Notice_to_Bidders_Response_to_Additional_Questions_for_72061718R00008.pdf
PDF 156 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USAID/Uganda Learning Activity
- Solicitation number
- 72061718R00008
About this file
Notice to Bidders Response to Additional Questions for 72061718R00008
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
1. Offerors should take note of changes made to the Table in F.10 in the RFP-Amendment 03
2. Please clarify the apparent discrepancy between the answer to Question 24 on one hand and the answers to Questions 74 and 81 on the other.
USAID revised response to Question 24 is: No. PMAs and Enumerators are considered administrative support staff while senior project management support positions are considered as part of the maximum technical level of effort described in Section F.10.
Responses to Question 74 and 81 remain unchanged.
3. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan that is now required as a part of Annex 10 to the
Technical Proposal includes cost information. Please provide further guidance as cost information should not be included in technical proposals.
USAID Response: The small business subcontracting plan should be submitted as an annex to the costs proposal. See changes made to the RFP. Section L.8.
4. The answer to Question 64b. refers to changes in RFP sub-result 2.1.4, yet there are no such changes in the amended RFP. Please clarify.
USAID Response: Please see new changes to the RFP sub-result 2.1.4, illustrative services.
5. USAID’s answer to question 3 (and subsequent answers) refers to changes to sub-result 2.1.4 in the RFP. However, it does not appear that there are any changes in that section of the amended RFP. If there were such changes, could USAID provide the new version?
USAID Response: See response to Question 4 above.
6. Questions 24, 74, 81: In response to question 24 “Does the level of effort from the project management assistant, enumerator, and senior project management support positions, described in Section L.8 Minimum Budget Requirements (pg. 127), count against the maximum technical level of effort described in Section F.10. (pg. 55)?” USAID responded “Yes.” However, in response to question 74, USAID stated “PMA’s and Enumerators are considered administrative support staff.” Furthermore, in response to question 81, USAID repeated that “Enumerators are considered administrative support staff.” Please clarify if Enumerators and PMA’s are considered as administrative or technical LOE.
USAID Response: see response to Question 2.
7. Question 91: In response to the question 91.a USAID confirms that Grants Under Contract
(GUC) are pass through grants. However, in response to the question 91.b USAID confirms contractors will apply indirect rate to the GUC. Please clarify if the GUCs are pass through Grants or will contractors apply NICRA and fee on the GUC budget line item.
USAID Response: Yes, GUCs are pass-through grants. Offerors will apply NICRA as applicable. The proposed fee is in the discretion of the Offeror.
8. Given that these outstanding questions will have substantial impact in the development of our proposal and there are only 9 business days until the March 23 deadline, we respectfully request an additional two week extension to prepare and deliver complete bids.
USAID Response: The new RFP deadline is April 9, 2018 at 4.00pm (EDT) Washington D.C.
9. Section C.4.2, Tasks, pertaining to sub-results 2.1.2 and 2.1.4, pages 23-24, lists information technology (IT) support under Sub-Results 2.1.2 (third bulleted illustrative service) and 2.1.4 (both bulleted illustrative services). Would USAID please distinguish between the IT support services requested of the Offeror under these two distinct Sub-Results?
USAID Response: IT support services requested under sub-result 2.1.2 focuses collection, storage and provision of data in user-friendly formats such as infographics and dashboards while remaining relevant to monitoring and reporting processes. The IT support services requested under sub-result 2.1.2 require the offeror to propose and build a hierarchical data management systems based on an assessment of the existing data management architecture.
10. Section C.4.2, Tasks, pertaining to Result 2.3, page 25, references “USAID/Uganda’s ‘learning review’ practices that focus on specific situational learning” and “USAID/Uganda’s ‘pause and reflect’ moments.” Would USAID kindly provide more information on their current learning review processes, as well as information specific to the “pause and reflect” moments?
USAID Response: Current learning review processes include monitoring and evaluation exercises, field based portfolio reviews, CDCS mid-course stocktaking exercises, and a CLA approach underpinning all activity designs and implementation. Pause and reflect moments refer to Mission’s regular and intentionally scheduled ‘temperature checks’ to gauge performance of activities and internal staff through Mission-wide retreats and weekly meetings.
