20131129_-_RFP-SOL-486-14-000050_VN_Evaluation _Monitoring _and_Survey_Services_-_Amendment_2.pdf

Solicitation # SOL-486-14-000050 USAID/Vietnam Evaluation, Monitoring and Survey Service AMENDMENT No. 2

SPECIFIC CHANGES ARE:

1. Delete the narrative at Section L.7– INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL and replace it with the following:

“L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL

The total estimated cost (TEC) for the activity, including all tasks, is estimated at approximately $3,000,000 to $3,500,000 for base years and approximately $700,000 to $1,000,000 and $300,000 to $500,000 for each of the two option years, respectively, totaling to 3 base years and a two-year option period. Revealing the total estimated cost of the contract does not mean that Offerors should necessarily strive to meet the maximum amount. Offerors must propose costs that they believe are realistic and reasonable for the work in accordance with their respective technical proposals.

L.7.1 Submission Instructions

The total cost-plus-fixed fee budget is approximately $4,000,000 to $5,000,000, including the three base years and two-year option period. Offeror must submit a Cost Proposal which will be analyzed as part of the overall evaluation as indicated in Section M. The Offeror’s Cost Proposal must at a minimum include the following information and be organized in the manner described below…”

2. Delete the narrative at Section M.2 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA and replace it with the following:

“The criteria listed below are presented by major category, in descending order of importance, so that the Offerors know which areas require emphasis in the preparation of their proposals. Offerors should note that these criteria serve as the standard against which all technical information will be evaluated and serve to identify the significant matters which Offerors should address. Unless indicated otherwise, subfactors listed under each factor are not ranked in any order of importance, but are evaluated as a whole in determining the score for this factor. The following technical evaluation criteria will be considered:

• Technical Approach, Proposed Work Plan, and Summary M&E Plan

• Management Approach

• Personnel

• Institutional Experience and Capability

• Past Performance

“Technical Approach, Proposed Work Plan, and Summary M&E Plan” is the most important evaluation criterion.

“Management Approach” and “Institutional Experience and Capability” are in the second and third order of importance, respectively. When combined, the two criteria are less importance than “Technical Approach, Proposed Work Plan, and Summary M&E Plan”. “Personnel” and “Past Performance” are equally weighted as the fourth level of importance.

3. Incorporate the answers to questions received with regards to Solicitation # SOL-486-14-000050, as detailed in Attachment A.

{END OF AMENDMENT No. 2}

ATTACHMENT A

Answers to Questions Received under RFTOP # SOL-486-14-000050 - USAID/Vietnam Evaluation, Monitoring and Survey Service

1. Question: On the FedBizOpps.gov page as well as RFP page 1, the Solicitation number is listed as SOL-486-

14-000050. On RFP page 3 and 53, the Solicitation number is listed as SOL-486-13-000050. Could you please confirm which solicitation number should be used?

Answer: Reference Solicitation Amendment #1.

2. Question: On page 3 of the RFP, it states that the hard copy proposals should be delivered to the Regional

Office of Procurement, USAID Regional Development Mission/Asia, USAID Box 47, Bangkok, APO AP 96546.

However in Section L on page 53 it states that the proposals shall be delivered to the Office of Acquisition and Assistance, USAID/Vietnam, 15th Floor – Tung Shing Building, #2 Ngo Quyen Street. Hanoi Vietnam. Could you please confirm where hard copy proposals should be submitted?

3. Question: We are requesting for a two weeks extension until December 15, 2013 for submission of Proposal in view of the upcoming holiday season

4. Question: The RFP states that 5 hard copies are due on December 2, 2013 at 4PM Hanoi time at the address presented in item 7. However, the address presented in item 7 is in Bangkok, Thailand. Likewise, on page 53 – the RFP states to submit to the address in Vietnam. (Page. 3, SF 33, item 7 and 9 Section L.5 Pg. 53)

• Should hard five copies of the technical and cost proposal be provided in Vietnam or the Thailand address?

• Please confirm that the maximum electronic file size, per email is 5mb.

Answer: Maximum electronic file size shall not exceed 10MB per e-mail.

• Would USAID/Vietnam consider extending the proposal response by two weeks to December 15, 2013 due to the American holidays?

• Would USAID/Vietnam consider accepting electronic copies by the proposal due date (either December

2nd or a new extended due date), followed up by hard copies submitted ten business days after to account for shipping time?

