Notice_to_Bidders_Response_to_Questions_for_72061718R00008.pdf

1) Does USAID/Uganda have an approved PMP for the 2016 - 2021 CDCS? If so, can all or parts of it be shared with bidders?

USAID Response: USAID has a draft PMP that is under clearance for approval.

USAID has provided this version marked ‘Draft’ as Annex J.14.

2) Page 18, C.4.2: Tasks, Objective 1, Result 1.1: The RFP states that “For the purposes of IR 1.1, partnerships include: (i) Government-to-Government (G2G) relationships, in which USAID disburses funds directly to a GOU entity or relies upon GOU systems to implement assistance projects; (ii) Global Development Alliances in which USAID partners financially with the private sector; and (iii) other relationships in [sic] goals and risks are shared, and activities co-funded.” Can USAID please provide more information about (or examples of) existing G2G efforts?

USAID Response: USAID/Uganda does not currently have any existing G2G efforts; however, the Mission is embarking on stage two of the Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework process and anticipates the possibility of G2G in out years.

3) Page 23 - 24: Sub-result 2.1.4 requires assessment and improvement of the existing data management architecture. What platform or software does USAID/Uganda use for data management? Is it behind a firewall?

USAID Response: See the changes to RPF sub-result 2.1.4. USAID/Uganda is currently undergoing an assessment of its data management to support the new PMP. The Contractor will use the results of this assessment to build the new data management system, which integrates existing data management systems.

4) Page 25: Result 2.3 includes internships for students from Ugandan universities.

Does USAID expect these interns to be placed at USAID/Uganda or with the Learning Contract; if the former, what is the process for ensuring appropriate clearances for their access to the embassy? Does USAID expect these internships to be paid?

USAID Response: USAID expects all interns to be paid a stipend. USAID also anticipates the Learning Activity to host the interns, due to space and security constraints at the Embassy.

5) Page 27: As part of the activities under sub-result 3.1.3 the Contract will provide “training, readily accessible (on-the-ground and/or virtual) coaching, templates and other tools, and other professional development support to improve the performance of Contracting/Agreement Officers Representatives and other cadres of Mission staff to meet USAID’s policy, regulatory, reporting and other requirements.” Does USAID expect the Contractor to develop its own training materials or draw on existing materials?

USAID Response: USAID expects the Contractor to both draw upon existing materials when available, and to develop new materials when existing materials are not available.

6) Page 29: Result 3.2.3 calls for the contractor to provide “administrative and other staff support as requested by USAID”. Will these staff require clearances for access to the embassy? If so, what is the approximate timeframe and will USAID provide any requisite support for that process?

USAID Response: USAID/Uganda will facilitate clearances for access to the embassy whenever necessary. Since the clearance approval process is outside USAID’s control, we cannot estimate a time frame.

7) Page 50: The RFP specifies the Director of Learning will be responsible for Result

2.1 but does not mention Results 2.2 through 2.4. Is it fair to assume this is left to the discretion of the Contractor?

USAID Response: The Director of Learning will have primary responsibility for delivering: (i) the “learning” results described in Part C.4.2, Result 2.1 through to 2.4. See changes made to the RFP F.6.2.

8) Page 55, F.9, Professional Technical Level of Effort: Please confirm the reference to the DCOP position is a typo.

USAID Response: USAID confirms the reference to DCOP is a typo and it has been deleted. See changes made on page 55, F.9, Professional Technical Level of Effort.

9) Page 55, F.10, Term - Level of Effort:

a. Is the LOE chart on pages 55 and 56 only for professional technical labor? Or does the LOE chart also include the administrative and support positions, as well?

USAID Response: Yes, the LOE chart only includes professional technical labor. It is at the Offeror’s discretion to provide administrative and support positions LOE. See changes made to the RFP Section F.9 a.

b. If the LOE chart includes the administrative and support positions, should a grants manager be categorized under “Long-Term Technical Assistance”?

USAID Response: See response to question 9a.

10) Page 56, F.10 Level of Effort: The Level of Effort months for the Short-Term Technical Assistance (Expatriates) do not add up to the figure in the ‘Total’ column.

Please confirm if the total LOE for expatriate STTA is 431 (as indicated in the ‘Total’ column) or 413, which would be the total for each of the ‘Year’ columns added.

USAID Response: 413 is the correct number. See changes made to Section F.10 of the RFP.

11) Page 56, F.10 Level of Effort: The first year’s LOE for the Short-term Technical Assistance is 97 months, while the others are 79. Please confirm there is no typo.

USAID Response: Please see changes made to RFP Section F10.

12) Page 120, Past Performance:

a. Kindly confirm if teaming agreements are required as a part of the Annex 9.

USAID Response: It is at the Offeror’s discretion if will they require any form of teaming agreements. Offerors are encouraged to read FAR 9.6 to familiarize themselves with teaming agreements.

b. If teaming agreements are required in Annex 9, please clarify if all teaming agreements are required or only from the major subcontractors.

USAID Response: See response to question 12 a. above.

13) Page 120, Annex 6, Term Level of Effort:

a. Will the Annex 6 submission (“Term Level of Effort per person months for 2 pages” required on page 120) be used as the “Level of Effort Labor Category” referenced on page 55, F.9.c), and included in the contract after the award?