11. Section C.4.2, Tasks, pertaining to Result 2.4, page 25, related to “Operational learning strengthened and informing adaptive management of internal operations” seems to overlap with certain components of Objective 3. Would USAID kindly differentiate between the illustrative activities in Result 2.4 and the following for Objective 3:
a. The first two bulleted items on page 25 under Result 2.4 (“Technical assistance to assess the quality of program, procurement, financial and other business processes” and “Technical assistance and other support to establish and maintain systems relevant to monitoring the quality, timeliness and efficiency of business processes”) seem to overlap with Result 3.2 (“Quality, timeliness and USAID-compliance of Mission operations increased”) on page 28. Would USAID please distinguish between the illustrative services requested of the Offeror for Result 2.4 and Result 3.2?
USAID Response: While there is some natural overlap between operational learning and performance, the difference is that operational learning relates to improving internal mission processes. The results under Objective 3 relate more towards USAID’s external operations and activity performance monitoring.
b. The third and fourth bulleted items under Result 2.4 (“Technical assistance and other support in tracking adaptations and their respective effects” and “Technical assistance in developing feedback loops to ensure that learning from adaptations informs future adaptations”), pages 25-26, are identical to the first and third bulleted items under Sub- Result 3.1.1 (“Programmatic adaptation driving iterative improvements to USAID activities, projects and strategy”) on page 27. Would USAID please provide further guidance on how these illustrative services are discerned between Result 2.4 and Sub- Result 3.1.1?
USAID Response: The third and fourth bulleted items under Result 2.4 relates to operational learning within USAID. The results under Objective 3 relate more towards USAID’s external operations and activity performance monitoring.
12. In Section F.6, Key Personnel, page 50, the introduction to the Director of Learning (DOL) position itemizes results that the DOL will deliver. Similarly, a list is provided for the Director of Performance Improvement position on page 52. The allocation of responsibilities for both positions does not appear to correlate well to the referenced numbered tasks in Section C.4.2, Tasks, page 20. For example, it states the DOL will have primary responsibility for “(ii) the ‘adapting’ sub-result, described in part C.4.2, Sub-Result 1.2.1, related to tracking adaptations for lessons learned” (page 50); however, Sub-Result 1.2.1 refers to “An effective, efficient, multi-dimensional organizational structure that enhances prospects for learning, adapting and delivering results established and operational” (page 20). Given the misalignment, would USAID please confirm that the Offeror can allocate technical responsibilities for the five key personnel positions in a manner that is best suited to achieving the Offeror’s proposed technical approach?
USAID Response: USAID confirms that the offeror can allocate technical responsibilities for the five key personnel positions in a manner that is best suited to achieving the Offeror’s proposed technical approach.
13. Section L.7.1, General Technical Proposal Instructions, page 117, states: “All critical information from appendices, annexes, or attachments must be summarized in the Technical Proposal.”
Similarly, Section L.7.2.5.d, Factor 1: Technical Approach, page 119, states: “Introduce and reference the technical approach annexes.” Given the page limitations, would USAID consider removing these requirements?
USAID Response: These requirements have been removed.
14. Section L.7.1.2, page 117, states: “Number each page consecutively, including the pages in annexes or attachments.” Would USAID please confirm that within each annex or attachment the Offeror should number the pages consecutively, starting with page 1 (for example. Annex 1: 1, 2, 3, etc.; Annex 2: 1, 2, 3, etc.; and so on)?
USAID Response: USAID confirms that the pages in each Annex or attachment should be numbered consecutively starting with Page 1.
15. Section L.7.1.2, page 117, states: “Annexes, attachments, section headers, maps, charts, graphs, or exhibits may use a font size other than Times New Roman, size 11 point, as long as they are legible without magnification.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to use a font size smaller than Times New Roman, size 11 point, but still legible without magnification, for tables and textboxes as well?
USAID Response: No
16. Section C.3.2, Tasks, pertaining to Sub-Result 3.2.1, page 28, requests “Innovation fellowships for Americans and/or Ugandans to help USAID better take advantage of technology solutions to improving business processes.” Would USAID please provide more information on what it expects from Offerors in terms of providing the innovation fellowships? Specifically:
a. For what length of time does USAID envision the fellowships lasting?
USAID Response: Offerors are free to propose the length of time.
b. Are the fellowships envisioned to focus exclusively on technology solutions?
USAID Response: Yes
17. For Section C.3.2, Tasks pertaining to Sub-Result 3.2.3, “Deepened skills and knowledge strengthen staff capacity to meet established standards and improve the quality of USAID operations,” would USAID please provide further guidance as to what is expected of Offerors to fulfill the fourth bulleted item “Administrative and other staff support as requested by USAID.
