RFQ_Amendment_No._95332419Q0083_0001_-_THP_BPA_-_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

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 or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

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

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER 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

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

N/A

Jacqueline Naranjo Contracting Officer

MCC Threshold Program (THP) Single-Award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) - Amendment No. 95332419Q0083 0001

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the receipt date of quotations by one week to Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 2:00 pm Eastern Time and to provide answers to vendor questions.

See Continuation Pages.

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth Street NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005

To all Quoters/Bidders

DPE-PR-19-0018

95332419Q0083

1 6

07/22/2019

07/03/2019

95332419Q00830001

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Request for Quotations (RFQ) No. 95332419Q0083

MCC Threshold Program (THP) – Blanket Purchase Agreement

Amendment 0001 – Questions & Answers

1. We note the scope of work covered by this BPA appears to be similar to the scope contained in the BPAs that resulted from solicitation No. MCC-13-RFQ-0020, with those BPAs having expired in December 2018. While we note that there are some changes, could MCC please elaborate on the relationship between the services envisaged for this BPA and with those performed under the previous BPAs.

A #1: The Threshold Program BPA is a separate vehicle from any previous or existing MCC BPA. This will be the first of its kind for the Threshold Program and is not a re-compete of any previous MCC BPA.

2. RFP Section C.5, Labor Categories and Definitions (page 8), requires that the Managing Director have at least 20 years of relevant experience. By requiring such years of experience, offerors may be unable to utilize the most appropriate and qualified candidates and instead would have to staff more tenured candidates who may be less suited to oversee and perform this scope of work. To enable offerors to provide the best resources for this program, would MCC consider reducing this requirement to at least 10 years of relevant experience?

A #2: MCC is open to reducing the required number of years of experience for the Managing Director from 20 to 15. Section C.5 is hereby updated accordingly.

3. RFP Section C.5, Labor Categories and Definitions (page 8), requires that the Technical Specialists/Advisors have between 10 to 19 years’ experience with a Master’s degree, or more than 20 years without a Master’s. By requiring such years of experience, offerors may be unable to utilize the most appropriate and qualified candidates and instead would have to staff more tenured candidates who may be less suited to oversee and perform this scope of work. To enable offerors to provide the best resources for this program, would MCC consider reducing this requirement to a minimum of 12 years of relevant experience with a Master’s degree?

A #3: Provided the candidate has a Master’s degree, 12 years of relevant experience already falls within the acceptable range for the Technical Specialist/Advisor labor categories (i.e., qualified individuals must have between 10 and 19 years of experience and a Master’s degree).

4. RFP Section B.1, Price/Cost Schedule (page 4), and Section L.12, Preparation of Volume II – Cost Quotation (Page 35), requires that the offeror provide hourly rates by labor category. However, some firms perform and price exclusively utilizing commercial pricing methodologies such as all-inclusive weekly team rates, and do not have the ability to propose or price individual labor categories by hourly rates. Such commercial pricing methodologies allow firms the flexibility to bring all necessary resources, including both labor and non-labor assets (e.g. software tools, ODCs, proprietary datasets and research, and assessment methodologies), necessary for successful performance of this scope of work.

To promote a fair and open solicitation, would MCC allow offerors to propose a BPA rate card based on such commercial pricing methodologies, provided that such methodologies can be presented in sufficient detail to allow MCC to determine price realism and reasonableness?

A #4: This alternative will not be accepted; as prescribed in the RFQ, all offerors shall use the template found under Section B.1 – Price/Cost Schedule, providing fully burdened hourly rates for each labor category proposed, as part of the Volume II – Cost Quotation submission.

5. We note the Request for Quotes (RFQ) was released on July 3rd, just before many of our staff took a long weekend for the July 4th US Independence Day holiday. This makes submission of a high-quality offer challenging within the given timeline. Would MCC consider granting a 2-week extension with a new due date of August 14th, 2019?

A #5: The submission deadline is hereby extended by one week to Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 2:00 pm Eastern Time.

