Annex_to_ROL_Amdt_01.pdf

List of Questions with Answers:

1. Is a report available for the assessment of Serbia’s previous National Judicial Reform

Strategy?

RESPONSE: No, assessing the previous National Judicial Reform Strategy is part of this scope of work.

2. Is a report available regarding current human resource management practices in Serbian courts?

RESPONSE: The Serbia Judicial Function Review has some analysis on these issues, though the report is from 2014. Please see the link below:

http://www.mdtfjss.org.rs/archive//file/Serbia%20Judicial%20Functional%20Rev iew-Full%20Report.pdf

3. Has there been a pre-commitment to a particular technology platform for communicating information from litigants to and from the courts? Is there a report available assessing the pros and cons of the technology currently used?

RESPONSE: We do not have information regarding this.

4. When will the Ministry of Justice’s Human Resource Strategy for the judiciary be finalized and become available? Any supplemental information is useful as USAID’s eventual contractor is to directly support implementation of this strategy and support achievement of corresponding objectives.

RESPONSE: Adoption and implementation of a comprehensive human resources strategy is included in the current National Judicial Reform Strategy, Serbia’s Chapter 23 Action Plan, and the EU’s interim benchmarks for proceeding with Chapter 23 negotiations. The timing of the development of the strategy will depend on the Ministry of Justice and other government stakeholders

5. Drafting of the National Judicial Reform Strategy ’19’-23 and accompanying Action

Plan should be finalized during FY’18?

RESPONSE: We do anticipate the strategy will be drafted from approximately April 2018

– September 2018.

6. Upon completion of the NJRS ’19’-23 and accompanying Action Plan, the Contractor is to consult with USAID on components that will be supported through the project’s remaining timeframe. Are any other specifics available as to what this level of effort will entail?

RESPONSE: USAID anticipates this element will entail at least 20% of the level of effort of the project

RFP No. SOL16917000005; Rule of Law Project in Serbia

7. Can USAID/Serbia share any additional information regarding the case management system currently in use for courts of general jurisdiction and commercial courts?

RESPONSE: This program does not envision any activities working on the current case management system for the courts. Case management systems (or components) for enforcement agents or the State’s Attorney’s Office will need to be coordinated with the Ministry of Justice to ensure they are compatible with the relevant case management systems for the courts.

8. Can USAID please provide a plug figure for the following items:

a) Logistical support expected under Component 1 Task 1,

b) The CMS to be developed under Component 2 Task 1, and

c) The material support to be provided under Component 2 Task 2?

RESPONSE: No plug figures are provided. Offerors have the flexibility to come up with them.

9. Are the Expected Results listed for each Task illustrative or mandatory? May Offerors propose additional expected results?

RESPONSE: The results are mandatory; targets and addition details will be identified in the work plan. Offerors are encouraged to provide additional expected results.

The language in Section C has been modified.

10. Per COMPONENT 1, Task 2 on p.10 does USAID envision "support the development and implementation of training for court staff, in line with the recently developed judicial training needs assessment" to include only development and delivery training during the project or also support for developing and/or institutionalizing a court staff training program? Can USAID provide the most recent copy of the referenced assessment report?

RESPONSE: Training for court staff may be an element of implementation of the HR Strategy, but USAID does not anticipate this project will be a large-scale training program for the judiciary. Any training that is provided will be institutionalized through the Judicial Academy, to be continued after the conclusion of the project.

USAID expects the training needs assessment will be available before the start of this project.

11. As Component 1 Task 2 is focused on supporting “the implementation of the judicial system’s Human Resources Strategy, currently under development with the European Union assistance,” we request that USAID provide a recent draft of the Strategy and/or more specific information about the Strategy’s anticipated key elements and priorities.

RESPONSE: A draft of this strategy is not yet available. USAID anticipates that elements from the current National Judicial Reform Strategy and Action Plan, as well as Chapter 23 Action Plan, will be included in the Human Resources Strategy with additional detail.

12. As the CMS to be developed under Component 2 Task 1 “must be compatible with the

CMS for courts of general jurisdiction and commercial courts,” please clarify if the enforcement CMS should be compatible with the current courts’ CMS or with a new courts’ CMS that hasn’t been launched yet.

RESPONSE: USAID will work with the successful offeror to monitor the status of the CMS systems in the judiciary and based on this joint review USAID will decide whether the system developed under this project will be compatible with the existing CMS or a new CMS needs to be developed.