USAID Response: USAID will require additional administrative support to support non-inherently governmental functions across a range of offices.
18. In Section L.7.1.6 on page 118, the RFP allocates 18 pages for Factor 1: Technical Approach and 10 pages for Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan. Would USAID consider amending the page limitation to 28 pages overall for Factors 1 and 2, thereby allowing Offerors to determine the number of pages necessary to adequately address each Factor based on their proposed approach?
19. Section L.7.2.7.a, sub-sections i and ii, pages 120-121, states: “List in Annex 9 to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts…For all contracts listed above that are not in CPARS, provide a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, explanation of relevance to the proposed acquisition and a description in accordance with Attachment J.9” (underline added). Would USAID please confirm that the Offeror may also submit, as part of Annex 9, past performance information for contracts that are in CPARS?
USAID Response: For all contracts that are not listed in CPARS, Offerors should list them in Annex 9 and utilize Attachment J.9 to provide required details.
20. Section L.8 (5) in the Minimum Budget Requirements table, Row “Result 2.1: Program Monitoring”, page 127 states: “100 person months per year of enumerator support” as a minimum requirement. Would USAID please provide more information on what the enumerator support is for? For instance, does USAID anticipate that the contractor will collect data for USAID PMP indicators?
USAID Response: Enumerator support can include data gathering across a range of technical backstops in support of USAID’s PMP indicators among other data gathering activities.
21. Section C.4.2 under Results 3.1 and 3.2, pages 26-29, and on page 127 in rows “Result 3.1” and “Result 3.2” of the Minimum Budget Requirements table provided in Section L.8(5), USAID requires the Offeror to provide trainings for Mission staff. Would USAID please provide the number of training days per category for the requirements listed below so that Offerors can estimate correctly?
a. Result 3.1 (page 127):
i. At least two trainings per year of entire Mission staff
ii. At least 10 trainings per year of up to 30 Mission staff
iii. At least 15 trainings per year of up to 15 Mission staff
iv. Result 3.2 (page 127):
a. At least two trainings per year of up to 20 Mission staff
b. At least five trainings per year of up to 15 Mission staff
USAID Response: USAID Response: For budgetary purposes, the offeror can estimate that each training should not exceed five days in length. Please see changes to RFP L.8 (5).
1. Offerors should take note of changes made to the Table in F.10 in the RFP-Amendment 03
2. Please clarify the apparent discrepancy between the answer to Question 24 on one hand and the answers to Questions 74 and 81 on the other.
USAID revised response to Question 24 is: No. PMAs and Enumerators are considered administrative support staff while senior project management support positions are considered as part of the maximum technical level of effort described in Section F.10.
Responses to Question 74 and 81 remain unchanged.
3. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan that is now required as a part of Annex 10 to the
Technical Proposal includes cost information. Please provide further guidance as cost information should not be included in technical proposals.
USAID Response: The small business subcontracting plan should be submitted as an annex to the costs proposal. See changes made to the RFP. Section L.8.
4. The answer to Question 64b. refers to changes in RFP sub-result 2.1.4, yet there are no such changes in the amended RFP. Please clarify.
USAID Response: Please see new changes to the RFP sub-result 2.1.4, illustrative services.
5. USAID’s answer to question 3 (and subsequent answers) refers to changes to sub-result 2.1.4 in the RFP. However, it does not appear that there are any changes in that section of the amended RFP. If there were such changes, could USAID provide the new version?
USAID Response: See response to Question 4 above.
6. Questions 24, 74, 81: In response to question 24 “Does the level of effort from the project management assistant, enumerator, and senior project management support positions, described in Section L.8 Minimum Budget Requirements (pg. 127), count against the maximum technical level of effort described in Section F.10. (pg. 55)?” USAID responded “Yes.” However, in response to question 74, USAID stated “PMA’s and Enumerators are considered administrative support staff.” Furthermore, in response to question 81, USAID repeated that “Enumerators are considered administrative support staff.” Please clarify if Enumerators and PMA’s are considered as administrative or technical LOE.
USAID Response: see response to Question 2.
7. Question 91: In response to the question 91.a USAID confirms that Grants Under Contract
(GUC) are pass through grants. However, in response to the question 91.b USAID confirms contractors will apply indirect rate to the GUC. Please clarify if the GUCs are pass through Grants or will contractors apply NICRA and fee on the GUC budget line item.
