Q&A.pdf

Technical Questions

1. On page 22, the RFP states that STESSA will be responsible for training “English language supervisors at the district level as trainers.” Would USAID kindly clarify if these supervisors will be responsible for training (a) teachers in STEM high schools, (b) teachers in mainstream high schools who teach STEM courses in English, or (c) both?

USAID RESPONSE: The trained supervisors will primarily train (a) teachers in STEM high schools. Please note that the MOE can also assign supervisors to train teachers who teach science and mathematics courses in public language schools.

2. On page 30 of the RFP, Section E.3.C references a logical framework and states this is attached in Section J. However, this attachment does not appear in the RFP. Could USAID please provide a copy of the logical framework?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see attached logical framework.

3. On pages 36 to 37, Section F.5, “Key Personnel,” states that that all key personnel positions require at least a master’s degree. Would USAID accept additional years of experience in lieu of a master’s degree for the deputy chief of party position?

USAID RESPONSE: No, this will not be acceptable to USAID. Due to the nature of the work in this Activity, USAID requires key personnel to have the level of education stated in the RFP.

However, the qualification requirements is amended thus “…. degree in Education or other relevant field from a nationally or internationally recognized university”

4. On page 37, Section F.5, “Key Personnel,” states that the technical component manager for Component 1 should have a PhD. Would USAID accept additional years of experience in lieu of a PhD for this position?

USAID RESPONSE: No. The Manager of this component will need to hold a degree equal to the government counterparts that he/she will work with in order to have their full cooperation and engagement.

5. Page 10: "The contractor shall also provide technical assistance to support the MOE exploring options and developing relevant strategies, models and policies to enable the MOE creating a recognized regional accreditation body of STEM education in the Middle East."

-Please clarify what are the desired outcomes.

USAID Response: Please see page 16 of the RFP, specifically table 1, Development Objectives, Goals. Apart from enabling the MOE to maintain the STEM concepts, high quality, and student achievements while taking the STEM high school model to the national scale, the contractor will assist the MOE to explore options to have one or more of its affiliated institutions, certified/accredited by a recognized U.S. and/or an international accreditation entity as STEM expert institution(s) that can support and/or accredit STEM programs in Egypt and in other countries in the Middle East.

6. Page 10: "If need be, the activity may also provide essential equipment, such as lab equipment, in an amount of $1 million or less, to STEM schools and/or STEM programs in the targeted Faculties of Education." - Please clarify if this is $1M in total or $1M per CLIN.

USAID RESPONSE: It is $1M in total.

7. Page 10: "Component 2, STEM School Strengthening, shall enable the MOE to further develop the STEM educational quality in the existing STEM schools, establish new schools, and introduce elements of STEM approaches, strategies and curricula in the mainstream, particularly in middle schools, nationwide. " - Does "in the mainstream, particularly in middle schools, nationwide." mean the desired outcome should be measured only within middle schools, or across different school levels?

USAID RESPONSE: The introduction of elements of STEM approaches, strategies and curricula to different school levels shall be determined after consultation with the MOE. It is expected that the MOE will need technical assistance and guidance to support the following:

● Expand and sustain the implementation of effective STEM extracurricular activities, related to scientific research and English language, in all public middle schools nationwide.

● Implement elements of STEM curricula and assessment system in the mainstream high schools

8. Page 15-16: Target Beneficiaries: "USAID expects that the first cohort of faculty members participating in the activity will be around 100, with that number rising as university capacities expand. How are cohorts being defined in this case? How many cohorts is USAID expecting?

USAID RESPONSE: The first cohort of faculty members will participate in the design and development of undergraduate and graduate courses. The number is estimated to cover all STEM-related subjects. New cohorts can be added to participate in the design of new courses as the program progresses in targeted universities. The exact number of cohort members will be determined in consultation with College Council.

9. Page 16: "The STEM school will eventually become its own brand. " Is this defined by the uniform application of Egypt STEM School Standards, or do you mean this in the more literal sense. That a communication plan is needed to brand these STEM schools? Please clarify the desired outcome.

USAID RESPONSE: This is defined as the uniform application of STEM School Standards.