13. Per COMPONENT 2, TASK 2, p.11 The Solicitation states, "The Contractor must conduct a detailed analysis of operations of the SAO, identifying opportunities to improve performance of the SAO and reduce the time and cost associated with cases involving the SAO. The Contractor must support the implementation of recommendations based on the assessment." Does "reduce the time and cost associated with cases involving the SAO" mean reduce time and costs for the SAO only, or for other participants in cases involving the SAO (e.g. state agencies represented by the SAO, other parties to cases involving the SAO, the courts, enforcement officers, etc.)?

RESPONSE: Reduced time and cost should benefit Serbian court users and taxpayers (through reduced cost to government, SAO, courts, etc.)

14. Per p.11 could USAID please define “integrity” as used in the illustrative activity:

"Support efforts to ensure the integrity of procedures designed to settle cases out of litigation" and explain the problem or concern with procedures or their implementation that USAID seeks to address with this activity?

RESPONSE: The concern is that the SAO settling cases outside of court may create actual or the appearance of misconduct, for example, if there are disparities in the terms of settlement in similar cases, there may be accusations of undue influence to settle a case more or less favorably for political or financial reasons. The offer should support efforts to mitigate this risk.

15. On p. 11 USAID states in the illustrative activities that the offeror should “provide training to SAO and other partners engaged in litigation with the SAO”. Can USAID identify the anticipated “other partners”? If these partners include private attorneys, is it anticipated that the Judicial Academy is open to training private attorneys or will the offeror have to obtain such consent?

RESPONSE: Other partners may include government employees in the ministries that the SAO represents, judges, courts staff or others. Private attorneys could be potential partners. Offerors will need to coordinate training efforts with the Judicial Academy, and work out any agreements necessary with the Academy during project implementation.

16. On p. 12 USAID states in the expected results section “improved cooperation between the SAO, government bodies that the SAO represents and the judiciary.” Could USAID elaborate on the anticipated cooperation that can be achieved while maintaining the independence of the judiciary?

RESPONSE: For example, settling of cases would likely be subject to judicial review, so improved cooperation and mutual understanding that allows the SAO to structure agreements in a way acceptable to the court would be beneficial to all parties and not interfere with judicial independence

17. Does USAID intend that the work under Task 2 of Component 2 should focus only on the State Attorney’s Office (SAO), or does USAID also want bidders to address similar issues with City Attorneys and Municipal Attorneys?

RESPONSE: Please focus only on State Attorney’s Office (SAO)

18. For budgeting purposes, does USAID have estimates or plug figures for the development of the case management system under Component 2, Task 1, or the material support for the SAO under Component 2, Task 2?

RESPONSE: No plug figures are provided. The cost of the CMS should commiserate with the size and scope of the State’s Attorney’s Office, and the other relative priorities of the program.

19. In addition to developing the CMS, does USAID envision the procurement of IT equipment for enforcement officers, under Component 2, Task 1?

RESPONSE: IT equipment could be procured for the Chamber of Enforcement officers or other entities supporting the enforcement system. USAID does not anticipate procuring IT equipment for individual enforcement officers

20. Does USAID expect or require exclusivity for key personnel?

RESPONSE: No, and USAID discourages exclusivity agreements.

21. What percentage breakdown of the total budget (pp. 5354) between the two components and the cross cutting management does USAID envisage?

RESPONSE: This should be determined by the offerors based on their technical approach

22. Section C.3 – Project Components (RFP at 9). The RFP provides under C.3 Project

Components that annual self-assessments by partners and stakeholders, as well as engagement of civil society and surveys, may be used to identify lessons learned and guide future work plans. Can USAID be more specific about the types of assessment and/or surveys being contemplated? Does USAID have specific partners, stakeholders or civil society organizations in mind in relation to conducting annual assessments?

RESPONSE: This should be determined by the offerors based on their technical approach

23. Section C.3.1 – Task 2 (RFP at 10). Does USAID have a preference for prioritizing this assistance in general jurisdiction courts (Basic and Appellate courts) or specialized courts (Administrative Court or Commercial Court(s)).

RESPONSE: Yes, courts of general jurisdiction are prioritized in implementation of the Action Plan, however USAID will consider work with specialized courts if compelling opportunities arise

24. Section C.3.2 – Tasks 1 and 2 (RFP at 11). The RFP contemplates the development of a case management system for enforcement officers to expedite the management, data collection and reporting of enforcement cases. The RFP also contemplates material support (equipment, ICT software, etc.) to improve the efficiency of the State Attorney’s Office (SAO). Is there a suggested percentage of total funds to be allocated for equipment, ICT software, and other material support to these outcomes?

