MCC-17-RFQ-0087_0001_final.pdf

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

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:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(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 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 is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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.

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

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 12

See Block 16C

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Contracts and Grants Management Division

1099 Fourteenth Street NW

Suite 700

Washington DC 20005

Millennium Challenge Corporation

Contracts and Grants Management Division

1099 Fourteenth Street NW

Suite 700

Washington DC 20005

To all Offerors/Bidders

MCC-17-RFQ-0087

06-20-2017

X

See CONTINUATION Page

X

The purpose of this modification is to provide responses to the questions submitted and modify the RFQ accordingly.

Taylor Wolf

MCC-17-RFQ-0087 Modification 0001 Page 2

1. On Cover Page in Block 8, delete submission date “06-28-2017” and insert “07-07-2017”;

2. In Section C:

a. Section C.4 REQUIRED RESOURCES, clarify the personnel requirements, change the key personnel and provide personnel for each CLIN as follows:

Key Personnel (KP) are required and should include:

(1) Mid-level Project Manager, (2) Senior Partnerships Expert, and (3) Mid-Level Partnerships Expert

Suggested Non-Key Personnel (NKP) – The Quoters are welcome to propose their own mix of personnel to complement Key Personnel. MCC suggests Quoters consider the following roles as part of the team structure, but

Quoters are welcome to propose a staffing complement that they think best helps MCC achieve contract objectives as outlined in the Statement of Work:

(1) Senior Communication Specialist

(2) Senior Partnerships Analyst

(3) Mid-level Partnerships Analyst

(4) Partnerships Trainer

(5) Systems Specialist

All positions, including Key Personnel, do not require full term employment. They may be intermittent and focused based on the SOW requirements.

Personnel split by CLINs:

CLIN 0001 FFP Tasks 1-3, POP 9 months Mid-level Project Manager (KP)

Senior and Mid-level Partnerships Experts (KP)

Partnerships Trainer (NKP)

Senior Communication Specialist

Mid-level Partnerships Analyst (NKP)

CLIN 1001AA

T&M

Task 4, POP 3 months Senior Partnership Expert (KP)

Mid-Level Partnerships Analyst (NKP)

Systems specialist (NKP)

CLIN 2001A

T&M

Task 5, POP 6 months Senior Partnership Expert (KP)

Partnerships Trainer (NKP)

Mid-level Partnerships Analyst (NKP)

b. In Section C.5 PERSONNEL SKILLS REQUIREMENTS, add: “Master’s degree can be substituted with

Bachelor’s degree plus five years or more of relevant professional experience for each position listed. Bachelor’s degree is required.”

3. In Section F, F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE AND LEVEL OF EFFORT, delete and replace the LOE chart:

CLINs Labor Categories Seniority (Scale of I-III, with I being most senior)

Option

Period 1, Hours

Option

Period 2, Hours

1001 Senior Partnership Expert (KP)

Mid-Level Partnerships Analyst (NKP)

Systems specialist (NKP)

I

II

II

2001 Senior Partnership Expert (KP)

Mid-Level Partnerships Analyst (NKP)

II

II

II

4. In Section H, H.1 KEY PERSONNEL, delete the key personnel list and replace with the following:

1. Mid-level Project Manager

2. Senior Partnerships Expert

3. Mid-Level Partnerships Expert

5. In Section L:

a. In Section L.4.2 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY a) add “The technical quote can be also submitted in PDF file in addition to Microsoft Word file” and change “The Quoter should submit a technical quote of not more than 15 (17 pages with subpartners) (1+9+5(7 with subpartners)) see split below…”

b. In Section L.4.3 VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE (MAX 5 (7 with subpartners) PAGES), add “In case quoters will have a teaming arrangement with subpartners, please provide 3 past performances for the prime quoter and 2 for the subpartner. The page limitation is extended from 5 pages to 7 pages to accommodate 2 additional past performances.

c. In Section L.5 QUOTE SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS, delete the quotes submission date and insert

“Quotes are due no later than 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on July 7, 2017.”

6. In Section M, M.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA, delete evaluation criteria and replace with:

“(1) Technical Capability and Personnel

Subfactor 1: Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan

• Clearly proposed management of the engagement and comprehensive approach towards the proposed team deployed to effectively perform the tasks and submit deliverables.

