SOL-114-13-000001_Q A.doc

SOL-114-13-000001

Mission Evaluation Mechanism

Questions and Answers

General Proposal Questions

1.) Our understanding is that USAID/Caucasus requires that the proposal be received electronically in addition to one hard copy of the tech and cost proposals sent to Georgia via regular mail or DHL/FedEx. Please confirm this is accurate and that sending the proposals only electronically is considered non-responsive to the RFP.

Answer: Yes, only sending the electronic copy is considered nonresponsive.

2.) Page 95 states that the start date of the TO will be November 5. Since the proposal is not due until December 3, please clarify the starting date.

Answer: The TO will be awarded with the IQC in February/March 2013. See Amendment 01.

3.) Given the requirements of this IQC, the number of questions, the fact that USAID needs a hard copy by December 3 in Georgia, and Thanksgiving holidays in between, would the Mission consider an extension of the due date of the proposal?

Answer: See Amendment 01. USAID/Caucasus requires that electronic copies be received by December 10 at 9 am Local Tbilisi Time and that hard copies be postmarked by December 10.

4.) Given the major implications of clarification for some of the above questions, as well as the US Thanksgiving Holiday the week of November 19th, will the Mission consider issuing an extension to the proposal due date of December 3rd?

Answer: See answer to question 3, General Proposal Questions.

5.) Per Section D.3, Branding Strategy, please confirm that a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan shall be required at the time of award and not upon submission of the proposal.

Answer: Yes, a draft Branding Strategy and Marking Plan is required upon submission of the proposal. See Amendment 01.

6.) Per Section K, please revise the small business size standard amount. The correct amount should be $14.0 million.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

7.) What are the daily office hours of the USAID Mission in Tbilisi for delivering the proposal?

Answer: The Mission’s official business hours are from 9 am to 6 pm local Tbilisi time.

8.) Due to the requirement to send a hard copy of the technical and cost proposal, and that it takes 4 business days by FedEx/DHL, we request that the submission deadline be extended to Friday, December 7.

Answer: See answer to question 3, General Proposal Questions.

9.) Can you please clarify if it would be considered a conflict of interest to partner with Georgian firms and organizations with relevant experience on this proposal if those same firms are currently subcontractors for active USAID funded programs including EPI and AMP and potentially other projects to be evaluated eventually under this IQC?

Answer: We will not consider it to be a conflict of interest if these firms are included in the illustrative list of possible Georgian partners, but they should not be involved in implementing a Task Order of evaluating projects/programs/activities that they are involved in evaluating.

10.) Please clarify the guidance stated in Section B.3 and Section B.5 addressing the initial obligation of funds. Does this guidance suggest that the budget for Task Order #1 should not exceed $200,000?

Answer: No, this means that USAID will fund a minimum of $200,000 for the entire IQC. We anticipate the level of effort for Task Order #1 to be between $200,000 and $250,000.

11.) I have noticed in the last two solicitations that we follow that the Interested Vendor's List is not available on the FBO site. Can you provide a list available for this solicitation?

Answer: See Attachment 6.

12.) Does USAID/Georgia intend to record impact evaluation results in an electronic data management system or clearinghouse? If that is the Mission’s intention, what technology is currently in use or under development for that purpose?

Answer: The evaluation policy states: “All quantitative data collected by USAID or one of the Agency’s contractors or grantees for the purposes of an evaluation must be uploaded and stored in a central database. (Guidance regarding the procedures for this warehousing will be issued at a later date.) The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation.” While there is no standard, we would like to have the quantitative data in easily readable form (can be excel file with attached code book, etc).

Technical Proposal Questions

1.) Can we include the Evaluation Design Matrix, Draft questionnaires, and work plan for the Task Order as attachments?

Answer: Yes.

2.) According to Section L, the first section, Technical Approach, should be approximately 20 pages. If the total number of pages for the technical proposal is limited to 25, please clarify how we are supposed to fit Key Personnel, Institutional Capacity, and Past Performance with all their requirements in 5 pages.

Answer: It is only suggested that the technical approach for the IQC be no more than ten pages. It is likely this section will be shorter. Details of what needs to be included in the ten page limit are given on page 67 of the RFP under L.7.B Technical Approach and L.7.B.1 a. General Approach. Additional information, such as CVs, implemented evaluations, past performance reports, etc. can be provided as annexes/attachments.

3.) Page 70, under Institutional Capacity, states that we provide “demonstrated organizational knowledge and experience with developing, managing, and implementing similar evaluation programs.” Page 72, Past Performance, states that “the Offeror must describe their own and their Subcontractor’s capability in producing similar results.” Please clarify the difference between these two statements.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

4.) Will the detailed performance and impact evaluations be included as attachments?

Answer: No.

