SOL-114-12-000001 Amendment 1.pdf

(x)

SOL-114-12-000001

x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

GEORGIA

0131 TBILISI GEORGIA

11 GEORGE BALANCHINE STREET

USAID CAUCASUS

01/04/2012000001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

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

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

12/16/2011

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

The purpose of this amendment to the Request for Proposals (RFP) is to provide responses to questions submitted by potential offerors and to amend the solicitation as follows:

1) Cover page of the solicitation DELETE “Closing Date: Monday, January 16, 2012” and replace with “Closing Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2012;”

2) Block 09 of Standard Form (SF) 33 Delete “01/16/2012” and REPLACE with “01/17/2012;”

3) Page 56, Section L.6, paragraph 1, line 7 DELETE “including the supervising representative;”

4) Page 61 DELETE “(f) Part 6 - Joint Venture Information” and REPLACE with “(e) Part 6 -

Joint Venture Information;”

5) Page 61 DELETE “(g) Part 7 – Evidence of Responsibility” and REPLACE with “(f) Part 7 –

Continued ...

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

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

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

Brian Woody

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

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.

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

Evidence of Responsibility;”

6) Page 62 DELETE “(h) Part 8 – Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors)” and REPLACE with “(g) Part 8 – Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors);”

7) Page 62 DELETE “(i) Part 9 – Information to Support Consent to Subcontractors” and REPLACE with “(h) Part 9 – Information to Support Consent to Subcontract;”

8) Page 62 DELETE “(j) Part 10 – Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences” and REPLACE with “(i) Part 10 – Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences;”

Questions and Answers:

1. Question: Will the contractor be able to obtain all records associated with data collection by NORC for its evaluation of the NEO-Georgia program, including field transcripts, recordings, raw data, cross tabs and methods reports?

Answer: The SOW states, that “the evaluation team will be able to use this data, however will need to collect new/additional data based on the sample to be selected by the evaluator (page 8).”

So, while the Offeror will be able to use the reports produced by NEO, they will need to collect their own data for the evaluation purposes.

2. Question: To which ‘economic development plans’ does the government refer?

Answer: The project will help local communities to develop local economic development plans and will introduce participatory process to do so.

This is one of the components of NEO project.

The SOW on page 7 states:

LED planning processes will serve as an entry point for NEO and help identify economic sectors, prioritize infrastructure and other investments, facilitate public-private dialogue, and leverage additional investments. NEO will accomplish this by mobilizing a network of stakeholders – local government and central government representatives, working groups and informal Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

3 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

local leaders, donors, implementers, private sector – and establish coordination mechanisms and targeted LED events to foster dialogue and joint action.

3. Question: Please confirm that the project monitoring will be undertaken entirely by the government, Chemonics and other NEO staff and NOT by the Offeror.

Answer: The Offeror will not be monitoring the project; the offeror will be responsible for the impact evaluation.

4. Question: Confirm that the baseline and subsequent surveys, focus groups and depth interviews undertaken by NORC will be principally focused on obtaining the types of information sought in questions 1-7. If that is not the case, does the government anticipate that the Offeror and its local research partner will independently design quantitative and qualitative instruments and collect the resulting data?

Answer: It is anticipated that the Offeror and its local partner will design their own research methodology, quantitative and qualitative instruments and collect data. While it is important to use the implementing partner’s data, the offeror will need to collect additional data.

5. Question: Does the statement that only interviews and focus groups should be used for question 7 preclude the use of surveys?

Answer: These are all illustrative methodologies, the government is looking for the Offeror to suggest and justify the best methodologies that will give the best evidence to answer the evaluation questions.

6. Question: Confirm that the baseline quantitative and qualitative work undertaken by the Evaluation team is to occur within the two month period that the visiting team is in Georgia (March/April 2012). If this is not the case, in which period should the field data be collected and by when should it be completed?

Answer: That’s correct; the data needs to be Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

4 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

collected during the evaluation period (these are referred to as components in the SOW). It is the governments expectation that the International consultants will not be in Georgia for the entire period, so the Offeror should propose the best way to handle data collection (through survey) – prior to their visit or after.

7. Question: Will the government comment further on the required contents of the i) Baseline Report and ii) Report, both due 20 days, respectively, after completion of component I and component II.

Answer: The baseline report is a survey report and it will be part of the component I report, as stated: The evaluation plan and the results of the first visit, including the baseline report will be submitted as part of the Component I report within 20 days after the completion of the component.

