Attachment_J.8_Responses_to_Questions_and_Comments.pdf

Attachment J.8 Responses to Questions and Comments

1. Section F.5 includes a master’s degree as a minimum requirement for the chief of party position. Would USAID consider accepting 10 years of experience and a bachelor’s degree as a substitute for the master’s degree?

Response: No.

2. Given that this activity will include construction in certain circumstances, as described under

F.6 Report and Deliverables, Semi-Permanent or Temporary Learning Space Plan, can

USAID clarify the content of Section L.6(4)(G), which states that no construction is anticipated under this award?

Response: Yes, this activity will include construction in certain circumstances. In addition to F.6 Report and Deliverables, please see pages 11-12 of the RFP which states: “Where necessary, the AEP contract may undertake limited construction of new AEP semi-permanent or temporary learning centers where other options do not exist.” USAID determined that 2.5 million USD will be dedicated to construction. Schools and other learning environments must be located in close proximity to the populations they serve.

3. In L.5.3.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan (the last paragraph), USAID requests an organizational chart in an Annex to the Technical Proposal. Would USAID kindly confirm that the items listed after the request for the organizational chart should be included in the same Annex? From the RFP, these items include: “capacity to manage a program that will function in an environment that is subject to security challenges, as well as a fluid political context;” “proposed subcontractors and their respective roles in relation to the performance requirements;” and “how the offeror intends to award grants relative to the responsibilities of individuals included in the staffing plan.”

Response: No, the items listed after the request for the organizational chart should not be included in the same annex. These items should be included in their response to “staffing plan” under section L.5.3.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan.

4. Section L.5.5 indicates that USAID desires a high level of visibility on any publicity at the national level, in any Grants under Contract, and on all learning materials, reports, and technical guides. Given the security concerns in Somalia, we would suggest USAID consider accepting lower degrees of visibility in certain geographic areas and on certain materials to ensure the safety and security of project staff and beneficiaries.

Response: Branding and marking plan waivers on the basis of safety and security will be considered on a case-by-case basis during implementation.

5. (page 134, L.5.3.1, Technical Approach). Section L states that “while the Statement of Work identifies five performance requirements, Offerors are required to propose an approach that will fulfill Performance Requirement Three only.” However, the statement of work in

Section C refers to numerous required deliverables and activities linked to the other four performance requirements. For example, under Performance Requirement One, the Offeror

“must increase AEP enrollment” (page 11), “identify flexible delivery modalities” (page 12), “detail its plan for engaging and mobilizing teachers” (page 12), “utilize innovative technology for paying and coaching teachers,” (page 12), and so forth. Required deliverables under other performance requirements include an AEP Eligibility Policy, AEP Accreditation

Policy, AEP Teacher Certification Policy, and AEP Learner Policy for Performance

Requirement Four.

a. Could USAID kindly clarify how these and other non-Performance Requirement

Three requirements and deliverables should be addressed in the proposal, given the

RFP instructions to propose an approach that will fulfill Performance Requirement

Three only?

Response: There is no expectation that the offerors need address every section F deliverable or other non-Performance Requirement Three requirements in their technical proposal. Section L states that “while the Statement of Work identifies five performance requirements, Offerors are required to propose an approach that will fulfill Performance

Requirement Three only.”

b. Are they to be disregarded?

Response: See response to 5a above on the contents of the technical proposal.

6. (page 134, L.5.3.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan, Key Personnel) Could USAID clarify if

Offerors may describe the qualifications and suitability of candidates for the Operations &

Finance Manager, Reading/EICC Advisor, and DMERL positions while not disclosing their identity in the Key Personnel section?

Response: Offerors are not prohibited from included this information in their proposal but should note that USAID will only consider information related to the proposed Chief of Party’s qualifications and suitability during evaluation.