USAID Response: Yes. Please see changes made to RFP Section F9 and F10.

b. Please clarify if the LOE matrix in Annex 6 should include the LOE information at the position level for the professional technical labor.

USAID Response: Yes, it should include LOE for professional technical labor.

c. Please further clarify if the support and admin positions should be included in the LOE matrix.

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 9a.

14) Can USAID please provide a sample Implementation Letter to offerors?

USAID Response: USAID cannot provide a sample Implementation Letter.

15) The RFP contains the following guidance regarding level of effort:

● Section F.9.c, page 55, of the RFP indicates that the level of effort table that will be incorporated into the contract will be based on the offeror’s proposal:

“The level of effort by labor category is set forth as a table in Attachment TBD (note that this table is based on the Contractor’s original proposal and/or final proposal revision, which was accepted by USAID through award of this contract).”

● Section L.7.2, Technical Proposal Format, for Annex 6 (the proposed LOE table), on page 120, requires Offerors to “submit a level of effort (shown in person months) for the performance of this contract in relation to the LOE table in Section F.10.”

● Section F.10 provides a detailed level of effort chart breaking out LOE by short-term and long-term personnel categories, which is indicated as being flexible and subject to adjustments during implementation within the ceiling of total days ordered and the total estimated cost of the contract.

Can USAID please confirm that within the total level of effort indicated in Section F.10, offerors are free to propose a mix of LOE in accordance with their technical approach that is most suited to meeting the requirements of the Contract?

USAID Response: See changes made to RFP Section F10. For key personnel listed under section F10, Offerors should strictly adhere to the list of LOE.

Offerors are free to propose a mix of LOE for non-key personnel positions listed in F10.

16) The RFP includes the following instructions related to staffing:

● In Section F.7, pages 53-54 of the RFP, USAID lists Other Staffing Requirements, with a number of suggested personnel requirements, including an economist, anthropologist or sociologist, political scientist, natural resource management/environmental advisor, civil engineer, and information technology/innovations expert.

● In Section L.7.2, Technical Proposal Format, page 119, for item 6, Factor 2 (Management Approach and Staffing Plan), item d, the RFP requires Offerors to “propose a staffing plan that justifies key and non-key personnel positions (see Section F for illustrative non-key personnel) that represent the best mix of support required to meet Contract objectives. (Italics added.)

● In Section L.8, Cost Proposal Instructions in the Minimum Budget Requirements table on page 127, under Result 2.3, USAID refers to these other staffing positions as “providing full-time services.”

Given the apparent limitations set forth in the proposal in Sections F.7, F.10 and L.8 regarding long-term and short-term technical assistance, can you please confirm that the staff mentioned in Section F.7 are not required to be available on a full-time basis, but rather should be engaged as necessary to fulfill the requirements detailed in Section F.7, in accordance with an Offeror’s technical proposal?

USAID Response: Staff listed under F.7 are anticipated to be full time staff.

17) In Section C.4.2, Tasks, on pages 18, 22 and 26, the RFP states the LOE percentages for the three objectives as follows: Collaborating (20% of LOE), Learning (50% of LOE) and Performing (30% of LOE). Given the integrated and complex nature of the bid, and the instructions in Section L.7.2, Item 6, Factor 2.d, quoted in the above Question, would USAID please confirm that the LOE percentages and suggested non-key personnel LOE may be considered by Offerors as guidelines to assist in proposing the contract’s staffing plan and associated LOE allocation, rather than strict requirements that must be adhered to?

USAID Response: The LOE percentages and suggested non-key personnel LOE are listed as guidelines to Offerors in preparing their proposals.

18) Section C, Result 3.3, pg. 29, and Section L.8, Minimum Budget Requirements, pg.

127 call for seven vehicles and open arrangements with car services. Could USAID please clarify if contractors are to have seven vehicles in addition to open arrangements with car services (and not one or the other)? Does USAID expect the Offeror to anticipate seven drivers as full-time staff for this contract? Can bidders anticipate that it would be dispositioned any vehicles from closing USAID contracts?

USAID Response: See changes to RFP Section L.8, minimum budget requirements table. USAID has reduced the number of vehicles to five in addition to open arrangements with car services. Offerors should plan for five full-time drivers. Offerors should assume that there will not be any dispositioned vehicles from closing USAID contracts.

19) Section F.10, pg. 55-56 of the RFP includes a table of Level of Effort. The table includes five long-term technical assistance (expatriates) for the four final years of the contract. Can USAID confirm that it expects these expatriates to be employed in addition to what the contractor is proposing as key personnel? Does USAID have specific positions in mind for these expatriates? Does USAID envision that any of the non-key personnel listed in Section F.7 to be long term expatriate staff?

USAID Response: The person-months of long-term expatriate technical assistance is in addition to the person-months for key personnel. All of the non-key personnel listed in Section F.7 are long-term staff. It is up to the Offerors to determine whether personnel proposed in Section F.7 are expatriate or locally-employed staff. As indicated in Section F.9, “the number of person months for any labor category may be used in any other labor category, subject to the approval of the COR.”

