Round 2 - QandA - 72062321R00006 - READ.docx

72062321R00006 - Reading for East Africa’s Development (READ) – Amendment 2

Dear Potential Offerors, USAID thanks you for your interest in submitting proposals for the referenced RFP Solicitation. We are pleased to share with you the questions that were submitted as well as the responses from USAID.

Where applicable, changes indicated below will be highlighted in the amended RFP solicitation document. Should there be any discrepancies between the responses and the RFP, the responses below will take precedence.

Through this amendment, USAID has extended the deadline for submission of proposals. Please see the changes made to the RFP document in Amendment 2, which are highlighted in blue for ease of reference.

Questions and Answers – Round 2

1. Section B.6.2.vi on page 7 states, “Administrative Support (Secretary, Receptionist, Clerk)”. And, Section on page 9 state, “Note 2: The Unburdened Ceiling Daily Rates apply to expatriate labor (the Prime Contractor, subcontractor, TCNs, and consultant salaries). CCN labor is governed by the Local Compensation Plan limitations as further provided in note 3 below.” The definition for the Administrative Support labor category includes Secretary, Receptionist, Clerk positions. In our experience, these positions are always filled with CCN staff, not Expat or TCN staff. However, Note 2 in Section B.6.2.vii says that CDRs apply to expatriate labor. If offerors are required to propose CDRs for Expat/TCN staff, those rates will be much higher than the rate of actual individuals who will fill those positions during implementation. In addition, because those positions will be filled by CCN staff, the CDRs will not be an accurate representation for the labor category. Therefore, would USAID remove the requirement to submit CDRs for the Administrative Support labor category?

Answer: On a Task Order basis, the Task Order Contracting Officers may determine that there is a need for expatriate administrative support, in which case these will be governed by the CDR. However, for any local administrative staff, the CDR will not apply.

2. Section L.9(b).8.c on page 116 states, “Technical Assistance Teams. The Offeror must describe its experience and capability to…manage small-scale construction sub-contracts…” Could USAID please confirm that the reference to “manag[ing] small-scale construction sub-contracts” was an error and, if so, provide the correct language for this solicitation?

Answer: The first round of questions and Amendment 1 addresses this. This was in error and the RFP has been corrected.

3. Section L.9(b).1 on page 113 states, “Offerors must provide in their technical proposal Cover Page a small business statement of self-certification of business size and socio-economic status of the organization/firm.” Could USAID please confirm that this requirement is for small businesses only?

Answer: That is correct, the self-certification is only required for small businesses. However, USAID does request all offerors to indicate whether they are submitting a proposal as a large or small business in their respective cover letters, for ease of reference.

4. Answers to the first round of questions may have a significant impact on the content of the final proposal. As the first round of questions have not yet been answered, would USAID consider extending the deadline for proposal submission by 1 week to allow offerors sufficient time to ensure they are responsive to and fully incorporate any changes that result from Round 1 and Round 2 questions?

Answer: The deadline for submission of proposals has been extended.

5. In reference to the project described in Attachment J.5, should we assume that the activity will begin with respect to the start of the school year?

Answer: USAID leaves the choice of assumptions to offerors when responding to the case studies. However, all assumptions used to respond to the case study must clearly be stated.

6. NAICS Code - The cover page of this solicitation lists the NAICS code as 541611, while Section K lists the code as 541990. Please confirm that the correct NAICS code is 541611.

Answer: The correct NAICS code is 541611. The RFP has been amended to correct this.

7. Fee on Grants Under Contract: Would USAID consider removing the limitation of charging fee on GUCs by allowing offerors to propose a modest fee on GUCs? In many countries READ is expected to operate, GUCs opportunities will be risk-forward and this fee would allow contractors to absorb the risk in a sustainable fashion.

Answer: This has been addressed in Amendment 1. Fee on GUCs will be handled on a case-by-case basis at the Task Order level.

8. Qualifications of personnel for Project Officers and Finance Officers: As was permitted for the qualifications of Technical Specialists, would USAID please consider including a requirement which allows offerors to propose Project Officers and Finance Officers who do not have advanced degrees but instead bring additional years of related experience? (i.e., masters or higher in related areas with minimum 10 years of experience, or 15 years of experience in lieu of higher degree).

Answer: USAID will respectfully not consider this request.

9. Qualifications of personnel for senior-level Project Officers: Would USAID please consider removing the requirement of 5 years of proven management of similar sized international donors, as many senior level education and management professionals bring experience beyond the donor domain?

Answer: USAID has changed this requirement to “development partners.”

10. Past performance examples and Past Experience and Corporate Capability: USAID requests past performance contracts of “similar size” and experience and ability to plan similar projects “in size.” As this is not a standalone contract, there is no size metric. Would USAID consider removing the requirement to provide performance information and past experience for work of a similar size?