5.) Section L.7.B.4 (at the bottom of page 72) requests Past Performance References from Offerors (ie, implying they are not required for subcontractors). However, on page 73 in the same section, the RFP states “If offerors or their proposed Subcontractors encountered problems on any of the referenced contracts, they may provide a short explanation…”, implying that Past Performance References for subcontractors may/should be submitted. Please clarify whether Past Performance References are allowed or required for proposed subcontractors. Also please clarify how many Past Performance References USAID is seeking from each offeror and (if required) subcontractor.

Answer: See Amendment 01. Past Performance References are only required for subcontractors working 25% or more of the contract. See L.7.B.4 regarding “major subcontractors.”

6.) Key evaluation question 3 for the EPI performance evaluation requires the contractor to do a comparative analysis of this project with other USAID projects in the region which have (1) the same general objectives of the EPI, (2) fewer and less diverse project activities, and (3) a single project implementer and not a consortium of implementers. This is an extremely difficult request that likely cannot be accomplished given the time and resources for this project.

Questions include:

a.) Has the mission identified the USAID projects with which EPI is to be compared? How does USAID expect the contractor to identify these projects?

b.) If successful in identifying comparable projects meeting all of these criteria, can USAID assure access to all relevant results and documents from those projects? Are they generally available? Is the financial reporting from the other projects in substantially similar format or will the contractor have to prepare its own financial analyses of the projects to determine indicators such as cost efficiency, etc.?

c.) Does USAID expect that analysis of other projects in the region can be assessed on the stated grounds (cost, efficiency, etc.) without interviewing the implementers and beneficiaries of those other projects? Would the comparative analysis proceed solely on the basis of available project documents? Is this feasible given that the question specifically asks for assessment of the “level of collaboration” on the other projects?

d.) By what criteria is the contractor to determine that projects have been more or less cost efficient and “successful”? Are the activities/tasks of the available projects sufficiently similar to allow comparisons? Are the national contexts of the projects sufficiently similar to allow comparisons?

Answer: See Amendment 01. This question has been deleted.

7.) Regarding the evaluation of high level indicators for EPI (page 85):

a.) Were quantitative baselines established by the project for these indicators prior to commencement of project interventions?

Answer: Yes.

b.) Were the EPI interventions implemented selectively among areas and potential beneficiaries, or on a national basis?

Answer: EPI interventions are implemented on a national basis.

c.) Can USAID confirm that there is good time series data available for these indicators segmented by the sectors in which EPI interventions were made?

Answer: The data are available through EPI’s PMP reports. See Attachments 9 and 10.

d.) What does USAID mean by “attributable to EPI”? Does USAID understand that it is not possible to suggest causality in the present case without sophisticated experimental or quasi-experimental and econometric analysis that are beyond the staffing levels and resources proposed for this evaluation?

Answer: By “attributable to EPI” we mean the results achieved by EPI interventions. We are not asking for any experimental or quasi-experimental design of evaluation for this performance evaluation.

8.) The possible research tools mentioned in the RFP for the TO include surveys. Given the staffing resources and the time allowed for this evaluation it seems not possible to do a statistically meaningful field survey. Please clarify if a survey is required Answer: The SOW does not state that the survey is required, it instead it states that “The Mission is looking for the offeror to suggest the best methods that minimize bias and provide strong evidence.”

9.) In an effort to minimize our repeated requests to our government clients to complete multiple versions of Past Performance Questionnaires, may Contractors submit completed Customer Past Performance Survey Forms, MCC’s equivalent of the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2) asking the same questions, to demonstrate client satisfaction of past performance?

Answer: Yes, as long as the information answers the same questions on past performance that USAID will use to evaluate past performance.

10.) USAID requires that candidates of key personnel must include contact information of supervisors for four of the most recent positions held. Given that candidates for key personnel will be very experienced, it is quite possible that such candidates will have served in his or her current position for several years and that providing reference for four past supervisors may not be that relevant or even possible (as four supervisors may require going back as long as 20+ years). Please advise in cases where candidates have held only a few positions over an extended period of time that client references for projects which the candidate may have supported can be provided instead of supervisor references.

Answer: If it is an experienced candidate and it does not make sense to go back to four supervisors, please provide client references or other performance reference information that is relevant. This should be explained in the proposal.

11.) Parts of the qualifications for the IQC manager in Section L.7.B.2a seem inappropriate for an IQC manager and more appropriate for an Evaluation Specialist, e.g. “Considerable experience in designing, monitoring, and evaluating development assistance programs…” and “Experience in participating in evaluation and assessment teams including impact evaluations, and/or experience in statistics and statistical research and methodologies is highly desirable.” In our experience and in the experience of our partners who do a lot of performance and impact evaluations, specialists with the evaluation criteria described in the RFP (especially impact evaluation which is a relatively new type of evaluation) are not managers, they are technical experts who are supported by a manager. Are those specifications meant to be for the evaluation specialist, which is also key personnel?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

12.) L.7.B.3.a, paragraph 1 asks for “a list of all evaluations performed and completed in the past 3 years (see Past Performance below.) L.7.B.4 Past Performance asks for a matrix that lists no more than 5 current or past projects. This section also asks that offerors provide this information for proposed major subcontractors. Please clarify the quantity requested for the matrix – is it all evaluations conducted and completed in the past 3 years or a total of 5 from offerors and their subcontractors?

