Sol_72065622R00002 MEL Service - Amendment 03 Questions and Answers 3rd round.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 24

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

Amendment 03 06/22/2020 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION AND ASSISTANCE

USAID/MOZAMBIQUE

JAT COMPLEX, RUA 1231, NO.41

MAPUTO, MOZAMBIQUE

Same as #6

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

72065622R00002

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE

PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment 03 is to provide responses to questions as described in Attachment 01 –Questions and Answers (3rd round).

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Jean-Jacques Badiane – Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR

Sol_72065622R00002 – USAID Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Service Activity ATTACHMENT 01 – Questions & Answers (3rd round)

QUESTION 1: Section M.3.1 notes that a MEL plan must be included in the Offeror’s technical approach. Can USAID confirm that this is referring to the authorized annex “1) Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (not to exceed 4 pages)” from Section L.6(f)?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 1: Yes. The MEL Plan mentioned in M.3.1 is the Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan from section L.6(f).

QUESTION 2: Section L.6 – The technical proposal is limited to 20 pages, excluding several listed required items. Amendment #1, Q10 addresses the page limitation. The cover sheet and table of contents are included in the page count and limited to 1 page each (2 pages). The technical approach is limited to 13 pages. The page limit for personnel and management is raised to 3 pages.

Thus, the number of pages allowed is 18 (2+13+3). Could USAID please confirm that the remaining two pages may be used at the offeror’s discretion in any of the sections?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2: The remaining two pages of the 20-page limit (as contained in Amendment 1) are reserved for the Executive Summary, as stated on page 87 of the original solicitation.

QUESTION 3: Can USAID confirm that a cover page, cover letter and an acronym list may be included in the technical proposal and that they will not count towards the 20-page technical proposal limit?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 3: The cover page should be included and does count towards the 20-page limit. The technical proposal should not include a cover letter or acronym list.

QUESTION 4: Section L.6, Technical Proposal, page 86, states that the “technical proposal must not exceed 20 pages. This limitation does not include the cover letter, executive summary, table of contents, acronym list, and annexes.” The first amendment then says that the cover page and table of contents are included. Will USAID confirm that the two- page executive summary is still excluded from the page limitation?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 4: The 20-page limitation includes: Cover Sheet (1 page); Table of Contents (1 page); Executive Summary (2 pages); Technical Approach (13 pages); Personnel and Management Structure (3 pages): Total 20 pages. The annexes do not count against the 20-page limit. An acronym list should not be part of the submission.

QUESTION 5: Will USAID also confirm that an acronym list is excluded from the 20-page technical proposal page limitation?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 5: Please refer to USAID response to question 4 above.

QUESTION 6: Section L.6, Technical Proposal (Volume 1), subsection e) Personnel and Management Structure, page 87, only allocates three pages for Offerors to detail their use of local resources. Will USAID consider the addition of an authorized Annex of an STTA matrix to the Technical Proposal for Offerors to more fully document their ability to mobilize expertise related to health, education, economic growth, WASH, resilience, and democratic governance.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 6: Please address this issue within the main body of the proposal. USAID will not consider an STTA matrix attached as an Annex.

QUESTION 7: Amendment 1, issued February 9, 2022, responding to General Question 10, page 3, states: “The cover sheet and table of contents are included and count toward the page limit - USAID will enlarge the personnel and management page limit to 3 pages instead of 2, resulting in a total page limit of 20 pages.” To more effectively cover the full range of topics required in this section and the technical approach section, would USAID consider removing the cover sheet and table of contents from the page count, so that Offerors may allocate those two additional pages to the Personnel and Management Structure section, making it a total of five (5) pages?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 7: The 20-page limitation includes: Cover Sheet (1 page); Table of Contents (1 page); Executive Summary (2 pages); Technical Approach (13 pages); Personnel and Management Structure (3 pages): Total 20 pages. The annexes do not count against the 20-page limit.

QUESTION 8: Section C.3.2 – Notes the Contractor “should consider a minimal support structure in central or northern Mozambique…” However, Section C.3.3 Tasks (3rd bullet) notes “providing logistical arrangements and cars/drivers with an office in Nampula.” Section F.4 requires an office in Maputo but makes no reference to a Nampula office. Could USAID please clarify the locations required to have a physical office presence?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 8: USAID expects the successful bidder to establish a main office in Maputo and a minimal support structure in Nampula.

QUESTION 9: On page 12, section C.3.2., USAID recommends that offerors "consider support structure in central/northern Mozambique." On page 13, section C.3.3, USAID tasks the contractor to coordinate with the office in Nampula. Is this referring to a USAID office? Or is this an instruction for the offeror to establish its own office in Nampula? We assume the latter but wanted to clarify.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 9: Please refer to USAID response to question 8 above.