Answer: Both electronic and hard-copy proposals are due (received at the location specified in Amendment #1) by the same date and time in accordance with Section L.5.1.

5. Question: We also request USAID to consider acceptance of the hard copy submission via (commercial courier) post marked by the due date of the proposal to arrive in Vietnam after submission of the electronic proposals.

Answer: No; both electronic and hard-copy proposals are due (received at the location specified in Amendment #1) by the same date and time in accordance with Section L.5.1.

6. Question: We are concerned that, given the time required for hard copy submission, insufficient time remains for offerors to incorporate responses to questions into their proposals prior to the submission deadline. This is particularly the case regarding adjusting to the various tax liabilities that may need to be accounted for. In order to ensure delivery via commercial courier service, Offerors would need to send hard copy proposals by November 25, at least one week prior to the due date. This is only 6 working days after questions are due to USAID. Additionally, frequent customs delays make commercial delivery very unreliable, making it necessary for Offerors to personally fly in proposals in order to ensure delivery. This is a burdensome expense, and has been compounded by the uncertainty of the delivery location, making it impossible to advance purchase tickets.

Given these factors, we respectfully request that USAID consider the following:

• Granting a one to two week extension to the due date for proposals to allow Offerors sufficient time to incorporate USAID’s clarifications into proposals.

• Allowing electronic receipt of proposals to count for on-time delivery with hard copies to follow, provided that Offerors provide evidence that proposals were shipped by the proposal due date.

Answer: No; both electronic and hard-copy proposals are due (received at the location specified in Amendment #1) by the same date and time in accordance with Section L.5.1.

7. Question: Closing Time: Would the government consider issuing an amendment, upon receipt of Offeror questions, to extend the closing time by two weeks to ensure that answers to questions will have an ample time to be addressed, due to the loss of time in printing and shipping hard copies of the proposal?

8. Question: Will USAID share its Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), or share drafts that have already been shared with current implementing partners? (page 9, Section C.3)

Answer: USAID/Vietnam has included a results framework (P.79) of Mission activities. A draft CDCS has not yet been shared with partners, but the Mission looks forward to soon posting the CDCS on the USAID Vietnam website.

9. Question: Page 10. C4. Task 1. The RFP makes reference to CDCS for USAID/Vietnam in relation to the

Mission performance management plan, but after extensive search [contractor] has been unable to locate a current or previous version(s) of the CDCS. The USAID website lists the CDCS as under development, with the CDCS launch date as 12/13/12, and with planned timing for CDCS approval as FY13, Q4. Could USAID/Vietnam provide an updated status of the CDCS, a working version or previous iteration of the CDCS so as to better anticipate expectations and requests of the Mission?

Answer: Please see response no. 8.

10. Question: Task 1 under Section C (pg 10) mentions the contractor will be engaged in carrying out data collection efforts to support the PMP. However, this is not listed as a task under Section F, part e (pg 20-21).

Thus, we have two questions: 1) Please clarify if the Mission requires the contractor to carry out data collection to support the PMP in addition to the surveys in Task 4. If so, what types of data collection efforts are needed?

2) Lastly, can the Mission confirm if the contractor will be responsible for collecting and analyzing data from external sources and IPs, not independently gathering field data?

Answer: The contractor will be engaged in compiling the data provided by other implementing partners and from external sources for the PMP, for example, ensuring that implementing partner indicator data submissions are complete and compiling a select number of context indicators from readily available public sources; the contractor will not be responsible for directly and independently gathering field data under Task 1.

11. Question: Page 11. C4 Task 4. The RFP notes “The survey will be commissioned locally and will include questions already developed by the Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs (LPA) on USAID and U.S.

Government recognition in country and additional questions…” Could the Mission clarify approximately how many survey questions it intends to develop?

Answer: Approximately 20-30 questions are anticipated to be developed for the survey.

12. Question: Regarding Section C, Task 4 descriptions (pg. 11), please clarify what is entailed in this task. Does this task entail (1) three separate annual surveys: one of civil society organizations, one of households, and one of government officials; (2) only one annual household survey which captures data for all indices; or (3) three household surveys each year? If the first option is the case, is there any additional guidance that can be provided on the civil society organization and government surveys in terms of target respondents, locations, and sample size?

Answer: Three (3) surveys per annum should be budgeted for, one of which is a nationwide public opinion survey that could be completed remotely over the telephone. The other two may capture information on the illustrative indices or other areas to be discussed with the Mission.