20) In the Level of Effort table in Section F.10, pg. 56, the level of effort for expatriate long term technical assistance is slightly higher in the first year. Is the figure of 97 accurate or should it rather show 79 which would align it with other years of the project?

USAID Response: See response to question 11.

21) Can USAID confirm whether offerors may propose changes to the table provided under Section F.10. Term - Level of Effort (LOE), per page 55 of the RFP?

Assuming the “Position or Labor Type” are fixed/unalterable, may offerors propose different figures for LOE per position/labor type?

USAID Response: See changes made to RFP Section F10. For key personnel listed under section F10, Offerors should strictly adhere to the list of LOE.

Offerors are free to propose a mix of LOE for non-key personnel positions listed in F10.

22) Can USAID please clarify how the Level of Effort table of Section F.10 corresponds to the Level of Effort described in the Minimum budget requirements (pages 126- 128)?

USAID Response: Offerors should use the level of effort described in the table entitled “Minimum Budget Requirements” to make decisions as to how best to allocate the level of effort provided in the Section F.10 table.

23) Section F.7 f), Other Staffing Requirements, pg. 54, call for two editor positions.

Could USAID please provide a description of tasks for the two editors?

USAID Response: Editors are required to edit and ensure the written quality of the range of USAID documents.

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 Response: Yes.

25) Are Offerors expected to budget for allowances for all the long-term expatriate personnel described in Section F.10.?

USAID Response: Offerors should budget for allowances as per instructions in Section L.8 Part 2.4 (C ).

26) Section H.6., Grants Under Contract, pg. 64 states both that “No cash or in kinds grants will be made to the Government of Uganda, and regional and district level authorities” and that “Grants to local governments must be provided in-kind.” Would USAID clarify whether in-kind grants can be provided to the Government of Uganda?

USAID Response: Please see changes to RFP Section H.6.

27) Considering that fixed amount awards cannot be used in a program that requires mandatory cost sharing, can USAID please confirm that only grantees that are recipients of cost reimbursement grants (generally more experienced grantees) will be allowed to provide financial and/or in-kind contributions.

USAID Response: USAID is unable to make a determination on this since such considerations should be embedded within the Grants Manual that will be approved during the performance of the award.

28) Section H.11 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, (d) Annual Salary Increases, pg. 66, states: “One annual salary increase of not more than five (5) percent may be granted according to the Contractor’s established policy and practice”. And, H.10 Personnel Compensation states: “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel shall be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” Ensuring that we remain in line with our established policies and procedures, please confirm that the five (5) percent threshold can be applicable to the total direct labor pool vs. individuals?

USAID Response: Five (5) percent threshold is applicable to individuals not total direct labor pool.

29) Section H.11 (a) Limitations, RFP pg. 66, states “Nor may any individual salary or wage, without approval of the Cognizant Contracting Officer, exceed the employee’s current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years.” Would USAID consider modifying the language to the following, "Nor may any individual salary or wage, without approval of the Cognizant Contracting Officer, exceed the employee's current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years by more than 5%." The revised language would allow the offeror to negotiate modest increases with new hires in an expedited fashion in accordance with its policies, procedures, and practices.

USAID Response: USAID will not revise language in Section H.11 (a).

30) Does USAID have a particular template or format that it would like Offerors to use for Annex 5 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)?

USAID Response: QASP should be submitted as Annex 5. Refer to instruction for preparation of the technical proposal in Section L. USAID does not have a QASP template.

31) The RFP makes no mention of subcontractor exclusivity. Please confirm that in order to provide USAID access to the best support available, USAID/Uganda does not allow exclusive agreements with subcontractors

USAID Response: USAID does not have a requirement for exclusive agreements with subcontractors.

32) Please confirm that attendance at the up-coming USAID/Uganda Performance Monitoring Plan Roll-out Workshops by offerors does not pose any potential conflict of interest.

USAID Response: USAID confirms that offerors attendance of this workshop does not present any potential conflict of interest.

33) RFP page 47: Please confirm that the guidelines listed in Section F.4, subsection 12, Financial Guidelines and Systems refer to the selected contractor’s reporting relationship with USAID and not the contractor’s development of systems for IPs under the contract.

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the guidelines listed in F.4, subsection 12 refer to the relationship with USAID.

34) RFP pages 24 and 42: For Result 2.2, Sub-result 2.2.2, illustrative services includes reference to impact evaluations (IEs) of programmatic activities and operational performance. Section E.3 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), paragraph g) also refers to periodic IEs as required by the Contract and/or determined as necessary by the COR during contract administration to measure success and to redirect efforts when necessary.

(a) Are these separate instances of IEs referring to the same types of activities? If not, please clarify the difference in use/purpose of these IEs (for example, learning v. accountability purposes).

USAID Response: Yes, USAID confirms that these are separate instances of IEs referring to the same type of activities. IEs are used for both learning and accountability purposes and will be used for a range of activities under USAID’s management.

(b) For IEs carried out as part of the QASP, please confirm that these IEs would necessarily need to be completed within the term of the contract. (It is often the case that IEs for measuring impacts require substantial time for all impacts to develop and so may require a timeline that extends beyond the subject contract, which implies the IE would be completed under a different contract mechanism.)