7. The definition and age range of “youth” is not clear. In Somalia, “youth” has traditionally referred to people 15 years and older, while the USAID AEP age bracket is 8-15.

a. For activities related to Youth Civic Engagement, will the project be able to work with youth older than 15?

Response: Yes, for activities related to Cross-Cutting Performance Result Youth Civic

Engagement, the activity can work with youth older than 15. For the purposes of this activity, and in line with USAID’s youth policy, youth is defined as 10-29.

b. Does USAID have pre-set age ranges within the 8-15 range so data can be compared across projects?

Response: Yes. Data needs to be disaggregated by age in accordance with USAID F indicators (see Attachment J.#) along with additional indicators agreed to in the Activity

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP).

8. Can we enter youth at age 15 into the AEP program knowing that their completion would occur when they are beyond the set age range?

Response: Yes, but note that the emphasis of this activity is on a younger cohort of out-of-school children and youth. In addition, enrollment must align with the learner eligibility policy which is expected to “include the target age or age-range of learners for each level of enrollment and ensure inclusivity and gender equity in the provision of services.” (p.19, RFP).

9. (page 10, C.4, Services, Deliverables, Performance Requirements and Standards). Page 10 states that the “Core AEP curriculum is equivalent to FGS national curriculum framework.”

The FGS national curriculum framework includes six subjects for grades 1-2; seven subjects for grades 3-4; and nine subjects for grades 5-8. Page 14 states that “other elements of the national curriculum including science, social studies and Islamic studies are outside the scope of this contract.” Page 18 indicates that “an adopted AEP core curriculum is expected to provide equivalent learning outcomes to those of the formal education in Somalia.” Page 19 states, “AEP level certification should enable learners to transition from AEPs to the formal education system.” Page 27 recognizes the broader curriculum requirements, “For example, if the formal school curriculum requirements are changed in a significant way, it may affect students’ ability to transition from AEPs to formal schools.”

a. Please clarify if the Offeror is expected to only support the provision of reading and math, in addition to SEL, which is a limited portion of the core AEP curriculum, or if these statements mean that the project should limit its learning outcome measures to reading and math learning gains.

Response: The activity is expected to focus on the full AEP curriculum, but held accountable to reading and math outcomes at an activity level. Typically, Level 1 is focused on math and reading and might integrate new subjects into these materials. The scope of various levels will be determined prior to implementation and curriculum alignment.

b. The focus on reading in the early grades (level 1) is clear and central to the USAID education policy (Learn to read and read to learn). Please clarify that in level 2 and 3 the focus will be on applying reading skills to learn across subjects of the national curriculum.

Response: See response to question 8a.

10. (page 11-12, C.4, Performance Requirement One: Enrollment in AEPs Increased; pages 46-

47, F.6, Reports and Deliverables, Semi-Permanent or Temporary Learning Space Plan; and page 140, L.6, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal). Pages 11-12 state that

“reasonable rehabilitation/retrofitting” and “limited construction of new AEP semi-permanent or temporary learning centers” of classrooms may be undertaken under the project. Pages 46-47 provide Offerors with instructions on development of the Semi-

Permanent or Temporary Learning Space Plan, including detailed design specifications. Page

140 states that “there is no construction anticipated in this award.”

a. Could USAID confirm that no construction will be permitted and that activities will be limited to modest AEP learning space rehabilitation and retrofitting?

Response: See response to question 2.

11. (page 15, C.4, Performance Requirement Four: Government Capacity to Regulate AEPs

Enhanced). The RFP states that “the frequency of materials distribution should be determined by the Contractor in collaboration with the MoE and partners. As with the operational supplies (italics added), the Contractor should explore ways to offset the costs of materials through possible cost-sharing with AEP providers, local businesses and other donor partners.” a. Could USAID please explain the meaning of the phrase “operational supplies,” which does not appear elsewhere in the RFP?

Response: This text was included in error and has been deleted in the amendment.