10. Page 19-20: "Given that the USAID-funded ESSP activity has supported the MOE to develop STEM curriculum, teacher selection system, professional development, student assessment system, and related policies, the Contractor is not expected to develop these materials. Rather the Contractor is expected to support the MOE use and further refine these materials while providing necessary technical assistance to ensure streamlined scaling of STEM schools to the national level." - In Table 2: ESSP vs. STESSA, Activities "Curriculum Development" and "Assessment System" are labeled with "Not addressed in This Activity", but the text on page 19-20 suggests contractor will support MOE to "further refine". Please reconcile or clarify.

USAID RESPONSE: The contractor shall not be requested to develop new curricula or assessment system. However, the contractor will assist the MOE to refine the curricula and assessment based on lessons learned, and recent national and international trends and development in STEM education. Please note that the MOE reviews and refines curricula for all mainstream schools every three years. Therefore, this may also be required by the MOE for the STEM schools.

11. Page 21: “(8) Assist the MOE to conceive of a plan to promote best practices to scale and provide support to STEM schools. While certifying entities can remain at the central level, courses and instruction must be relevant to the teaching context and the parameters of University capacity.” - Please clarify the second sentence in the context of Component 2.

USAID RESPONSE: At the University level, there should be agreement on course objectives and framework, however each university/college will need the flexibility to design its own course content so long as it is aligned with the framework and course objectives, and approved by the Education Sector Committee (ESC).

12. Page 8: "Continuing to support and strengthen the current MOE’s efforts to achieve and sustain consistent quality in STEM schools so that STEM schools can be scaled across governorates.” Please clarify who sets the parameters for what it means for STEM school quality to be "consistent" and also the mechanisms that will be used to measure consistency.

USAID RESPONSE: As stated on page 16 of the RFP, the MOE sets the parameter of what it means for STEM school quality to be consistent, with the technical guidance by the contractor.

It will be desirable to review these parameters regularly based on the input of stakeholders, such as higher education research institutions and industry, and review of international best practices.

13. Page 8-9: “Component 1 & component 2 will address the gaps and needs of the STEM education system and the schools, both currently operating and new schools, so that the STEM school endeavor can be taken to national scale, while maintaining its concepts and high quality of education.” In order to ensure a fair competition and enable bidders to propose solutions that effectively address existing gaps in the STEM schools, bidders require access to the same information on gaps and needs. We therefore request that the Mission please share a draft or summary of the pending ECASE/ESSP evaluation findings.

USAID RESPONSE: The ECASE/ESSP final performance evaluation is ongoing.

Consequently, any findings in the draft evaluation are preliminary and subject to change before being released in the final evaluation. Releasing the draft evaluation or a summary of the draft’s findings has the potential to mislead bidders by encouraging their focus on issues that could be materially different than those that will be included in the final evaluation. As an additional safeguard to ensure fair competition, USAID has instructed the contractor performing the evaluation not to share any draft or preliminary findings with any party other than USAID staff.

When the ECASE/ESSP final performance evaluation is completed, it will be posted and be publicly available on the Development Experience Clearinghouse. For purposes of preparing proposals, the Mission has detailed the separate and distinct areas of coverage for ECASE/ESSP vs. STESSA on pages 21 and 22 of the RFP. As a result of these material differences between ECASE/ESSP and STESSA, the Mission believes the results of the final ECASE/ESSP performance evaluation, once they are available, will likely have limited implications for the STESSA contract, all of which may be accommodated at the workplan level after the STESSA contract is awarded. See page 23 of the RFP.

14. Page 10: “The Contractor shall also provide technical assistance to support the MOE exploring options and developing relevant strategies, models, and policies to enable the MOE creating a recognized regional accreditation body of STEM education in the Middle East.”

Please clarify what the deliverable is that the Mission expects. Is USAID’s expectation for the MOE to actually establish a regional accreditation body that would provide accreditation for STEM schools in Egypt AND schools in the region during the life of the project? If so, can the Mission please provide guidance on how this is possible as it seems unrealistic within the given timeframe and outside the scope of the project.

USAID RESPONSE: In addition to enabling the MOE to maintain the STEM concepts, high quality, and student achievements while taking the STEM high school model to the national scale, the contractor will assist the MOE to explore options to have one or more of its affiliated institutions, certified/accredited by a recognized U.S. and/or an international accreditation entity as STEM expert institution(s) that can support and/or accredit STEM programs in Egypt and in other countries in the Middle East. USAID believes it is realistic, falls within the scope of the project and can be achieved within the timeframe of the activity.