USAID Response: IEs would need to be completed within the term of the contract.

(c) Please confirm that IEs referred to under the QASP are IEs that attempt to make attributional/ causal statements about outcomes with respect to the intervention about which the IE is being conducted.

USAID Response: Yes, this is correct.

35) RFP page 55: Section F.8 states “The Contractor is required to seek the following approvals from the CO: … v. Approval of Report and Performance Objectives indicated in Section F.5.” Please clarify how this CO approval relates to the COR approval of reports described earlier in the section (ie, is it in additional to the COR approval or is it a different type of approval)?

USAID Response: In Section F.5 some reports require both COR concurrence and CO approval hence the need for F.8.v.

36) RFP Pages 50-56: Sections F.6 and F.7 outline the expected staffing required (although they are not intended to be an exhaustive listing). These requirements total 5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) for key personnel and 14 FTEs for other staff. The level of effort table included in Section F.10 includes level of effort that maps to the key personnel and other staffing in Sections F.6 and F.7. However, it also includes

4.5 FTE over the 5-year performance period for an expatriate long-term position outside of the key personnel positions.

(a) Please clarify if this expatriate position is intended to cover one of the other staff positions in Section F.7 and, if so, which position?

USAID Response: Contractor positions described in Section F.7 are to be covered within the ceilings estimated for long-term person months estimated in the table in Section F.10. It is for Offerors to determine how best to allocate the person months estimated in the F.10 table.

(b) If this position is not intended to cover one of the other staff positions in Section F.7, given the cost of maintaining a long-term, expatriate position, please clarify the intent of including this long-term position in the table and whether it is a required position or an illustrative position.

USAID Response: See response to Question 36 (a).

37) RFP pages 53 and 128 of the RFP. Please clarify discrepancy between F.7, Other Staffing Requirements (f) which calls for two editors to improve the quality of internal and external USAID/Uganda documents, reports and outreach materials, and the Minimum budget requirements included in the Section L table which includes 48 person months of editing support per year.

USAID Response: USAID has revised 48 person months of editing support per year to read 48 months of editing over the life of the award. See changes made to Section L, Result 3.4, bullet 5 of the RFP. Unlike other positions described in Section F.7, the editor positions are part-time.

38) Can the Mission confirm if its “Geofocus” described in Annex III of the CDCS remains the same, or if not provide updated information?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that that Geofocus described in Annex III of the CDCS remains the same.

39) When does the Mission anticipate having the five PADs available for review by the offerors and/or use by the contract awardee? (pg. 11)

USAID Response: The five PADs are under draft and should be finalized by the time the contract is awarded.

40) Does the Mission anticipate continued use of the Pardee Center’s futures modeling, and if so would that fall within the scope of the activity? (pgs. 12 & 15).

USAID Response: The Mission is interested in continued use of the Pardee Center’s Futures Modeling and this would fall within the scope of the activity.

41) To assist offerors with both approach to and costing of the work under Sub-Result 1.4.2, can the Mission provide any parameters to the number of local organizations for which CLA capacity is to be strengthened? (pg. 22) There is nothing included about this in the Minimum Budget Requirements (MBR) table on page 126.

USAID Response: It is up to the Offerors to propose the number of local organizations.

42) Can the Mission provide information on its existing data management architecture that the award will provide support for assessing and improving/expanding (Sub- Result 2.1.4)?

USAID Response: See response to Question 3.

43) Result 2.3 contains an illustrative service concerning student internships, and some basic cost parameters are included in the Minimum Budget Requirements table. Are there any other parameters available; e.g., number of students per year, location of universities, etc.

USAID Response: The Contractor will determine the number of students per year, within the parameter of two person-years of internships per year. Ideally, students from all universities will be eligible to compete for internships.

44) Does the Mission have an example of “performance standards” it would like offerors to respond to with regard to Sub-Result 3.1.2?

USAID Response: Two examples of performance standards for Contracting Officer’s Representatives is as follows:

A. The COR understands and meets USAID requirements for Data Quality

Assessments. S/he:

Has a schedule for assessing data quality that is complete and on-track.

Can provide evidence that activity data meets USAID’s standards for validity, integrity, precision, reliability and timeliness.

B. The COR contributes to the programmatic integration envisaged in the CDCS. S/he:

Participates actively in project planning, decision-making and review meetings.

Contributes to project reporting exercises in a timely and accurate manner.

Identifies and supports opportunities for strengthening programmatic integration.

45) Sub-Result 3.1.2 appears very similar to Sub-Result 3.2.2 (pg. 28), e.g., nearly all the illustrative services in each are the same. Is this a mistaken duplication, or how do they differ?

USAID Response: Sub-Result 3.1.2 relates to USAID programs. Sub-Result

3.2.2 relates to USAID operations.

46) Sub-Result 3.1.3 (pg. 27) contains an illustrative service to provide “administrative and staff support…” This is a very broad requirement; can some LOE parameters be established in the Minimum Budget Requirements table?

USAID Response: This is at the Offeror’s discretion.