RESPONSE: This should be determined by offerors based on their technical approach. ICT costs should be commiserating with the size and scope of these institutions, and the other relative priorities of the program. USAID does not consider the purpose of this contract to be primarily for IT procurement.

25. Section C.4 – Key Personnel & Qualifications (RFP at 12-13). Are all Key Personnel positions anticipated to be candidates who have worked outside of Serbia?

RESPONSE: This should be determined by offerors based on their technical approach.

26. In reference to C.3.1 Task 1, assessment, and in line with the requirements of Chapter 23 of the European acquis and the Serbian Action Plan for Chapter 23, the Contractor must support the drafting of the National Judicial Reform Strategy What are the requirements of:

a. Chapter 23 of the European acquis

b. Serbian Action Plan for Chapter 23

RESPONSE: Please refer to the Chapter 23 Action Plan for Serbia, which is publically available on Google.

27. Whom, specifically, are we “supporting” with the drafting of the NJRS? Who owns the draft document as it’s written and edited?

RESPONSE: The Ministry of Justice leads the drafting of the NJRS and Action Plans, and the strategy reflects the interests of Serbian citizens, the judiciary, civil society groups and other stakeholders.

28. In reference to C.3 Project Components, in implementing this project, the Contractor must cooperate and coordinate activities with the Ministry of Justice, the High Court Council, the Delegation of the European Union, other donors, and other USAID activities. Kindly advise who are these other donors/activities and how do we tie in to them?

RESPONSE: In preparing their applications, offerors should familiarize themselves with donors and rule of law activities in Serbia. Refer to Section C.1. of the RFP for a list of significant donors.

29. Section L.6 – Instructions the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (RFP at 52). Can USAID clarify if the contractor is to describe its methodologies for a “preliminary life-of-project plan” to address development challenges or is it expected that the contractor should develop an actual preliminary plan and incorporate same into the Technical Approach?

RESPONSE: RFP has been modified and this requirement has been removed.

30. Section L.6 – Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (RFP at 53).

The RFP provides that “the Partner Selection section must describe the offers approach and methodology to select local partners who have an interest and ability to advance judicial reforms.” Can USAID be more specific about what is contemplated by local partner selection – that is, does local partner selection contemplate Serbian institutional counterparts, the use of Serbian subcontractors for implementation of work plan activities, and/or use of local CSOs funded through the grants program?

RESPONSE: This section has been removed

31. The RFP states “USAID/Serbia anticipates awarding one cost plus award fee type contract within the range of $9,000,000 to $12,000,000.” We presume that this is inclusive of the fee. If so, what would be the cushion we need to leave for the fee? We understand that the fee will be determined only on successful completion of the contract.

RESPONSE: The range is from $9,000,000 to $12,000,000 and this amount is inclusive of fee. The maximum award fee is to be proposed by the offeror. Fee amount will be determined in accordance with Award Fee Plan.

32. Sections B.3(a) on page 5 and L.7(b)(1)(iii) on page 53 provide for the inclusion of an award fee and a base fee of $0. The use of a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract creates incentive for increased effort to exceed required results. However, not allowing for the payment of a base fee could create a risk-averse operating environment for contractors. We therefore request that USAID consider negotiating a reasonable base fee that covers only the contractor’s financing and other unallowable costs incurred in the course of business, with the balance of the fee contingent on award fee determinations.

By not allowing offerors to propose a reasonable base fee and competitive award fee, the offeror’s entire profit is at risk if USAID is not satisfied with the contractor’s performance. A reasonable base fee encourages the contractor to take risks and exceed expectations, knowing that costs will be reimbursed if USAID regulations are followed.

RESPONSE: USAID has reviewed the requirement and feels that a base fee is not justified.

However, offerors are able to submit two separate fee structures (as part of the cost proposal), one with a base fee and one without. Any fee structure that includes a base fee must be strongly justified as to how the base fee will provide for better performance, including the ability to take greater risks during implementation. Please note that should USAID award without discussions, either fee structure may be accepted for use in the contract, at USAID’s sole discretion.