12. (page 25, C.5 Implementation Principles, Crisis Modifier). The RFP includes a crisis modifier as a programmatic implementation principle.

a. Please confirm whether the Offeror is expected to detail the plan for the Crisis

Modifier under the Technical Approach and in the Cost Proposal.

Response: Offerors are not expected to provide a plan to address the Crisis Modifier in their Technical Approach. This text has been removed from “Implementation Principles” and revised language has been added under a separate, “Crisis Modifier” heading in the same section.

b. Does USAID have a monetary plug figure it wishes to apply? If yes, what is that plug figure?

Response: Funding for crisis response should be included in the Cost Proposal. No plug figure will be provided but USAID estimates that Offerors should budget roughly 10% of total estimated cost for this purpose. An estimated total should be included in the Cost

Proposal as a lump-sum amount but Offerors are not expected to provide additional breakdown or explanation of the cost.

c. Please also clarify if USAID expects direct technical assistance, grants, or a combination of both for the crisis modifier.

Such interventions may include direct technical assistance, grants or a combination of both for the crisis modifier.

13. (page 26, C.6 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Collaborating, Learning, and Adaptation).

Please confirm if USAID already identified the third-party M&E contractor and the external evaluation contractor that will be involved in the collaboration of the AMELP activities? If so, could USAID provide more specific information on their scope of work?

Response: The third-party M&E contractor and external evaluation contractor have not been identified at this time. Please see responses to questions 14-18 for more information on their scope of work.

14. On page 16-17, the solicitation states that “Under Performance Requirement Three, the

Contractor should plan to propose those low-cost models that warrant external evaluation, detailed in the MEL section below, including those that are already fully operational, ones that are just beginning to operate, or ones that emerge from the inventories and reviews of available material and training tools for AEP instruction. The results of this external evaluation are intended to feed directly into the policy work under Performance Requirement

Four, Government Capacity to Regulate AEPs Enhanced.” Does USAID intend for the

Contractor to evaluate the models, or for this to be done by the external evaluator?

Response: The external evaluator will provide support to the Contractor with the evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the proposed low-cost models. The

Contractor will be responsible for piloting the models in such a way that would allow for comparisons of results, and for tracking costs associated with each model. The evaluator will provide support with design of the evaluation of the models, data collection and data analysis, including cost data analysis.

15. (page 27, Monitoring, What to Collect and page 29, Evaluation and Assessments, Improving

Learning and Safety) On page 27, the RFP states that, “Where possible, the Contractor must collect cost data ….” On page 29, the RFP states that “USAID/Somalia anticipates that there will be additional questions addressed by the external evaluation related to the cost of delivery….”

a. Could USAID clarify if this is the same model where the Contractor feeds data to the external group for their analysis?

Response: Confirmed. The words “Where possible” have been deleted.

b. Could USAID also clarify who is responsible for collecting and using cost data?

Response: The Contractor is responsible for collecting data and providing it to the external evaluator for analysis. It will be used to inform scale-up and and policy recommendations during implementation.

16. (page 29 Evaluation and Assessments, Improving Learning and Safety) The RFP states, “Using the newly developed/modified tools, the Contractor will collect baseline data prior to interventions reaching students in AEPs, to provide information about the current learning levels of the population with which they will be working. While carrying out the learning assessment, they will also carry out an AEP safety survey to set a baseline measure of safety.

The external evaluation Contractor will be responsible for baseline data analysis and reporting, as well as the overall evaluation design and quality assurance.”

a. Would USAID reconsider the allocation of tasks, such that the Contractor is responsible for implementation (designing the data collection plan and instruments;

collecting, cleaning, analyzing, and reporting on data, in collaboration with the third-party contractor); and the external Contractor is responsible for quality control

(providing input into the design, and oversight for data collection and analysis)?

Response: No, USAID will not reconsider allocation of tasks. The Contractor will be responsible for interpreting and contextualizing external evaluation results to inform scale up and policy recommendations during implementation.

b. Could USAID clarify what division of labor between the Contractor and the external

Contractor is envisioned for midline and endline data collection?