• Proposed Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan clearly supports the SOW requirements and provides non-interrupted personnel engagement

• Clearly demonstrates experience and established procedures for mobilizing the experts, anticipated time required to identify and mobilize experts

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

• Clearly demonstrated understanding of the requirement, the feasibility of the proposed approach, and methods for controlling the quality of work.

• Clearly demonstrates experience and established procedures for conducting the assignments listed in the SOW

• Clearly demonstrates experience and methodology for quality control and timely submission of the deliverables

(2) Past Performance

Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance standards. Previous performance of key staff and the contractor in delivering quality and timely work. Each Offeror will be evaluated on their performance under existing and prior contracts for similar services during the past five (5) years in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance standards. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality performance relevant to the size and complexity of the requirement under consideration.

The Government reserves the right to consider information from any other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance.

(3) Price

The Government will examine price quotes for reasonableness and completeness.”

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Q.1 MCC responses to the questions will be critical in determining the activities, level of effort and budgets. Would MCC consider adjusting the deadline to at least one full week following public posting of questions and responses in order for bidders to adapt bids according to MCC’s responses?

A – The deadline for submitting the proposals is extended until 10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on July

7, 2017.

Q.2 MCC previously posted a position for a personal service contractor working with the OSP. Does MCC intend to engage a consulting firm as described in this RFQ in addition to the PSC or instead of the PSC?

A – The hiring of a potential OSP Personal Service Contractor (PSC) is separate from and outside the scope of this RFQ. The OSP PSC position that was previously posted is currently on hold pending further guidance.

Q.3 Some of the timelines look to be very tight. To what extent are the timelines adjustable?

A – We have assumed you are referring to the timelines in the deliverables table in Section F.5. MCC will hold a post award meeting with the successful bidder to reconfirm program milestones, walk through dependencies, and discuss optimal sequencing of work streams based upon MCC need, work that the OSP team has already completed, and capabilities that the successful bidder is bringing to MCC. The timelines noted in Section F.5 are estimates and may be adjusted at MCC’s discretion and in conversation with the successful bidder. Bidders are welcome to suggest an alternate spacing of deliverables in their proposals, but should remain mindful that OSP seeks to complete the activities for CLIN 0001 within nine months of contract award and that complementary work streams are allowed.

Q.4 Several of the areas of CLIN 0001 do not fully define the deliverables, scope or role of the Contractor to be able to accurately provide an expected LOE. Would MCC consider making CLIN 0001 a T&M contract, or otherwise set out an indication of the expected number of days for each task within CLIN 0001?

A - CLIN 0001 remains Firm Fixed Price. MCC has provided additional detail in response to Question 18 regarding MCC’s overall estimate of the LOE for completing this work, and recognizes that the full scope and design of the deliverables noted in Section F.5 will be finalized in discussion between OSP and the successful bidder.

Q.5 Would MCC be able to consider a proposal for CLIN 0001 which includes different options (based on different assumptions and depth of work) and therefore a cost range rather than a single price?

A – Yes, you may provide up to two technical and budget scenarios for CLIN 0001 FFP for Tasks 1-3 in the SOW.

These two scenarios will have to be clearly marked and separated in the technical and budget proposals. The page limitation for the technical proposal will remain the same. CLIN 0001 will stay as Firm Fixed Price.

Q.6 Would MCC consider including an upfront landscaping assessment in order to provide MCC a holistic overview of how other development partners and funders utilize strategic partnerships and some of the “best practices” gained from their experience?

A – MCC chooses not to expand the deliverable set at this time.

Q.7 Given the nature of the innovative solutions that may be proposed in response to this solicitation, can

MCC provide guidance to Offerors on how to label or flag information they propose to withhold from being unlimited rights data, pursuant to 52.227- 23?

A – Please mark the proprietary information in red and make a footnote of it in the bottom of the page.

Q.8 Can MCC please furnish a copy of Standard Form 33 (SF 33) as it is required in the cost submission, but not provided in the solicitation?

A – A sample form SF 33 link is https://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116254 https://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116254

Q.9 Does MCC have the anticipated award and start date of this contract?

A – An anticipated award date is September 2017.

Q.10 Is there a size limitation for attachments on submission emails?