Answer: USAID has removed the requirement to provide past performance information and past experience for work of a similar size.

11. Past performance examples: Will USAID allow for past performance references performed under cooperative agreements, in addition to contracts?

Answer: This has been addressed in the first round of questions and answers. Offerors may include both contracts and cooperative agreements as past performance references as long as the references are relevant and recent (ended not more than three years ago).

12. Offer Validity: Please confirm the proposal validity is for 60 calendar days.

Answer: Offerors are requested to submit proposals that are valid for 180 days. The SF 33 was updated to indicate this in Amendment 1.

13. Cost proposal narrative: The cost proposal narrative has been requested in Microsoft Word while the entire proposal has been requested in PDF. Please clarify that the cost proposal narrative can be submitted in PDF format.

Answer: Offerors are requested to submit the cost proposal narrative in both Microsoft Word and PDF formats. This has been clarified in Amendment 2.

14. Major subcontractors: USAID articulates specific requirements for major subcontractors, but does not qualify what qualifies a subcontractor to be a major subcontractor. Can you please define the term ‘major subcontractor’?

Answer: This has been addressed in Amendment 1. USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

15. Given the delay in the Q&A so far, would USAID please extend the final deadline for submission?

Answer: USAID has extended the deadline for submission of proposals.

16. Page 114 of the RFP refers to “the contractor teaming arrangements” in a way that is unclear. Should the offeror include past performance narrative and contract information from partners and subcontractors on the offeror’s team? Also, should this section describe the nature of the teaming arrangement? Should the offeror elaborate the past performance of work with partners and teaming arrangements?

Answer: This has been addressed in Amendment 1. USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly. Teaming arrangements in this context refers to members of a legally formed consortium.

17. Page 115: Use of small businesses -- if the offeror was a small business a few years ago, can this be added to the response?

Answer: This question is not clear, and USAID is not able to answer it at this time.

18. Page 116: When responding to the requirement for describing “experience and ability to plan similar projects”, is the offeror at liberty to reference the experience and abilities of its full team?

Answer: Yes. However, note that USAID removed the requirement to approve subcontractors at the IDIQ level through Amendment 1. This would therefore only apply to the prime and any consortium members.

19. To what extent should the offeror frame its Factor 1 Management response specifically around the context, issues and tasks in the Case Study? Does USAID prefer that this Factor 1 section link explicitly to the components of the offeror’s Case Study approach?

Answer: This factor will be based solely on how the management approach addresses the SOW in Section C.

20. In section (L.10) (Part 2) (1), page 116, it states: “The Offeror shall propose unburdened daily rates for all labor categories identified in Section B.7. Offerors shall provide a narrative to adequately justify each labor category rate. Any assumptions should be clearly stated. The table to be completed is in Attachment J.1.” Could USAID kindly confirm that the offerors could propose an escalated CDR rate in Year 2 onward, which is higher than the current Contractor Salary Threshold (CST) rate, assuming that during implementation, CDR rates will be governed by the CST rate of future years?

Answer: As the CST may not increase by the same percentage every year, USAID requests that offerors indicate “CST” in place of all amounts that are anticipated to exceed the CST in Year 2 - 7 as a result of the escalation rate.

21. In section B., Page 10-11, B.8 “Indirect Costs and Advanced Understanding on Ceilings” per FAR part 42.7, the practice for reimbursement of indirect rates is to use provisional indirect billing rates until final indirect rates are negotiated and established. The RFP states that the reimbursement of indirect rates must be at final negotiated rates, but not in excess of ceiling rates. Considering that the ordering period resulting from this RFP will be five years and the period of performance seven years, if the Task Orders continue up to 2 years beyond the ordering period, this may cause a strain on the indirect rates over the years, if we do not have the option to have approved final negotiated rates that go beyond the ceiling rates. Would the Contracting Officer be willing to remove this requirement for ceiling indirect rates?

Answer: IDIQ holders may propose different indirect rates for the IDIQ Contracting Officer’s consideration at any time. See Section B.8. The IDIQ Contracting Officer will consider the merit of the request at the time.

22. Section B.8, establishes a ceiling indirect cost rate. Given the period of performance of the IDIQ/task order, establishment of ceiling indirect rates poses cost risks to the contractors as our indirect costs may increase over the years of implementation. Would USAID reconsider this and remove the ceiling indirect rate from the solicitation?

Answer: IDIQ holders may propose different indirect rates for the IDIQ Contracting Officer’s consideration at any time. See Section B.8. The IDIQ Contracting Officer will consider the merit of the request at the time.

23. In the cost template, Section A. Labor, USAID indicated that senior level staff were designated as (US), while mid-level staff were considered “TCN Consultant” (with the exception of the Technical Specialist categories, which had senior-level designated as TCN Consultant and mid-level as US). Could USAID please confirm that the ceiling daily rates for each category (whether senior- or mid-level) apply to both US/expat personnel and TCN personnel? And further, that they do not apply to CCN personnel (whose rates will be set according to country local compensation plans)?

