ATTACHMENT_5_Q&As.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5 Q&A’s

1. Per section C.4, would USAID please clarify the number of municipalities that the Contractor should target for identification of issues and opportunities to improve government accountability?

RESPONSE: We anticipate approximately between 5 and 10 municipalities, but would welcome proposals that include fewer or more if justified. The number of municipalities proposed should be explained in the proposal.

2. Section L.6 instructions on page 84 state “the proposal must have three main sections.” However, Section M.2 lists only two main sections — 1. Implementation Approach and 2. Staffing & Management Plan. Could USAID kindly confirm that offerors should organize their technical proposals into two main sections?

RESPONSE: Offerors must organize their technical proposals in two main sections – Implementation Approach and Staffing and Management Plan.

3. Section L.6a states that offeror’s implementation approach must include “Illustrative indicators for how offerors will measure incremental progress towards the two Activity results identified in Section C.4.” Could USAID clarify if this is referring to two activity results being “local government accountability” and “oversight institutions” or if it is instead referring to three activity results as listed at the bottom of page 11 of the RFP?

RESPONSE: This should say three results, the three listed at the bottom of page 11.

4. Would USAID please confirm that Section H.8(f) (pages 32 and 33) permits a six-day work week for short-term personnel?

RESPONSE: A six-day work week is permitted for short-term personnel.

5. In Section L.7(d)(d)(3)(B) on page 88, 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, would USAID allow us to submit 10 relevant SF-294 forms not duplicated on the eSRS?

RESPONSE: SF-294 forms not submitted electronically via eSRS will not be accepted. Please note that the requirement for the submission of reports is not for a three year period. The requirement is for recent reports.

6. Given the note on the cover letter and Section L.6a on page 84 indicating that no activities under the contract will provide direct technical assistance to CSOs and the language in Section C that includes working with civil society to identify areas where the Activity can contribute to improved government oversight, as well as engaging local stakeholders as an implementation principle, would USAID please clarify how it envisions civil society engagement under this contract?

RESPONSE: The contractor is expected to work with oversight institutions and local governments as the primary beneficiaries, and ensure that civil society (including NGOs, the business community, legal professionals, media or other relevant groups) are included in policy discussions as part of an inclusive process. However, the contractor must not provide substantial resources (such as sub-grants) to civil society organizations for their own discreet government oversight or advocacy initiatives.

7. Is there a requirement to register for the pre-proposal conference listed for August 23, 2017 in Belgrade? If so, please provide the registration details.

RESPONSE: See Amendment #1 to the RFP.

8. Could the USAID Mission please provide a copy of the latest Local Compensation Plan (LCP)?

RESPONSE: The LCP is provided as an attachment to this amendment.

9. Could the USAID Mission please provide the anticipated monetary award amount, range or ceiling?

RESPONSE: The award amount will not be provided. Offerors have been given an estimated Level of Effort for budget planning purposes.

10. On the cover page (page 1) of the solicitation, it states that: “The principal geographic code for this contract is 937.” Page 12 refers to “drawing on local expertise wherever possible and engaging regional and international expertise as appropriate” to facilitate consensus among key stakeholders and “facilitate the development of solutions to the identified issues.” Since there is rich and relevant expertise in anti-corruption and EU accession requirements in the region, will USAID allow consultants and sub-contractors to be from developed and/or advanced developing countries?

RESPONSE: Consultants and subcontractors originating from countries not included in the 937 geographic code may be allowed to work under the contract provided that there is sufficient justification and USAID/Serbia initiates the appropriate waiver request for approval.

11. In Section H.17 Language Requirements (page 37), it says: "The Contractor's long and short-term personnel and consultants must have proficiency in English and local languages as required for performance of technical services." Could the USAID Mission please clarify whether USN/TCN consultants must have proficiency in local languages, as well as English, or if it is preferred that they have local language proficiency?