QUESTION 10: C.3.2 Geographic Focus, page 12 & 13. Page 12 states that “The Contractor is required to maintain its main office in Maputo and should consider a minimal support structure in central or northern Mozambique to allow for smooth logistical operations in support of MEL efforts.” However, Page 13 refers to “an office in Nampula.” Can USAID please clarify this requirement?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 10: Please refer to USAID response to question 8 above.

QUESTION 11: C.3.2 Geographic Focus “The contractor…should consider a minimal support structure in central or northern Mozambique.” At the top of page 13, it mentions having “an office in Nampula.” Can USAID please clarify this requirement?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 11: Please refer to USAID response to question 8 above.

QUESTION 12: Per page 12. C.3.2.“The Contractor is required to maintain its main office in Maputo and should consider a minimal support structure in central or northern Mozambique to allow for smooth logistical operations in support of MEL efforts.” Can USAID please clarify whether there is preference for project staff being based in Nampula or Maputo?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 12: Please refer to USAID response to question 8 above.

QUESTION 13: Per page 12. C.3.3. Tasks, bullet #3 “support high-quality performance monitoring by USAID staff, including: developing site visit objectives and schedules, arranging stakeholder meetings and interviews as requested, documenting the outcomes of such meetings, and providing logistical arrangements and cars/drivers with an office in Nampula.” Is this logistical support only for Nampula or is it for all of Mozambique?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 13: USAID expects the Nampula office to provide logistical support to neighboring provinces.

QUESTION 14: Can USAID please provide an estimate of how many staff members will participate in performance monitoring as described in C.3.3 so that adequate transportation resources are available. Could USAID also confirm that transportation to and from Nampula, and any hotel logistics, payment, and M&IE would not be the responsibility of the project?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 14: USAID cannot estimate the number of USAID staff that will participate in performance monitoring activities. All travel costs for USAID staff will be paid by USAID.

QUESTION 15: C.3.3 Expected results, Tasks and Approach (page 13 of RFP). Tasks:

Analysis of indicator data for use in USAID quarterly data reviews, portfolio reviews, partner meetings, and other CLA venues. Estimated 60 workdays of effort per year. If allowable, Bidder would like to request for any previous data / analytics or reports sample that would aid us in preparing our proposal.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 15: USAID is not in a position to share the requested samples.

QUESTION 16: Section C.3.3 (Assessment and Evaluation) – Mentions assessments associated with the CDCS midcourse stocktaking. Does USAID/Mozambique anticipate required Contractor support for the stocktaking itself?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 16: USAID anticipates that the contractor will provide some support in the stocktaking process.

QUESTION 17: Section C.3.3 (CLA) – Does the Mission have a Learning Agenda associated with the current CDCS? If so, is there any Contractor requirement to provide support for its implementation?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 17: USAID has not yet determined the contractor’s expected level of effort in addressing the Mission’s Learning Questions.

QUESTION 18: Section C.3.3 (Monitoring) – The SOW mentions “scenario tracking.” Could the Mission provide the scenario-based plan attached as an annex to the CDCS?

RESPONSE QUESTION 18: USAID is not in a position to share the requested document.

QUESTION 19: As the next CDCS will be developed and approved during the anticipated term of the award, does the Mission anticipate any post-approval support requirements such as assisting with the preparation of the PMP?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 19: Yes.

QUESTION 20: In the cover letter, the total estimated period is cited as “a total estimated period of 5 years with an option year.” Could USAID please confirm that this is a five-year base period with one option year (total of six years)? Section C refers to a five-year award, while section F.2 considers a five-year base period with one option year. Could USAID clarify if the funding is expected to cover a five-year period or a six-year period?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 20: The estimated funding of $20-$22 million is expected to cover a five-year period.

QUESTION 21: Could USAID provide the estimated days of field work for DQAs? We understand that the days of field work will vary based on the size of the activity being considered.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 21: Based on past experience, Mission DQAs generally last 2-3 days each and require varied staffing levels based on considerations like project scope and funding level.

QUESTION 22: Can USAID please clarify the status of the Development Information System (DIS) and it’s use and accessibility in Mozambique? Are USAID staff actively using this system?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 22: USAID/Mozambique is currently transitioning from DevResults to DIS and expects this transition to be complete by the end of this fiscal year.

QUESTION 23: Under section F.5.2, USAID requires subject matter expertise in a number of technical areas. Could you please confirm that some of this work may be covered through long term consultant relationships (i.e., less than full time, for an extended period), rather than full time staff to complement the timing and scope of requirements from each technical area?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 23: USAID expects these skills to be covered by LTTA or STTA rather than full time staff.