USAID Response: Yes, GUCs are pass-through grants. Offerors will apply NICRA as applicable. The proposed fee is in the discretion of the Offeror.
8. Given that these outstanding questions will have substantial impact in the development of our proposal and there are only 9 business days until the March 23 deadline, we respectfully request an additional two week extension to prepare and deliver complete bids.
USAID Response: The new RFP deadline is April 9, 2018 at 4.00pm (EDT) Washington D.C.
9. Section C.4.2, Tasks, pertaining to sub-results 2.1.2 and 2.1.4, pages 23-24, lists information technology (IT) support under Sub-Results 2.1.2 (third bulleted illustrative service) and 2.1.4 (both bulleted illustrative services). Would USAID please distinguish between the IT support services requested of the Offeror under these two distinct Sub-Results?
USAID Response: IT support services requested under sub-result 2.1.2 focuses collection, storage and provision of data in user-friendly formats such as infographics and dashboards while remaining relevant to monitoring and reporting processes. The IT support services requested under sub-result 2.1.2 require the offeror to propose and build a hierarchical data management systems based on an assessment of the existing data management architecture.
10. Section C.4.2, Tasks, pertaining to Result 2.3, page 25, references “USAID/Uganda’s ‘learning review’ practices that focus on specific situational learning” and “USAID/Uganda’s ‘pause and reflect’ moments.” Would USAID kindly provide more information on their current learning review processes, as well as information specific to the “pause and reflect” moments?
USAID Response: Current learning review processes include monitoring and evaluation exercises, field based portfolio reviews, CDCS mid-course stocktaking exercises, and a CLA approach underpinning all activity designs and implementation. Pause and reflect moments refer to Mission’s regular and intentionally scheduled ‘temperature checks’ to gauge performance of activities and internal staff through Mission-wide retreats and weekly meetings.
11. Section C.4.2, Tasks, pertaining to Result 2.4, page 25, related to “Operational learning strengthened and informing adaptive management of internal operations” seems to overlap with certain components of Objective 3. Would USAID kindly differentiate between the illustrative activities in Result 2.4 and the following for Objective 3:
a. The first two bulleted items on page 25 under Result 2.4 (“Technical assistance to assess the quality of program, procurement, financial and other business processes” and “Technical assistance and other support to establish and maintain systems relevant to monitoring the quality, timeliness and efficiency of business processes”) seem to overlap with Result 3.2 (“Quality, timeliness and USAID-compliance of Mission operations increased”) on page 28. Would USAID please distinguish between the illustrative services requested of the Offeror for Result 2.4 and Result 3.2?
USAID Response: While there is some natural overlap between operational learning and performance, the difference is that operational learning relates to improving internal mission processes. The results under Objective 3 relate more towards USAID’s external operations and activity performance monitoring.
b. The third and fourth bulleted items under Result 2.4 (“Technical assistance and other support in tracking adaptations and their respective effects” and “Technical assistance in developing feedback loops to ensure that learning from adaptations informs future adaptations”), pages 25-26, are identical to the first and third bulleted items under Sub- Result 3.1.1 (“Programmatic adaptation driving iterative improvements to USAID activities, projects and strategy”) on page 27. Would USAID please provide further guidance on how these illustrative services are discerned between Result 2.4 and Sub- Result 3.1.1?
USAID Response: The third and fourth bulleted items under Result 2.4 relates to operational learning within USAID. The results under Objective 3 relate more towards USAID’s external operations and activity performance monitoring.
12. In Section F.6, Key Personnel, page 50, the introduction to the Director of Learning (DOL) position itemizes results that the DOL will deliver. Similarly, a list is provided for the Director of Performance Improvement position on page 52. The allocation of responsibilities for both positions does not appear to correlate well to the referenced numbered tasks in Section C.4.2, Tasks, page 20. For example, it states the DOL will have primary responsibility for “(ii) the ‘adapting’ sub-result, described in part C.4.2, Sub-Result 1.2.1, related to tracking adaptations for lessons learned” (page 50); however, Sub-Result 1.2.1 refers to “An effective, efficient, multi-dimensional organizational structure that enhances prospects for learning, adapting and delivering results established and operational” (page 20). Given the misalignment, would USAID please confirm that the Offeror can allocate technical responsibilities for the five key personnel positions in a manner that is best suited to achieving the Offeror’s proposed technical approach?
