Amendment_03_-_Q As.pdf

~ 1 ~

ISSUE DATE: June 9, 2016

REFERENCE: Request for Proposals (RFP) number SOL-165-16-000003 – Activity for

Civic Engagement (ACE)

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 3

Dear Offerors:

The purpose of this Amendment No. 3 to provide answers to the second session of questions received by stated deadline on June 07, 2016.

Question 1: In response to Question 3 of the Q&A, USAID confirms that indicators, benchmarks, and targets are required after award by the successful contractor and not by all offerors as part of their proposal (Amendment No. 1, page 1). However, in the amended RFP, USAID states that the offeror should propose a “Draft Monitoring and Evaluation plan with proposed targets and indicators (not to exceed 1 page)” (L.6, page 67). Could USAID clarify whether the offerors should include proposed targets and indicators in the draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, or whether indicators and targets may be developed by the successful contractor post-award?

Answer 1: Offerors should include a draft one page Monitoring and Evaluation Plan with illustrative targets and indicators. The actual Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be developed post award by the recipient in collaboration with USAID.

Question 2: Could USAID kindly specify the requirements for the one-page Draft M&E Plan referenced in Section L.6 (page 67)?

Answer 2: See answer 1.

Question 3: In response to Question 6 from the first Q&A regarding the cover letter and executive summary language in L.5 and L.6 of the RFP, USAID stated that offerors will submit “either a cover letter or an executive summary limited to two pages, and not both.” If the offeror submits a one-page cover letter and a one-page executive summary in keeping with the overall page requirement, would that be acceptable?

Answer 3: Yes.

Question 4: Can a local organization appear as a sub-contractor with more than one lead partner for this call?

Answer 4: Yes.

Question 5: Our organization is incorporated and legally organized as a foundation under the laws of Macedonia; it is managed by governing board consisted of Macedonian citizens; it employs Macedonian citizens; the founder of the organization is Swiss legal entity

~ 2 ~

(foundation) that has statutory right to approve the executive director and board members of our organization - the Macedonian legal entity. Is our organization eligible to apply for this RFP (SOL-165-16-000003) either as prospective prime or subcontractor?

Answer 5: As a prime and as a sub, yes. However, the organization wouldn’t meet the definition of a “local organization” in Section C.5 and wouldn’t be able to be counted towards that requirement.

Question 6: The original RFP, Section C.5, p. 11, stated that, “The contractor must identify and subcontract with an existing local organization, which then must perform substantial portions of this SOW”, implying, by the use of work “contractor” as opposed to “offeror”, that the identification of this local subcontractor would happen after the award. However, Amendment 1 to the RFP, answer 18, states that the local subcontractor must be identified during the proposal stage.

Would USAID reconsider the response in Amendment 1 and refer back to the language of the original RFP? In our experience, selecting these key local subcontractors after the contract is awarded, using open competition with clear selection criteria, makes the selection process for these important partners more transparent, creates an atmosphere of trust between the contractor and the local CSO community at project outset that is necessary for project success, and lessens potential hostilities among key local CSO partners that often arises when they are selected in advance, in a non-competitive manner during the proposal stage.

Answer 6: As stated in Amendment 1, local subcontractors must be identified during the proposal stage.

Question 7: Would USAID kindly provide additional guidance as to how USAID will evaluate proposals submitted at the lower end of the estimated project cost ($7,000,000) as opposed to those at the higher end ($10,000,000). Given that the RFP does not provide targets for the number of organizations and individuals the project is expected to support, how, for example, will USAID assess a proposal at the lower cost range that supports fewer beneficiaries versus a proposal at the higher end that supports a greater number of beneficiaries?

Answer 7: USAID will evaluate the differences utilizing a trade-off approach in accordance with Section M. Please review Section L and M for clarity on what USAID is seeking in the proposals.

Question 8: Page 69 of the RFP requires Past Performance Information Sheets for projects “with a cost between $5,000,000 and $15,000,000, with a period of performance falling within the last five years, and involving similar work as in Section C.” May offerors submit examples of projects less than $5,000,000 and more than $15,000,000 in order to provide USAID a more complete picture of relevant past performance?

Answer 8: No, given that past performance will be evaluated on a Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory/Neutral basis.

(END of Amendment 3)