33. Section L.7 – Instructions for Preparation and Submission of the Cost/Business

Proposal/Part 2 – Proposed Costs (RFP at 53). The RFP provides that a complete budget, including subcontractor budgets, must include the maximum award fee proposed and a rationale for the proposed amount. The RFP also states that the Government’s purpose in granting the award fee is to encourage and reward superior contract performance and therefore the base fee is $0. Traditionally, contractors have included in the budget a fee that is 3% to 5% of the total contract amount. For purposes of cost proposal/budget submission, can USAID clarify if the contractor and subcontractor are to include a fee in their budget and, if so, how would USAID prefer that the fee amount be calculated in the budget? Can USAID clarify if the cost plus award fee evaluation process flows down to the subcontractor with regard to payment of the subcontractor fee, and if so, clarify the process for prime contractor payment of the subcontractor fee?

RESPONSE: Please see Question 32. The proposed maximum fee is to be submitted in the cost proposal. Also, please note that Prime Contractors are not required to award the same types of subcontracts as their prime contract, so therefore the base fee/award fee restraints do not apply to subcontractors.

34. Per Section B.7 – Payment of Award Fee, The USG states that the award fee after the first year is paid annually. Will the USG please consider paying the award fee every 6 months as in the first year for the Second through Fourth years?

RESPONSE: USAID does not anticipate achievement of substantial results that would enable USAID to ascertain the award fee in every six months. Hence, to be fair to the contractor after the first evaluation occurring in six months the remaining four evaluations would take place annually, on the anniversary of the award date so that USAID can evaluate and determine the appropriate award fee.

35. The successful Contractor must utilize grants under contract (GUC) mechanism to support local organizations to advance the contract’s objectives. Does USAID/Serbia have a list of already vetted local organizations?

RESPONSE: No.

36. Section H.17 – Grants Under Contract (RFP at 29-30). Serbia has a vibrant CSO community that could contribute to meeting program objectives. Would USAID consider increasing the GUC ceiling of $300,000 total life amount?

RESPONSE: The GUC ceiling remains to be $300,000 for the total life of project.

37. Will USAID provide offerors with a local compensation plan?

RESPONSE: The range of the current Local Compensation Plan for USAID/Serbia starts from minimum range of €11,099 to maximum of €63,919 (gross).

38. Can USAID please provide the local compensation plan?

RESPONSE: Please see response to question#36

39. Can USAID please provide a copy of the Local Compensation Plan?

40. Can USAID provide the Serbian Mission Local Compensation Plan (LCP) in its entirety

(LCP Pay Scale and Plan Narrative Description regarding employer/employee contributions, pension, insurance, and other benefits)?

41. The 2010 LCP Pay Scale is denominated in Euros. Can USAID confirm that, for budget purposes, local staff salaries should be calculated in US dollars and that local staff salaries are to be paid in Serbian dinars based upon the current exchange rate for Serbian dinars and US dollars?

RESPONSE: The proposed budget must be in USD. Local staff salaries are to be paid in local currency.

42. With regard to Partner Selection, is USAID referring to local subcontractors selected to be part of the bidder’s consortium, grant methodology, and/or organizations that will collaborate with the project, or other partner selection?

RESPONSE: Kindly note that this section has been removed from the RFP.

43. Per Section L, p. 53 ‘Partner Selection’ Could USAID please define the term "local partners?" For which of the following should Offerors describe their approach and methodology (if applicable): grantees under contract, subcontractors, counterparts, STTA and long-term local experts, other local organizations with which the Offeror might partner or collaborate to implement joint or collaborative activities, stakeholders and/or others (please identify)?

RESPONSE: Kindly note that this section has been removed from the RFP.

44. On p. 52. USAID states that “pages that contain a table, chart, graph etc. that are not otherwise excluded below are subject to the 30 page limit. Are tables, charts, graphs, illustrations, and the like subject to the font requirements including Times New Roman and/or 11-point font size?

RESPONSE: Charts, graphs and tables fall within the 30 page limit for technical proposal and can be of 10-point font.

45. L.7.b)(1)(iv) on pp. 53-54 requires a separate budget providing a breakdown per component and provides in part, “…Offerors must insert high level figures, not a breakdown of the figures, but the total figures must add up to the proposed total estimated costs, exclusive of the proposed award fee pool.” In the chart which follows, is USAID asking for a single 4-year total, as opposed to a breakdown of costs, for each of: Cross Cutting Management (including GUCs), Component 1, and Component 2?

RESPONSE: Yes, a total figure for each of those categories.