RESPONSE: USN/TCN consultants must have proficiency in local language only if it is required for performance of technical services. The contractor should determine what technical services require local language proficiency, subject to approval by USAID prior to performance.

12. On the cover page of the solicitation it says: “In order to understand the magnitude of USAID’s requirement, the Government estimates 18,100 professional technical staff person days level of effort (this is an estimate only).” Page 14 further states: “It must not include administrative positions such as the Program Officer, Human Resources Manager, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Manager, Program Assistant or any other position that has the primary function of providing administrative support to the contract.” Later, at the bottom of attachment 5 it states that: “The Mission has estimated that 9,500 person days of Long term CNN labor will meet project implementation requirements.” Should we assume that the 9,500 person days mentioned are for professional technical staff and do not include administrative staff? Also, could the USAID Mission please confirm that program officers are not considered administrative staff?

RESPONSE: Attachment 4 will be revised.

13. The cover page of the RFP document reads: “USAID intends to award a separate activity that will work with civil society and media organizations to advocate for government transparency and monitor the work of public institutions…In order to avoid duplication of efforts, no activity under this contract will provide direct assistance to civil society organizations.” One of the results listed on page 11 of the RFP states that the Contractor must contribute to (and address in the SOW) the “increase in public participation in local government decision making and oversight.” There could be intersections with Civil Society (for example the ACA may hold forums and wish to invite representatives from local CSOs to participate). Could the USAID Mission please confirm that offerors should plan to work solely on the supply side to increase mechanisms for public participation?

RESPONSE: See response to Question #6 above.

14. Section C.4 – Activity Implementation (page 11) indicates that there are two main areas for interventions (Local Government Accountability and Oversight Institutions). On the same page, the RFP list three minimum results – one related to public participation in local government decision making and oversight, one related to increased follow-up to oversight institutions’ recommendations, and one related to increased numbers of corruption cases taken on by courts and prosecutors. For this last result, does the USAID Mission have specific intervention requirements in mind, similar to those listed for the first two results?

RESPONSE: See response to Question #3 above.

15. Sections D.1 and F.6 (pages 14 & 17) indicate that draft Branding Implementation and Marking Plans are due within 30 days of award. Could the USAID Mission please confirm that no Branding Implementation or Marking Plans are required to be submitted with the proposal?

RESPONSE: There is no requirement for Branding Implementation and Marking Plans to be submitted with the technical proposal.

16. Section F.6 (pages 17 & 19) indicates that the draft Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (MELP) is due no later than 45 days after award. Could the USAID Mission please confirm that no draft MELP is required to be submitted with the proposal?

RESPONSE: There is no requirement for a draft MELP to be submitted with the technical proposal.

17. In Section F.6 (page 20), USAID states that the Data Quality Analysis must be conducted within six months prior to reporting data to USAID for new indicators. Does the USAID Mission have a separate implementing partner that conducts Monitoring and Evaluation for the Mission or should the Contractor for this award budget for outside data quality assessments?

RESPONSE: Offerors should budget for outside data quality assessments.

18. Section L.6a.1 – Implementation Approach (page 84) states: “How offerors will select partner municipalities, including the process and criteria for selection.” Does USAID have in mind a specific number or range of municipalities that are to be selected? Also, please clarify whether the contractor will be selecting municipalities or districts?

RESPONSE: See response to Question #1 above. The contractor will select the municipalities.

19. Section L.7 (d) Part 4 – Past Performance (pages 87 & 88) indicates that Past Performance information will be included in the Cost Proposal. Most other USAID solicitations include Past Performance information in Technical Proposal to allow the Technical Evaluation Committee to review information on contractor performance. Could the USAID Mission please confirm that past performance information is only to be included in the Cost Proposal? Also, are offerors allowed to include past performance information in the technical narrative of the Technical Proposal?

RESPONSE: Past Performance information must be submitted with the Cost Proposal. Any past performance information submitted as part of the technical proposal must be within the page limitations stated at Section L.6 of the RFP.