A – Please follow the submission guidelines on pages 42-43 and limit the attachments to 3MB per one email. In case of submitting several emails, please mark them email 1, email 2, etc.

Q.11 Is this RFQ the same as the “Strategic Partnership Scoping, Assessment, and Facilitation” referenced in

MCC’s 2017 Business forecast?

A – This RFQ draws activities from two elements of MCC’s 2017 Business Forecast: FY17-0695 “Partnership

Scoping, Assessment, and Facilitation” and FY17-0696 “Partnership Tools and Skills Development”, however the estimated budget ranges as advertised in the Forecast no longer necessarily correlate to the current budget of this contract RFQ.

SECTION C - STATEMENT OF WORK

Section C.3 SOW and Tasks Task 1.

Q.12 How frequently do you anticipate the firm to be physically present in the MCC offices in Washington, DC?

A – MCC anticipates that relevant personnel from the firm would be physically present in the MCC offices in

Washington, DC on average 2 weeks per month, mainly for the purposes of stakeholder and status meetings, workshops, collaboration, and discussions that benefit from in-person interaction. Due to security and space considerations, MCC will not provide dedicated work space to the firm at MCC offices for the life of this contract.

Bidders are encouraged to note when their team would be working virtually versus when members of the team would be on-site at MCC.

Q.13 Is there any objection to holding the biweekly status meetings virtually or with a team member joining in person and the Project Manager virtually? How often would the Project Manager need to be physically present in

DC?

A – There is no objection to holding the biweekly status meeting with a team member joining in person and the

Project Manager joining virtually; however the Project Manager should be physically present at MCC for the

Kick-Off Meeting and any key workshops.

Task 2.1.

Q.14 Please confirm that by country counterpart, you mean the MCAs in country rather than government or other counterparts.

A – Country counterpart refers to MCAs or Implementing Entities (line ministries supporting implementation) in country.

Q.15 For how many countries are we expected to undertake the assessments? Is this the three countries

(mentioned in F.3 travel requirements)?

A – The known travel requirements are listed in Section F.3. There is no other information available as of now.

Q.16 The RFQ states "MCC may ask the Contractor to survey and/or interview current and prospective strategic partners... to assess external perspectives about MCC and country counterpart’s current ability and potential to more effectively partner." Can you please confirm that this should be included in the quote?

A- Yes, this should be included in the quote.

Task 2.2:

Q.17 "The Contractor shall assist the Office of Strategic Partnerships in the development, syndication, and implementation of a Partnership Strategy." Can you more clearly define what 'assist' means in this case? Will the

OSP be leading, with the Contractor providing support, or will the Contractor be responsible for the development of the Strategy, working closely with the OSP?

A – OSP seeks to team with the Contractor in developing the Partnerships Strategy; with the Contractor providing insights on both how MCC and country counterparts might most effectively utilize partnerships to achieve MCC’s mission; and insights on how MCC might most effectively build its institutional culture and capabilities for partnership . “Assist” in this case means that OSP expects the firm to not just support the development and documentation of materials (i.e., the drafting of a document), but also partnering with OSP in promoting, socializing, and attaining buy-in of concepts and deliverables with key MCC and MCA stakeholders.

Q.18 Could MCC please specify the expected number of days of support they will require, which would then be allocated based on the inception report and kick-off meeting?

A – MCC estimates that approximately 450-475 days of support will be required to complete CLIN 0001. As noted in Section C.4, not all positions require full-time employment and MCC expects bidders to identify when and how key and non-key personnel would be engaged over the course of this initiative.

Task 2.4.

Q.19 Can you confirm our assumption that the Contractor's role wrt "collecting and analysing reporting data" will be providing guidance and support to MCC staff rather than undertaking any such activity itself.

A – That is correct. To clarify Section 2.4, “Strategic Partnership Measurement and Reporting Framework”, MCC seeks Contractor support in developing the metrics, KPIs, data collection, and reporting process for partnership; but would not expect the Contractor to be involved in the ongoing collection or analysis of reporting data.

Task 2.5

Q.20 As this task is quite open ended, can you provide an expected number of days required for task?

A – MCC anticipates the LOE for Task 4.5 to be approximately 30-45 days over the life of the contract.