QUESTION 24: Given the robust needs during closeout, would USAID consider approving a draft closeout plan sooner than 60 days before contract end which includes staff phase down, disposition of property and handover of any technical work to local implementers as needed?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 24: USAID would be willing to discuss a close out timeline at the appropriate time with the incumbent.

QUESTION 25: F.6 Reports and Deliverables, pages 27 & 29. Page 27 requests financial reports no later than the 20th of March, June, September, and December of each year, whereas page 29 refers to the 15th. Please clarify the correct date?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 25: The specific report due date will be discussed and resolved with the successful bidder.

QUESTION 26: F.5.1.1. Chief of Party requirement Bullet: Experience working with Third Party Monitoring platforms and/or support mechanisms. page 24. Section C.3.3 does not list Third Party Monitoring (TPM) as a task, could USAID please clarify if TPM is required?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 26: The solicitation contemplates performance monitoring support of various types as required by USAID.

QUESTION 27: Past Performance. We have submitted our past performance today. Can USAID clarify how the Past Performance information will be used? Will you advise contractors not to bid if their past performance does not meet USAID’s criteria?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 27: Past performance will be considered as part of the overall submission.

QUESTION 28: Cover letter dated January 27, 2022. Does the option year budget have to fit within the $20 to $22 million estimated cost range?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 28: Please refer to USAID response to question 20 above.

QUESTION 29: Section C.3.3 Expected Results, Tasks, and Approach, page 12, states under “Tasks” that the Contractor shall provide “approximately 2 MEL topic trainings per year (USAID & IP).” The same section under “Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA),” page 14, states that the Contractor must “Provide training to share MEL best practices and tools to allow our IPs, government, and other local entities the opportunity to deepen their MEL capacities - approximately 2 training sessions per year.” We have the following related questions:

a. Are the above referenced trainings referring to the same two training sessions, or should we plan for four training sessions?

b. What is the difference in emphasis, audience, and/or topics desired between the trainings provided for performance monitoring/management and those provided for CLA?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 29: Bidders should plan for four training sessions. Two of the training sessions will focus on MEL practices and tools, while the other two training sessions will focus on CLA practices. Bidders should expect a mixed audience, possibly containing IPs, USAID staff, and government representatives.

QUESTION 30: Section L.6, Technical Proposal (Volume 1), page 90 requires Offerors to submit a Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. On December 15, 2021, USAID’s AIDAR Proposed Rule, “Planning, Collection, and Submission of Digital Information as Well as Submission of Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plans [AMELPs] to USAID” was published in the Federal Register. This new rule specifies, among other things, that USAID is planning to no longer require AMELPs for MEL projects. It states: "The following types of contracts are generally exempt from the requirements for the AMELP: … (2) Purchase of supplies and services that USAID acquires for its own direct use or benefit. Examples below illustrate how USAID will apply this exception and are not meant to be all-inclusive: … (ii) Monitoring, evaluation, or collaboration, learning and adaptive management." In keeping with this new rule, would USAID kindly reconsider the requirement that Offerors submit a Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and, in lieu, submit a draft MEL plan as part of the Technical Proposal, outlined in Section C.4, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning, pages 15- 16?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 30: Bidders are required to submit a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan as part of the technical proposal. Pages 15 and 90 in the solicitation refer to the same submission.

QUESTION 31: Section L.6 (d), Technical Approach, page 87, states that “Offerors must include a results framework” in the body of the technical proposal. As a Results Framework would likely require several pages to be properly described and detailed, would USAID consider moving this requirement to the draft MEL plan?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 31: At a minimum, bidders must include a comprehensive Results Framework summary in the body of the technical proposal, as this is a critical component of the submission. Bidders may flesh out the Results Framework in the MEL Plan annex as appropriate.

QUESTION 32: Section F.5.1.1, Chief of Party (COP), page 24, includes the following requirement:

“Experience conducting evaluations and assessments of development programs and applying MEL concepts related to development programs.” Would USAID please consider removing this requirement, as the COP will supervise evaluations instead of conducting them?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 32: Upon further consideration, USAID maintains its requirement that the COP have experience conducting evaluations.

QUESTION 33: Section L.6.f) Authorized Annexes, page 89, states: “2) Resumes of Key Personnel (each resume must not exceed 2 pages).” Would USAID consider extending the resume page limit to three pages to allow Offerors to better highlight proposed key personnel https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/15/2021-23743/usaid-acquisition-regulation-united-states-agency-for-international-development-usaid-acquisition candidates’ qualifications and experience?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 33: The two-page Resume limit remains.

QUESTION 34: May offerors include an acronym list of up to two pages between the Table of Contents and Executive Summary?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 34: Please do not include an acronym list as part of the submission.