15. Page 10: “Define the gaps and assess the needs of the STEM schools and education system to be fully sustained.” It is assumed that this has already been done through ECASE/ESSP. Would the contractor be expected to conduct a separate assessment of the STEM schools and education system?

USAID RESPONSE: The contractor must conduct assessments as stated in page 10, and also in pages 20 and 21 of the RFP.

16. Page 10: “If need be, the activity may also provide lab essential equipment, such as lab equipment, in an amount of $1 million or less, to STEM schools and/or STEM programs in the targeted Faculties of Education.” Please provide guidance on how the need for essential equipment should be determined and how bidders should account for it in the budget.

USAID RESPONSE: This should be based on requirement for successful implementation of undergraduate programs that will be designed as part of Component 1 of this Activity, and the defined operational standards that will be developed under Component 2 (page 21 of the RFP)

17. Page 14: “The MOE will need assistance to develop its abilities to procure textbooks and equipment for the STEM schools” Please clarify whether this refers to technical or financial assistance, or both. If it refers to financial assistance, does this come out of the $1 million that is mentioned on page 10? Is it all textbooks for all schools or a pool of funds to be used as needed?

USAID RESPONSE: Technical assistance.

18. Page 15: “By the end of this activity, all the Faculties of Education that participated in this activity will have undergone accreditation process of STEM undergraduate and graduate courses and program, and either achieved it or have developed an action plan to achieve it.”

Please clarify whether USAID is referring to a specific accreditation process or body? If so, which process/body? Or does USAID prefer that bidders suggest an accreditation process and/or body?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID refers to the National Authority for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Education (NAQAAE) jointly with an internationally recognized accreditation body that will be recommended by the contractor and accepted by NAQAAE.

19. Page 16: “The Contractor should maximize the benefit of contract activities beyond the students and staff of STEM schools and Faculties of Education and Sciences. Benefits should also reach in-service teachers, school administrators, university professors, university administrators, PAT, the STEM Units at the central and governorate levels, the CCIMD, the NCEEE, the ESC, NAQAAE, and the Ministries of Education and Higher Education.”

Our understanding is that some beneficiaries will benefit from direct training while others will benefit from technical assistance, capacity building, and inter-agency/organization collaboration. Please confirm if this understanding is correct.

USAID RESPONSE: Confirmed.

Do the English language supervisors at the secondary level mentioned in the table on page 22 fall under the MOE as a beneficiary?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes.

Are the “university professors and university administrators” referred to here the “staff of Faculties of Education and Sciences”?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes.

Similarly, are the “in-service teachers and school administrators” referred to here the “staff of STEM schools”?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, this includes staff of the STEM schools as well as their coaches and mentors (supervisors) at the district/governorate level.

Our understanding is that there is no direct benefit, i.e. training for example, for STEM students. The benefits are indirect as a result of improved teaching, curriculum, and processes. Please confirm if this is what is intended in the above language.

USAID RESPONSE: Confirmed. Assigning direct and indirect beneficiaries depends on the definition of the indicator. If the implementer is measuring the number of students reached with a USG funded program, then the students will be direct beneficiaries.

Learners should be considered as direct beneficiaries if they are enrolled in a USG supported secondary school or equivalent and directly benefit from USG education assistance designed to support student acquisition of academic skills and knowledge.

Examples of USG education assistance that fall into this category include, but not limited to, pedagogical training of teachers, provision of teaching and learning materials (TLM), etc. If the activity is provided training of trainers, then the trainers will be direct beneficiaries and the teachers that those trainers will train are going to be indirect beneficiaries.

20. Page 18: “Establishing a STEM Teacher Certification Program for Teachers, specialized in science, mathematics, English language, and humanities, through sustainable partnerships between Faculties of Education and PAT. That certification will extend to novice teachers as those already practicing in the field.” Please clarify the relationship between this certification program and the undergraduate program and graduate programs for STEM school teachers and leaders under Component 1, as well as the in-service professional development training under Component 2. Would an undergraduate who completes the undergraduate degree program in a partner Faculty of Education also need to complete a certificate to teach STEM? How does the certificate differ from the one year graduate degree program for current STEM school teachers?

USAID RESPONSE: The certification program should apply the same standards and criteria for programs under Components 1 and 2. That is why it should be established through partnerships between Faculties of Education and PAT, and endorsed by NAQAAE. The graduate of a certified teacher education program does not need to be re-certified to teach STEM. However, he/she will need to be certified by PAT if he/she graduated from a graduate/ undergraduate program that is not yet certified.