Response: Specific responsibilities will be determined jointly between the external evaluator and the Contractor as part of the evaluation design. See responses to questions

14, 15 and 16a.

17. (page 136, L.5.3.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan, Staffing Plan). Please confirm that the mentioned sections that follow are included in the Staffing Plan: 1) approach to managing a program that will function in an environment that is subject to security challenges; 2) description of proposed subcontractors and their respective roles in relation to the performance requirements; and 3) description of how the Offeror intends to award grants relative to the individuals included in the staffing plan.

Response: Confirmed. This paragraph has been revised for clarity in the amended RFP.

18. Is there an overall target for number of students to be reached by the project?

Response: While there is no overall target in terms of number of students reached by the project, “a reasonable level of improvement is at least .2 [standard deviations] over baseline which must include a reduction in zero scores, increased oral reading fluency measured by words per minute and comprehension.”

19. One page 9, the first performance standard for Performance Requirement One references a

USAID Education Strategy Indicator. Could USAID please provide the indicator number and standard PIRS for this indicator?

Response: The USAID Education Strategy indicators currently include the following F indicators below. It is anticipated that these F indicators may be revised when the agency rolls out the November 2018 USAID education policy.

ES.1-1 - Percent of learners who attain a minimum grade-level proficiency in reading at the end of grade 2 with USG assistance

ES.1-2 - Percent of learners attaining minimum grade-level proficiency in reading at the end of primary school (or grade 6, whichever comes sooner) with USG assistance

ES.1-3 - Number of learners in primary schools and/or equivalent non-school based settings reached with USG education assistance

ES.1-5 - Number of learners reached in reading programs/interventions at the primary level

The methodology for counting towards these indicators are noted in USAID 2017 Update to Reporting Guidance (Attachment J.5).

If it is a custom or new indicator, please clarify the definition of ‘enrolling in school for the first time’.

Per the USAID 2017 Update to Reporting Guidance, “Enrolling in school for the first time” is another name for measuring unique beneficiaries. It is expected that unique beneficiaries and cumulative or total beneficiaries will be reported on an annual basis.

20. Could USAID clarify their expectations for the amount of infrastructure expenditure to accommodate 50% new students each year?

Response: Offerors may propose costs in the amounts they consider necessary to meet performance standards, consistent with their proposed Technical Approach.

21. Is USAID’s definition for out of school children different from the UNESCO definition of

Out of School Children?

Response: No. Please refer to USAID 2017 Update to Reporting Guidance and p.11 which reiterates USAID’s definition of out-of-school children and youth.

22. On page 9, the first performance standard for Performance Requirement Two states that at least 60 percent of project-supported AEP sites meet AEP safety accreditation standards by end of the contract. Can USAID clarify their expectations for the amount of infrastructure expenditure to accommodate this?

Response: See response to question 18 above.

23. On page 9, the first performance standard for Performance Requirement Three states that at least 60 percent of enrolled students demonstrate improved reading skills. Is this to be measured at the end of the project?

Response: Progress towards achieving the goals of this activity will be measured and evaluated against performance requirements and standards throughout implementation.

24. On page 9, the second performance standard for Performance Requirement One asks that students be disaggregated by ethnic, linguistic, geographic, sex, age, and clan/sub 4 clan.

Given that clan self-identification can put teachers or students at risk, may we simply provide https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N7VB.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N7VB.pdf https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00N7VB.pdf a map of dominant clan membership in given regions, towns, etc. rather than asking beneficiaries to self-identify?

25. On page 11 in Performance Requirement One, the RFP says “The Contractor must detail its plan for engaging and mobilizing teachers, students, communities and MoE officers at requisite levels to ensure rapid start-up upon award. This plan must include a comprehensive discussion of sustainability, i.e. absorption of sites, personnel and models within communities and government systems after the end of the program.” Is this plan a part of the first annual work plan?