20. Section L.7 (d) Part 4 – Past Performance (pages 87 & 88) indicates that past performance information should be reported only for contracts not listed in CPARS. Offerors may have important and relevant past performance information for projects that include cooperative agreements and/or grants. Could the USAID Mission please confirm that past performance information for projects other than contracts will be allowed?

RESPONSE: Past Performance information for projects implemented under assistance instruments will be considered.

21. Please confirm that both LOE estimates (18,100 person days for technical staff on p.1 and 9,500 person days of long-term CCN labor in Attachment 4) are correct. If so, please confirm that the 9,500 person days are included in the 18,100 person days.

RESPONSE: The LOE estimates on page 1 and in Attachment 4 of the RFP are correct. The LOE estimate of 9500 of long-term CCN labor is included in the total LOE estimate of 18,100 for technical staff.

22. Please clarify whether the LOE estimate for 9,500 person days of long-term CCN labor also includes the DCOP.

RESPONSE: Yes.

23. We respectfully request that Section H.8(e) on p.32 be removed or expanded to include a definition of employee for the purposes of this contract, such as: "Employees for the purposes of this contract are defined as individuals providing long- and short-term consultative type work where the individual is working under the direction of the contractor and receives all necessary management and logistical support from the contractor. “As is the standard industry practice and is contemplated in the LOE chart in Attachment 4, contractors provide short-term technical assistance (STTA) with all necessary management and logistical support, including insurance, such as DBA. Subcontractors, by contrast, are hired to produce and supply specific goods and services, and are responsible for all costs associated with these goods and services, including travel, per diem, DBA, other direct costs, and any indirect costs or fees usually at a higher overall cost. Subcontractors are also generally required to produce Evidence of Responsibility and NICRA, unlike STTA. In addition, subcontracts generally require competition, which would be impractical for short term assignments with deliverables/reports that are usually expected to be finalized quickly.

RESPONSE: The language at H.8(e) will not be revised or deleted from the solicitation.

RCO/Kosovo does not concur with the assertion that consultants differ from subcontractors when it comes to providing STTA. No exemption, whether in regulation, flow-down contract clause, or case law, has been found that treats consultants differently from subcontractors. No implied difference consultants in AIDAR are supported by explicit exemption for consultants performing services under USAID projects. Thus consultants should be treated as subcontractors if performing services under a prime contract and are subject to consent if required per FAR Part 44.

24. With reference to Section H.17 (p.37), please clarify whether the Chief of Party is expected to be proficient in Serbian.

RESPONSE: There is no requirement for the Chief of Party to be proficient in Serbian.

25. Please confirm that a List of Acronyms shall not count against the page limit of the technical proposal.

RESPONSE: If a List of Acronyms is submitted as part of the technical proposal, it will count against the page limitation provided at L.6 of the solicitation.

26. Section L.79(d) on p.87 spells out the past performance requirements regarding contracts that are NOT listed in the CPARS. Please confirm that for contracts that are listed in the CPARS providing the name and number of each contract will suffice. Also, please clarify how many contracts in total should be included in this past performance section.

RESPONSE: Section L.7.(d)(a) states the requirements for past performance information listed in CPARS. The number of contracts is not specified.

27. Please clarify whether USAID encourages or discourages exclusive arrangements with CCN personnel.

RESPONSE: USAID discourages exclusivity arrangements with CCN personnel.

28. Are offerors completely free to suggest partner municipalities of their choice, or should any sort of distribution across the country be taken into consideration?

RESPONSE: Yes, offerors are completely free to suggest partner municipalities of their choice.

29. How many partner municipalities does USAID anticipate in the initial selection?

RESPONSE: See response to Question #1.

30. One of the mandatory results is "Increased number of corruption cases taken on by courts and prosecutors", but the RFP does not suggest primary work with courts or prosecutors, and there are other USG activities dealing in part with these areas. Can USAID give guidance on how deeply the Government Accountability Initiative Activity should be involved in justice sector issues?