QUESTION 35: On page 14, section C3.3 (Assessments and Evaluation), USAID directs contractors to implement one to two impact evaluations? Does this mean one to two per year or over the period of performance. We assume over the entire PoP given the cost and complexity of impact evaluations but wanted to clarify.

● Relatedly, how many impact evaluations have occurred under the incumbent contract? Is one to two impact evaluations an accurate estimate based on current implementation?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 35: It is expected that 2 impact evaluations will be undertaken during the period of the contract.

QUESTION 36: Can USAID clarify how much the security plan should be influenced by work to be done north of Pemba? What is the geographic extent of the M&E work expected? For example, will the contract include M&E for the ongoing humanitarian assistance to areas that are within the area of the ongoing insurgency?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 36: The geographic scope of this award is expected to be country-wide.

Given the fluid and unpredictable nature of the conflict in Cabo Delgado and Niassa Provinces, USAID cannot answer this question with specificity. However, if an improved security situation allows, USAID intends to program in all parts of Cabo Delgado where it can do so safely.

QUESTION 37: Under the Performance Monitoring/Management section of C.3.3, USAID requires that the Contractor “Provide high-quality monitoring support (tools, training, and technical assistance to roll-out training) - approximately 2 MEL topic training per year (USAID & IP).” Given the mention of support and technical assistance to roll-out training, can USAID clarify whether the Contractor is expected to conduct the training mentioned or provide support to USAID staff to do so?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 37: The contractor is expected to provide the training in the early part of the contract period and provide TA and tools to key USAID staff to enable USAID staff to conduct these training sessions later in the contract period.

QUESTION 38: In Section C.3.3, under the Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) section, USAID requires that the Contractor “Provide training to share MEL best practices and tools” at a frequency of “approximately 2 training sessions per year.” Can USAID confirm the trainings mentioned under the Performance Monitoring/Management and Collaborating, Learning and Adapting sections are separate trainings?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 38: Bidders should plan for four training sessions. Two of the training sessions will focus on MEL practices and tools, while the other two training sessions will focus on CLA practices. Bidders should expect a mixed audience, possibly containing IPs, USAID staff, and government representatives.

QUESTION 39: The RFP at various points refers to “independent performance monitoring” and “third party monitoring.” Can USAID confirm whether the terms are to be considered to be synonymous?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 39: The terms independent performance monitoring and third party monitoring are used synonymously.

QUESTION 40: The MEL section of the CDCS references provincial advisors in Nampula and Zambezia provinces and describes them as part of the Mission’s MEL team. Can USAID clarify the role of the provincial advisors with regard to MEL and coordination?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 40: The provincial advisors serve as USAID representatives in routine interactions with governmental representatives located in Nampula and Zambezia. Additionally, they have significant responsibilities coordinating among IPs, USAID staff in Maputo and provincial governmental officials. In terms of MEL, provincial advisors provide guidance and support monitoring and CLA efforts.

QUESTION 41: Similarly, the MEL section of the CDCS mentions provincial or zonal MEL plans.

Can USAID share these plans at this time and/or clarify their stage of development and use?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 41: Provincial or zonal MEL plans are in the conceptualization phase.

QUESTION 42: Because PEPFAR requirements are quite specific, can USAID describe the extent to which MELSA is expected to support the PEPFAR programming in each of the three tasks?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 42: USAID expects to continue to support PEPFAR in the same manner it will support other programming areas.

QUESTION 43: Section C.3.3 requires the Contractor to “Coordinate, develop the concept, and implement about 1 – 2 impact evaluations.” Can USAID share the sector(s) that the expected IEs will cover?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 43: USAID is not able to identify the expected IE sectors at this time.

QUESTION 44: Section C.3.3 requires the Contractor to “Provide short-term (six months or less) consultants as required for MEL technical assistance to target Mission partners (government or NGO) as needed.” Can USAID describe its current MEL support to government partners and which government partners are being considered for MEL support through

MELSA?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 44: Currently the support provided includes TOC development, MEL plan development, and various continuous learning workshops.

QUESTION 45: F.5.1.1 Chief of Party. USAID requires the COP to have “Experience working with third party monitoring platforms and/or support mechanisms.” To allow for local experts to be considered for this KP position, as per the page 23, would USAID consider removing this requirement from the COP's qualifications, as long as experience with independent performance monitoring is present in the staff?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 45: Despite further consideration, USAID maintains its requirement that the COP have experience working with third party monitoring platforms or independent performance monitoring platforms.