Response: No, this should be included in the Rapid Mobilization Plan (page 44). The text of this section has been revised accordingly.

26. On page 16, the solicitation requests that the contractor compare “low-cost, scalable models.”

This request references “material and training tools for training and instruction.” Are these models limited to instructional materials and teacher training? Please provide more information on the what a “model” comprises.

Response: The models must be comprehensive AEP models, which include contextually appropriate strategies for student recruitment and retention, provision of instructional materials and teacher training, and other core aspects of AEP.

27. On page 47, the solicitation states: “A rule of thumb is that training should consist of an initial 8-10 day training, with regular twice a year follow-ups of 3-5 days.” For budgeting purposes, can USAID please clarify if their intent is that teachers should receive a minimum of 14 days of training in the first year, with a minimum of 6 days refresher in subsequent years, or is the intent that the first year will be 8-10 days, and subsequent years, two refreshers of 3-5 days?

Response: Offerors should propose a model for teacher professional development they consider most effective and consistent for meeting the overall goals of this activity.

28. On page 53, Technical Deliverable #1 is an Inception Analysis. Could USAID please provide more information about the purpose of the report, as well as the frequency (“ongoing in collaboration with COR”)?

Response: The Inception analysis is a one-time report. Its purpose is to gather and analyze information with the goal of ensuring that the activity is sensitive to potential conflicts as well as contextually relevant. Report findings will inform implementation and work planning. See Attachment J.6, Tools and Resources.

29. On page 53, Technical Deliverables # 7 and 8 reference a 3 Level AEP program, though there are several models currently being used in Somalia. Is there some flexibility for these products to reflect the agreements reached with the MOE as part of Performance

Requirement 4?

Response: Yes, provided the AEP model provides an equivalent, certified basic education to Somali children and youth.

30. Does USAID expect offerors to discuss any of the deliverables listed in Section F.6, and if so which ones?

Response: See response to question 5 above.

31. Does USAID wish offerors to address the “Cross-Cutting Performance Requirement in the proposal?

Response: See response to question 5 above and section L.5.3.1 Technical Approach.

32. In Section L.6(4)(C), would USAID consider including a reference to Somalia, in addition to

Kenya, regarding the allowance limits established for this project?

Response: Language included in this section has been revised and updated.

33. Section F.11 Authorized Work Day/Week states that long-term staff are authorized for up to a five-day work week. Would USAID consider authorizing a six-day work week for long-term expatriate staff working in Somalia? In our experience, long-term expatriate staff frequently use the sixth day to coordinate with government counterparts, who often work and hold meetings on Saturdays to ensure continued progress of project activities.

Response: Amendment 1 to this RFP deletes Section F.11 and incorporates revised guidance regarding Authorized Work Week into Section H. A six-day work week will not be authorized prior to award. Specific requests may be submitted for USAID consideration and approval during implementation.

34. (page 21, C.4). The RFP provides guidance on the grants under contract mechanism and states, “(b) lower the barriers to entry for a broad range of non-traditional partners thereby leveraging innovative solutions.”

a. Please clarify, entry to what?

Response: The contract will support the transition to local organizations by building their capacity to receive USAID assistance directly. Grants Under Contracts (GUCs) to appropriate local organizations will help sustain local systems in achieving country-level education goals. The set-aside for GUCs is 2.87 million.

35. (page 133, L.5.2 Page Limitation). Will USAID reconsider and accept a font size for text boxes in the Technical Proposal at a legible font size smaller than 12-point as is the option for text in graphics, charts, and graphs?

36. Would USAID please provide a copy of the referenced IEE?

Response: A copy of the referenced IEE has been included as Attachment J.4 (attached separately)

37. Would USAID please provide the anticipated start date for this project?

Response: USAID anticipates activities to begin immediately or shortly after award, currently projected for late April 2019.