RESPONSE: See points 1 and 3 under “Oversight Institutions” on page 11 of the RFP. Offerors should take into account other development assistance and determine what level of engagement with the justice sector is required under this project to achieve this result.

31. On page 16, section F.5, it is stated that the Government estimates 18,100 professional technical staff person days level of effort to implement this project. This level of effort requires an estimated 17 full-time technical employees. Given the anticipated ceiling for the project, would USAID please confirm that this level of effort requirement is correct?

RESPONSE: The LOE of 18,100 professional technical staff person days as stated in the RFP is correct. Offerors reminded that this is an estimate and proposed LOE should be in accordance with the offeror’s technical approach.

32. Would the Mission please confirm that the anticipated ceiling for the Activity is $9.9 million, as stated in the USAID business forecast?

RESPONSE: There is no specified ceiling for the activity.

33. Would the Mission please provide the local compensation plan?

RESPONSE: The local compensation plan is attached to this amendment.

34. Social Impact recently completed a Corruption Assessment for USAID/Serbia to inform anti-corruption programming. Would USAID please provide a copy of the assessment results to offerors?

RESPONSE: The SI assessment report is not available at this time.

35. On page 1 of the RFP there is reference to the Pre-Proposal Conference but there are no instructions for registration or a call in number for participants to participate remotely.

a. Does USAID want participants to register for the conference prior to attendance?

RESPONSE: See response to Question #7 and amendment 1 to the solicitation.

b. Can USAID please provide a call-in number for international offerors to join remotely?

RESPONSE: There is no provision for call-in or remote participation.

36. On page 1 and on the footnotes throughout the RFP it lists the title of the activity as “Government Accountability Initiative Activity;” however, on page 9 Section C.1 Title of Activity, it states “USAID Government Accountability Initiative (the‘Activity’).” Would USAID please confirm that the title of the activity is: Government Accountability Initiative Activity?

RESPONSE: The title of the activity is “USAID Government Accountability Initiative “

37. On page 83, Section L.6, under Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, the RFP states, “Please include three Reference Contacts for Key Personnel (one-page limit) and a Letter of Commitment (one-page limit). Both do not count against the page limit.” Will USAID kindly allow offerors to include the three Reference Contacts for Key Personnel and Letters of Commitment as annexes to the technical proposal?

RESPONSE: References for Key Personnel and Letters of Commitment may be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal.

38. On page 84, Section L.6a.2 the RFP states, “Please include the CVs of proposed key personnel at the end of the technical proposal. Please note that CVs are not counted in the page limit, but are limited to 2 pages for each key personnel.” Will USAID please allow offerors to submit the CVs of proposed key personnel in an annex to the technical proposal?

RESPONSE: See response to Question #35.

39. On page 82, Section L.5 Proposal Submission, the RFP states that “Offerors must submit their proposals via email to arexhepi@usaid.gov and bbulatovic@usaid.gov by the stated closing date and time specified in the cover letter.” On Page 83 under L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, the “Required Order” lists:

Cover Page (limited to one page and does not count against page limit)

Executive Summary (limited to two pages and does not count against page limit)

Table of Contents (does not count against page limit)

Technical Proposal

Summary Table of Professional Technical Level of Effort (LOE)…

We have the following three questions:

a. Will USAID allow offerors to include the Cover Letter (which does not count against the page limit) after the Cover Page and before the Executive Summary?

RESPONSE: The Cover Letter and the Cover Page are one in the same and not two different documents. This section of the RFP has been revised to mitigate confusion.

b. May offerors include an Acronyms List (which does not count against page limit) after the Table of Contents and before the Technical Proposal?

RESPONSE: See response to Question #25

c. Would USAID please confirm that the Summary Table of Professional Technical LOE (which does not count against the page limit) may be included as an annex to the Technical Proposal?

RESPONSE: The LOE Summary Table may be submitted as an annex to the Technical Proposal.