Answer: The CDRs will only apply to US personnel. Other rates will be negotiated at the Task Order level.

24. In the cost template, the labor categories include both senior-level and mid-level administrative support. However, the RFP only lists a mid-level administrative support labor category. Could USAID please clarify whether the IDIQ will include both categories, and if so, what are the education and work experience requirements for the senior-level administrative support category?

Answer: This has been addressed in Amendment 1 to the RFP. The senior-level administrative support position has been removed from the cost template.

25. The Project Officer senior- and mid-level labor categories both require a Master’s degree or higher. Would USAID consider including a substitution at the mid-level to also allow for candidates with Bachelor’s degrees and higher years of experience requirements (ex. 5 years instead of the 3 years required for those with a Master’s)?

Answer: USAID will respectfully not consider this request.

26. On page 120, the RFP states that "The Offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete Section K, “Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors.” The Offeror must provide a signed and dated Section K. Offerors are not required to submit Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors if these have been completed in SAM. Please indicate as part of your cost proposal that Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors have been completed in SAM." Could USAID please confirm that the Offeror and each proposed subcontractor registered in SAM.gov do not need to fill out and submit Section K with the proposal, but simply indicate their registration status in the cost proposal?

Answer: This is confirmed. However, USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly. Teaming arrangements in this context refers to members of a legally formed consortium.

27. Given that USAID has not responded to the Round 1 questions by the submission deadline for Round 2, will USAID allow for a third round of questions, so offerors can have the opportunity to ask follow-up questions to USAID’s initial responses once received?

Answer: The deadline for submission of proposals has been extended.

28. Responses to the first round of questions, submitted July 14th (COB DC time) have not yet been received as of August 4th. This does not permit Offerors time to include requests for further clarification into the second round of questions due August 5, in addition to other questions that have also arisen in the course of proposal preparation. Would USAID consider granting a time extension to allow Offerors to revise and incorporate their proposals based on USAID’s responses to questions?

Answer: The deadline for submission of proposals has been extended.

29. Would USAID please confirm if they will be seeking an exemption via the MOU between the US/Kenya to allow engagement with local subs without the additional costs associated with the 20% taxation from Kenya?

Answer: This has been addressed in Amendment 1. USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly. The IDIQ is a non performing IDIQ, therefore, taxes will not be applicable at this level. Relevant tax language specific to each country of performance will be included in respective Requests for Task Order Proposals.

30. Page 10, Section B.8, [Indirect Costs and Advanced Understanding on Ceilings]. The provided table only has a line for prime contractor indirect ceilings. How and when would USAID like indirect ceilings for subcontractors to be provided?

Answer: USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly. Subcontract indirect rates will therefore be requested at the Task Order level.

31. Page 10, Section B.8, [Indirect Costs and Advanced Understanding on Ceilings]. When indirect ceilings are established for subcontractors with a proprietary information policy, would USAID accept a separate submission of their NICRA along and for the table submitted by the prime contractor to include a ceiling based on their current NICRA? For example, an overhead ceiling of “2 percent above current NICRA, dated X”?

Answer: USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

32. Page 114, (b).6 Past Performance (Included in the page limits), (a) 1. RFP instructions specify that Offerors “list in an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts,” while (b).6 Past Performance sub-heading indicates that past performance information be included in the technical proposal page limits. Would USAID please clarify where past performance information should be located and specify the required format?

Answer: This has been addressed in Amendment 1. Past Performance documentation may be included in a separate annex not counting against the 45 page limit.

33. Page 114, (b).6 Past Performance (Included in the page limits), (a) 1. The asterisk in the statement “…five of the most recent and relevant contracts*…” does not appear to have connecting information. Could USAID please clarify what the asterisk refers to?

Answer: We apologize for the confusion. The asterisk was removed in Amendment 1.

34. Page 114, (b).6 Past Performance (Included in the page limits), (a) 1. Could USAID please clarify whether past performance examples must be limited to contracts only or whether past performance examples may include cooperative agreements, grants or other award types?

Answer: This has been addressed in the first round of questions and answers. Offerors may include both contracts and cooperative agreements as past performance references as long as the references are relevant and recent (ended not more than three years ago).

35. Page 114, (b).6 Past Performance (Included in the page limits), (a) 1. Please clarify if the past performance information should pertain only to the Offeror (“prime contractor”) and not consortium partners (“subcontractors”).

Answer: Members of a legally formed consortium are not considered subcontractors for the purposes of this RFP. Past performance should be provided for all members of a consortium.

36. Page 115, (b).7 Case study. Would USAID please confirm whether the Logical Framework and Sustainability Plan are included in the 25-page limit for the Case Study?