Answer: All relevant work performed in the past three years should be submitted. See Amendment 01.

13.) Section C.4. Task Orders Already Identified: the last sentence in paragraph A.1 (page 14). “The evaluations will be implemented by separate teams of relevant field and evaluation experts,” seems to contradict directions provided on page 95, second paragraph, “The contractor will be required to visit Georgia once. The Team Leader’s visit will commence on … for approximately 34 work days (19 days for EPI and 15 days for AMP).” Given the subject matter differences in the two projects, may contractors consider having two separate teams directed by two separate team leaders instead?

Answer: Page 93 states: “The following levels of effort are illustrative and should serve only as an example of the staff which may be mobilized under this Task Order.” USAID prefers that offerors suggest and justify their own team composition and timelines.

14.) On page 73, under L.7.B.4 – Past Performance, it is stated “Offerors must not provide general information on their performance.” Please clarify.

Answer: We encourage offerors to ensure specifics are provided with regards to the projects, awards, problems identified, etc.

15.) On page 90, it is mentioned that the contractor will conduct a four-day desk review for EPI and a two-day desk review for AMP. However, on page 94 in the matrix for EPI, it is stated that the International Technical Consultant for EPI will work for 9 days in the US – 3 before and 7 after. Is the desk review supposed to be 3 or 4 days? Please clarify.

Answer: See answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

16.) In the same table as above, it is stated that the Technical Consultant for EPI will work for 9 days in the US – 3 before and 7 after. However, 3+7 equals 10 days total. Considering that it was also stated that there will be 4 days of desk review, please specify if it is expected that the International Technical Consultant will work in the US for 9, 10, or 11 days.

Answer: See answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

17.) In the same table, it is stated that the Local Economic and Evaluation Consultants will work for 20 days, including 3 days to finalize the evaluation. This means that the consultant will be conducting field work for 17 days. However, the International consultant will be conducting field work in Georgia for 20 days. Is it envisioned that the local consultant will not be present for the entire evaluation? If not, shouldn’t the local consultant’s total working days equal the international consultant’s days in Georgia + 3 to finalize the evaluation? Please clarify.

Answer: See answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

18.) In the same table, the translator is working for a total of 13 days. However, the international consultant will be in Georgia for 19 days. Shouldn’t the translator work for the entire time the international consultant is in the country? Please clarify.

Answer: See answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

19.) On page 95, it is stated that ‘the contractor shall initiate Washington-based work by reading reports and familiarizing him/herself with the projects…’ Is it expected that the international consultant will travel to Washington, DC to conduct desk review of materials if he/she does not live there or is working from the consultant’s place of residence acceptable?

Answer: The consultant’s place of residence is acceptable.

20.) If the team leader conducts both evaluations in one trip how many in-briefing sessions and out-briefing sessions will the teams have with USAID? Will the meetings for EPI and AMP be separate or held together?

Answer: There will be four in-briefing and out-briefing sessions between EPI and AMP. They will be held separate.

21.) According to the required deliverables, if two reports are expected, it will be very difficult for the team leader to evaluate the two projects back-to-back or simultaneously. Evaluating the EPI project and then immediately evaluating the AMP project would result in the team leader working on the EPI evaluation draft report and possibly the final report while in the midst of evaluating a separate project in order to comply with the deliverables required. Likewise, if the team leader evaluates both projects at the same time he/she will have to write two draft and final evaluation reports at the same time. Please clarify the intensions for the EPI and AMP evaluation?

Answer: See answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

22.) Do travel days count as work days? From the information given it does not appear that days spent traveling to Georgia and back are considered work days.

Answer: Company policies should dictate this policy. The U.S. government considers travel days to be work days for its employees.

23.) As there are two projects being evaluated in one trip please clarify whether the team needs to submit two draft work plans, one for EPI and one for AMP prior to departure for Georgia?

Answer: Yes, there will be two evaluation designs and work plans.

24.) The matrix on page 94 and page 95 show that the team leader will only spend three days conducting material review and preparing the work plan for the EPI evaluation, and only two days doing this for the AMP evaluation. Does the Mission feel that this is sufficient time for the team leader to review all the materials for both projects and create two research designs and work plans?

Answer: Two days for AMP (16 hours) and three days for EPI (24 hours) is sufficient, but it is illustrative allowing the offeror to propose different timing. See answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

25.) The matrix on page 94 and page 95 indicate that the local consultants will not spend any days working on material review or the work plan. Thus, the team leader will be the only person completing document review and writing the work plan and research design. Please clarify.