13. Question: On page 11 of 83 the RFP indicates that the nationwide public opinion survey described under Task

4 “will be commissioned locally”. Can you please confirm that the nationwide public opinion survey will be commissioned and paid for directly by the mission and that this project will only be required to analyze the results of the survey commissioned by the mission?

Answer: No, the public opinion survey will be carried out by the contractor.

14. Question: Page 12. C4. Task 5. The RFP states the Contractor will provide training sessions to USAID partners “and selected potential partners in Vietnam.” Could the Mission clarify if these potential partners will be chosen by the Mission or by the Contractor with Mission concurrence?

Answer: These potential partners will be chosen by the Mission.

15. Question: On page 12 under Gender, the RFP says: “USAID/Vietnam has a Special DO which specifically targets gender equality and female empowerment.” However, in the provided Draft Mission Results Framework in Attachment 6 on page 79, the Special DO is for “Legacies Addressed to Advance the U.S.-Vietnam Partnership” and we do not see a reference in the Results Framework for gender equality and female empowerment. Could you please provide clarification?

Answer: There is no Special DO on gender and this particular sentence is removed. The paragraph is read as follows:

“Activities supported by USAID/Vietnam aim to benefit both men and women and maximize potential benefits for their target populations. The Contractor will support the Mission’s efforts to operationalize gender equality and female empowerment throughout its programming, monitoring and evaluation. This will include collaborating Mission staff, Regional Gender Advisor and IPs to identify gender sensitive indicators and incorporate evaluation questions that gauge impacts on men and women. At a minimum, all performance management activities, assessments, surveys, studies, and reports must include gender‐ disaggregated data. The Contractor may be asked to support IPs regarding required gender monitoring and reporting, collecting and analyzing sex disaggregated data, and tracking gender indicators related to the Agency’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy. The Contractor will pay attention to—and highlight—gender based constraints and issues in connection to the conduct of all deliverables. For example, the Contractor should highlight gender‐specific issues that arise from the data collection of IPs.

The Contractor should inform USAID of such issues and offer corrective measures to be taken to address them. The Contractor will also be expected to adhere to gender principles when constructing its core team as well as in fielding additional short‐term consultants during the life of the contract.”

16. Question: Page 15. F4. The RFP stipulates that “All reports will be written in English (U.S. style) and/or

Vietnamese as specified,” but does not highlight language requirements within the list of deliverables. For planning and budgeting purposes, would the Mission please specify or estimate the language requirements for the listed reports?

Answer: For budgeting purposes, reports must be provided in English while the executive summary must be provided in both English and Vietnamese. Contractor will be informed should specific reports be required to be in Vietnamese.

17. Question: For which task/CLIN should we include the cost for preparing all of the standard contractual reports detailed in RFP section F.4 reports and deliverables?

• It is assumed for Task 1, but we request confirmation.

Answer: All costs associated to the required deliverables shall be included in the proposal where appropriate.

• Similarly, could you confirm that the LOE and costs associated with the COP, DCOP and home office project support activities could be allocated to Task 1, or pro rata across the Tasks 1-6? (Section F.4)

Answer: This is based on the Offeror’s proposed approach.

18. Question: Under Section F, part b (pg 16), it states that the Mission wants semi-annual performance reports due at the end of the quarter. Please clarify if the Mission wants semi-annual or quarterly reports?

Answer: The paragraph is replaced with the following:

“b. Semi-Annual Performance Reports

The Contractor shall submit semi-annual performance reports 30 calendar days after March 31st and September 30th. Semi-annual performance reports will present progress on all activities and will include the following information, at a minimum:

• Brief outline of project purpose and project approach;

• Brief description of significant events during the reporting period;

• Status of activities of each task as defined in the work plan;

• Status of overall project progress per impact indicators as defined in the work plan on a cumulative basis;

• List of reports/deliverables completed in the reporting period;

• Performance problems during the reporting period;

• Status of budget expenditures;

• List of major activities planned for next quarter;

• Any relevant information that has affected or will affect project progress.”

19. Question: The RFP states that Task 1 deliverables should include a performance management tool and database: “the Contractor must develop gender sensitive Data Collection Tools and compile PMP indicators in collaboration with USAID/Vietnam staff in a database system, preferably web-based, to store and track indicator data from the Mission, Mission partners, and other sources”. (Page 16/19, Section F.4.e)

• What tool and database does the USAID/Vietnam Mission currently use?