40. On page 84, Section L.6 of the RFP, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, it states: “The technical proposal must be organized according to the evaluation factors in Section M.2. (i.e. the proposal must have three main sections)…” However, in Section M.2 Technical Evaluation Criteria on page 90, the RFP only lists two criteria: “1.Implementation Approach” and

2. “Staffing & Management Plan.” As such, we have the following questions:

a. Because a third evaluation factor is not identified, will USAID kindly allow offerors to include institutional capability information in the Technical Proposal as the third main section?

RESPONSE: No, a third evaluation factor will not be provided. The language at Section M.2 is the correct requirement.

b. If so, how will the third section be evaluated in relation to the other two evaluation factors/main sections indicated in Section M.2?

RESPONSE: See response to Question #38(a).

41. On page 83, L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal it states, “Technical proposals shall be written in English on A4-size and typed using 11-point font (can be 10-point font in charts and graphs).” Will USAID please confirm that offerors may use 10-point font in tables, textboxes and graphics as well?

RESPONSE: 10 point font in tables, textboxes and graphics is permissible.

42. On page 83, L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal it states, “Technical proposals shall be written in English on A4-size, 216mm by 297mm paper…” Would USAID please confirm that it will also accept A4-size of 210mm by 297mm paper?

RESPONSE: Use of A4-size 210mm by 297mm paper is permissible.

43. On page 87, under L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal, it includes Part 4 –

Past Performance “for all contracts not listed in CPARS, list in the Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 3) contracts with a period of performance falling within the last 5 years for efforts similar to the work required by the RFP.” On page 88 of the RFP it includes, “d)

Performance in Using Small Business Concerns (as defined in FAR 19.001)” as part of the Cost Proposal as well.

We have the following two questions:

a. Because past performance information contains relevant information regarding an offeror’s technical capabilities, we respectfully request that USAID allow offerors to include the PPIS as an annex to the technical proposal (which does not count against the page limit).

RESPONSE: PPIS information may not be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal.

b. Similarly, would USAID please allow offerors to include Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns as an annex to the technical proposal (which does not count against the page limit)?

RESPONSE: Information on Performance in Using Small Business Concerns may not be submitted as an annex to the technical proposal.

44. In section F.5 PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL LEVEL OF EFFORT, letter c, page 17 the RFP mentions Attachment 4 for the Level of Effort Table of this proposal. However, Attachment 4 when opened shows as its title “Attachment 5”. Could USAID please confirm that the Attachment 4 included in the RFP is indeed the Attachment 4 mentioned in the RFP?

RESPONSE: A revised Attachment 4- Level of Effort Table is attached to this amendment.

45. “ATTACHMENT_4_LEVEL_OF_EFFORT_(LOE)_TABLE” that is included as an attachment to the RFP reads:

The Mission has estimated that 9,500 person days of Long term CCN labor will meet project implementation requirements. Offerors should propose labor days needed to implement their technical approach.” At the bottom of the attachment it refers to “BEE Activity, SOL No. SOL-169-17- 000011.”This labor category table references the Serbia Business Enabling Environment Reform Activity solicitation released on June 28, 2017 which had 12,500 estimated professional technical staff person days of LOE (as stated on page 16 of the Serbia BEE Activity SOL-169-17-000011 RFP).

As such, we have the following question: Because the BEE Activity only had total 12,500 LOE, and the Serbia Government Accountability Initiative Activity “the Activity” has total 18,100 LOE, would USAID please provide an updated Labor Category table including increasing the estimated person days of long term CCN labor based on the 18,100 total LOE?

RESPONSE: See response to Question # 42.

46. With reference to the estimated Long-Term CCN labor LOE (currently indicated at 9,500 days, or as amended in response to question 12 above), would USAID please confirm if this LOE is a ceiling or fixed amount?

RESPONSE: This is an estimate. Offerors may propose LOE for CCN labor consistent with their technical approach.