Q.21 Task 3.1 Should the graphic design costs be included in the quote or will that be taken care of by MCC?

A – Graphic design costs should be included in the quote.

Task 3.2

Q.22 Within this contract, would the in-person training be expected to take place just once or be delivered several times? Would this be only in DC or also in-country? Is that what 'implementation support' means in the deliverables?

A – The in-person training is expected to take place at least twice in Washington DC – including once for MCC staff and once for visiting MCA staff. The training may also be recorded for on-demand access by future students; and the course would be delivered on an ongoing basis by OSP team members in the future.

Q.23 Once the course and curriculum has been refined, is it correct to assume further in-person training events would be outside of scope of this contract? Is there any requirement for training-of-trainers?

A – Yes, further in-person training would be outside the scope of this contract. The Contractor for this RFQ would train the four-person OSP team to deliver the course as part of the deliverables hand-over.

Q.24 Self-study delivery options range hugely in their sophistication, required development time and cost of technology. Can you provide any further guidance on the expected level of sophistication (e.g. interactive through a program like Articulate Storyline, videos etc.)? Can you please confirm whether the bidder or MCC should assume full costs of software, development and instructional design to create online or interactive self-guided modules (beyond the core material created by the Contractor that they would be based on)?

A – MCC encourages a cost-effective approach to training delivery and does not expect sophisticated online training development (e.g., creating a multi-module, interactive Computer-Based Training course), to be in-scope for this RFQ. OSP seeks help developing a robust partnerships training course for MCC and MCA staff that utilizes relevant existing internal and external online training materials and incorporates elements and videos from newly-created training content that would also be delivered via the in-person course.

Task 4.

Q.25 Please confirm whether task four includes identification of the specific technology system to be agreed and used by MCC? Would it include the development with the service provider of full technical specifications for the CRM?

A – Several MCC teams currently utilize Salesforce as a contact management platform and OSP assumes

Salesforce would be the platform leveraged for Task 4.

Section C.4 – C.5 states “the team should include the following key personnel members…”.

Q.26 MCC has listed six key personnel in section C.4 and four in section C.5. In addition the experience and capabilities of the ‘Mid-level project manager’, two “Partnerships experts” and two “Partnerships analysts” are very similar. It is possible that contractors may be able to find synergy in this staffing model, reduce the number of personnel supporting MCC, and reduce total cost to MCC. MCC has also stated that contractors “…may propose other personnel categories to better fit the team.”

A – Please see response to question 43.

Q.27 Will MCC consider removing the key designation on all personnel and allow contractors to propose a team (including identification of key personnel) with the cumulative experience outlined detailed at the end of section C.5? This will provide the flexibility for contractors to right-size the project team, offer flexible solutions with varying levels of seniority.

A – Please see response to question 43.

SECTION F AND PERSONNEL QUESTIONS

Q.28 As written, most of the position descriptions require Master's Degrees. Is that an absolute requirement, or would expertise based on many years of professional experience and leadership be sufficient?

A – The Master’s Degree can be substituted with the Bachelor’s Degree plus 5 years or more of relevant professional experience.

Section F.2 Table – Labor Categories Non-key personnel

Q.29 The labor categories in the table conflict with the list of key and non-key personnel (i.e. Senior

Consultant), can the government clarify the personnel it would like contractors to propose and price for these option periods?

A – The key personnel listed in Section C.4 lists all required personnel to complete the SOW, both for FFP and

T&M CLINs. Section F.2 refers only to T&M CLINs in the RFQ. In Section F.2 personnel for the FFM CLIN is not listed. Non-key personnel do not have the required LOE, it is the quoters decision whether and how much

LOE is required for the non-key personnel; and how non-key personnel align to their proposed Technical

Approach.

Q.30 Please confirm there is no requirement for the project manager position to be based in DC.

A – There is no requirement for the project manager to be based in DC, though, as previously noted, MCC expects the project manager to attend key project meetings in person.

Q.31 In the table on page 19, can MCC please confirm that “Senior Consultant” refers to the “Senior

Partnership Expert” key personnel position?

A – Please see response to Question 29. Those lists are not equal.

Q.32 In the table on page 19, can MCC please provide a division of hours between the Senior- and Mid-level

Partnerships Analyst?

A – It is up to the Quoter to propose the split.