QUESTION 46: L.6 e) Personnel and Management Structure. The RFP states: “The Offer must describe how the proposed plan will contribute towards achieving the objectives and results described in the activity description…”. While the Expected Results are listed in section C.3.3, the RFP does not appear to list out “Objectives”. In order to be compliant, can proposed plans focus on how the proposed plan will contribute toward achieving the Expected Results described in the activity description…”?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 46: Bidders are expected to describe how they will achieve the stated results.

QUESTION 47: L.7.2. Part 2 – Proposed Costs (7) Other Direct Costs states that direct costs to perform environmental compliance as per Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) must be included. Will USAID please confirm based on the activity type that a Request for Categorical Exclusion will be prepared on award, and therefore no environmental compliance costs should be budgeted?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 47: USAID expects this activity to receive a categorical exclusion.

QUESTION 48: Section M.3.1 notes that a MEL plan must be included in the Offeror’s technical approach. Can USAID confirm that this is referring to the authorized annex “1) Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (not to exceed 4 pages)” from Section L.6(f)?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 48: USAID confirms that Section M.3.1. MEL plan is referring to authorized annex 1.

QUESTION 49: In Section C.3.3, under the Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) section, USAID requires that the Contractor “Provide training to share MEL best practices and tools” at a frequency of “approximately 2 training sessions per year.” Can USAID confirm the trainings mentioned under the Performance Monitoring/Management and Collaborating, Learning and Adapting sections are separate trainings?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 49: Yes, USAID confirms that these are separate trainings

QUESTION 50: Can USAID describe the Mission MEL team so we may consider that structure in our response?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 50: The USAID MEL team consists of a team lead, a MEL specialist, a GIS specialist, and 2 provincial advisors. In addition, each technical office has at least 1 MEL specialist.

QUESTION 51: RFP page 98: “In response to this RFP, the Offeror must include a preliminary Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP), not to exceed two pages as an Annex to the Technical Proposal.” However, the BIP/is not listed on RFP page 90, which cites the “only authorized annexes”. Can USAID please confirm that the BIP/MP will only be required from the apparently successful offeror and is not required at this stage?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 51: Section L.6.f is deleted in its entirety and replaced with:

“f) Authorized Annexes (The below are the only Annexes authorized under this solicitation. No other supporting documentation will be reviewed and evaluated):

1) Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (not to exceed 4 pages)

2) Resumes of Key Personnel (each resume must not exceed 2 pages)

3) Key Personnel Letters of Commitment

4) Key Personnel biographical data sheet

5) Organizational Chart (1 page)

6) List of Past Performance Information (not to exceed 1 page per award) - The offeror must provide a list of all its contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements involving similar or related programs during the past three years. The reference information for these awards must include:

The performance location, Award number (if available), A brief description of the work performed, A point of contact list with current telephone numbers, e-mail address, name and title of someone, outside of the offeror organization, who supervised/oversaw the activity

7)Preliminary Branding Plan and Marking Plan (not to exceed two pages)

8) Draft first year work plan.

9) Small Business Subcontracting Plan

10) Security Plan

11) Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment & Mitigation Plan

12) Major- Subcontractors Letters of commitment.”

QUESTION 52: The evaluation criteria for the technical approach are listed as (Section M, page 100): “Extent to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach (including development context, core principles, implementation strategy, proposed activities, draft first year work plan, and MEL plan) represents a strategic, convincing, sound, and realistic approach to achieve the objectives and results specified in the Program Description.” But a draft work plan is not one of the “only authorized annexes”, and it is not mentioned as a requirement in Section L.

1. Can USAID please clarify the requirements for this submission, including location in proposal, page length and any templates?

2. If a draft first year work plan is required, would USAID kindly allow it to be included as an annex or otherwise not count against the page limitation?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 52: Please refer to response to question 51 above.

QUESTION 53: Per page 100, section M.3.1 Criterion 1 –Technical Approach, can USAID confirm that bidders should include the draft first year work plan as an annex to the technical proposal?

Will the work plan count towards the 20-page limit of the technical?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 53: Please refer to response to question 51 above.

QUESTION 54: Per page 89, section f) Authorized Annexes, USAID states that “The below are the only Annexes authorized under this solicitation. No other supporting documentation will be reviewed and evaluated…)”. Given this, are the following technical annexes, which are not included in the list of authorized annexes on page 89, required at the proposal stage?

1) Small Business subcontracting Plan (page 97, section L.8, a) “Offerors must submit a Small Business Small Business (SB) as an Annex to the Technical Proposal”

2) Security Plan (page 84, section i “The Offeror shall provide a Security Plan to be evaluated and approved by the Contracting Officer.“

3) Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment & Mitigation Plan (page 85, section i)

4) BIP and Marking Plan (page 98, section L.9) “In response to this RFP, the Offeror must include a preliminary Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP), not to exceed two pages as an Annex to the Technical Proposal.“

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 54: Please refer to response to question 51.