Answer: The matrix is illustrative. Please see answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

26.) Should we refer to the deliverables described in Attachment 1, the Statement of Work, or the deliverables in section F.6, as they are sometimes different? For example:

a.) Attachment 1 states that the final work plan/evaluation plan will be submitted to USAID during the in-brief meeting. However the Section F.6 states that the team will have two days following the in-brief meeting to make changes and finalize the material.

Answer: For this example (a), see Amendment 01. Offerors should use the parameters in F.6 when designing their timeline while also keeping in mind the illustrative timeline provided in the SOW.

27.) Is it expected that the contractor provide a written explanation of institutional capacity/experience to ‘demonstrate organizational knowledge and experience with developing, managing, and implementing similar evaluation programs,’ as is written on page 70 under L.7.B.3? Or, is it expected that subsections L.7.B.3.a and L.7.B.3.b will provide the answer to the overall question?

Answer: Subsections will provide the answer to the question.

28.) Is USAID expecting three separate matrices for current/past performances?

a.) A detailed list of all evaluations performed and completed in the past 3 years – Section L.7.B.3.a (p.71) b.) A matrix that lists no more than five (5) current or past contracts and subcontracts that are similar in subject matter, size, statement, and complexity to the SOW above – Section L.7.B.4 (p.72) c.) A matrix that lists all contracts with USAID that are currently on-going or that have ended within three years of the date of issuance of this solicitation – Section L.7.B.4 (p.72)

Answer: No, one matrix with all of the most relevant experience performed and completed from the past three years. See Amendment 01.

29.) On pages 72-73, the RFP discusses the Past Performance Reports that clients must submit to USAID based on the contractor’s previous work. Is the contractor expected to provide their own PPRs as well in addition to the client PPRs?

Answer: The offeror is expected to ask their clients to submit the PPRs to USAID directly on the contractor’s performance UNLESS this information is accessible in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System. See Amendment 01.

30.) Section M, Institutional Capacity, states that “Offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate the establishment of a full technical and management/support staffing plan, with adequate numbers of staff addressing all relevant technical areas and to work with and support all key personnel.” However, planning, implementing and managing task orders is also required to be explained under Technical Approach, M.3.A.1.a. In addition, Section L, Institutional Capacity requires the Offeror to: 1) provide demonstrated experience to similar evaluations; 2) how staff are planned to be recruited; 3) what mechanisms are in place to identify suitable candidates; and 4) the use of local organizations, which is not exactly what Section M states. Please clarify what should be included in the Institutional Capacity section and where should the staffing plan go.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

31.) Section L, Past Performance states that “Offerors must describe their own and their Subcontractors’ capability in producing similar results. However, in Section M, this seems to be under Institutional Capacities. Please clarify what will be included in the Past Performance Section.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

32.) Past Experience Matrix: Page 71, L.7.B.3 (1), calls for “a list of all evaluations performed and completed in the past 3 years.” Later, on page 72, L.7.B.4 requests a matrix that “lists all contracts with USAID that are currently on-going or that have ended within three years of the date of the issuance of this Solicitation.” Could the Mission please confirm whether bidders are to submit a list of all evaluations or all contracts within the past three years?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

33.) Page 72, L.7.B.3 (1), calls for a matrix that “(i) lists no more than five (5) current or past contracts and subcontracts that are similar in subject matter, size, statement, and complexity to the Statement of Work.” Should this list of 5 contracts correspond to the contracts for which bidders are to submit Past Performance Reports (using Attachment 2 format).

Answer: See Amendment 01.

34.) Page 72, L.7.B.3 (1), calls for Past Performance Reports, submitted directly from clients. Could the Mission please clarify how many Reports should be submitted?

Answer: See answer to question 29, Technical Proposal Questions.

35.) Could the Mission please confirm that we have understood the Past Performance requirements for this proposal? Our reading of the RFP requires that Offerors are to submit:

a.) Past Experience Matrix: stating (i) five most relevant contracts and (ii) all contracts from the past three years (as an Annex) b.) Past Performance Reports: to be submitted directly from clients, using Attachment 2 format c.) A list of the client contact information from which Past Performance Reports have been requested d.) Detailed information about one Impact Evaluation and one Performance Evaluation within the Corporate Capability section of the technical proposal Answer: See Amendment 01.

36.) Section L.7.B.4 Past Performance (pg.72) does not specify if subcontractor past performance can be claimed by the prime for evaluation. Can the prime contractor claim subcontractor past performance?

Answer: See answer to question 5, Technical Proposal Questions, and please keep in mind FAR 52.219-14.

37.) In reference Section L.7.B.1.b on page 68 of the RFP, could the required Task Order # 1 evaluation matrix and evaluation work plan be provided in annex, not subject to the page limits of the technical proposal?

Answer: Evaluation matrix and work plan can be in the Annex.

38.) Page 95 of the RFP states that for Task Order #1, the Team Leader’s visit to Georgia will commence no later than November 5, 2012. Can the Mission propose an updated timeline for this Task Order?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

39.) Could USAID confirm that the executive summary is not included in the page limits of the technical proposal?