38. With regard to the Budget Template (Attachment 1 – page 104):

a. Consultant is not included as a category in the summary budget, should this be added as a separate category? If not, please advise where consultant costs should be included in both the detail and summary budgets.

Response: Please refer to instructions at the top of both the Budget Template (page 104) and Budget Detail Spreadsheet (page 105). Offerors may add rows as necessary. Offerors should refer to Section L.6 for complete, detailed instructions for the preparation of their

Cost Proposal.

b. The summary budgets on pages 104 and 105 differ slightly in the Subcontracts category. The first format (page 104) has two lines under the subcontract category to summarize US Small Business Subcontracts from Other Subcontracts while the other

(page 105) does not. Please confirm which format should be used.

Response: The Budget Template on page 104 has been revised removing the separation of “Subcontracts”

c. On page 104, above the summary format, it states “Please provide the information requested for each year, the totals and a by line item explanation. Add rows as necessary. All amounts in US $. If more sub awardees are proposed please insert additional worksheets as needed.” Please clarify what is being requested here. Does

USAID want the summary sheet to reflect totals by subcontractor by year as its own line item? Or is this a request to have a detailed budget by partner linked to the overall budget?

Response: Offerors should provide an overall budget summary for the entire activity using the format provided on page 104.

39. In order to ensure compliance with AIDAR 722.170, would USAID kindly provide its local compensation plan for CCN staff?

Response: The local compensation plan for Somalia is under development. Until it receives final approval, the Kenya LCP applies. For the purposes of AIDAR 722.170 compliance, please use the following range for salary calculations:

Low: KES 787,218 (FSN-3)

High: KES 12,809,600 (FSN-13)

40. (page 67, H.10 Non-Expendable Property Purchases and Information Technology

Resources). The RFP states that “the procurement of non-expendable property purchased under this contract will be approved during implementation.” Would USAID clarify if the

Contracting Officer has approval authority?

Response: Non-Expendable Property and Information Technology Resource purchases included in the budget proposal will be approved at the time of award. Additional procurements not included in the approved budget should be justified and submitted for

Contracting Officer approval.

41. (page 93, I.8 Rights to Proposal Data (Technical) (Jun 1987)). We request that USAID exempt intellectual property contained in proposals from this requirement.

Response: This has been deleted

42. (page 132, L.3 Submission and Delivery Instructions). To facilitate the submission of fewer files to USAID, will USAID consider accepting email files 10MB or less in size?

Response: 5MB is the email file size for which transmission is considered “guaranteed”.

USAID will accept larger email files but Offerors should not assume successful transmission until receipt is confirmed.

43. (page 134-135, L.5.3.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan, Key Personnel; page 140

Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, (4), (A) Labor). Page 134 states that “Offerors must propose only the Chief of Party” and that “Offerors should not propose individuals for any other key personnel position or any non-key personnel position.”

However, page 140 states that “Biographical Data Sheets are required for all long-term, short-term expatriates and for all short-term and long-term cooperating country personnel being proposed.”

a. Please confirm that Offerors may name proposed staff in the budget and provide their biographical data sheets in the cost proposal but are not to name other potential staff besides the Chief of Party in the technical proposal.

Response: Confirmed.

44. (page 134-135, L.5.3.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan, Key Personnel). Page 134 indicates that “Offerors must propose only the Chief of Party” and that “Offerors should not propose individuals for any other key personnel position or any non-key personnel position.”

However, page 135 indicates that “The CV may not exceed three pages each.” a. Please confirm that the Offeror should only include a CV for the Chief of Party, and not for any other key personnel position or any non-key personnel position, in the annexes.

Response: Confirmed. For the purposes of preparing their Technical Proposal, Offerors may ignore the term “each”.