Q.33 In the table on page 19, can MCC please indicate which of the labor categories “Partnership Consultant” aligns to?

A – Please see the team’s requirements in Section C.5.

Q.34 On page 19, MCC indicates that the “contractor should make 1-2 of their consultants available for 3-4 days per week for at least the 9-month baseline period.” Can MCC please indicate what positions it envisions should be made available for the frequency and period of time indicated?

A - MCC’s envisions that one partnership expert and one analyst would be onsite on average two weeks per month for the baseline period.

Q.35 On pp. 44-45, MCC indicates that the contractor is required to provide a break-out of the components of a fully loaded labor rate. Can MCC confirm whether a NICRA or audited financials are required to substantiate indirect costs? If this is required and the contractor does not currently have a NICRA or audited financials, can

MCC confirm it would be permissible for the contractor to use its MOBIS schedule?

A – If the Quotes has NICRA, please provide a cope with the price quote. In cases where NICRA is not available, please list all costs directly related to implementation of this SOW.

Q.36 While the contact period for CLIN 0001 is for 9 months, all deliverables are due within 120 business days of contract award. Would MCC consider revising the deliverable dates or allowing offerors to propose deliverables dates under Section F.5 to allow offerors to create a schedule that meets the scope of work and most efficiently allocates resources across tasks?

A – Yes, offers are invited to propose a schedule that optimizes the allocation of their resources across the various work streams while achieving the objectives noted in the RFQ within 9 months. OSP estimated that the deliverables would be completed in the first 6 months of the 9 month CLIN 0001 so as to allow time for socialization, implementation, and refinement of deliverables with MCC staff and country counterparts.

Q.37 Can MCC kindly confirm that offerors may propose additional non-key personnel they feel might be required to efficiently complete the SOW for all CLINs?

A – Offerors should propose a team that they believe is capable of completing the work outlined in the SOW and avoid adding non-key personnel that do not clearly align to the objectives of this contract. Key Personnel are the only required roles.

Q.38 On page 19, the non-key personnel Labor Categories are mapped to a seniority scale. Can MCC please provide the requirements for the Seniority Scale so that offerors may propose candidates with the appropriate level of experience?

A – The seniority requirements are the following - a minimum of 7-10 years’ experience in the cross-sector partnership space for the Mid-level Expert and 10-12 years for the Senior Expert.

Q.39 Would MCC consider letting offerors propose the staffing approach and team positions which best suits their proposed technical approach, rather than the specific key personnel positions on pages 14-15 as long as they insure all skills, knowledge and expertise areas are met through the proposed team? Offerors could then designate at least 3 personnel as key, including an overall manager or leader.

A – MCC has reduced the number of Key Personnel to: Project Manager, Senior Partnership Expert, and Mid-

Level Partnership Expert. Key personnel must be committed to this contract upon contract awards. Bidders are invited to propose a staffing approach which best aligns to their proposed technical approach and encouraged to provide names and resumes for all proposed members of their team.

Q.40 Could one individual play multiple key personnel roles if they bring the skill set needed, of course ensuring the team is adequately resourced?

A – Yes, and also one role can be split between two people for better qualifications fit.

Q.41 Can MCC confirm there are no required Labor Categories for CLIN 0001?

A – All personnel are listed in Section C.4, CLIN 0001 is FFP and does not have the LOE split, only T&M CLINs have listed LOE hours.

Q.42 Would MCC clarify the difference in skills and expertise between Partnership Expert and Partnership

Analyst? The requirements on page 15 only seem to address the Expert.

A – Please see the team’s requirements in Section C.5

Q.43 On Page 7 the labor categories defined for CLIN 1001 and 2001 are Senior consultant, Analyst, and

Systems specialist (CLIN 1001) and Partnership Consultant, Trainer, and Analyst (CLIN2001), but on page Non-

Key Personnel are noted as Partnership Trainer, Industry Expert, and Systems Specialist. Could MCC please clarify if these positions map to the outlined labor categories defined on page 7?