Answer: It is not included in the 25 page limit.

40.) For background on the Mission’s approach to M&E, could USAID please provide a copy of Mission Order # 203, referred to on p. 11?

Answer: This is an internal mission document that provides guidance to the mission’s employees. See Amendment 01.

41.) Regarding work requirements for assessments (p. 13), are the secondary review, analyses and synthesis (service # 2) expected to be part of the five sector assessments and/or other analytical tasks (service # 1)? If not, how many deliverables are expected from service # 2?

Answer: They are included, and there will be a maximum of five assessments. Please keep in mind that the requirements are still being developed and may change.

42.) Page 12 of the RFP states that the contractor will be responsible for organizing stakeholder reviews of evaluation reports. Does USAID foresee that these reviews will take place while evaluation teams are conducting its in-country activities? If so, have the overall MEM budget and the proposed timeline for TO #1 been designed with the time and staff resources required to accomplish this?

Answer: When requested by USAID, this will be included in TO SOWs.

43.) For the TO # 1 EPI illustrative LOE allocation (p. 94), the number of work days in the US is given as 9 but this is followed by the parenthetical remark that this is “three before and seven after the visit to finalize the evaluation.” Is the number of work days in the US intended to be 9 or 10? In addition, we assume that the total number of work days will include days for international travel, which are not included in the TO # 1 illustrative LOE charts.

Answer: Please see answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

44.) Section L.7, page 66, instructs bidders to utilize 12 point font size and that over 25 pages will not be evaluated. A limitation of 10 pages for the General Approach and the Task Order #1 sections are suggested respectively. Kindly clarify with the five remaining pages that bidders are to include the Personnel, Organizational Capacity and Past Performance sections or whether the page limitation might be amended.

Answer: See answer to question 2, Technical Proposal Questions.

45.) Page 71 of the RFP, L.7.B.3.a requests details on contracts completed in the last three years. Given the extended length of some contracts, in particular Impact Evaluations which last between 2 and 5 years, will the Mission consider accepting complete and current contracts?

Answer: Completed contracts or those 75% or more completed.

46.) Please confirm that Offerors can propose a level of effort for Task Order 1 that differs from the USAID-suggested level of effort in Attachment 1, Section 6.

Answer: Yes.

47.) Please clarify how many data collection points (baseline, mid-line, endline) Offerors should anticipate performing for each Impact Evaluation (three required over the life of the IQC).

Answer: There will be a minimum of two, maximum of three data collection points per impact evaluation.

48.) Per Section L.7.B.1.b, General Approach, “The proposed research design should explain in detail what methods will be used to obtain answers for each evaluation question. The evaluation design will include a detailed evaluation matrix (including the key questions, methods and data sources used to address each question.” Is the detailed evaluation matrix to be included in the Evaluation Design or as an annex?

Answer: The evaluation matrix may be included in the Annex. The evaluation design is part of the proposal.

49.) Per Section L.7.B.2.a (2), Key Personnel, Throughout the RFP, it calls for an Evaluation Specialist to be a Key Person. However, this section states: "Evaluation Specialist or information about a pool of evaluation specialists from which task order evaluation specialists will be chosen. Evaluation Specialist/s will be responsible to provide technical guidance to the contractor on evaluation methodologies as well as to develop evaluation design for each task order." Please clarify if the Evaluation Specialist is in fact a Key Person on this contract.

Answer: See Amendment 01. Offerors have three options: 1.) IQC Manager and Evaluation Specialist as separate individuals; 2.) IQC Manager as THE key personnel and a pool of Evaluation Specialists; and 3.) IQC Manager who is also the Evaluation Specialist.

50.) Per Section L.7.B.2.b.2, “Personnel Qualifications for EPI and AMP evaluations”, it states “Collectively, the two experts should have education and experience with economic and private sector development and evaluation/statistical methods.” Please clarify if that means either experts must have the same experience, or between them they are to have that experience.

Answer: Between them they are to have that experience.

51.) Per L.7.B.3.a.1., offerors are to provide, “a list of all evaluations performed and completed in the past 3 years”. Please clarify if these are to be included in the Institutional Experience section of the technical proposal or are to be included in an Annex.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

52.) Per, L.7.B.3.a.2, it states that offerors are to provide, “Detailed information on one Impact Evaluation.” Will USAID accept an example of an on-going impact evaluation?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

53.) Per Attachment 1, Section 6. Performance Period, 7.1 EPI, under “Number of Work Days” for the International Technical Expert, the RFP states “9 (three before and seven after…” Please clarify this difference and let us know if the RFP should state a total of 10 or 9.

Answer: See answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

54.) Per, Attachment 1, Section 6. Performance Period, 7.2 AMP, it states that the team leader will visit no later than November 5. As this date has since passed, would USAID please consider a date starting in early January?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

55.) Per Section L.7.B.3.a.1 and Section L7.B.4 Past Performance, please clarify if we are to include all evaluations for USAID or all evaluations, including evaluations completed for other donors in the 3 year time span.