The component I and component II reports content and requirements can be found on page 12 under Section V. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/INDICATORS; and under F.5 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES OR OUTPUTS.

8. Question: Confirm that the Local partner is submitting the Baseline Report to the prime contractor/offeror, not to the government or Chemonics.

Answer: As specified in Section F.5 of the solicitation it is the responsibility of the prime contractor to provide USAID with all deliverables as detailed in the contract.

9. Question: For how long should the Offeror project having its two consultants in Georgia for component III?

Answer: It is up to the Offeror to propose how they will use their consultants in Georgia for component III.

10. Question: Component III calls for the contractor to ‘collect final data.’ Is this done during the period when the Evaluation team returns to Georgia for Component III or can it be started at an earlier time?

Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

5 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

Answer: It can start earlier, however, it is up to the Offeror to propose how and when they will collect the data.

11. Question: Confirm that the Local Partner does NOT undertake any monitoring review and that the Chemonics team is responsible for that endeavor.

Answer: That’s correct.

12. Question: The Offeror is asked to provide costs for quantitative analysis, which requires knowledge of the: proposed confidence levels, margins of error, absolute numbers of persons to interviewed/surveyed, numbers of communities to be included as well as the foreknowledge of the data types being collected by NORC (to avoid duplication). Costs from third party quantitative and qualitative analysts could vary significantly depending on decisions. While this Offeror’s plan will be evaluated in the Technical approach, could the government expand how it will reconcile potentially vastly different costs based on vastly different assumptions that the Offeror will have to make in its proposal?

Answer: The RFP asks for the following: “Data collection and analysis approaches shall be further elaborated by the offeror and proposed to USAID based on the methodology for this evaluation. Also, the confidence level, sample size including for surveys, and sampling methodology shall be proposed and justified considering the number of municipalities and communities targeted by NEO.”

As specified in Section M.3 of the RFP “Each offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and cost realism to determine the appropriate cost for the work, the offeror’s understanding of the work, and the offeror’s ability to perform the work.”

13. Question: The RFP calls for the Offeror to “preserve” the necessary skill sets and the team composition for all three components of the evaluation. Does this infer that the Evaluation team members should be employed by the Offeror and its local partner full time or part-time on this contract for the duration of the contract, Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

6 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

or is the chargeable time allocation at the discretion of the Offeror?

Answer: USAID would like the contractor to preserve the composition of the team in each of the three components as detailed in the RFP. It is the responsibility of the offeror to follow its own internal procedures and provide USAID a proposal on how the offeror plans to preserve the team composition.

14. Question: Can the Offeror hire two local persons directly or must the two persons be employees or consultants of a local organization?

Answer: As specified in the solicitation, it is USAIDs expectation that prime contractors will partner with a local organization(s). Local organizations should follow their internal procedures on determining how to hire individuals to work on this evaluation.

15. Question: The RFP allows the Offeror and its partner to decide how to provide translation, transportation and logistical support. Does that mean that, subject to its own policy and accounting structure, the Offeror may charge these costs direct or can they be included in overhead?

Answer: The offeror should follow its own policy and accounting structure when submitting a cost proposal to USAID in response to this RFP.

16. Question: Does the government require a breakdown even if these costs are billed as overhead?

Answer: Please see section L.7 (b)(2)(J) – Indirect Costs.

17. Question: How large are the survey samples used by NORC, where have the surveys been administered, what response rates have been encountered to date and what kind of questions have been asked? May we have a copy of the questionnaires already developed?

Answer: This survey will be done by a local polling organization and will cover up to 1250 Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

7 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

households. The questionnaire is not available.

18. Question: Is the causal pathway model available for review now?

Answer: It is not available for review at this time.

19. Question: How would you characterize accessibility to the secondary data that will need to be analyzed to calculate economic activity and change during the period of intervention?

Answer: Data from the Georgia Statistics Department as well as other donors is readily available to contractors.

20. Question: What relationships can we leverage to encourage control cities to participate, if there are secondary data needed from the municipality? Or would we choose only data that would be publicly available?

Answer: The offeror should count on publicly available data. If the offeror is able obtain other data it will be helpful in the evaluation, but it is difficult to assess at this point what will be available and what will not be available.

21. Question: We respectfully request the NEO 2011 work-plan and annual report to understand more fully its approach to specific indicator tracking, data collection, and baseline information.

Answer: The work-plan and annual report are not available at this time.