Answer: Mission is currently tracking performance management through spreadsheets, but is planning a transition to track performance management information through a comprehensive online platform that would be rolled out in the spring of 2014.

• Are there any specific IT specifications that the tool and database must meet to be compliant and/or complementary to existing or planned Mission infrastructure or standards besides the 508 compliance?

Answer: Contractor is required to compile data in the upcoming system rather than develop a tool and database from scratch.

• Should the tool and database be accessible to the whole Mission and Mission partners for data input? For reporting? Or simply those within scope of the illustrative evaluations expected?

Answer: The online performance management tool will be accessible to all Mission partners.

20. Question: The Mission has identified an ambitious scope of activities for the base period of performance, including the minimum number of activities outlined on page 17 of the RFP. We recognize the Mission’s need for quality M&E support, and are very concerned about the realism of implementing such a broad scope within the total estimated cost of $2.5-3 million for the base period (p. 60). Based on our experience implementing numerous performance and impact evaluations for USAID, we do not believe it is possible, nor in the government’s interest, to provide this high level of service within the estimated ceiling; doing so would likely result in seriously jeopardizing the quality of work. Would the Mission consider revising either the scope or estimated funding for this procurement?

Answer: Please refer to the Specific Change no. 1 of this amendment.

21. Question: The list of planned evaluations (Attachment 8) includes a project that [Contractor Name] implemented ([Project Name]) and another for which we have a pending proposal. RFP sections H.25-26 clearly state that the M&E contractor would be recused from evaluating any projects that it previously implemented and is ineligible to implement any projects that it would be evaluating under this M&E contract or any projects that result from recommendations contained in any evaluation report produced under the contract. Would USAID be willing to award the M&E contract to an organization such as [Contractor] and recuse that contractor from evaluating both past (e.g. [Project Name]) and future projects that it implemented (e.g. [Project Name], should [Contractor] be selected), on a case-by-case basis?

Answer: We do feel that there is a potential organizational conflict of interest. USAID expects proposals that cover the entire scope of work as defined. USAID follows strictly the guidance as indicated in paragraph H. 25 and H. 26 of the RFP in determining the potential organization conflict of interest and in allowing/not allowing the contractor’s involvement in USAID/Vietnam work that resulting from the implementation of this contract scope of work.

22. Question: On page 55 in Section L.6.1 Proposal Format, paragraph c) there is a reference to a Mobilization and Implementation Plan. We have the following related questions:

• Can you please clarify if this is an additional plan beyond what is contained in the Technical Approach

(such as the Work Plan) or Management Approach?

• In addition, given the overlap between a Mobilization and Implementation Plan and a Work Plan, could you please confirm that the Work Plan can be included in an annex, not to count against the technical page limits?

Answer: Mobilization shall be discussed as part of the Management Plan L.6.2.3 Management Approach [See Section M.2.2]. The bullet “h. Mobilization and Implementation Plan– Offeror shall be ready for immediate mobilization and implementation upon USAID’s request after the contract award;” is replaced with “h. Draft of Detailed of first year detailed workplan;”

“(c) Detailed information should be presented only when required by specific RFP instructions.

Technical proposals are limited to 30 pages. THE NARRATIVE SECTION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSALS THAT ARE OVER 30 PAGES IN LENGTH WILL NOT BE EVALUATED. Proposals must be written in English and typed on standard 8½ inch x 11 inch (US Letter) paper, single spaced, using Times New Roman font, regular, 12 point (or an equivalently sized easy-to-read font) with each page numbered consecutively, and paragraphs spaced 12 points apart. Items such as graphs, charts, and all tables except those specified in the next sentence are included in the 30-page limitation. The following items are not subject to the page limitation and will not be counted (a page in the technical proposal, which contains a table, chart, graph, etc., not otherwise excluded below, is subject to the “page” limitation):

a. Cover page;

b. Table of contents;

c. Dividers;

d. Table summarizing qualifications, skills and capabilities of proposed personnel (key personnel and notional non-key personnel);

e. Appendix attachments which contain biographical information (i.e. resumes and other documentation provided by the Offeror) for proposed candidates;

f. Proposed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

g. Contractor/major subcontractor Past Performance Listing;

h. Draft of Detailed of first year detailed workplan;

i. Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan;

j. Charts providing information on management structure, matrices demonstrating staff skills, and organizational chart(s);

k. Curricula Vitae (CVs), letters of commitment (for COP), and letters of availability for other key personnel (who must not be required to sign with the Offeror on an exclusive basis), and references”

23. Question: Please confirm that the Evaluation Reports for Task 3 that are listed on page 17 and 83 of the RFP are reports on the baseline data collection and design activities as per the language on page 11 under Task 3 Impact Evaluations, and not full impact evaluation reports which, according the USAID Evaluation Policy, require more time and resources than appear to be envisioned?