47) With regard to sub-Section C.7.2, “USAID Support for Increasing Contractor Alignment with USAID’s Model of Increasing Development Impact through CLA and Organizational Development (OD)”:

a. Please provide further guidance about how offerors should address this, including where in the Technical Proposal it should be discussed.

USAID Response: Refer to section C.5 for more information on CLA.

Offerors are encouraged to be innovative as they address this requirement in line with the instructions stated in L.7.2 Subsection 5.c.

b. The first paragraph on pg.38 states that “funds will be made available from existing funds in the Contract award from USAID.” Does this mean that offerors should or may include a line item for such support in the budget?

USAID Response: Yes.

c. Does USAID encourage offerors to utilize this support mechanism? Would not planning for such support in any way negatively affect how an otherwise sound technical proposal will be evaluated by USAID?

USAID Response: Yes, USAID encourages Offerors to utilize this support mechanism. Utilizing this mechanism will not negatively affect proposal evaluation.

48) In the Section F.4 (3) discussion of the Annual Work Plan (pg. 44) reference is made to a “CLA section of the work plan.” As Work Plans do not typically include such sections, would the Mission consider an approach in which the items featured in the bullets be covered, instead, by the CMELP as they appear to directly relate to the “L” or learning portion of that plan?

USAID Response: CLA must be a component of the workplan and the CMELP.

49) In the Section F.4 (7) discussion of the CMELP (pg. 45), it is noted that the plan is intended to help track whether (contract) services are achieving intended results. The third bullet raises the identification of “key questions for learning” in three broad areas: CLA; Integrated Strategies; and New Ways of Doing Business. The questions seem to be more appropriate to the Mission’s own learning agenda associated with the PMP’s CLA Plan, and not the CMELP per se. Please clarify if what is intended is for the Contractor to assist the Mission answer the learning questions as part of implementing its CLA Plan. If so, how successful such Contractor assistance was could be measured in the CMELP.

USAID Response: Given Result 3.4, particularly Offeror support for the illustrative service of “developing and addressing a CLA learning agenda,” there is likely to be a degree of overlap between what is expected in the CMELP and what is expected of the Offeror with regard to supporting the PMP’s CLA Plan.

50) In Section F.5 (pg. 47) it is not clear why the Baseline Report is due before the CMELP, when the latter must serve as the basis for the former. Please provide further guidance.

USAID Response: See changes to RFP Section F.5.

51) Is there a reason the “QASP” described in Section E.3 is not included in Sections F.4 and F.5? When is the submission of the first QASP due?

USAID Response: QASP should be submitted as Annex 5. Refer to instruction for preparation of the technical proposal in Section L.

52) Regarding the Key Personnel minimum qualifications contained in Section F.6 (pg.

50):

a. Chief of Party: Please confirm that experience managing both contracts and assistance awards counts toward the required minimum of ten years of progressively increasing responsibility.

USAID Response: Yes, USAID confirms that experience gained in managing both contracts and assistance awards counts towards the required minimum of ten years of progressively increasing responsibility

b. Director of Performance Improvement: Please confirm that the 2nd bullet is unintended. Would the Mission consider including under the 3rd bullet business practices in organizations other than exclusively “development” as much of the required skill-set is the same?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the 2nd bullet is unintended. See changes to RFP Section F.6. No, USAID will not remove “development” from the 3rd bullet because the focus is on experience gained exclusively in development organizations.

53) Section F.7 covers “Other Staffing Requirements” and begins by stating that “The following (non-KP) positions form part of the staffing pattern.” The narrative goes on to say they are “required.” Yet in Section L (pg. 119) it is noted that the non-KP personnel indicated in Section F.7 are “illustrative.” Please clarify.

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the non-Key Personnel positions identified in Section F.7 are required. Please see changes to RFP Section L.7.

54) In Section L.7.2(7), it is not clear whether Factor 3 on past performance is to be included in the main body of the technical proposal (with no page limit), or to be covered in Annex 9 (with no page limit). Please clarify.

USAID Response: All Past Performance information will be submitted in form of Annex 9 and should be submitted in accordance with the requirements in Section L.7.2 7, Factor 3.

55) In Section L.7.2(5) (pg. 119) offerors are required to “demonstrate a commitment to and constructive approaches for engaging and collaborating with contractors for SITES and Organizational Development…” Can the Mission provide the SOWs of these two activities to assist offerors in demonstrating how they can best meet this requirement?

USAID Response:

Link to Organizational Development Request for Proposal that contains the

SOW:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=7ef19cb5e7d7bba35 1f0c55637266bf6&tab=core&_cview=1

Link to Sites Request for Proposal that contains the SOW:

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8d77bfe04eea74a0429d9e bb5254325c&tab=core&_cview=1

56) Please confirm that the LOE figures in Section F.10 (pgs. 55-56) align with those included in the Minimum Budget Requirements table. For example, in the latter under Result 2.1, 100 person months per year for enumerator support is required.

Does this fall under the local STTA figures in F.10, which has only 77 person months per year, or is the enumerator LOE outside the F.10 figures? Does the “senior management support to guide SMAs and enumerators” (the LOE figure seems to imply one FT person each year of the award) refer to one of the Directors in F.10, or to other LTTA?

