if that is the only performance history available to demonstrate how the offeror has performed in the past.

For example, if the offeror has a 5 year contract in country XYZ and the most recent is Year 4, the contractor can choose to include years 1-3 if no other PPIRS information exists.

Conversely, if the contractor has multiple contracts with PPRIS reports, then USAID wants the most recent and relevant from the multiple sources.

13. On pg. 124 of the RFP, USAID states that “the offeror is to list the most recent and relevant contracts or assistance awards for efforts which are similar to the work in the subject proposal. The offeror must list up to five (5) for itself and up to an additional five (5) for each major sub-contractor.” Could USAID please clarify the time frame that would define “most recent”?

USAID Response: Within the past seven years.

14. (p.127, Section L.7) Could USAID confirm that the invitation for oral presentations will include a presentation date so that Key Personnel can mobilize to Lusaka as necessary?

USAID Response: Yes, USAID will include presentation dates/times in the invitation letters.

15. Per section L.7 of the RFP, USAID will use the slide deck the offeror submits to determine whether the proposal is responsive. Would USAID allow offerors to include additional text in the “notes” section of the PowerPoint slides, and would USAID consider the content of these notes in evaluating the offeror’s overall responsiveness to the RFP?

USAID Response: Not for the purposes of the submission; however, the offeror may provide notes to their two senior key personnel who will present. No information outside of what is on the slide will be evaluated.

16. (p.128, Section L.8.1) Can USAID please confirm the minimum acceptance period, Block 12, to include in the Standard Form 33?

USAID Response: Can remain 60 days as a different period has not been identified.

17. (p.128-129m Section L.8.2(a)) Could USAID confirm that the budget assumptions are only included in the budget narrative rather than a separate document?

USAID Response: Yes, that is correct.

18. (p.129, Section, L.8.2(b)) Can USAID confirm that subcontractors’ budgets should also include Tabs 1through 6?

USAID Response: No, Tabs 1-6 are only for the Prime Offeror has the sub-contractors budget(s) would be included in separate tabs. Further, if the prime wanted to follow a uniform system, only Tab 1, Tab 4, and Tab 6 would/could apply as the other Tabs would be negotiated between the prime and sub unless the prime contractor established a similar fee structure (Tab

2-3) and sub-contractor cancellation ceilings (Tab 5).

19. (p.130, Section L.8.2(c)) Could USAID confirm that the allowances for USNs and CCNs can be included under a separate category as opposed to under Fringe Benefits or ODCs categories (p. 2 and 130)?

USAID Response: Yes, please ensure budget narrative matches.

20. (p.134, Section L.8.4) Can USAID confirm that existing USAID contractors do not need to submit organizational policies and procedures?

USAID Response: “Each offeror” includes existing USAID contractors.

21. (p.134, Section L.8.4) Can USAID confirm that major and other subcontractors do not need to submit organizational policies and procedures?

USAID Response: Only Prime offerors must submit organizational policies and procedures.

22. Section L.8.2(c) of the RFP requires offerors to include consultants under the Subcontracts line item. Given that some offerors book consultants under the Labor line item, this adjustment would violate Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements. Would USAID please remove this instruction from the RFP and resulting contract?

USAID Response: Language has been updated to allow flexibility for different accounting methods.