Answer: According to P.11 “the Contractor must conduct impact evaluations during the period of performance of this Contract”. Helping ensure that baselines are collected is a key component of this.

24. Question: On page 12 of 83 of the RFP under Task 5 it requires capacity building of local partner M&E skills through training and consultation. In Section L.6.2.2 on page 56, the RFP also asks that Offerors describe in the technical approach portion of the proposal “how M&E capabilities of local partners will be strengthened in order to enable the activities and impacts to be sustained after the contract is completed.” Could you please clarify the following:

• Are the “local partners” referred to in both sections of the RFP the same group, i.e. do both refer to local staff of Mission implementing partners?

• Do the “M&E capabilities” to be strengthened extend to the type of activities covered under Task 6, which includes other program design and learning activities?

Answer: Local partners include USAID’s currently implementing partners and organizations in Vietnam not currently engaged with USAID. While the emphasis will be on current partners, capacity development activities may extend to potential or past implementing partners in Vietnam, as well potential M&E service providers in Vietnam. The “M&E capabilities” to be strengthened do not extend to the type of activities covered under Task 6.

25. Question: Our question for your consideration is the following: “Section L.7.1 Submission Instructions states ‘The total cost-plus-fixed fee budget is approximately $3,500,000 to $4,500,000, including the three base years and two-year option period.’ We have performed a preliminary budgetary analysis and have determined that it is not feasible to complete the proposed scope of work given these budget parameters.

Would USAID consider bids from offerors that make recommendations for reducing the scope of the work to fit within the proposed budget?”

Answer: Please refer to the specific change no. 1 of this amendment.

26. Question: On page 62 of the RFP Section L.7.1 Submission Instructions, Part 5 has been omitted. Please confirm that there are not any additional items to be submitted with the cost proposal.

Answer: Confirmed.

27. Question: Task 5 deliverables on pages 17-18 of the RFP indicate there should be 9 training courses delivered over the 3 base years and 6 training courses delivered over the 2 option years. In section C, task 5 on page 12 is described as providing 1 training session per year and two 2-3 day consultations per year. Could you please clarify the number of training sessions and 2-3 day consultations required during the 3 base years and the 2 option years?

Answer: 9 training courses shall be delivered over the 3 base years and 6 training courses delivered over the 2 option years. One consultation lasting 2-3 days may take the place of a training session in the base and options years.

28. Question: In addition to the items that are not subject to the page limitation and will not be counted, could you please confirm that an Acronym list will not count against the 30 page technical proposal page limit?

Answer: The acronym list will not count against the page limit.

29. Question: Page 57-58. L.6.2.5. The key personnel descriptions mention “exceptional written and oral communication skills in English.” Are Vietnamese language skills not required for these positions?

Answer: Vietnamese language skills are not required – refer to Sections L.6.2.5 and M.2.4

30. Question: Page 58. L.6.2.5. The RFP states “Third-country nationals (TCNs) are acceptable for both key and non-key positions. However, TCNs are to be paid or to receive allowances and benefits on the same basis as cooperating country nationals (CCNs).” On page 61, Section L.7.1(b)(1) Proposed Costs/Prices, the RFP states that no salary for local staff may exceed the salary ranges provided on this page, which include a maximum annual salary of $41,052. We are concerned this policy is effectively putting a cap on salary and benefits/allowances that would not normally apply to TCN expatriates and, as a result, will adversely affect the recruiting of the best candidates for positions. We are also concerned that, if this policy applies to key personnel positions, the salary cap will prevent the recruitment of highly qualified Vietnamese key personnel candidates whose documented salary history exceeds the $41,052 maximum.

• Does this apply to Vietnamese key personnel candidates?

Answer: Yes.

• Would the Mission be willing to reconsider this TCN policy in order to better secure top personnel to serve its needs?

Answer: No – see additional clarification below.

• If not, are TCN expert consultants also subject to the same restrictions, e.g. would a Canadian offering short term technical assistance on an impact evaluation be required to fall under CCN salary guidance?