Answer: This includes evaluations from other donors.

56.) Is it correct to assume Section L.8 Instructions for the Price Proposal (IQC) is the required information/format for the task order #1?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

57.) Can USAID provide the PMP and the most recent quarterly and/or annual reports for both EPI and AMP projects?

Answer: Yes. See Attachments 7, 8, 9, and 10.

58.) Can USAID clarify if the two evaluations under TO #1 will be going on simultaneously and if it is requested that the Team Leader manages/leads those efforts at the same time? As such, could USAID please clarify the illustrative in-country LOE for the Team Leader; in other words, will the Team Leader be in Georgia consecutively for 34 days (i.e., the two in-country LOEs for the Team Leader) or can he/she be in Georgia for a shorter period of time (which is possible if the evaluations are being conducted simultaneously)?

Answer: See answer to question 13, Technical Proposal Questions.

59.) Under F.4 – Key Personnel on page 19 and L.7.B.2.a “Personnel” on page 68, could USAID provide more specific details regarding the required qualifications for the “Evaluation Specialist” role as key personnel, in a similar fashion to the details provided for the IQC Manager? This could include level of education, number of years experience, technical areas of experience and any other preferred background.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

60.) Can USAID please confirm the following: the total page limit for the technical proposal, including the IQC and task order is 25 pages. That includes 10 pages for the IQC technical approach, 10 for the task order approach, and 5 for the description of personnel and institutional capabilities, including narratives of past evaluations and recruitment capabilities.

Answer: See answer to question 2, Technical Proposal Questions.

61.) In L.7.B.3.a. you require “a list of all evaluations performed and completed in the past 3 years (see Past Performance below).” In the L.7.B.4 you require a matrix that “(i) lists no more than five (5) current or past contracts and subcontracts that are similar in subject matter, size, statement, and complexity to the Statement of Work above and (ii) lists all contracts with USAID that are currently on-going or that have ended within three years of the date of the issuance of this Solicitation. This information should be the same as that presented for the criteria of Institutional Capacity listed above.”

The capabilities requirement pertains to all evaluations performed within the past three years whereas the past performance matrix states that all contracts within the past three years must be included. How are these lists then to be the same? Can you please clarify regarding this discrepancy?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

62.) L.7.B.4 states that “Offerors must provide along with their technical and cost proposals, filled and completed Past Performance Reports on current or past contracts/subcontracts. These reports must be submitted directly to USAID from the offeror’s clients Attachment 2). The offerors must seek feedback in their Past Performance Reports.”

a.) The RFP asks for PPRs, and has included a Past Performance Questionnaire. Does the questionnaire serve as a PPR or are we to supply PPRs in addition to the Questionnaires?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

b.) Also, how many PPRs should be submitted? How many PPRS and/or Questionnaires should be submitted by major subcontractors?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

63.) Is there expectation that the Evaluation Specialist be based in Georgia for 5 years full-time?

Answer: No.

64.) On page 95 it states, “The team leader’s visit will commence no later than on November 5, 2012.” What is the actual date you had in mind for this?

Answer: Two weeks from date of award. See Amendment 01.

65.) Concerning Task Order #1, is there a baseline available for the two projects (EPI & AMP)?

Answer: Yes, for EPI and is included with the attached PMP. No baseline developed for AMP.

66.) Are the Task Order #1 illustrative evaluation matrices to be included in the page count?

Answer: No, proposed evaluation matrices are not included in the page count, but the evaluation design supporting the matrices should be in the page count.

67.) Page 19,Section F.4 Key Personnel states that the IQC Manager and the Evaluation Specialist are considered key personnel and replacement of these individuals is not permissible without written authorization by the CO, however on page 69 Section L.7.B.2 (a) (2), the language about the evaluation specialist infers it was not one proposed person but could be a pool of individuals. Can USAID please clarify, if there is to be a proposed evaluation specialist similar to the IQC Manager who must be named and available for the Task Order, or if there could be a pool of personnel proposed.

Answer: See answer to question 49, Technical Proposal Questions.

68.) Page 66, L.7.A clearly states that the technical approach should be no more than 25 pages. Page 67, L.7.B.1 (a. and b.) states that the General Approach should be limited to 10 pages, and the Task Order should be limited to 10 pages. Should we assume the section on Institutional Capacity/Experience, Section, L.7.B.3 should be limited to 5 pages?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Technical Proposal Questions.

69.) Can USAID please confirm that the work plan mentioned as part of the task order on L.7.B.1 General Approach (b) can be submitted as an annex and will not be included as part of the 25-page limit?

Answer: Yes, the work plan can be part of the Annex.

70.) Per page 68 of the proposal, it is clear under paragraph a. (1) Section L.7.B.2 that CVs for key personnel are to be included in the proposal, however on page 69, paragraph b. under L.7.B.2, it infers that CVs would be included in the narrative response for the task order. Will CVs be considered outside of the 25-page maximum?