46. L.7.b)(2) on p. 54 Indirect Cost Information for Offerors without a NICRA requires

“…Audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two complete years and the current year-to-date statements….” For small business Offerors whose fiscal year is the calendar year, the proposal due date of March 9, 2017, means that the audit of calendar year 2016 will not have been completed. Is it acceptable to submit audited financial statements for 2014 and 2015 and the unaudited statement for 2016 with the accompanying computation of indirect rates? Will the unaudited statement for 2016 suffice in lieu of the year-to-date statement for 2017 which practically could include only January 2017?

RESPONSE: Yes, since that is in compliance with Section L.7(b)(2).

47. Section L.7 – Instructions for Preparation and Submission of the Cost/Business

Proposal/Part 3 – Past Performance (RFP at 55). The RFP provides offerors must submit past performance information for itself, the contractor teaming arrangements, if any, and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost exceeds 15% of the offeror’s total proposed cost). For contracts not listed in CPARS, the contractor is to list contracts with a value between $5 million and $20 million for similar efforts to the work required by the RFP. Can USAID advise if there is a timeframe for such contracts?

RESPONSE: The time frame is three years.

48. L.7.c)(a)1. on p.55 states that for contracts not listed in CPARS, the Offeror should list in the Past Performance Information Sheet contracts with a value between $5 million and $20 million. May small business Offerors list contracts with a value less than $5 million?

RESPONSE: No. Please note that past performance is being scored on simply a pass/fail basis.

49. In section L.5 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION “All attachments must be in MS Word, Adobe

PDF, or MS Excel readable format.” However, SECTION L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL states “Technical proposals shall be written in English on A4-size, 216mm by 297mm paper and typed using 11-point font size in a Time New Roman with each page numbered consecutively, and submitted in Microsoft Word (2004 – 2010).” Will the USG please allow the Technical proposal to be submitted in Adobe PDF file format to assist in meeting the 5MB attachment limitation and USAID’s preference that each technical proposal is submitted as a single attachment?

RESPONSE: Yes.

50. Please confirm that, per the instructions in Section L.5, the Technical Proposal may be submitted as a PDF file.

RESPONSE: Yes.

51. Section L.6 – Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal (RFP at 52). Can

USAID confirm that the technical proposal document should be 11-point font size (and not 12-point)?

RESPONSE: As specified in section L.6, the technical proposal document must be 11-point font size.

52. Can USAID please clarify whether the cover letter mentioned in the first paragraph of

Section L.5 is the same as the “Cover Letter or Executive Summary” listed in the second bullet in Section L.6.

RESPONSE: The cover letter in section L.5 is same as in section L.6. Please see the amended RFP.

53. Would USAID consider using a geographic other than 937 which restricts engagement of many competent organizations in Europe as partners?

RESPONSE: No.

54. The Key Personnel as defined in C.4 are assumed to be “permanent party” in Serbia for the life of the contract. Excerpt from F.4 “The key personnel identified above are considered essential to the work being performed under this contract. The Contractor must remain responsible for providing such key personnel for full-time performance for the term of this Contract unless otherwise agreed to by the Contracting Officer. US citizens can enter Serbia for a period of 90 days within a 180 day period; not to exceed 6 months within the one Comment: year.” Permanent residence may be permitted to a Foreign Citizen (under one of the following conditions), specifically who has been granted the permission for temporary residence due to the humanitarian reasons or if this is in interest of the Republic of Serbia. Will the US Government provide support to the contractor in obtaining permanent residence for Key Personnel?

RESPONSE: This is the responsibility of the contractor.

55. Section F.6 – Reports and Deliverables or Outputs (RFP at 17). To enable collaborative work planning with USAID and local stakeholders, would USAID consider making the due date for the draft first annual work plan within 30 days of contract award and finalization of the first annual work plan within 60 days, which aligns with submission of the final PMP within 60 days of contract award?

RESPONSE: This section has been modified. Please see revised RFP

56. In section F.6 on page 17, USAID states that the Draft First Year Annual Work Plan is due within 10 calendar days of contract award date. To ensure a participatory work plan development process with the technical team and counterparts, we request that the deadline be extended to 30 days after contract award to ensure time for a participatory work plan development process with the technical team and counterparts.

RESPONSE: Please see response to question#55

57. Section L.7 – Instructions for Preparation and Submission of the Cost/Business

Proposal/Part 5 – Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors) (RFP at 57). Under Section H.15, all STTAs and consultants must be treated as subcontractors if they are not employees of the contractor or subcontractor. Under Section L.7, the RFP provides that “the Cost 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 agreement.”

Section L.7 further provides that “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements as this limits USAID’s ability to receive the best services.” Could USAID clarify whether exclusivity is discouraged for local personnel and partners on the same basis?