USAID Response: Please see changes to RFP Section F.10.

57) The MBR table notes that “Technical and logistics services” is Result 3.4, but Section C has this work as Result 3.3 (pg. 29). Please clarify. The MBR table contains 252 person months of LTTA and STTA expat support, and 120 person months of LTTA and STTA local support. Please confirm that this aligns with the third illustrative services bullet under Result 3.3 (pg. 29). If so, what is the minimum required LOE for Sub-Result 3.1.3, final illustrative services bullet (pg. 28), or is this the same requirement as that under Result 3.3?

USAID Response: USAID acknowledges this as a typographical error in the Minimum Budget Requirements table. Result 3.4: “Technical and logistics services” should be shown as Result 3.3. See changes to RFP Section F.10.

58) Section H.6 (pg. 64) notes grant requirements include no provision of cash or in-kind grants to the Government of Uganda, and “The Contractor is not authorized to provide funds to the Ugandan Government” (emphasis in RFP). Please clarify if this grant restriction applies to public universities as legally defined in Uganda – including Makerere University.

USAID Response: The restriction applies to public universities. However a public university can be exempt as long as a Determination and Findings (D&F) has to be approved by USAID/Uganda before any collaboration between the Contractor and university can commence. Contractors will have to request a D&F from USAID/Uganda.

59) Related to the previous question: will subcontracts to public universities be permissible in cases when operating units within them are considered for implementing partner roles? If not, can the RFP clarify how public universities such as Makerere can serve as part of IP teams as they have under major USAID/W awards?

USAID Response: Public Universities can serve as part of IP teams once the D&F is approved. At the proposal stage, Offerors can include public universities as part of the team arrangements and request a D&F within their proposals.

60) As key personnel position descriptions are included in Section F.6 of the RFP, please confirm that offerors should not include position descriptions in Annex 7 to the Technical Proposal.

USAID Response: USAID has deleted the phrase “The Offeror will include position descriptions will not exceed one page per position description.” See changes made to Annex 7 of RFP.

61) Please clarify whether USAID expects offerors to include in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan the mechanisms outlined on p.42 of the RFP.

USAID Response: Offerors should utilize a variety of mechanisms included but not limited to those outlined on page 42 of the RFQ.

62) Regarding Section F.10, please clarify whether the LOE for the five key personnel is included in or is in addition to the line items for LTTA (expatriates) and LTTA (local). Specifically, should offerors plan for five expatriate long-term positions in addition to those expatriates who are key personnel?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the five key personnel are outside the generic LTTA. Yes, the Offeror should plan for five long-term personnel in addition to those expatriates listed as key personnel. Please see changes to RFP Section F.10.

63) Regarding Section F.10, please clarify the requirement for 30 person months for expatriate LTTA in Year 1 (30 person months equals 2.5 positions).

USAID Response: Please see changes to RFP Section F.10.

64) Regarding Sub-Result 2.1.4: “Data management systems facilitate the capture, tracking, analysis, and management of data collected for learning.”

a. What data management system is USAID/Uganda currently using?

USAID Response: See responses to Question 3.

b. If deemed necessary, may offerors propose an overarching data integration and performance monitoring system to incorporate contextual indicators, cutting edge analytical tools, and predictive analysis?

USAID Response: Yes. See the RPF sub-result 2.1.4 changes.

USAID/Uganda is currently undergoing an assessment of its data management to support the new PMP. The Contractor will use the results of this assessment to build the new data management system, which integrates existing data management systems.

65) To promote cross-sectoral learning, may an offeror propose a technology solution that integrates performance information across USAID/Uganda’s portfolio (including health data from the SITES contract) onto a single platform?

USAID Response: See the RPF sub-result 2.1.4 changes. USAID/Uganda is currently undergoing an assessment of its data management to support the new PMP. The Contractor will use the results of this assessment to build the new data management system, which integrates existing data management systems.

66) Page 11, C.3, Background: Can the Mission please confirm that the five PADs are around resilience, health systems, demographics, market systems, and good governance?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the five PADs are around Resilience;

Demographics; Health Systems; Market Systems; and, Governance and Accountability Systems.

67) Page. 19, C4.2, Sub Result 1.1.1: Can USAID please provide a list of current and approved Implementation Letters (IL) with HCCs? If not, would it be possible to understand with which particular HCCs is the Mission envisioning establishing an

IL?

USAID Response: No, USAID will not provide the list of current and approved Implementation Letters (IL) with HCCs.

USAID could potentially sign Implementation Letters with any Government of Uganda Ministry that receives USAID assistance under a Development Objective Agreement (DOAG).

68) P.28, C.4.2: Tasks, Sub-Result 3.1.1: Under the illustrative activities for this sub-result, can USAID be more specific regarding “Administrative and other staff support” so that we may better understand the caliber of person the Mission seeks and budget appropriately?

USAID Response: This illustrative service is intended to facilitate Contract flexibility to support emerging and/or unanticipated needs.