Answer: CVs should be included in the Annex.

71.) In Attachment I - Statement of Work on page 88 for the EPI under 2 a question is "Have businesses changed business practices, increased productivity and the value of their enterprises, thus contributing to the overall competitiveness of value chains and the Georgian private sector?" This question is not included in the Illustrative Evaluation Matrix on page 91. Instead a question appears on that Matrix that is not mentioned in the preceding pages of the SOW. It reads, "What level of engagement and ownership is demonstrated by beneficiaries, including but not limited to farmers, private enterprises, and Government of Georgia counterparts: What are their perceptions of the program?" Should we address this last question, the former question, or both?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

72.) In Attachment I - Statement of Work on page 89 for the AMP under 1. the 4th question is "Has the establishment of competing Georgian government mechanization centers impacted the MSCs established by AMP?" This question is very similar to the 2nd question under 2 that reads "How did the establishment or expansion of MSCs harm or help competing mechanization service providers, including Government of Georgia owned centers?" This question is in the Matrix. Could you please clarify which centers were established first, MSCs or Government of Georgia owned centers? Should the first question be added to the Evaluation Matrix?

Answer: AMP and Georgian Government centers were established during the same time period. In several regions AMP opened service centers earlier. The first question has been added to the illustrative matrix, see Amendment 01.

73.) Please confirm that the technical proposal to respond to the IQC is limited to 25 pages and that the response to Task Order #1 must be included in the 25-page limit and should not exceed 10 pages of these 25?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Technical Proposal Questions.

74.) Please confirm if the evaluation matrices and work plans requested in response to Task Order #1 may be placed in an Annex and not be included against the 10 pages limited for the TO response.

Answer: Yes, they may be included in the Annex.

75.) Information on what to include in the Task Order proposal response is provided in several places throughout the RFP, to include on Pages 68, 79, and 90. There is a bit of discrepancy in these sections on what the offeror’s response should include. Specifically, please confirm if the offeror is to provide drafts of both data collection tools and draft questionnaires that will be used to support Task Order #1 with submission of this proposal. If so, can USAID provide guidance as to the level of specificity the offeror is to provide for these tools and questionnaires at this time.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

76.) Please advise as to the average amount of time the provider will have to respond to Task Order Requests – to include developing an evaluation design and recruiting and mobilizing a Task Order Team.

Answer: Between 30 and 45 days.

77.) Section L.7.B.2 paragraph a (1) asks for contact information of the supervisors for key personnel for the four most recent positions the candidate has held. Are you asking for references for the four most recent assignments the candidate has worked on rather than positions held?

Answer: See answer to question 10, Technical Proposal Questions.

78.) Please confirm the total number of past performance questionnaires that should be submitted on behalf of the prime and subcontractor offerors.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

79.) Please clarify if the contracts asked for in statement (ii) on page 72 – list all contracts with USAID that are currently on-going or that have ended within 3 years – should be limited to evaluation type contracts, or should the offeror include contracts for any type of service provided to USAID –for example a contract that provided training or IT services?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

80.) Please confirm that the offeror it to provide two separate lists of examples of similar evaluations performed, as stated in the RFP at the following sections:

a.) Sec. L.7.B.4 – In the Annex, offerors must include a matrix that (i) lists no more than five (5) current or past contracts or subcontractors that are similar in subject matter, size, statement and complexity to the SOW b.) Sec. L.7.B.3A – A list of all evaluations performed and completed in the past 3 years.

Please advise to what information is needed in this list?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

81.) Please advise as to what type of information USAID wishes to see in response to the following request: Sec. L.7.B.3A – A list of all evaluations performed and completed in the past 3 years. For example, must the offeror provide full past performance information, to include period of performance, contract value, description of work, etc. or just simply a list of evaluations completed to include: client, title of contract, and period of performance?

Answer: See Amendment 01.

82.) Sec L.7.B.3.A, #2. May the offeror provide an example of an impact evaluation currently underway, even though there may be no documented evaluation findings yet.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

Cost Proposal Questions 1.) Is the budget for the TO fixed fee or CPFF?

Answer: Task Order #1 is firm fixed price.

2.) Section L.8 appears to be asking for an overall IQC cost proposal, however, there is insufficient information in the SOW to prepare a budget for the overall IQC. Please clarify.

Answer: We have changed the requirement to ONE cost proposal for Task Order #1. The initial award will be evaluated on the cost proposal for Task Order #1. See Amendment 01.

3.) Is only one budget required for each of the two evaluations (EPI and AMP) included under Task #1?

Answer: Yes.

4.) Section L.5 (d) asks for indirect cost information as required by Sections B and L of the RFP (page 65), and Section B.5, 3rd paragraph (2nd sentence in 1st paragraph on page 8) seems to imply contractors should propose indirect rates and fixed fee ceilings, however, we see no explicit reference to either in the RFP. Please provide a clear list of what you expect contractors to provide for the cost proposal.