A – please see the revised Key Personnel and Non-Key Personnel map below:

Key Personnel (KP) are required and should include:

(1) Mid-level Project Manager, (2) Senior Partnerships Expert, and (3) Mid-Level Partnerships Expert

Suggested Non-Key Personnel (NKP) – The Quoters are welcome to propose their own mix of personnel to complement Required Resources. MCC suggests Quoters consider the following roles as part of the team structure:

(1) Senior Communication Specialist

(2) Senior Partnerships Analyst

(3) Mid-level Partnerships Analyst

(4) Partnerships Trainer

(5) Systems Specialist

Personnel split by CLINs:

CLIN 0001 FFP Tasks 1-3, POP 9 months Mid-level Project Manager (KP)

Senior and Mid-level Partnerships Experts (KP)

Partnerships Trainer (NKP)

Senior Communication Specialist

Mid-level Partnerships Analyst (NKP)

CLIN 1001AA

T&M

Task 4, POP 3 months Senior Partnership Expert (KP)

Mid-Level Partnerships Analyst (NKP)

Systems specialist (NKP)

CLIN 2001A

T&M

Task 5, POP 6 months Senior Partnership Expert (KP)

Mid-level Partnerships Analyst (NKP)

Q.44 Can MCC please clarify if there are specific skills requirements for non-key personnel?

A – Please see the team’s requirements in Section C.5.

Q.45 Can MCC please further elaborate on the skills requirements and distinctions between the Partnership

Expert and Partnership Analyst positions?

A – Please see the team’s requirements in Section C.5

Q.46 Can MCC please confirm that the Key Personnel positions are envisioned to be filled by one individual person. For example, the same person many not hold both the project manager and mid-level partnership expert position if they meet qualifications for both. Conversely, two people may not be proposed for as a partnership expert and divide the workshare among work streams?

A – Please see response to question 40.

SECTION L

Q.47 Would MCC consider allowing offerors to also submit a .pdf version of their Volume 1 Technical approach? Graphs and charts when included at a high resolution to ensure readability often increase the size of the file above the government’s attachment limitations. PDF files ensure the formatting of the submission is preserved and also reduce and compress file size.

A – Yes, please submit a PDF and the Word version of the technical quote.

Section L.4.2“…Times New Roman 12 point font, single spaced…”

Q.48 Will the government accept tables, charts, and graphics in less than 12 pt. font as long as they are legible?

A – yes, please no smaller than 8 pt.

Section L.4.4.b “The labor in the budget should be displayed as a fully loaded labor rate. Separately the offeror must provide for each fully loaded labor rate a split that consists of all elements included in the fully loaded labor rate:

1. Actual labor rate (unloaded)

2. Fringe benefits

3. G&A or any other indirect costs

4. Fee

5. Other

Q.49 Many of MCC’s contractors treat employee salaries as highly confidential and sensitive information.

Given that this project is a firm fixed price ‘commercial item’ acquisition and not cost reimbursable (FAR 15) in nature, would MCC consider removing the requirement for breakdown of the fully loaded labor rate and simply allow offerors to complete table J.1 per the instructions on page 44?

A – MCC is asking the quoters to provide the split. In case the quoters will make a business decision not to provide the split, their offers will be still reviewed and will be considered compliant with the RFQ requirements.

Q.50 Can MCC confirm that CVs for non-key personnel can also be included as an annex?

A – Yes, please.

Q.51 If a contractor teaming arrangement is proposed, can MCC confirm that together the team should submit a total of 3 past performance example?

A – Please provide 3 past performances for the prime quoter and 2 for the subpartner. In this case, the page limitation will be extended from 5 pages to 7 pages to accommodate 2 additional past performances.

Q.52 Pg 44, L.4.3 asks for contract value for past performance references, but then is followed by a bolded statement to not provide any pricing information in Volume 2. Could MCC please clarify?

A – We are simply asking to separate the price quotes from the technical and past performance information in separate volumes.

SECTION M, PART M.2

(1) Technical Capability and Personnel Subfactor 1: “a) Provides management strategy with methodology for accomplishing tasks and deliverables for HR services”

Q.53 Can the government clarify the relevance of “HR Services” in this sub-factor?

A – Please see below revised selection factors:

(1) Technical Capability and Personnel

Subfactor 1: Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan

Clearly proposed management of the engagement and comprehensive approach towards the proposed team deployed to effectively perform the tasks and submit deliverables.