22. Question: We request that the names of the 84 NEO communities be shared with bidders as their geographic location will impact associated travel costs of data collection.

Answer: Please find attached an excel spreadsheet with the names of the targeted communities with villages.

23. Question: Please provide bidders with more background regarding the approach Chemonics is Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

8 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

taking to gather perceptions based changes -specifically with respect to local government responsiveness to community demands and priorities.

Answer: The implementing partner is currently in the process of designing the survey, so information is not available at this time.

24. Question: Could the Mission please inform offerors whether there is any flexibility with regards to the timeline for field visits?

Answer: The dates for the first component should be strictly adhered to as it is important to collect baseline data as soon as possible. For the second and third components, offerors should strive to meet the dates provided in the solicitation.

25. Question: On p. 56 of the RFP in Section L.6, it is mentioned that offerors must submit resumes for key personnel “including the supervising representative”. Could the Mission please clarify the anticipated role of supervising representative in greater detail?

Answer: Please see number three at the beginning of this amendment.

26. Question: Who is the local partner that is conducting the baseline for Chemonics? Is this local partner eligible to participate on the evaluation team?

Answer: Georgian Opinion Research Business International (GORBI) is the local partner organization collecting baseline data for Chemonics.

According to USAID’s Evaluation Policy, “Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest or other factors.” The NEO Impact Evaluation should be an independent third party evaluation. Including this organization on the impact evaluation team would present a potential organization conflict of interest.

Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

9 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

27. Question: Are the grants being provided to individuals, businesses, municipalities, CBOs?

Are all highly vulnerable? What is the definition of “highly vulnerable” being used?

Answer: NEO grant support may be extended to 1) private Georgian businesses (not-for-profit or for-profit), 2) non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and 3) communities. Grantees may include:

• Community-based organizations

• Business service organizations

• Cooperatives

• Associations

• Producer organizations

• Small-businesses

• National NGOs

• Homeowners Associations (HOAs)

• Water and Sanitation Associations (WSAs)

28. Question: Given the requirements for the technical proposal, please provide the PMP and the baseline instrument (with the questions being asked) that is being used. In the absence that you cannot provide this, is it satisfactory to use an illustrative case in the proposal?

Answer: It is acceptable to use an illustrative case for purposes of preparing a proposal.

29. Question: The NEO Implementer is planning to conduct citizen satisfaction surveys to collect baseline data. Could you confirm the dates for the baseline data collection and how the municipalities will be phased in (as there will have to be waves of data collection)? Is there a set schedule for the waves of the groups that will be added to the selected municipalities?

Answer:

Current plan of the baseline survey is as follows:

Deliverable One: Pilot test- due 12th of January Deliverable Two: Training of baseline survey interviewer - due 18th of January Deliverable Three: Administration of baseline survey/data collection due 15th of February Deliverable Four: Draft Analysis of baseline survey data - due 28th of February Deliverable Five: Final delivery of baseline survey data - due 9th of March Additional groups will be added only during the Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

10 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

midterm and final surveys.

30. Question: Can we be provided with a map of benefitting communities?

Answer: No, but the list of benefitting communities is in attachment 1 of this amendment.

31. Question: Are there templates bidders can use for developing the Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan as it is only supposed to be two pages?

Answer: Please see ADS 320 on the USAID website.

32. Question: Would the cost of the BIP and MP be a separate line in the budget, or included in the ODCs?

Answer: The offeror should follow their internal procedures on developing a cost proposal.

33. Question: Do the cover page, introduction page and table of contents count against the 10 page limit for the Technical Proposal?

Answer: They will not be counted against the page limitation.

34. Question: Is there a limit on pages for the Cost Proposal section?

Answer: There is no page limit on the cost proposal.

35. Question: Can local company work on non-exclusive base with more than 1 prime contractor?

Answer: As per Section L.7(h) Part 8 – Letters of Commitment of the RFP, an exclusive relationship is not required, however, the proposal must include a letter, 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.

36. Question: What will determine whether the reserve implied in 52.216-8 is to apply to Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

11 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

contractor payments under this contract?

Answer: In the general course of business, USAID does not exercise the reserve implied in 52.216-8.

37. Question: The due date for this proposal is a US Federal Holiday. Is there a chance this deadline will change to Tuesday the 17?

Answer: Yes, see number one at the beginning of this amendment.

38. Question: No cost estimation is provided. Is there an estimated amount USAID is looking for?

Answer: USAID/Caucasus anticipates that this impact evaluation will cost in the range of $350,000 - $470,000.