USAID Response: USAID confirms that the offeror can allocate technical responsibilities for the five key personnel positions in a manner that is best suited to achieving the Offeror’s proposed technical approach.
13. Section L.7.1, General Technical Proposal Instructions, page 117, states: “All critical information from appendices, annexes, or attachments must be summarized in the Technical Proposal.”
Similarly, Section L.7.2.5.d, Factor 1: Technical Approach, page 119, states: “Introduce and reference the technical approach annexes.” Given the page limitations, would USAID consider removing these requirements?
USAID Response: These requirements have been removed.
14. Section L.7.1.2, page 117, states: “Number each page consecutively, including the pages in annexes or attachments.” Would USAID please confirm that within each annex or attachment the Offeror should number the pages consecutively, starting with page 1 (for example. Annex 1: 1, 2, 3, etc.; Annex 2: 1, 2, 3, etc.; and so on)?
USAID Response: USAID confirms that the pages in each Annex or attachment should be numbered consecutively starting with Page 1.
15. Section L.7.1.2, page 117, states: “Annexes, attachments, section headers, maps, charts, graphs, or exhibits may use a font size other than Times New Roman, size 11 point, as long as they are legible without magnification.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to use a font size smaller than Times New Roman, size 11 point, but still legible without magnification, for tables and textboxes as well?
16. Section C.3.2, Tasks, pertaining to Sub-Result 3.2.1, page 28, requests “Innovation fellowships for Americans and/or Ugandans to help USAID better take advantage of technology solutions to improving business processes.” Would USAID please provide more information on what it expects from Offerors in terms of providing the innovation fellowships? Specifically:
a. For what length of time does USAID envision the fellowships lasting?
USAID Response: Offerors are free to propose the length of time.
b. Are the fellowships envisioned to focus exclusively on technology solutions?
USAID Response: Yes
17. For Section C.3.2, Tasks pertaining to Sub-Result 3.2.3, “Deepened skills and knowledge strengthen staff capacity to meet established standards and improve the quality of USAID operations,” would USAID please provide further guidance as to what is expected of Offerors to fulfill the fourth bulleted item “Administrative and other staff support as requested by USAID.
USAID Response: USAID will require additional administrative support to support non-inherently governmental functions across a range of offices.
18. In Section L.7.1.6 on page 118, the RFP allocates 18 pages for Factor 1: Technical Approach and 10 pages for Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan. Would USAID consider amending the page limitation to 28 pages overall for Factors 1 and 2, thereby allowing Offerors to determine the number of pages necessary to adequately address each Factor based on their proposed approach?
19. Section L.7.2.7.a, sub-sections i and ii, pages 120-121, states: “List in Annex 9 to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts…For all contracts listed above that are not in CPARS, provide a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, explanation of relevance to the proposed acquisition and a description in accordance with Attachment J.9” (underline added). Would USAID please confirm that the Offeror may also submit, as part of Annex 9, past performance information for contracts that are in CPARS?
USAID Response: For all contracts that are not listed in CPARS, Offerors should list them in Annex 9 and utilize Attachment J.9 to provide required details.
20. Section L.8 (5) in the Minimum Budget Requirements table, Row “Result 2.1: Program Monitoring”, page 127 states: “100 person months per year of enumerator support” as a minimum requirement. Would USAID please provide more information on what the enumerator support is for? For instance, does USAID anticipate that the contractor will collect data for USAID PMP indicators?
USAID Response: Enumerator support can include data gathering across a range of technical backstops in support of USAID’s PMP indicators among other data gathering activities.
21. Section C.4.2 under Results 3.1 and 3.2, pages 26-29, and on page 127 in rows “Result 3.1” and “Result 3.2” of the Minimum Budget Requirements table provided in Section L.8(5), USAID requires the Offeror to provide trainings for Mission staff. Would USAID please provide the number of training days per category for the requirements listed below so that Offerors can estimate correctly?
a. Result 3.1 (page 127):
i. At least two trainings per year of entire Mission staff
ii. At least 10 trainings per year of up to 30 Mission staff
iii. At least 15 trainings per year of up to 15 Mission staff
iv. Result 3.2 (page 127):
a. At least two trainings per year of up to 20 Mission staff
b. At least five trainings per year of up to 15 Mission staff
USAID Response: USAID Response: For budgetary purposes, the offeror can estimate that each training should not exceed five days in length. Please see changes to RFP L.8 (5).
File details come from the government source that posted it.