Proposed Organizational Chart and Staffing Plan clearly supports the SOW requirements and provides non-interrupted personnel engagement

Clearly demonstrates experience and established procedures for mobilizing the experts, anticipated time required to identify and mobilize experts

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach

Clearly demonstrated understanding of the requirement, the feasibility of the proposed approach, and methods for controlling the quality of work.

Clearly demonstrates experience and established procedures for conducting the assignments listed in the SOW

Clearly demonstrates experience and methodology for quality control and timely submission of the deliverables

(2) Past Performance

Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance standards. Previous performance of key staff and the contractor in delivering quality and timely work. Each Offeror will be evaluated on their performance under existing and prior contracts for similar services during the past five (5) years in terms of cost control, quality of work, and compliance with performance standards. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality performance relevant to the size and complexity of the requirement under consideration.

The Government reserves the right to consider information from any other sources when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance.

(3) Price

The Government will examine price quotes for reasonableness and completeness.”

Q.54 Technical Capability and Personnel Subfactor 2: “a) Describes personnel’s suitability for carrying out specific tasks e.g. professional and technical qualifications, specialized HR experience and technical competence necessary for satisfactory performance of required services” Can the government clarify the relevance of “HR experience” in this sub-factor?

A – Please see response to question 53.

(1) Technical Capability & Personnel & (2) Technical Approach

Q.55 Subfactor 2’s evaluation appear to be broken into two sections detailed in the three bullets and two lettered (a & b) areas. The two lettered elements appear to overlap with many of the areas evaluated as part of subfactor 1. Was it MCC’s intention that offerors include a discussion of personnel and staffing in both the (1)

Technical Capability & Personnel and (2) Technical Approach?

A – Please see response to question 53.

Q.56 Pg 47, M.2.1.a of the evaluation criteria references “… tasks and deliverables for HR services”. Could

MCC please clarify if the reference to HR services should be a specific nuanced focus of our management strategy approach, or could it possibly be a typo?

A - Please see response to question 53.

BUDGET

Q.57 Can MCC provide an indicative budget for the Base Period or, if not, an estimated total person/days required for the Base Period?

A – Please see response to Question 18.

Q.58 Please confirm if you would prefer the budget (LOE and rates) to be presented in hours or days?

A – Please present the price quote LOE in hours.

Q.59 We work through an established network of consultants who complement our core team. We pay our consultants rates inclusive of their fringe benefits. When we show the unbundled cost breakdown for labor rates in the budget, should we show the total consultants’ rate in the unbundled line (with nothing for fringe benefits), or should we show a portion of the rate under the fringe benefits line?

A – You may separate the core team LOE from the consultants LOE rates.

Q.60 Could MCC kindly provide a “plug figure” for travel and travel-related expenses (hotel, M&IE, etc.) to ensure cost comparability between offerors for CLIN 0001? Alternatively, could MCC consider making only the labor component of CLIN 0001 fixed price, with the ODC component recoverable on a cost reimbursable basis for actual costs incurred?

A – Yes, the Labor LOE component in CLIN 0001 will be FFP and the ODC can be reimbursable. The countries where people will be travelling are not yet confirmed. OSP recommends that bidders assume visiting one country in Asia and two in Africa. Please provide your best estimate in the price quote.

Q.61 Travel reimbursement. Please provide MCC approved per diem rates to be followed.

A – MCC follows the Department of State per diem rates https://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem.asp

Q.62 May each Offeror price the Optional CLINs using their own standard commercial labor categories, whether they are hourly or team-based? Further, if an Offeror’s standard commercial labor categories are all-inclusive team-based, may such Offerors build up to a Firm Fixed Price for each option? The options could then be refined prior to being exercised. This will enhance competition and allow more firms to participate in this acquisition.

A – No, please follow FFP and T&M requirements for each CLIN specified in the RFQ.

Q.63 Would MCC be willing to provide a budget range or government estimate for services under this RFQ?

A – No

Q.64 Would MCC consider allowing offerors to submit only fully burdened labor rates (and not including the detailed breakdown) as this is a FFP and T&M contract and offerors will be responsible for managing costs to meet those rates?

A – please see response to question 49.

Q.65 Can MCC provide a ceiling price or price range in which they expect it would cost to perform the entire

SOW?

A - No

End of Modification 0001.

https://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem.asp