Answer: This is confirmed, they are both included in the 25-page limit for the Case Study.

37. Page 115, (b).7 Case study. The RFP requires that selected activities be justified and prioritized. Could USAID please clarify what is meant by “activities”? For example, is the RFP referring to broad areas of support (e.g., Early Childhood Education, Refugee Schooling), focus (e.g., school type, skill, grade level) or specific activities (book development, book delivery)?

Answer: An activity carries out an intervention or set of interventions, typically though an implementing mechanism such as a contract, assistance program, or partnership.

38. Page 115, (b).7 Case study. Please clarify what is meant by “prioritization”? Is a ranking by importance expected for each activity or will its selection and justification for including the activity in the Technical Approach suffice?

Answer: A ranking by importance is not expected. Selection and justification for including the activity in the technical approach will suffice.

39. Page 116, Section L9 Past Experience and Corporate Capability. When referring to Technical Assistance Teams, the RFP instructs offerors to describe our experience and ability to “manage small-scale construction sub-contracts.” As this does not appear to conform to the Statement of Work provided in Section C of the RFP, could USAID confirm if this is an error, or provide more information about the nature and type of small-scale construction projects envisaged under the IDIQ?

Answer: USAID has removed this language through Amendment 1 to the RFP. Task Orders that involve construction will include the appropriate language.

40. Pages 126 and 128, M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA and Page 116, L9. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal. The information and instructions in Sections L and M pertaining to Factor 4 are inconsistent. In particular, on Page 126, Section M2, USAID provides a table listing how USAID will evaluate an offeror's technical proposal. Some elements of this table are inconsistent with section L9. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal from pp. 112 – 116. Specifically, Factor 4 instructions on pp.115-116 requests three sections: Technical and Capacity Building Expertise, Experience and Ability to Plan Similar Projects, and Technical Assistance Teams, whereas the criteria for evaluation in the table on p. 126 includes two of the same sections (Experience and Ability to Plan Similar Projects and Technical Assistance Teams) but omits the section Technical and Capacity Building Expertise and instead includes a section for Experience in Developing Countries. Could USAID specify and describe the sections that should be included in Offerors’ responses to Factor 4?

Answer: Please see the revised language in Sections L and M of Amendment 2 of the RFP.

41. Pages 126, M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. Some of the RFP’s proposal specifications appear to be redundant, in that Offeror responses to requirements are likely to repeat information. Factor 4 requirements seem to largely overlap with Factor 1 and Factor 2 requirements. For example:

i. Factor 4 requirement of “assembling technical teams” seems repetitive of portions of Factor 1 subtask “Task Order Mobilization”

ii. Factor 4 requirement of “Experience and Ability to Plan Similar Projects” seems repetitive of Factor 2 requirement of presenting “contracts of similar size, scope, complexity/diversity of tasks…”

iii. Factor 4.1 Corporate Capability seems to overlap substantively with Factor 4.4. (Developing country experience) and with Factor 2 (Past Performance), which will also present corporate capability and experience.

Would USAID please provide further guidance on the differentiation of information required and its treatment in these sections?

Answer: Please see the revised language in Sections L and M of Amendment 2 of the RFP.

42. Page 126, M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA and Page 133, ATTACHMENT J.5 – CASE STUDY (LARGE BUSINESSES). Besides the technical treatment of proposed activities to achieve the objective and results as specified in the proposed Logical Framework, the Logical Framework, and the Sustainability Plan, would USAID please clarify what comprises the Technical Approach for the Case Study (Factor 3)?

Answer: “Technical Approach: Evaluation of the Offeror’s technical capacity will be based on the response to the case study scope of work provided in Attachment J.5 (large businesses) and J.6 (small businesses). The Offeror will specifically be evaluated on the degree to which it provides a sound technical approach to improving student learning outcomes and access in a way that meets as many of the critical needs described in the case study as possible (incorporating technology, innovation and inclusion of marginalized populations when appropriate).”

43. Page 126, Section M2, TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA and Page 133, ATTACHMENT J.5 – CASE STUDY (LARGE BUSINESSES). Could USAID please specify whether the Technical Approach includes a management plan, staffing plan, key personnel descriptions, and institutional capability section, etc.?

Answer: Please follow the instructions in Section L of the RFP.

44. Page 128, Section M2, Factor 4 – CORPORATE CAPABILITY AND EXPERIENCE. The RFP states that “USAID will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to propose innovative and viable solutions for addressing the multiple challenges faced by countries with varying levels of power sector development and private sector experience, including through use of Grants Under Contract.” (bold added) These criteria do not seem to reflect the Statement of Work in Section C of the RFP. Could USAID please confirm whether these specifications are correct, and if so, clarify what is meant by “varying levels of power sector development”? If they are incorrect, please provide appropriate specifications.