Answer: USAID does not plan on processing a waiver for this requirement.

31. Question: The COP qualifications on page 58 state that USAID/Vietnam will consider a substitution of 8 years of relevant experience in lieu of a master’s degree. Given that a master’s degree typically represents 2-3 years of study, would USAID/Vietnam consider lessening the work experience substitution from 8 years to 3-5 years?

Answer: No, USAID will not lessen the work experience substitution. The proposed personnel must meet the required qualifications as detailed in the RFP.

32. Question: On page 59 of the RFP, Section L.6.2.6 Past Performance, it states:

“The Offeror must submit for itself and each major sub-contractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost) a list of no fewer than three and no more than five of the most current and relevant U.S. Government and/or privately-funded contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, etc.” Could you please confirm that Offerors should include between 3 to 5 total of the most recent and relevant contracts for the prime and major subcontractors, and not 3-5 contracts per organization?

Answer: The RFP requests that the Offeror must submit for itself and each major sub-contractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost) a list of up to five of the most current and relevant U.S. Government and/or privately-funded contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, etc.

33. Question: Under Section L.6.4 on page 60 of the RFP requests information on the Offeror’s Performance using Small Business (SB) Concerns for all non-small business offerors, including provision of 10 SF 294 forms which are 1-2 pages each. Given that this requirement alone could exceed the Technical Proposal page limit, could you kindly confirm that the small business narrative summary, SF 294s and names and addresses of three SB concerns should be included as an Annex to the Technical Proposal?

Answer: SF294s may be included as an annex.

34. Question: In several other solicitations USAID Missions have precluded offerors from exclusive teaming arrangements with local partners, including NGOs and for-profit organizations, in order to ensure that the project will benefit from the most appropriate local partners during implementation. We respectfully request that USAID preclude offerors from exclusive teaming arrangements with local partners in order to ensure that the most appropriate local partners are not unnecessarily excluded from implementing the project.

Answer: USAID does not control business arrangements made by Offerors, nor require exclusivity agreement between the Offerors and their subcontractors. This is a business decision between the two parties. Per Section L.7.1(g), the Cost/Business Proposal must include a letter of commitment, on subcontractor letterhead, and signed by an authorized representative of each subcontractor, which specifically indicates the subcontractor's agreement to be included in the Offeror's proposed teaming arrangement.

35. Question: Section L.6.2.5: Does the Chief of Party for the project need to be based in country?

Answer: No.

36. Question: Section L.7.1 (b)(2) on page 62 of the RFP indicates that “each Offeror must provide a budget for each illustrative Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) listed below…. Please note that the number of rows in the table below, or the illustrative CLINs, does not necessarily reflect USAID’s expectations regarding the identity and/or number of CLINS that may be appropriate.” Can USAID please confirm that Offerors may propose specific CLINs in accordance with their proposed technical and management approach, and that CLINs presented may differ from the illustrative CLINs shown in table on page 62?

Answer: Offerors may propose specific CLINs in accordance with their proposed technical and management approach.

37. Question: The RFP indicates that offerors should propose a budget by year, as well as a budget by CLIN (Task). Would the mission please allow for the inclusion of a seventh CLIN to cover the program management expenses, which may not be easily allocated to any one particular task (i.e. office rent, salaries of the COP and DCOP, etc.)?

Answer: Refer to L.7.1(b)(2). Offerors may propose specific CLINs in accordance with their proposed technical and management approach.

38. Question: Will USAID provide the full local compensation plan for Vietnam including all the grades and steps?

(Page 60/61, Section L.7.1)

Answer: No. Only the ranges are provided. In accordance with AIDAR 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (July 1996), Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.

39. Question: With regard to the local compensation plan in Section L.7.1 (pg 61), can the Mission please clarify if the Mission will accept waivers if proposed local staff exceeds the salary ranges outlined in the RFP.

Answer: The salary range in L.7.1(b)(1), is intended as a guideline. The Offeror shall follow its own personnel policy in establishing appropriate salary range in accordance with AIDAR 752.7007 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION above. The sentence “No salary may exceed the maximum for the given category” is hereby removed.

However, Offeror must adhere to the restriction on salary cap in accordance with AIDAR 722.170 Employment of third country nationals (TCN’s) and cooperating country nationals (CCN’S). The maximum compensation rate for TCN and CCN staff is currently set at $41,052 per year.