47. Would USAID please provide an estimated dollar value for this project?

RESPONSE: An estimated dollar value will not be provided for this project.

48. On page 11 of the RFP (Section C.4), the RFP indicates that the Contractor must contribute to the achievement of three results. The first two results are directly related to the program’s key activities, but the third result “Increased number of corruption cases taken on by courts and prosecutors” is not. Program activities might yield this result, but it would be a very indirect outcome, since none of the key activities relate directly to bringing corruption cases to court. In addition, on page 84 (Section L.6a.1.e), the RFP indicates that there are “two Activity results identified in Section C.4.” Would USAID please reconsider or delete this third result?

RESPONSE: See response to Question # 3

49. Section L.7.(h), Part 8 – Employee Biographical Data Sheets for Key Personnel, page 89, states:

“USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements as this limits USAID’s and Serbia’s ability to receive the best services.”Will USAID please confirm that proposed Key Personnel are not bound by this apparent limitation on exclusivity, given offerors’ need to submit Key Personnel committed to the respective organization who is proposing them?

RESPONSE: Correct. Offeror’s are not bound by this. However, as stated, USAID highly discourages this practice.

50. Section L.7.(e), Part 5 – Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors), page 88, states: “USAID discourages the use of exclusive agreements as this limits USAID’s and Serbia’s ability to receive the best services. “Will USAID please confirm that U.S. subcontractors, and specifically any “major subcontractors,” are not bound by this apparent limitation on exclusivity, given offerors’ need to submit proof (letters of commitment) of committed subcontractors to the respective organization who is proposing them?

RESPONSE: Correct. Offeror’s are not bound by this. However, as stated, USAID highly discourages this practice.

51. AIDAR requirements stipulate that contractor CCN staff salaries and benefits should not exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission. In order to allow Offerors to be compliant with this provision, could USAID please provide a copy of the USAID/Serbia’s Local Employee Compensation Plan?

RESPONSE: See response to Question# 8.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ADDRESSED DURING THE PRE-PROPOSAL CONFEFRENCE

1. Just a clarification on [the role of] civil society organizations. Can they be subcontracted during the [activity] implementation, or not?

RESPONSE: Yes, civil society organizations can play the role of subcontractors during implementation of this activity. However, we would not anticipate them being beneficiaries through a sub-grant arrangement.

2. My question actually related to the previous one, [wherein] clarification about the number of expected municipalities. Is there any idea right now about the number of areas, specific issues but not municipalities that should be covered by proposals? Because you were not clear [on] specific issues such as public procurement. Do we have any provisions on the number of issues?

RESPONSE: It is completely open. If, for example, you are currently doing work in a municipality and you want to do subsidy work in that municipality and it makes sense in the context of this activity, it’s OK. So, a single issue depending on its size would work.

3. Among the evaluation criteria there was past performance. Would you consider removing it for those [offerors] that did not do any anti-corruption activities?

RESPONSE: Past performance is a mandated requirement under US Government funded procurements. However, if you have no documented past performance for activities similar to the one under the RFP, we will assign you a neutral score so that you are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged.

4. So, when do you expect the amended RFP to be issued? Do you expect the level of effort to be amended as well? Is there to be another component added?

RESPONSE: We estimate that an amendment to the RFP will be issued within the next two weeks. At this point we can’t say if the level of effort will be amended or if there will be a third component. We also anticipate an extension of the due date for submission of proposals.

5. Will there be a second question and answer period?

RESPONSE: There is that possibility given that we are thinking about refining the SOW.

6. Is the Government of Serbia a potential stakeholder in the implementation of this activity?

RESPONSE: Yes, the GoS is a very important stakeholder for any of these civil society efforts.

Any public institutions that are engaged in issues that we are trying to address are potential stakeholders. If you are looking at budget accountability, then the Ministry of Finance will be involved. Also, the Public Procurement Office could be a potential stakeholder. We are certainly not limiting the stakeholders.