Answer: See Amendment 01.

5.) Section L.5 (d)(3) asks contractors to complete Section K, Representations Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors. Are subcontractors also required to complete Section K?

Answer: No, it is the responsibility of the prime contractor to ensure the subcontractor is responsible.

6.) According to paragraph 7 on page 67 of the RFP, all evaluation team members are required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, which corresponds to Attachment 4 on page 106. Attachment 4 on page 106 seems more appropriate for those who are evaluating the proposals submitted on behalf of the RFP rather than for contractors who will be providing evaluation services in response to the SOW included in this RFP. Is that intentional, or should there be another Conflict of Interest template that is more relevant to the services to be provided by the contractor?

Answer: Attachment 4 has been deleted in its entirety. The correct form is in Attachment 5, Annex 6.

7.) IQC Manager, Page 19 –Although the IQC Manager is considered a key personnel (along with Evaluation Specialist), this person may not be billed as Direct Labor. Could USAID agree to be billed for this key personnel as Direct Labor, rather than as part of indirect costs?

Answer: Yes, the key personnel may be billed directly to each Task Order.

8.) Price Proposal, Page 74 – A detailed budget with detailed budget notes are required for IQC, in addition to one for Task Order. Will budget for Task Order suffice, or one for IQC is also necessary? If a budget for IQC is needed, can USAID furnish additional parameters to compile such budget?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

9.) Please clarify the instructions for the pricing of the IQC (L.8). What is the basis that Offerors must utilize to develop a detailed 5-year budget?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

a.) Should Offerors provide a five year budget to perform the Scope of Work delineated in C.3 and C.4? If so can USAID provide additional information regarding the scopes of work for the performance evaluations (five per year on average) to be conducted, as well as the three Impact Evaluations, so that Offerors can provide reasonable and informed budgets?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

b.) Should the IQC pricing also include the budget for Task Order #1, or is the latter outside the performance evaluations noted in C.3?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

10.) Please provide Offerors with the current US Embassy Local Compensation Plan for locally hired personnel.

Answer: See Attachment 11.

11.) As the instructions for preparing the cost proposal seem to be aimed at the Task Order #1, would you please provide instructions on how to prepare the price proposal for the IQC.

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

12.) Please provide the local compensation plan.

Answer: See Attachment 11.

13.) For Section L.8 Instructions for the Price Proposal (IQC), the instructions are clear for the categories that should be detailed in the budget and accompanying notes, however we are not clear on if there are one or two price proposals. L.9 is for the Task Order #1, however is this considered separate from a cost proposal for the IQC, or is there just one budget for the Task Order?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

14.) Please confirm if the offeror is two submit 2 separate and distinct price proposals in separate binders, as follows:

a.) One distinct price proposal for the IQC (1 binder) b.) One distinct price proposal for Task Order #1 – which will present separate budgets for the proposed EPI and AMP evaluations and but provide a total cost for the Task Order (2nd binder)

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

15.) Will USAID consider providing additional assumptions or LOE estimates to support the development of the budget at the IQC Level?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

16.) Will USAID consider providing a more detailed template for the offeror to use to develop its IQC price proposal?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

17.) In developing assumptions for IQC budget, should the offeror include the three already identified Task Orders as listed on page 13 and 14 and the remaining (expected) performance/impact evaluations and assessments as noted in Sec C.4 Work Requirements (listed on pages 12 and 13)?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

18.) Please confirm if the offeror should include the proposed budget for Task Order #1 in its assumptions for the total price proposed for the IQC budget.

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

19.) For budgeting purposes, shall we assume that one sector assessment will take place each year of the contract?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

20.) For budgeting purposes, in what years shall we assume implementation of the 3 impact evaluations?

Answer: See answer to question 2, Cost Proposal Questions.

21.) For budgeting purposes, shall we assume that the mid-term evaluation of the Judicial Independence and Legal Empowerment (JILEP) Project will take place in contract year 1 – in FY 2013?

Answer: Yes, however we are no longer asking for an overall IQC budget.

22.) Can USAID provide an FSN scale for Georgia and/or the local US Embassy compensation plan?

Answer: See Attachment 11.

23.) Please confirm that all personnel proposed at both the IQC Level and Task Order 1 must sign the Conflict of Interest form provided in Attachment 4 of the RFP. Please confirm that the contractor must include these signed forms in the appropriate cost proposals.

Answer: See answer to question 6, Cost Proposal Questions 24.) Page 67 of the RFP, L.7.A (7) states that all evaluation team members are to provide a signed conflict of interest form (attachment 4). Given that bidders are unsure about the programs that will be evaluated over the life of the IQC contract, we assume that this is only required for the Task Order #1 proposed team, and will be required for other individuals only once they are proposed for a role in a specific Task Order. Is this correct, or should the Offeror submit COI forms in the proposal for all proposed personnel?

Answer: Yes, this is only required for Task Order #1 at this time. See answer to question 6, Cost Proposal Questions.