40. Question: Will USAID provide guidance on the US dollar (USD) to Vietnamese dong (VND) exchange rate to be used? (Section L.7, Cost General)

Answer: No – all transactions with USAID shall be in USD.

41. Question: Section L.7.2.2.(a) beginning on page 63 of the RFP indicates that, “While USAID does not expect the Vietnam Government sponsorship which is needed to trigger tax and duty exemptions under the framework bilateral agreement, we do expect the successful Offeror to maximize any tax and duty exemptions available under Vietnamese law generally. We are unsure if this reference refers to only VAT and import duties, or if it means the successful offeror would be liable for all potential taxes. Can USAID please clarify which of the following Vietnamese taxes would (or would not) be exempted under the above scenario (with the understanding that the successful Offeror would seek to maximize any tax and duty exemptions available under Vietnamese law generally):

• Value Added Tax

• Corporate Income Tax

• Personal Income Tax for expatriate staff employed on the project

• Foreign Contractor Withholding Tax

• Import Duties

Answer: For budgeting purposes, please assume that all foreign taxes are exempted.

42. Question: How should costing be presented to USAID? Should the costing be given by man-day rates, by per activity or by per task? Please do advise if any other format (is) required or preferred.

Answer: See Section L.7.1 – Submission Instructions

43. Question: Section M.2: How are you weighting the technical evaluation criteria? Are you using a scoring system of any kind?

Answer: Please refer to Section M in the original RFP and specific change no. 2 of this amendment. The rating method need not be disclosed in the solicitation.

44. Question: SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, M.1. GENERAL INFORMATION.

Section M.2 of the RFP lists the criteria in descending order of importance. However, the absolute importance of each criterion remains unclear. Would the USAID/Vietnam Mission indicate the relative importance of each evaluation criteria/category on an adjectival or numerical scale? (Page 65, Section M)

Answer: See specific change no. 2 of this amendment.

45. Question: This project is a 3 year project with a 2 year option period. Could you please explain more. Does it mean:

• Quotas for surveys, evaluations, FGDs and other activities that are not utilized within the 3 years period will be rolled over for another 2 years? Or

• The quotas quoted for each year is also applicable to 2018 and 2019 should USAID chose to exercise such option in 2018 and 2019?

Answer: The quotas quoted for each year are also applicable to 2018 and 2019 should USAID choose to exercise such option in 2018 and 2019.

46. Question: In the course of this project, evaluation of programs that USAID has is implemented is one of the pertinent tasks, as such, would we have access to the relevant reports, data and other information that USAID and its partners and contractors possess or submit?

47. Question: Can the Mission please clarify specific numbers of performance and impact evaluations they intend the contractor to carry out?

Answer: Refer to P. 17 and P.18 for specific numbers of evaluations. There is an indicative list of key evaluations planned on P. 81. Please note that only 2 impact evaluations need to be budgeted for.

48. Question: Can USAID/Vietnam please verify what labor law documents the contractor should follow to help in the proposal?

Answer: The contactor should follow Vietnam’s labor laws. Some references to Vietnamese labor law may be found on this site: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex_browse.country?p_lang=en&p_country=VNM.

49. Question: Can USAID/Vietnam please state what National Holidays are followed by the Mission?

Answer: Refer to http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/holidays.html.

50. Question: For capacity building activities and workshops in Tasks 1 and 5, should the offeror budget for costs of renting a space for training or can this be provided by the Mission?

Answer: For the purpose of the proposal, please assume that space will need to be rented for the training.

51. Question: Please confirm that only prime and major subcontractors are required to complete SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities forms.

52. Question: Do(es) [an offeror] need to be registered on any US government database or portal in order to bid for this project?

Answer: Reference FAR 52.204-6 and FAR 52.204-7, at a minimum.

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex_browse.country?p_lang=en&p_country=VNM http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/holidays.html

53. Question: If a prime or a subcontract/subawardee partner from another USAID Vietnam project is a sub partner on the Evaluation, Monitoring and Survey Services project, may we assume that their participation on Evaluation, Monitoring and Survey Services project will not be disqualified, provided we exclude the sub partner from evaluations of the USAID projects where it serves as a prime or a subcontracting/subawardee partner?