39. Question: The Geographic Code authorized for this RFP is 000 and 110. Please have the Geographic Code changed to 935 and 110?

Answer: No, the authorized geographic code for USAID/Caucasus is 000 and 110.

40. Question: (e) Part 5 on Page 61 is missing.

Please provide missing information, or an explanation?

Answer: Nothing is missing; there was typographical error in the letter sequence.

41. Question: Workdays per week: Will this contract allow 6 day work weeks?

Answer: A 6-day work week will be authorized on a case-by-case basis.

42. Question: Could the Mission please clarify the number of Past Performance References it would like offerors to submit?

Answer: USAID/Caucasus requires a reasonable number of past performance references in order to make a determination on the contractor’s past performance.

43. Question: Can you provide us with the FSN Schedule for Georgia?

Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

12 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

Answer: Below are the ranges of salaries on the FSN Schedule for Georgia:

FSN 1: $6,989 to $9,552 FSN 2: $7,689 to $10,505 FSN 3: $9,068 to $12,390 FSN 4: $10,504 to $14,354 FSN 5: $11,554 to $15,789 FSN 6: $12,708 to $17,372 FSN 7: $15,515 to $21,202 FSN 8: $18,280 to $24,979 FSN 9: $21,392 to $29,235 FSN 10: $25,279 to $34,552 FSN 11: $32,790 to $44,813

44. Question: Are there any rates for local travel established by the Mission?

Answer: USAID/Caucasus uses the Department of State Allowance schedule.

45. Question: We assume the 10-page technical proposal consists only of those sections indicated in Section M.2, Technical Evaluation Criteria (page 64). Please confirm.

Answer: Offerors should follow Section L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal.

46. Question: Please specify any ceilings on annual escalation rates for salaries (both US based, expatriate in country and local personnel) and other direct costs.

Answer: The offeror should follow their internal procedures when proposing an escalation rate for salaries and other direct costs.

47. Question: Is the US contractor expected to make formal presentations on project achievements and challenges during each of the required visits?

Answer: The Offeror will need to make an inbrief and outbrief with the mission during each visit.

48. Question: With regards to the 84 communities in the selected 10 municipalities, do they all meet the weighted criteria used for the selection of the municipalities? Are all 84 communities Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

13 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

equally receiving the same kind of USAID assistance?

Answer: See attachment 2 for community selection logic.

Potential assistance to communities differ based on the size of community, economic and social needs, and other factors

49. Question: With regards to the remaining 75 communities, what kind of USAID assistance is being or will be provided to these communities?

How is this assistance different from that provided to the 84 communities?

Answer: All 84 communities will receive similar type of assistance (see also response to question 55); the only difference is that project enters targeted communities gradually to redistribute workload.

50. Question: Are the selected communities, either the 84 or the remaining 75, currently being provided assistance under any other project funded by USAID or another development agency?

Answer: Yes, around half of 84 communities (primarily from the following municipalities Tsalenjikha, Oni, Tsageri, Lentekhi, Gori, Kareli) receive or recently received different types of assistances from USAID and other donor activities.

51. Question: With regards to the conflict of interest clause, please clarify.

a) Would it be considered a conflict of interest if the offeror proposes a team member (US or local) under this solicitation that has previously worked in Georgia as a consultant for one or all of the NEO implementing contractors?

b) Would it be considered a conflict of interest if the offeror proposes a local firm under this solicitation that has worked or has currently worked as a subcontractor to one of the NEO implementing partners?

Answer: According to USAID’s Evaluation Policy, “Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to Continued ...

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

14 14

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

SOL-114-12-000001/000001

conflict of interest or other factors.” The NEO Impact Evaluation should be an independent third party evaluation. Including organizations that have worked on NEO would present a potential organization conflict of interest.

52. Question: Please clarify that the budgets for each of the three project components should include labor, travel and other direct costs plus indirects and fee for only the three short periods during which the work for each of the three components is conducted. Please clarify that the budget need not be further broken down by fiscal or calendar year other than as it relates to each of the three components.

Finally, please confirm that no additional cost should be included for the interim period between components, as no additional work should occur outside of the component periods.

Answer: The budgets should be for the three project components (the three short periods) to include labor, travel, other direct costs, indirect and the fixed fee. The solicitation does not require offerors to break down their proposed budget by calendar or fiscal years. No other costs should be included for the interim period between each of the three components, unless it is directly related to generating a deliverable for the specific component.

SB Plan: NO

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)