RESPONSE: We have amended Section L.7. USAID discourages exclusivity for local personnel and partners too.

58. Section M.2 – Technical Evaluation Criteria (RFP at 58). The RFP lists evaluation criteria in descending order of importance but does not assign weighted percentages to each element. Could USAID advise of the weighted percentage for each one of the evaluation criteria?

RESPONSE: No.

59. In section L.7(b)(1)(iv) on pages 53-54, USAID requests an estimated cost for each component, the assumptions behind the estimated cost, and an explanation of the link between the approach and the cost. Could USAID clarify the information to be included in the “Assumptions” and “Explanation of Link Between Approach and Estimated Cost” of the provided table?

RESPONSE: ‘Assumptions’ are the critical underlying thoughts that an offeror has used to come up with the stated value, e.g. we assume that we’d issue 4,000 grants at $50 per grant for a total of $200,000. “Link” is an explanation of how the proposed cost will result in achievement of the outcomes and objectives of the corresponding component. This is meant to aid USAID in its cost realism analysis.

60. Section H.15 on page 29 states that “All STTAs and consultants must be treated as subcontractors if they are not employees of the contractor or subcontractors.” Per AIDAR

752.7007, referenced in Section I.2 of the RFP, 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. Therefore, the language in H.15 could impede the contractor and its subcontractors from following their respective personnel compensation policies and practices per their cost accounting. We respectfully request that the referenced language in H.15 be modified or removed to allow contractors to follow their personnel policies and practices in accordance with their cost accounting standards.

RESPONSE: No, this requirement does not run contrary to the AIDAR clause.

61. Section C.4 Key personnel requirements state that the Chief of Party, DCOP and M&E expert should have previous work experience in the Balkans and, for the M & E expert, also developing country experience. Can USAID clarify if they expect the offeror to present expatriate candidates for these positions or whether CCNs are acceptable?

RESPONSE: This is up to the offeror.

62. Section C.4 – Key Personnel & Qualifications (RFP at 12-13). Could USAID confirm that exclusivity of local staff, including any local key personnel, is neither requested nor desired?

RESPONSE: USAID discourages all exclusivity agreements.

63. Section C.4 – Key Personnel & Qualifications (RFP at 12-13). The minimum requirements for the COP, DCOP and ME&L Director positions all require 10 years of professional experience. Would USAID consider distinguishing the requirements for COP and DCOP?

RESPONSE: Position description of DCOP has been updated in the RFP

64. The DCOP minimum requirements are identical to the COP requirements. Can USAID please confirm whether that was intended?

RESPONSE: Please see answer to question#63

65. The minimum requirements for both the COP and DCOP positions appear to be identical

– can USAID confirm that is what it intended?

66. Section C.4. The minimum requirements for both the COP and DCOP are the same. Can

USAID please confirm this is correct?

67. Section C.4 – Key Personnel & Qualifications (RFP at 12-13). For the ME&L Director position, does the requirement of five years or professional experience in a developing country include Serbia?

RESPONSE: Yes

68. Section C.4. USAID requires that the ME&L Director should have five years of developing country experience with prior experience in monitoring judicial reform programs. Does USAID consider Serbia to qualify as a “developing country?” A requirement that the candidate have prior experience monitoring judicial reform programs in another country may prevent offerors from presenting the most qualified M&E candidates in Serbia. Will USAID reconsider this requirement?

RESPONSE: Serbia does qualify, and the experience with judicial reform programs is preferred. The RFP language has been modified.

69. Page 57 of the RFP requests offerors to submit a copy of any recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS. Instead of submitting all reports, which may be quite numerous, can USAID please confirm offerors may submit 5 recent (in the last 3 years) SF294s?

RESPONSE: Yes

70. In section L.7(c)(d)(3)(B) on page 56, USAID requests “a list of the recent contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.” Our hardcopy subcontracting reports for the past three years, SF-294s, total more than 800 pages and constitute more than 40 MB. In addition to the hardcopy SF-294s for projects not registered in the eSRS, we have also submitted individual subcontracting reports through the eSRS for registered projects. Instead of submitting the electronic files totaling 40 MB with more than 800 pages of SF-294s, may we submit 10 relevant SF-294 forms not duplicated on the eSRS?

RESPONSE: Five most recent.

71. What is the expected start date of the project?

RESPONSE: Assuming competitive range, expected start date of the project will be end of May/beginning of June.