Section L.5.1. – Quotation Due Date is hereby replaced as follows:

“All offers must be provided in electronic format. The Offer due date is Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 2:00 pm Eastern Time to kapakasay@mcc.gov and naranjoj@mcc.gov.”

6. Section H.4 states that key personnel will be identified in each call order. In our offer, we will include CVs of proposed project team key staff for the illustrative call order response as instructed in Section L.11.2. Is the offeror able to include in the Appendix any additional CVs for proposed personnel, i.e. the Managing Director position?

A #6: Yes, the offeror may include additional CVs for proposed personnel in response to the illustrative call order exercise in the appendix to the Technical Quotation. See Q&A #13 below.

7. Since key personnel are not identified in the illustrative call order, is the offeror expected to designate certain staff as key? Can MCC provide any guidance in this regard?

A #7: Yes, the offeror is expected to designate certain staff as key for the illustrative call order exercise.

This should be based on the offeror’s assessment of which proposed team members should be considered key based on the nature of the illustrative call order SOW. See item (3) under the first bullet of Section L.11.2.

8. In Section B.2. FAR 52.216-1—Type of Contract (APR 1984), the client states that, “Call orders issued against the BPA will either be time-and-materials (T&M), labor-hour (LH), or firm-fixed price (FFP) type orders.” Given that the specified contract types all require fully-burdened labor rates, would MCC consider removing the request for the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement from section L.12.4? It is expected that various call orders will require the services of a subcontractor or independent consultant, in which case the application of NICRA indirect rates will change accordingly.

A #8: The contract type (e.g., T&M, labor hour, or firm‐fixed price) will be determined at the call order level based on the nature of the requirement; depending on the type of contract issued, allowable indirect costs will be recoverable on ODCs and eligible subcontracting costs. As such, offerors shall follow the requirement under Section L.12.4 – Preparation of Volume II – Cost Quotation and submit a copy of their Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) with their cognizant government agency, if applicable.

9. In Section H Clause 52.209-70, the client states potential conflict of interest related to this BPA. Please clarify if the contractor would be prevented from working on downstream Threshold work under the MCA. Further, would the contractor be conflicted from working for the MCA on a future compact with the same country in the same sector?

A #9: This question has Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) implications and OCI issues are typically addressed on a case‐by‐case basis based on specific facts regarding the particular circumstance. MCC does not anticipate any OCI issues at the BPA level, as there is no work associated with the BPA itself;

however, OCI issues may arise on specific call orders issued against the BPA, and those would be handled on a case‐by‐case basis. In general, a contractor may not implement work that it developed the terms of reference (TOR) for, or activities for which it provided substantial design services, unless an acceptable mitigation plan is proposed by the contractor and accepted by the Government.

10. Would MCC please clarify the relationship between this Threshold BPA and the existing sector specific BPAs?

A #10: The Threshold BPA is a new BPA that will be managed by MCC’s Threshold Programs Division; it is a separate BPA from any existing sector-specific BPA managed by MCC’s Department of Compact Operations (DCO). Whereas DCO’s sector-specific BPAs are utilized for the technical skills and experience of firms in identified sectors, the Threshold BPA seeks a firm first and foremost with deep knowledge and experience in policy and institutional reform, including an appreciation of the non-technical complexities involved. Technical competency is valued and will be assessed, but secondary to policy and institutional reform experience.

Institutional improvement often involves the willingness of stakeholders to adapt to change, to accept and apply new technologies and skills, to respond to new incentives, and, at times, to approach work with a different performance-oriented mindset. These are great, non-technical challenges which rest at the core of many threshold programs. It is these types of factors that contribute to reform failure and lack of sustainability of reforms. The Threshold BPA firm will appreciate these complexities and help Threshold Programs design and implement programs in a manner which places these issues at the center of reform, not on the periphery or overwhelmed by technical approaches.

11. Who would manage this BPA, is it MCC’s Threshold Program team or the Department of Compact Operations team?

A #11: MCC’s Threshold Program team will manage this BPA.

12. We understand that the illustrative call order work plan (which includes the staffing plan) is not subject to the 5-page limit for the technical quotation. Is there a separate page limit for the work plan?

A #12: Please limit the work plan to 3 pages.