QUESTION 55: Per page 84, section I, “…offerors shall provide a security budget and comprehensive budget notes.” Can USAID confirm whether bidders should include a security budget and budget notes as part of the cost proposal annexes?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 55: Offerors must include a security budget and comprehensive budget notes as part of the overall cost proposal and not as an annex.

QUESTION 56: Are biographical data sheets required for key personnel? Should these be included as an annex to the cost proposal?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 56: Please refer to response question 51 above.

QUESTION 57: Section M3. States that USAID will also review the fee distribution schedule, which must be commensurate with the level of effort required for the successful completion of the results. This is the only reference to the fee distribution schedule. Please confirm that a fee distribution schedule is requested as part of the cost volume and under which part (e.g., as an Annex?). We also note that Section L.7 states: Offerors should note that information other than those listed above submitted as annexes will not be considered for evaluation.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 57: Information regarding fee distribution should be included in Cost Volume.

QUESTION 58: L.6.1 Past Performance page 89 & L.8 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Instructions page 97. 5 Authorized annexes are listed on page 89 but page 97 requests to submit a Subcontracting Plan as an Annex to the Technical Proposal which is not listed as an authorized annex. Can USAID clarify?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 58: Please refer to response to question 51 above.

QUESTION 59: L.6.1 Past Performance page 89 & L.9 Branding Implementation and Marking Plan Instructions page 98. 5 Authorized annexes are listed on page 89 but page 98 requests to submit a preliminary Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP), not to exceed two pages as an Annex to the Technical Proposal which is not listed as an authorized annex. Can USAID clarify?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 59: Please refer to response to question 51 above.

QUESTION 60: Section L.6.f) Authorized Annexes, pages 89-90, states the following are the only authorized annexes and that “no other supporting documentation will be reviewed and evaluated… 1) Draft Activity Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (not to exceed 4 pages), 2) Resumes of Key Personnel (each resume must not exceed 2 pages), 3) Key Personnel Letters of Commitment, 4) Organizational Chart (1 page), and 5) List of Past Performance Information (not to exceed 1 page per award).” However, Section L.8 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Instructions, and Section L.9 Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan, pages 97-98, require Offerors to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and a Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan, respectively, as annexes to their technical proposals.

We have the following questions related to these requirements:

a. Given that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan contains cost-related information, would USAID confirm that it should be submitted as part of

Offerors’ Cost Proposal?

b. Would USAID kindly confirm that the Branding Implementation Plan and

Marking Plan is an “authorized” Annex and should be included in the Technical Proposal?

c. Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to include an additional "authorized" Annex for Offerors to showcase letters of support from potential local partners?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 60: Please refer to response to question 51 above.

QUESTION 61: The RFP names three Plans that are required to be submitted with the proposal but that do not appear in the list of “Authorized Annexes” from Section L.6(f). These three Plans include a Draft Security Plan (Section L.4(i)), Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Section L.8), and Branding Implementation Plan & Marking Plan (Section L.9). Can USAID confirm whether these Plans are to be submitted as additional annexes to the Technical Proposal and, if so, whether they should be labelled as Annexes 6 through 8 respectively?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 61: Please refer to response to question 51 above.

QUESTION 62: The RFP names three Plans that are required to be submitted with the proposal but that do not appear in the list of “Authorized Annexes” from Section L.6(f). These three Plans include a Draft Security Plan (Section L.4(i)), Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Section L.8), and Branding Implementation Plan & Marking Plan (Section L.9). Can USAID confirm whether these Plans are to be submitted as additional annexes to the Technical Proposal and, if so, whether they should be labelled as Annexes 6 through 8 respectively?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 62: Please refer to response to question 51 above.

QUESTION 63: Section M.3.1 notes that a draft first year work plan should be included in the Offeror’s technical approach. Can this work plan be submitted as an Annex and outside the page limitation?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 63: Please refer to response to question 51 above.

QUESTION 64: On page 86 under L.6 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME I) it states, "The Technical Proposal must not exceed 20 pages. This limitation does not include the cover letter, executive summary, table of contents, acronym list, and annexes. A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8-1/2" x 11", with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point type. Foldouts count as an equivalent number of 8-1/2" x 11"pages. The metric standard format most closely approximating the described standard 8-1/2" x 11" size may also be used. In addition, 8-point type is acceptable for graphics and tables provided that it is legible. Number each page consecutively. A page in the Technical Proposal that contains a table, chart, graph, etc. is subject to the 20-page limitation. Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in this provision will not be evaluated by the Government. If revised proposals are requested, separate page limitations may be specified in the Government's request for that submission."