Answer: The “power” sector was included in error, and this has been corrected to the “education” sector through Amendment 1. However, this sentence has been removed through Amendment 2 with the changes in the evaluation criteria.

45. Page 128, Section M2 Factor 4a. The RFP states that the offeror will be evaluated on their experience and ability “...to work effectively with varied stakeholders toward shared and complementary objectives in the energy sector.” This criterion does not seem to reflect the Statement of Work in Section C of the RFP. Please confirm that this criterion (“energy sector”) is an error and provide correct criteria.

Answer: We apologize for the error. This was corrected through Amendment 1. However, the sentence has been reworded through Amendment 2.

46. Page 128, Section M2 Factor 4c. Regarding the required section 4.2.3 for Factor 4 (“Experience in developing countries”), we request that USAID:

· Provide further guidance on what specifically is required—e.g., a listing of countries where the Offeror has worked, a description of the different types of work it has undertaken, should information be limited to the education sector or include all sectors?

Answer: USAID requests Offerors to use their best judgement.

· Provide further guidance on how this information is organized and presented. Would a table or matrix format be acceptable or is narrative required?

Answer: USAID requests Offerors to use their best judgement.

· Confirm that the required information could be presented in an annex.

Answer: This information may not be included in an annex.

47. It is unclear from the RFP how an Offeror might propose major and non-major subcontractors in order to receive consent to subcontract when an IDIQ Contract is awarded. May Offerors propose subcontractors by providing the information required to support consent to subcontract in FAR 44.202-2 for each proposed subcontractor?

Answer: This has been addressed in Amendment 1. USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

48. In what language do the children in the Refugee Camps in Kenya (Dadaab), South Sudan (Yida), Tanzania (Katumba and Mishamo), and Ethiopia (Pugnido) learn?

Answer: Offerors are requested to research this information before submitting proposals.

49. Is there internet access at the above Refugee Camps?

Answer: USAID assumes that this question is related to the case study. USAID leaves the choice of assumptions to Offerors when responding to the case studies. However, all assumptions used to respond to the case study must clearly be stated. If this is related to the Statement of Work, Offerors are requested to conduct research before submitting proposals.

50. Are boys and girls educated together in the Refugee Camps?

Answer: USAID assumes that this question is related to the case study. USAID leaves the choice of assumptions to Offerors when responding to the case studies. However, all assumptions used to respond to the case study must clearly be stated. If this is related to the Statement of Work, Offerors are requested to conduct research before submitting proposals.

51. Some of our personnel don’t speak the languages of the nations we hope to serve. Thus, do the personnel at the state education agencies speak English?

Answer: Offerors are requested to research this information before submitting proposals.

52. The solicitation states that we can partner with other organizations. Are there any organizations that we are prohibited from partnering with?

Answer: This has been addressed in Amendment 1. USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly. Members of a legally formed consortium are all treated as Prime Offerors and Offerors from all countries that are not prohibited may submit proposals.

53. In several responses, USAID states that they will “not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals.” However, USAID also states that “Each consortium partner may submit up to five contracts” as past performance references.

a. We are unclear as to what USAID means by “[USAID] will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals.” Does this mean that USAID will not provide consent to enter into subcontracts with consortium members in advance of any task order award and that any consent provided will apply only to the particular task order being awarded (ie, consent for consortium member for awarded Task Order A does not provide approval or imply approval for that consortium member on a future Task Order B)?

Answer: USAID does not consider members of a legally formed consortium to be subcontractors. All members of a legally formed consortium are considered Prime Contractors.

b. If the award of an IDIQ to the Prime Contractor does not imply consent to subcontract with members of the Prime offerors consortium, is it USAID’s intention that Prime Contractors will be required to competitively select and obtain USAID consent for subcontractors not conforming to the simplified acquisition threshold for each Task Order?

Answer: See response above.

c. If the situation with respect to subcontract consent for proposed consortium members is as described in (a) above and Prime Contractors are required to competitively select and obtain USAID consent for subcontractors not conforming to the simplified acquisition threshold for each Task Order, then we do not understand USAID’s rationale for including information on the capabilities and contribution of consortium members as part of the evaluation criteria, since an IDIQ award does not confer any advantage to the consortium member with respect to the Prime Contractor and the Prime Contractor has no incentive resulting from the award to prefer a consortium member for a particular task order response. (In other words, by divorcing subcontractor consent from the IDIQ award process, there is no relationship between the information provided about consortium members and the capability USAID is securing by making an IDIQ award. As such, the information provided by Prime offerors about their consortium members seems irrelevant to the award decision and therefore should be excluded from the competitive process.)solicitation states that we can partner with other organizations. Are there any organizations that we are prohibited from partnering with?

Answer: See response above.