Answer: For information about Organizational Conflict of Interest, see Contract Information Bulletin 99-17, August 17, 1999. GAO has found that appropriate organizational conflict of interest mitigation plans and firewalls can limit the scope of potential OCIs to select business units. See LEADS Corp., B-292465, Sept. 26, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 197. Preclusion clauses for subcontractors may be limited to those tasks executed under the contractor and to which they had access to information, provided suitable mitigation measures are in place. For subcontractors working on discrete evaluations and tasks, future OCIs would be potentially limited to those follow-on activities that the subcontractor evaluated, thereby potentially introducing biased ground rules, or for which the subcontractor had potentially unequal access to information. It is the Prime’s responsibility to ensure that organizational conflict of interest is not presented with the subs.

54. Question: Will USAID provide a list of all the projects they have implemented in Vietnam?

Answer: Please see the Development Experience Clearinghouse http://dec.usaid.gov and our web site http://www.usaid.gov/where-we-work/asia/vietnam for information about our programs.

55. Question: Is there a list of consultants/individuals that USAID have continuously worked/liaised with in

Vietnam? Could USAID provide a list of these people as well to approach during this task?

Answer: The contractor is expected to identify potential expertise to prepare an offer. Post award the Mission may provide additional information about specific technical experts evaluators that the contractor may choose to consider for specific tasks.

56. Question: To clarify for Task 4, Section C (page 11), we will have to conduct a nationwide public opinion survey, but the questions asked will include questions already developed by USAID? If that is correct, do we design the survey itself, or is that something that USAID will do as well?

Answer: It is expected that the survey design will be jointly developed by USAID and the contractor.

57. Question: Is a sub-contractor required to commit exclusively with one lead firm? If no, is a national consultant allowed to involve in more than one proposal?

Answer: See response no. 34.

58. Question: With regards to financial proposal, what category is considered as indirect cost?

Answer: Indirect costs vary from organization to organization, depending on their financial and accounting systems. For general guidance, please refer to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a122_2004.

As a policy, USAID does not normally negotiate established indirect cost rates with non-U.S. organization.

Therefore, the firm must allocate all project-related costs as direct costs.

In accordance with OMB Circular A-122 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circularsa1222004/#ab), direct costs are those that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost objective, i.e., a particular award, project, service, or other direct activity of an organization. Costs identified specifically with awards are direct costs of the awards and are to be assigned directly thereto. Costs identified specifically with other final cost objectives of the organization are direct costs of those cost objectives and are not to be assigned to other awards directly or indirectly.

USAID understands that non-U.S. firm may have a number of other administrative costs – normally covered by an indirect cost rate – that may be difficult to identify specifically with a final cost objective at this point in the http://dec.usaid.gov/ http://www.usaid.gov/where-we-work/asia/vietnam http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a122_2004 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circularsa1222004/%23ab proposed program. Therefore, organization should estimate what those costs are and assign a specific dollar figure to those costs. That dollar figure will then become “budget” for those other administrative costs, and the organization will need to account for its specific expenditures for the program against that line item in its accounting. Thus, these costs are treated as direct costs. Similar to other budget line items, organization is to provide information/data to substantiate its estimate of administrative costs.

59. Question: Are Annexes not subject to the page limitation?

Answer: Refer to L.6.1(c).

60. Question: For non-key personnel experts, can we replace them after contract award?

Answer: Specific approval procedures will be determined upon the contract award. Generally, non-key technical personnel replacements are subject to Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) concurrence during award implementation.

61. Question: Related to section K, I am wondering if we are not US-based organization, do we have to complete annual representations and certification in SAM website and Acquisition website. If we are the local partner of the consortium, do we have to fill in the representations of certification in Sam website and Acquisition website or only the Lead firm has to.

Answer: Only the prime Offeror (prospective awardee) must be registered.

62. Question: We are a Thailand and Vietnam-registered NGO with offices in Bangkok and Hanoi. Would we be eligible to respond to this particular RFP either as contractors or subcontractors?

Answer: Section H.2 of the RFP states that the authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 937.

Please refer to ATTACHMENT 1: IDENTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL GEOGRAPHIC CODE NUMBER for definition, relevant policies and regulations in determining your eligibility.

63. Question: Do(es) [an offeror] need to be a US-registered company to bid for this project? Will a Singapore company be able to bid for this project (we do not have a US tax reference number)

Answer: Section H.2 of the RFP states that the authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 937.

Please refer to ATTACHMENT 1: IDENTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL GEOGRAPHIC CODE NUMBER for definition, relevant policy and regulations.

“END OF ATTACHMENT A”