It further states, "Technical proposals must not exceed 20 pages. Pages more than the limit will not be evaluated. Pages shall be written in English, using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 11- point font on standard 8 1/2" x 11" paper (210 mm by 297mm paper), single spaced, each...".

Please confirm that the Technical Proposal shall be written in 11-point font.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 64: Yes. Technical Proposal shall be written in 11-point font.

QUESTION 65: Per page 86, section L.6, could USAID clarify whether bidders must use font size 11 or 12 for the technical proposal?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 65: See response to question 64 above.

QUESTION 66: L.6 Technical Proposal (Volume I), page 86. The first paragraph requests a 12-point type and the second paragraph Times New Roman, 11-point font. Please clarify font requirements.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 66: See response to question 64 above.

QUESTION 67: Section L.6, Technical Proposal (Volume I), page 86, states: “8-point type [font] is acceptable for graphics and tables provided that it is legible.” We have the following related questions:

a. Could USAID kindly confirm that Offerors can use 8-point font for text boxes, charts and exhibits?

b. Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to use a font type other than Times New Roman for text in graphics, tables, charts, text boxes and exhibits, providing it is legible?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 67:

a. Yes. Offerors can use 8-point font for text boxes, charts and exhibits.

b. Yes. Offerors can use a font type other than Times New Roman for text in graphics, tables, charts, text boxes and exhibits, providing it is legible.

QUESTION 68: Section L.6, Technical Proposal (Volume I), page 86, states: “A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8-1/2”x 11”, with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point font type.” However, in the final paragraph of page 86 the RFP states: “Pages shall be written in English, using Microsoft Word, Times New Roman, 11-point font.” Could USAID kindly confirm that Offerors are to use 11-point font?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 68: See response to question 64 above.

QUESTION 69: In Section L.6, the first paragraph states that Offerors should not use a font smaller than 12-point type. The next paragraph states, “Pages shall be written in… 11-point font…” Can USAID confirm that use of 11-point font is acceptable per Section L.6, paragraph 2?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 69: See response to question 64 above.

QUESTION 70: In Section L.6, the first paragraph states that Offerors should not use a font smaller than 12-point type. The next paragraph states, “Pages shall be written in… 11-point font…” Can USAID confirm that use of 11-point font is acceptable per Section L.6, paragraph 2?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 70: See response to question 64 above.

QUESTION 71: Section H.3 indicates there will be caps on annual increases for program staff.

Could USAID please clarify if this will be negotiated at award or if offerors should propose these caps during the submission process?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 71: Offerors should propose these caps during the submission process.

RQUESTION 72: Pg. 40, section H.3 a)1). has salary increase percentage indicated with a blank line (__%). Please indicate the expected percentage.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 72: Section H.2(a)(1) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with:

“(1) If, during the contract performance, the contractor proposes salary or wages for a new individual(s) that exceeds 5% ceiling of the individual’s current salary or wage or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediate preceding three (3) years, the Cognizant Contracting Officer’s approval is required.”

QUESTION 73: Pg. 40, section H.3 d) has salary increase percentage indicated with a blank line ([] percent). Please indicate the expected percentage.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 73: See response to question 72 above.

QUESTION 74: Could USAID please confirm that quarterly reports to the government of Mozambique will be in English, and not Portuguese?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 73: Reports to the government of Mozambique will be in Portuguese.

QUESTION 75: Could USAID kindly confirm that the “Budget Detailed Budget Template” in Attachment J.3 is for example purposes only and that offerors are allowed to use their own budget templates?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 75: Yes. The detailed budget template is for example purpose and offerors are allowed to use their own budget templates.

QUESTION 76: Could USAID kindly provide the most recent Local Compensation Plan for Mozambique?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 76: Offerors should propose salaries that are appropriate and adequate to achieve the proposed technical approach and in accordance with offeror’s policies and procedures, market value of each position and individual qualifications and experience.

QUESTION 77: Could USAID kindly confirm that Attachment J.7 “Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Work Overview” is for informational purposes only?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 77: Yes. Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Work Overview is for informational purposes.

QUESTION 78: Could USAID kindly confirm that Attachment J.1 AID 1429-17 Biographical Data Sheets are required for key personnel?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 78: Please refer to response to question 51 above. .