45. (page 136, L.5.3.2 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan, Key Personnel). USAID states that there are four Key Personnel positions; however, USAID only requests the CV and Letter of

Commitment for the Chief of Party in the proposal. a. When will we be able to name and share candidates selected for the other three Key Personnel positions and non-key positions?

Response: There is no specific prohibition against identifying candidates for positions.

Only the CV and Letter of Commitment for the proposed Chief of Party will be considered for the purposes of Technical Proposal evaluation, however. Other proposed candidates will be nominated and approved in accordance with the schedule set forth in

Section F (revised in this Amendment)

46. (SF33, item 12). Please confirm the proposal validity period is 60 days.

Response: This was left blank in the original SF33 due to an oversight. A corrected SF33 has been incorporate into the amendment with a proposal validity period of 120 days.

46. Would USAID consider changing the authorized geographic code from 937, as cited on the cover letter and in Section H.4, to 935? In our experience, the source and nationality requirements under code 937 can be limiting when conducting procurements: Most commodities available in-country do not satisfy those requirements. This change would allow offerors to more effectively conduct procurements locally, ensuring the best value to the government.

Response: The authorized geographic code remains 937. Requests for geographic code waivers may be considered for specific cases.

47. Section L.5.3.3 defines a major subcontractor as a subcontractor with a proposed cost, as reflected in the cost proposal, of at least $5 million. Given the nature of this RFP and the security requirements to effectively implement this program in Somalia, the associated costs of ensuring the safety and security of staff and activities may exceed this threshold. Would

USAID consider excluding security subcontractors from the list of major subcontractors because the scope of work and experience of these subcontractors will not align with the criteria being evaluated under this section?

Response: Yes, security subcontractors meeting the definition of a major subcontractor may be excluded for the purposes of the Institutional Experience section of the Technical

Proposal.

48. Can USAID confirm that offerors are to only present the name of the chief of party in the technical volume but shall name all proposed staff in the cost volume through the biodatas requested in Section L.6(4)(A)?

Response: Confirmed. Proposed staff may be identified throughout the cost proposal, including the budget detail and budget narrative and in Biographical Data Sheets.

49. In Section L.5.3.4(B), page 138 of the RFP, offerors are asked to provide “a copy of the most recent SF 294 ‘Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts’ for each contract against which you were required to report for the past 2 years.” Our hardcopy subcontracting reports, SF-294s, for the past two years total more than 400 pages and comprise more than 20 MB. In addition to the hardcopy SF-294s for projects not registered in the eSRS, we have also submitted individual subcontracting reports through the eSRS for registered projects. Instead of submitting the electronic files totaling 20 MB with 400 pages of SF-294 reports and a listing of eSRS reports, may we submit only a list of 10 relevant eSRS reports and a copy of

10 SF-294 forms that are not duplicated on the eSRS?

Response: That is acceptable. This text has been revised in the RFP

50. Section B.7 states that “payment of fixed fee will be made upon receipt of a proper invoice and shall directly correspond to the percentage of allowable costs being paid.” However, Section L.6 (4) (J) requires “offerors to develop a fixed fee plan tied to the execution of tasks and completion of results proposed per objective.” We respectfully request that USAID remove the fixed fee plan requirement because the resulting contract will allow for payment of fixed fee corresponding to percentage of allowable costs being paid, in accordance to

Section B.7.

Response: Acknowledged. Language has been deleted from Section L.6(4)(J) via RFP amendment.

51. Section H.12, Limitation on Acquisition of Information Technology, details the approval requirements associated with procurement of “information technology” under the contract.

However, paragraph (4) of the clause states that “information technology does not include any equipment that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract.” As the SOW does not require the contractor to procure any “information technology” as defined in this clause, will USAID please consider removing it?

Response: Per AAPD 16-02 (Revised), this clause is required for all solicitations and contracts where “no information technology is identified”

52. In Section I.10, would USAID consider replacing reference to the Government of Thailand with the Government of Somalia?

Response: This change has been incorporated in Amendment 1.