69) Page 28, C.4.2: Tasks, Sub-Result 3.2.1: USAID mentions the need for the Contractor to support financial and procurement processes. Page 33 states that USAID is looking to the Learning Activity contractor to “assess, monitor and make concrete measurable improvements to the efficiency, timeliness and compliance of USAID program, procurement and financial management business processes.”

Could USAID please provide further clarification for the support needed for procurement and financial management business processes?

USAID Response: This requires a broad understanding of USAID’s financial and procurement management processes and making suggestions on how best to streamline these by coming up with more efficient, user-friendly and faster ways of doing business. By so doing the Mission will reduce duplicative effort and create time for staff to focus on other critical activities including field visits.

70) Page 28, C.4.2: Tasks, Sub-Result 3.2.1 states that the Contractor is to provide innovation fellowships for Americans and/or Ugandans to help USAID better take advantage of technology solutions to improving business processes. Can USAID please clarify that the fellowships are meant for Ugandans and are not open to expatriates?

USAID Response: The fellowships are open to Americans and Ugandans alike.

71) Page. 53, F.7 Other Staffing Requirements, a): Can USAID please confirm that the mid to senior level positions for economist (n=1), anthropologist/sociologist (n=1), political scientist (n=1) and natural resource management/environmental advisor positions (n=1) which total to 4 positions may be filled through STTA and that these positions are not expected to be full-time staff? There is little mention of the full-time role these positions would play in the technical narrative, but on page 127 they are listed as full-time staff. Can USAID please clarify what role these people would play and where the majority of their activities would reside? Would USAID consider allowing these positions to be STTA in order to provide greater efficiency?

USAID Response: See changes to RFP Section F.7. Roles are described in Section F.7 and, other than occasional field trips, would be based in Kampala.

These positions could be filled by offshore hires, local expatriate hires, and/or Ugandans.

72) Page 127, L.8 Minimum Budget Requirements: Under Objective 2, Result 2.3, the RFP states: “The offeror is required to provide ongoing support for the Result, in addition to providing the full-time services of an economist, an anthropologist or sociologist; a political scientist; an environmental advisor; and a civil engineer,” implying that the economist/anthropologist/sociologist role is a single position.

However on page 53, F.7 Other Staffing Requirements, these roles are listed as two distinct positions: “One mid to senior level economist, one mid to senior level anthropologist or sociologist…” Please clarify which of these interpretations of these non-key positions is correct.

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the interpretation on Page 127, L.8 Minimum Budget Requirements, under Objective 2, Result 2.3 is correct. The requirements are for: (i) an Economist; (ii) an Anthropologist or Sociologist; (iii) a Political Scientist;(iv) a Natural Resource Management/Environmental Advisor; and (v) a Civil Engineer, in addition to other positions indicated.

73) Page 127, L.8 Minimum Budget Requirements: Under Objective 2, Result 2.1, the RFP states “As part of its staff, the offeror will include 360 person months of project management assistant (PMA) support,” indicating 6 full time PMA’s for the life of the project. However on page 54, F.7 Other Staffing Requirements, the RFP states that 5 project management assistants are required. Please clarify how many PMA’s are required.

USAID Response: Please see changes to RFP Section L.8. USAID confirms that five (5) PMAs are required. One for each of the five projects.

74) Section L.8, part 2, item 5, Minimum Budget Instructions, (p. 127) in “Objective 2:

Learning (50 percent of LOE) Result “As part of its staff, the offeror will include 360 person months of project management assistant (PMA) support; 100 person months per year of enumerator support; and at least 60 person months of senor project management support to guide PMAs and enumerators.”

However, enumerators are often short-term hires associated with the geographical location or subject matter, and/or contracted through fixed price mechanisms that do not allow for tracking LOE. Additionally, the LOE indicated for the enumerators accounts for approximately 20% of the non-KP LOE indicated in F.10, which would severely limit offerors ability to provide other required staffing.

Can USAID please confirm that offerors should include the enumerator support at the level indicated, but that this support should not be included in or counted against the total LOE estimate in F.10?

USAID Response: See changes in RFP Section L.8. PMAs and Enumerators are considered administrative support staff.

75) Page 128 L.8 Minimum Budget Requirements: Under Objective 3, Result 3.4:

Technical and logistics services, the RFP states that the offeror will provide “48 person months of editing support per year,” implying the use of four full time editors.

However on page 54, F.7 Other Staffing Requirements, the RFP states that two editors are required. Please confirm if the number of editors required is 2 or 4.

USAID Response: See response to question 37.

76) Page. 53, F.7 Other Staffing Requirements, b): Can USAID please confirm that the mid-senior level civil engineer position (n=1) may be filled through STTA and is not expected to be full-time staff?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that the position for a mid-senior level civil engineer is a full-time position.

77) Page 55 -56, F.10, Term – Level of Effort: Can USAID please confirm that the Term LOE for Long-Term Technical Assistance (Expatriates) is flexible and if suitable, qualified Ugandan national candidates may be proposed under this category?

USAID Response: Please see changes to RFP Section F.10.

78) Page 55 -56, F.10, Term – Level of Effort: Can USAID please confirm that the Term LOE for Short-Term Technical Assistance (Expatriates) totals to 413 and that the current number (431) is a typo?

USAID Response: Please see changes to RFP Section F.10.