13. Is there a page limit for each CV submitted for the illustrative call order?

A #13: Please limit each CV to 2 pages in length.

14. Is there a file size limit for files that bidders submit to MCC as part of their proposal?

A #14: The maximum email message size supported by MCC's server is 35 MB. Note that this is the limit for the entire message, not just the attachment(s). A typical message size is 30-40% larger than the included attachments. See Section L.9. MCC 52.204-71 Notice of MCC Electronic Mail Filters (JUNE 2019) for additional information.

15. Section B.4 provides the stipulated ceiling of $7 million for each individual purchase under the BPA. Can MCC provide the estimated ceiling for the overall BPA?

A #15: The overall BPA will not have a ceiling; ceilings will be determined and set at the call order level, subject to the limitation stated at Section B.4. That said, the estimated total yearly level of effort (LOE) is approximately 2,300 hours. An estimated 21 trips (total) are anticipated per year to threshold countries.

The anticipated yearly budget is around $900,000 (total, labor + ODCs). These figures are rough estimates and may be adjusted higher or lower depending on the needs of the threshold team.

16. Section E2 indicates that the contractor must have a Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (QA/QC) in place. Are bidders required to submit the QA/QC with the proposal? Or is the expectation that the QA/QC will be in place at the BPA implementation stage?

A #16: The submission of a Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (QA/QC) is not required as part of the quotation for the BPA; indeed, the QA/QC plan should be in place at the BPA implementation stage.

17. Section H.5 of the RFQ details request for Call Order Quotations. Can MCC clarify whether proposed rates under the BPA for the labor categories will be negotiated further at the Call Order Quotations stage?

A #17: It is MCC’s expectation that quoters will offer their most competitive prices at both the BPA and call order level. This may result in discounts at the call order level, but not necessarily. Call order pricing will be established based on the maximum BPA rates. MCC expects that quoters will offer discounts on the BPA rates as appropriate to deliver competitive pricing.

18. Section L.11.5 states the following: “In lieu of the past performance questionnaire, offerors may choose to submit a copy of a completed CPAR record. CPAR records may be included in the appendix to Volume I.” Could contractors submit a CPAR for a project for which they are/were a prime for other U.S.

Government agencies, such as USAID, USDA, etc.?

A #18: Yes, CPARS records from other U.S. Government agencies are acceptable.

19. We understand that CVs are requested for the illustrative Call Order. Can you please confirm that no other CVs or profiles of personnel for the BPA are required?

A #19: Correct. MCC is only requesting CVs for the illustrative call order, which may include CVs for proposed labor categories (i.e. Managing Director, technical specialists, etc.). CVs and/or personnel profiles are not required for the BPA.

20. Section H, page 17 of 38 states the following: “In accordance with the principles of FAR Subpart 9.5, THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE INELIGIBLE TO FURNISH, AS A PRIME OR SUBCONTRACTOR OR OTHERWISE; THE

IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES FOR ANY ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH IT PROVIDES SUBSTANTIAL DESIGN SERVICES EXCEPT FOR SUCH SERVICES THAT MAY BE FURNISHED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. If a determination is made that the contractor is ineligible for implementation services, the MCC Managing Director of Contracts and Grants Management may authorize a waiver (in accordance with FAR 9.503) if the Director determines that preclusion of the Contractor from the implementation contract would not be in the Government's best interest.” We understand this FAR subpart to mean that work under this BPA will not generally preclude the contractor from implementation of the Threshold programs in the future, and if a conflict of interest is determined, then the MCC Managing Director may grant a waiver for the contractor to provide implementation services. Can MCC confirm that our understanding is correct?

A #20: Please refer to the answer provided for question #9 above.

21. … In the ToR, form: SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL - FEBRUARY 2019, do we understand correctly that the individuals who we propose in the team have to have US citizenship or have Permanent Resident Status in the U.S?

A #21: To be clear, MCC is not requesting a proposed team for the BPA (only for the illustrative call order). However, to answer the question, the contractor’s proposed team members (at the call order level) need not be U.S. citizens or have Permanent Residen66t Status in the U.S.