54. The original RFP included on page 113 under (b).5 Management four bullets of things to be included in the offeror’s discussion. The last bullet was “Inclusive Development.” The amended RFP no longer includes this bullet (“Inclusive Development”). Was this requirement dropped and offerors no longer must discuss “Inclusive Development”? Please clarify.

Answer: This is confirmed, inclusive development has been removed as a bullet.

55. Given that the published due date dateline is a national holiday, and considering this second round of questions, would USAID please consider extending the deadline for one week?

Answer: The deadline for submission of proposals has been extended. Please see Amendment 2 to the RFP.

56. Page 7 provides a list of positions. Can the offeror propose additional labor categories?

Answer: Offerors may not propose additional labor categories. The rates for any personnel requested under Task Orders that do not fit in the existing labor categories will be negotiated separately at the Request for Task Order Proposal Level.

57. Page 113 references an Executive Summary without page limits, and the Executive Summary is not mentioned in the Technical Evaluation Criteria in Section M.2. Is there a page limit for the Executive Summary? Will the Executive Summary be scored? If so, how much?

Answer: The executive summary is limited to one page and this has been clarified in Amendment 2. The executive summary will not be scored.

58. Page 124 and 125 provide a rank for the scoring of sections only. Can USAID please provide percentages or point totals for how the respective scores are weighted or add up?

Answer: USAID is using an adjectival scoring system under this RFP. Therefore, no points are assigned to each evaluation factor, rather, they are weighted by relative importance.

59. Per the Q&A response #5, USAID states "USAID will not approve subcontracts at the IDIQ level. All subcontracts will be approved at the Task Order level. USAID is not requesting subcontracts with proposals. The RFP has been amended accordingly." Per the Q&A response #59 regarding Section L.9.b.6 (a) and L.9.b.6 (a) 1 on page 114 of the RFP states: “ The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any…” and List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts* for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” USAID states "Members of a consortium will all be considered prime members. Therefore, past performance information must be submitted for members." Typically consortium partners are subcontractors and not necessarily members of a Joint Venture. Please clarify what USAID considers consortium partners are, i.e part of a Joint Venture, subcontractors or both.

Answer: Members of a legally formed consortium are considered Prime Contractors for the purposes of this RFP.

60. Would USAID please advise if there is an envisioned start date?

Answer: USAID hopes to get the IDIQs awarded as soon as possible.

61. It would be appreciated if USAID could please clarify if any cost items are required from subcontractors. On page 120 of the RFP, Section K seems to be required from Offeror and all subcontractors. And on page 121, the Information regarding Work-day, Work-week and Paid Absences is requested from the offeror and all subcontractors. Given USAID’s response to Q&A #5, may Offerors assume that no cost documents are required from subcontractors for this submission?

Answer: Section K contains language from the Federal Acquisition Regulation and may not be amended. Any references to subcontracts in Section K are considered “as applicable,” and information for subcontracts are not required as we are not requesting subcontract information at the IDIQ level. We have removed reference to subcontracts on page 121.

62. USAID's response to Question 13 notes that “Consortium partners' capabilities statements should be brief and included in the Technical Application and will count against the 45-page limit” (emphasis added by [_______]). However, responses to Question 59 state: b) "Members of a consortium will all be considered prime members. Therefore, past performance information must be submitted for members" and c) "past performance information as Annex 1 to proposals, which will not be included in the page limitation" (emphasis added by Chemonics).

· Will USAID clarify that “consortium partners” are the same as subcontractors with whom the prime contractor has teaming agreements, and not prime contractors?

Answer: For the purposes of this RFP, consortium partners are considered Prime Contractors.

· If offerors are to provide brief capabilities statements for its subcontractors, does USAID prefer that this information be placed in the technical volume, which counts toward the 45-page limit, or in Annex 1, which does not count toward the 45-page limit?

Answer: USAID is not requesting any information on subcontractors.

63. USAID removed the requirement from page 113 of Section L of the amended RFP to describe “…how the Offeror intends to integrate principles of gender equality and female empowerment...” Does USAID anticipate removing the corresponding evaluation criteria in Section M, page 125, which states: “The Offeror will also be evaluated based on…how it intends to integrate principles of inclusive development”?

Answer: USAID has removed this sentence from the evaluation criteria.

64. Responses to the first round of questions, published August 11th have raised additional questions. With these second-round questions due August 18th and published on an undetermined date, this does not permit Offerors time to properly address any issues arising from clarification in time for the current submission deadline of September 6th (Labor Day). Would USAID consider granting a time extension to allow Offerors to revise and incorporate their proposals based on USAID’s responses to both rounds of questions?

Answer: The deadline for submission of proposals has been extended. Please see Amendment 2 to the RFP.