QUESTION 79: Section H.12, could USAID provide more information on the referenced Budget Attachments D, E, F, and G mentioned on page 46 for equipment procurement?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 79: Section H.13 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with:

“H.13 AIDAR 752.245-71 TITLE TO AND CARE OF PROPERTY (APR 1984)

(a) Title to all non-expendable property purchased with contract funds under this contract and used in the Cooperating Country, shall at all times be in the name of the Cooperating Government, or such public or private agency as the Cooperating Government may designate, unless title to specified types or classes of non-expendable property is reserved to USAID under provisions set forth in the schedule of this contract; but all such property shall be under the custody and control of Contractor until the owner of title directs otherwise, or completion of work under this contract or its termination, at which time custody and control shall be turned over to the owner of title or disposed of in accordance with its instructions. All performance guaranties and warranties obtained from suppliers shall be taken in the name of the title owner. (Non-expendable property is property which is complete in itself, does not lose its identity or become a component part of another article when put into use; is durable, with an expected service life of two years or more; and which has a unit cost of $500 of more.)

(b) Contractor shall prepare and establish a program, to be approved by the Mission, for the receipt, use, maintenance, protection, custody, and care of non-expendable property for which it has custodial responsibility, including the establishment of reasonable controls to enforce such program.

(c)(1) For non-expendable property to which title is reserved to the U.S. Government under provisions set forth in the schedule of this contract, Contractor shall submit an annual report on all non-expendable property under its custody as required in the clause of this contract entitled “Government Property”.

(2) For non-expendable property titled to the Cooperating Government, the Contractor shall, within 90 days after completion of this contract, or at such other date as may be fixed by the contracting officer, submit an inventory schedule covering all items of non-expendable property under its custody, which have not been consumed in the performance of this contract. The Contractor shall also indicate what disposition has been made of such property.

The contractor is hereby authorized to purchase the following equipment and /or resources described in the Final Revised Proposal:

TO BE DETERMINED

The Contracting Officer hereby provides prior approval to the contractor to purchase the equipment and/or resources for year 1. The Contractor must seek prior approval from the Contracting Officer for equipment and/or resources for the remaining years(two-five).”

QUESTION 80: Per page 88 – section L.6.1 “The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor”. Can USAID clarify whether sub-contractor teaming agreements are required as part of the proposal? Should these be included as an annex to the cost proposal?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 80: No.

QUESTION 81: Pg. 10, section B.5 mentions that USAID may request to review subcontractors below the 10% threshold. So that bidders can be fully prepared, what type of information will be reviewed?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 81: USAID reserves the right to review any information that may be necessary to conduct due diligence.

QUESTION 82: Pg 51, section H.22 is entitled “Compliance with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act”, but the contents in this section are more fitting to “Disclosure of Information”.

Kindly confirm and clarify as needed.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 82: Section H.22 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with:

“H.22 COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT

The U.S. Government may terminate this Contract agreement, without penalty, if the Contractor or any subcontractor (i) engages in severe forms of trafficking in persons or has procured a commercial sex act during the period of time that the Contract is in effect, or (ii) uses forced labor in the performance of the Contract agreement.”

QUESTION 83: Pg. 55, section H.29 Limiting Construction Activities, subsection d) states “no construction is authorized under this contract.” Kindly confirm that this section should state: “TBD”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 83: The statement “no construction is authorized under this contract” remains unchanged.

QUESTION 84: Pg. 46, H.14 Consent to Subcontract, will give the winning bidder permission to subcontract with the listed subcontractors. Please confirm whether or not consent to subcontract approval is required for independent consultants.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 84: Yes. Consent to subcontract approval is required for independent consultants.

QUESTION 85: Please confirm that the Option year is a potential sixth year to the program, or if some other assumption needs to be made. If it is indeed a sixth year, please confirm that the budget range $20-$22M is inclusive of the option year or not; and confirm if it is inclusive of the $300K GUC plug amount given or not.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 85: The estimated funding of $20-$22 million is expected to cover a five-year period. In accordance with ADS 302 The total value of all GUCs that provide funds (as opposed to in-kind assistance) to a particular partner government entity (for example, ministry, municipality, district, etc.) must not exceed $300,000 for the duration of the prime contract.

QUESTION 86: Section L.7.4/Policies and Procedures: sub-parts (a) and (b)/(b)(1) appear to conflict. Please confirm that for Offerors that have prior USAID contracting experience, only the Offeror’s Information Concerning Work-Day, Work- Week, and Paid Absences [per (b)(2)] is required.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 86: Yes.

QUESTION 87: Section L.7.2 (c) (1) states that “Daily rates for all proposed positions should be based on the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country, as opposed to applying negotiated daily rates of an actual or illustrative candidate… as determined by the USAID Mission” In order to properly adhere to this, please provide the latest LCP for Mozambique.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 87: Please refer to response to question 76 above.

QUESTION 88: Section L.7(b): Cost Proposal must be submitted in MS Excel with file extension “XLS” as Excel MS Office (2010 or 2003 version) file form. Please confirm that a newer excel version is acceptable if Offerors ensure that they have run a “check compatibility” search with Office versions 2010 and…