79) Page 55 -56, F.10, Term – Level of Effort: Can USAID please confirm that one person month is equal to 21.67 days of LOE, which is 260 working days in a year divided by twelve months?

USAID Response: Yes.

80) Page 119, L.7.2.6.b: Per the instructions regarding Factor 2, Offerors must describe the roles and responsibilities of the home office(s) of the Offeror and any partners.

However, the LOE table in F.10 does not include LOE for home office backstopping. Would USAID allow for Offerors to add a labor type to the LOE table that covers home office backstopping dedicated to Contract activities?

USAID Response: Home Office support can be included in the STTA and administrative categories.

81) Page 127, L.8, Cost Proposal Instructions: Under Result 2.1 Program Monitoring in the Minimum Budget Requirements table, USAID requests 100 person months per year of enumerator support. This is one-third of the overall allotted LOE for Ugandan nationals, but the Term-Level of Effort table on page 55 only lists 77 person months for STTA for Ugandans. This would not allow for the many other possible STTA tasks under this contract such as administrative or event / facilitation support.

Can USAID kindly clarify?

USAID Response: See changes in RFP Section L.8. Enumerators are considered administrative support staff.

82) P. 127, L.8, Cost Proposal Instructions: Under Result 2.1 Program Monitoring in the Minimum Budget Requirements table, can USAID please confirm that the 360 person months of project management assistant support and 60 months of senior project management support are meant to be used over the life of the project and not per year?

USAID Response: The Minimum Budget Requirements table incorrectly indicated 360 person-months of project management assistance. The correct number is 300 person-months of project management assistance. USAID confirms that the 300 person-months of project management assistant assistance support and 60 person-months of senior project management are over the course of the contract and not per year.

83) P. 127, L.8, Cost Proposal Instructions: Under Result 3.4 in the Minimum Budget Requirements table, USAID requires 7 vehicles for the project. Has USAID included the 7 drivers in the Long-Term Technical Assistance category in the Term-Level of Effort table on pages 55-56? The drivers alone would need 84 (7x12) person months per year.

USAID Response: USAID has revised the number of vehicles to five. The expected number of drivers is five and they should be included in the administrative support category.

84) Page, 127, L.8, Cost Proposal Instructions: With the drivers at 84 person months/year, the enumerators at 100 person months/year, the editors at 48 person months /year, and the PAD officers at 60 (5x12) person months/year, annually this amounts to 292 of the 300 allotted Long-Term Technical Assistance hours. The contract must also have other positions to support project management, financial management, editing, grants management. However, the remaining LOE is for less than 1 person. Could USAID kindly clarify the LOE available for sufficient in-country administrative and operational support?

USAID Response: See response to Question No. 81 and 83.

85) Page 127, L.8, Cost Proposal Instructions: USAID requires two person-years of internships (under Result 2.3, Deliberate Learning) and at least 1 innovation fellowship per year (under Result 3.2, Quality, timeliness and compliance of Mission operations) in the Minimum Budget Requirements table. Can USAID please clarify if the interns and the fellows are included in the Term Level of Effort table on pages 55-56?

USAID Response: No, neither interns nor fellows are included in the Term Level of Effort tables on pages 55-56.

86) Page 127, L.8, Cost Proposal Instructions: USAID requires that the offeror support two person-years of internships (under Result 2.3, Deliberate Learning) and at least one fellowship per year (under Result 3.2, Quality, timeliness and compliance of Mission Operations) in the Minimum Budget Requirements table. For pricing purposes, please clarify if these are envisioned to be paid internships and fellowships?

USAID Response: It is envisaged that both interns and fellows would be paid a stipend, with expatriates also receiving airfare and housing.

87) Attachment J-13, Page 16: The attachment reports that the current incumbent has supported SIMS visits. Does the Mission expect the Learning Activity contractor or SITES to support Site Improvement through Monitoring System (SIMS)? If it is the Learning Activity Contractor, what does that support look like and what are the Mission’s expectations around budgeting for this in the proposal?

USAID Response: At this time, it is not envisioned that the Learning Activity Contractor will be supporting SIMS visits.

88) On page 120, in section L.7.2 – Factor 2: Management Approach and Staffing Plan, Annex 6 refers to the table on page 55, section F.10 – Term – Level of Effort, stating that “The Offeror will submit a level of effort (shown in person months) for the performance of this Contract in relation to the LOE table in Section F.10.” The table’s first column is titled Position or Labor Type and there is a footnote on page 55 that states the following: “For example “300 long term technical assistants” should be understood as 25 assistants working 12 months a year.”

a) Please confirm that USAID does not want every position listed in this table and where summaries can be made, like the footnote on page 55, each offeror should make them.

USAID Response: Please see changes to RFP Section F.10. USAID expects Offerors to propose every position listed in Section F.10.

b) Also, because the footnote uses “long term technical assistants,” it implies that any long-term position that has the word ‘assistant’ in the title should be rolled up under this category. Please clarify.

USAID Response: Please see revisions to RFP section F.10. The referenced footnote has been deleted. The acronym LTTA refers to long term professional staff.

89) RFP, Cover Page: The third paragraph states “The purpose of…