65. Round 1 Q.59b and Q.90. USAID states in response to Q.90 that it “is no longer requesting subcontractors at the IDIQ level.” However, in Q.59b it has introduced the term “prime members” to refer to the consortium partners that the Prime Offeror has assembled.

Given this, we have the following questions:

a. For Factor 1, whose management plan and processes are being requested? The Prime Offeror’s or the prime members?

Answer: Please see earlier responses. The consortium must be a legally formed consortium functioning as a team - therefore, the management plan and processes requested are for the team.

b. For Factor 4, does the request for highlighting development experience also include prime members?

Answer: Factor 4 has been removed and incorporated into Factor 1. Development experience should be for the consortium members.

c. Does this approach change from having a single prime or designating major subcontractors in the IDIQ proposal stage mean that USAID will allow prime members to head up task orders?

Answer: The legally formed consortium will be able to bid on Task Orders, and the arrangement of which consortium member leads the Task Order will be up to the members of the consortium. USAID’s relationship will be with the consortium, not with individual organizations comprising the consortium.

66. Round 1 Q. 37 and Q. 59b. USAID’s response to Q.37 states that “each consortium partner may submit up to five contracts” in the Past Performance Matrix, while its response to Q.59b states that “past performance information must be submitted for [consortium prime] members.” We have two questions:

a. Is past performance information required for all consortium members (i.e., partners)?

Answer: Yes.

b. Does the past performance matrix allow for all consortium members (i.e., partners) to include up to five contracts each?

Answer: Yes.

c. Aside from the Prime Offeror, is any other information on past performance required for consortium prime members (i.e., partners) in addition to what is included in the Past Performance Matrix?

Answer: Please see the instructions to offerors in Section L.9.

67. Page 10, Section B.8, [Indirect Costs and Advanced Understanding on Ceilings]. When indirect ceilings are established for consortium members/potential subcontractors with a proprietary information policy, would USAID accept a separate submission of their NICRA along and for the Creative Sensitive Information 2 table submitted by the prime contractor to include a ceiling based on their current NICRA? For example, an overhead ceiling of “2 percent above current NICRA, dated X”?

Answer: Yes, USAID will permit this.

68. Page 113 (top) of the Amended RFP, Section L.9 (b)CONTENT OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. “Management” in the technical proposal outline is not assigned a number. Please confirm that this is an error and provide the correct numbering.

Answer: This was in error and has now been corrected.

69. Page 113, Section L.9 (b).1 Cover Page (Not included in the page limits) and Q and A Round Q.8: Both USAID response to Q.8 and the Amended RFP heading [(b).1 Cover Page (Not included in the page limits)] indicate that the cover page does not count against the page limit. However, the text below the revised header states that, “The technical proposal Cover Page must be signed and is included in the page limit.” Please confirm that this is an error and provide corrections, if any.

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. This was in error and has been removed.

70. Page 113, Section L.9 (b).5 Management (Included in the page limits) (Related to Evaluation Factor 1) and QandA Round 1 Q.56. USAID indicates that the “bullet” asking Offerors to “describe how the Offeror intends to integrate principles of gender equality and female empowerment...” has been removed from the requirements. We have the following comments and questions:

a. Does this mean that the Offeror is no longer required to describe how it intends to integrate principles of gender equality and female empowerment in the Management Section?

Answer: This is correct. Principles of gender equality and female empowerment will be incorporated into each RFTOP.

b. Has USAID re-assigned this bullet with the instructions (“describe how the Offeror intends to integrate principles of gender equality and female empowerment...”) to another section of the proposal outline? In what section this should be addressed? Please note that the “technical approach” requirement is only noted for the Case Study, but instructions have not been modified in the amended RFP.

Answer: No - see the response above.

c. Please note that on page 113 of the amended RFP, the bullet symbol has not been removed from Section L.9 (b).5 Management, although the text has. Please confirm whether this is an error and provide corrections, if any.

Answer: The bullet was erroneously left in. It has been removed in Amendment 2.

71. Page 114, Section L.9 (b).6 Case study. Would USAID please confirm whether the Logical Framework and Sustainability Plan are included in the 25-page limit for the Case Study?

Answer: Please follow the instructions in Section L of the RFP.

72. Page 114, Section L.9 (b).6 Case study. The RFP requires that selected activities be justified and prioritized. Could USAID please clarify what is meant by “activities”? For example, is the RFP referring to broad areas of support (e.g., Early Childhood Education, Refugee Schooling), focus (e.g., school type, skill, grade level) or specific activities (book development, book delivery)?

Answer: An activity carries out an intervention or set of interventions, typically through an implementing mechanism such as a contract, assistance program, or partnership.

73. Page 114, Section L.9 (b).6 Case study. Please clarify what is meant by “prioritization”? Is a ranking by importance expected for each activity or will its selection and justification for including the activity in the Technical Approach suffice?

Answer: A ranking by importance is not expected. Selection and justification for including the activity in the technical approach will suffice.

74. Page 114, Section L.9 (b).7 Past Experience and Corporate Capability Factor 4) a) Technical and Capacity Building Expertise and Page 127, Section M, FACTOR 4 CORPORATE CAPABILITY AND EXPERIENCE. Could USAID please clarify what is meant by “private sector experience”?

Answer: Experience with working with the private sector..

75. Page 115, Section L.9 (b).8 Annex 1 - Past Performance (Included in the page limits), (a) 1. The RFP instructions specify that Offerors “list in an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts,” QandA Response 1 Q. 57, denotes that the “annex” referenced is the past performance matrix provided. Would USAID please confirm that the supplied past performance matrix is the only acceptable format for Annex 1 information and whether the matrix should include 5 references total, or five for each [...] consortium member?

Answer: Submission of the past performance section is now entirely requested in Annex 1, including the matrix. Offerors must provide up to five references for each member of a consortium.

Note: The omitted part of the question was not clear to USAID and seemed to reference sensitive information, and has therefore been removed.

76. Page 115, (b).8 Annex 1 - Past Performance (Included in the page limits), (a) 1. Please clarify if the past performance information should pertain only to the Offeror (“prime contractor”) and not consortium members (“subcontractors”).

Answer: For purposes of this RFP, USAID does not consider consortium members as subcontractors, rather, as Prime Contractors. Past performance information should be submitted for all consortium members.

77. Pages 126 and 128, M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA and Page 116, L9. Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal. The information and instructions in Sections L and M pertaining to Factor 4 are inconsistent. In particular, on Page 126, Section M2, USAID provides a table listing how USAID will evaluate an offeror's technical proposal. Some elements of this table are inconsistent with section L9.

Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal from pp. 112 – 116.

Specifically, Factor 4 instructions on pp.115-116 requests three sections: Technical and Capacity Building Expertise, Experience and Ability to Plan Similar Projects, and Technical Assistance Teams, whereas the criteria for evaluation in the table on p. 126 includes two of the same sections (Experience and Ability to Plan Similar Projects and Technical Assistance Teams) but omits the section Technical and Capacity Building Expertise and instead includes a section for Experience in Developing Countries. Could USAID specify and describe the sections that should be included in Offerors’ responses to Factor 4?

Answer: Please see the revised language in Sections L and M of Amendment 2 of the RFP.

78. Pages 126, M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA. Some of the RFP’s proposal specifications appear to be redundant, in that Offeror responses to requirements are likely to repeat information. Factor 4 requirements seem to largely overlap with Factor 1 and Factor 2 requirements. For example:

i. Factor 4 requirement of “assembling technical teams” seems repetitive of portions of Factor 1 subtask “Task Order Mobilization”

ii. Factor 4 requirement of “Experience and Ability to Plan Similar Projects” seems repetitive of Factor 2 requirement of presenting “contracts of similar size, scope, complexity/diversity of tasks…”

iii. Factor 4.1 Corporate Capability seems to overlap substantively with Factor 4.4. (Developing country experience) and with Factor 2 (Past Performance), which will also present corporate capability and experience.

Would USAID please provide further guidance on the differentiation of information required and its treatment in these sections?

Answer: Please see the revised language in Sections L and M of Amendment 2 of the RFP.

79. Page 126, M.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA and Page 133, ATTACHMENT J.5 – CASE STUDY (LARGE BUSINESSES). Besides the technical treatment of proposed activities to achieve the objective and results as specified in the proposed Logical Framework, the Logical Framework, and the Sustainability Plan, would USAID please clarify what comprises the Technical Approach for the Case Study (Factor 3)?

Answer: Please see the instructions in Section L of the RFP. (The technical approach must describe the overall approach to achieving the stated objectives and a description of specific proposed activities. This must describe the components and sequencing of work, explaining the rationale for why specified activities were selected and how they are prioritized.)

80. Page 126, Section M2, TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA and Page 133, ATTACHMENT J.5 – CASE STUDY (LARGE BUSINESSES). Could USAID please specify whether the Technical Approach includes a management plan, staffing plan, key personnel descriptions, and institutional capability section, etc.?

Answer: Please follow the instructions in Section L of the RFP.

81. Page 127, Section M2 Factor 4c. Regarding the required section 4.2.3 for Factor 4 (“Experience in developing countries”), we request that USAID:

· Provide further guidance on what specifically is required—e.g., a listing of countries where the Offeror has worked, a description of the different types of work it has undertaken, should information be limited to the education sector or include all sectors?

Answer: USAID requests Offerors to use their best judgement.

· Provide further guidance on how this information is organized and presented. Would a table or matrix format be acceptable or is narrative required?

Answer: USAID requests Offerors to use their best judgement.

· Please confirm that the required information could be presented in an annex.

Answer: The information may not be…