21. Page 20: In the table that illustrates the activities of ESSP and STESSA, training English language supervisors at the district level as trainers is listed as an activity under the secondary school intervention level. Please provide more detail on this as there is no other mention in the RFP. Is this for supervisors responsible for the areas in which STEM school are located or is it broader geographically? What are the expected numbers or supervisors to be trained?

USAID RESPONSE: These supervisors are members of the local/governorate level STEM Unit and those assigned by the local STEM Unit and/or the English language counsellor at the MOE to play this role. Their approximate number is 5 per governorate.

22. Page 23-24: “Sustainable STEM teacher preparation programs informed by US models, accredited by internationally recognized institutions…” and “STEM Teacher and leadership preparation programs… are certified by nationally and internationally recognized institutions.”

This is inconsistent with language on pg. 10 specifying that partner universities will have “undergone accreditation process of STEM undergraduate and graduate courses and program, and either achieved it or have developed an action plan to achieve it.” Please clarify USAID’s expectations around accreditation. Are partner universities expected to have achieved accreditation by the end of the program, or to have an action plan to do so? Accreditation seems unrealistic within the timeframe of the program.

USAID RESPONSE: The graduate programs at the university level, be it teacher education or leadership preparation, are relatively short (about one year or so). Such programs can be developed, implemented and certified by nationally (NAQAAE) and internationally recognized institutions during the Activity timeframe. In terms of undergraduate programs, if time does not allow for it to be fully accredited, the contractor is expected to at least establish quality assurance measures, clear criteria (endorsed by NAQAAE), and develop an action plan to prepare for and achieve accreditation in due time.

23. Page 25: For indicator “Number of learners in middle schools benefitting from USG funded educational activities” – according to the table of activities on page 23, it appears that the “MOE is responsible for strengthening and refining scientific research and English e-STEM materials and scaling up to all middle schools.” Therefore, the scaling up and hence number of learners in middle school is not a direct activity of the project nor would the Contractor have any control over how many schools/learners the MOE reaches. How does USAID envision the target for this indicator being set? Would the Contractor be held accountable for meeting the target when not a direct activity, and if so, how does the Mission propose the Contractor influence this outcome?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, the contractor will be accountable to support and provide technical assistance, guidance and possibly capacity development to MOE to expand this component to all middle schools nationwide. The Offeror should propose the best approach to achieve this outcome.

24. Page 37: The Component 1 Technical Manager requirements stipulate that a Ph.D. is required, unlike for Component 2 where a master’s degree is required (Ph.D. preferred). We request that the qualification for the Component 1 Technical Manager also state master's degree required, Ph.D. preferred, to allow for the consideration of a wider range of candidates.

USAID RESPONSE: See response to question 3 in this Section.

25.

a) Does Egypt MOE have a specific Higher Ed curriculum map or would they defer to MHE’s learning science and content mapping.

USAID RESPONSE: Please refer to the background section of the RFP for information on working with the Ministry of Higher Education.

b) There are components of both professional learning model expansion and new professional learning practice creation. What is the expected balance of development between extension and creation of new learning content?

USAID RESPONSE: The Offerors should propose the best balance in line with a sound technical approach to achieve the intended results of the activity.

c) Obviously a great deal of work has already been accomplished with the SCU and ESC. What are the expectations for using universities in Egypt? Does the MOE expect the local universities to be the only providers of teacher education, or could we also put together resources and teacher development experiences with collaboration of non-Egypt higher education institutions?

USAID RESPONSE: The Offeror should propose the best mix of resources and experiences to achieve the intended results of the activity.

d) Regarding best practices and international standards; are there specific countries or regions that the MoE would like to emulate or align with, or will the vendor/contractor determine this collaboratively with the MoE?

USAID RESPONSE: The Offeror should propose the best practices and international standards to achieve the intended results of the activity.

e) How much time/how often are existing teacher training activities?

USAID RESPONSE: There is no standard frequency or length of teacher training activities. The length and frequency of existing teacher training activities vary according to the level of experience of the teacher, the subject matter of the training, and the objective of the training.

f) Is there currently a single nationwide curriculum for STEM, or can schools/governorates choose their own curriculum?

USAID RESPONSE: There is a single STEM curriculum for all STEM schools. The MOE, with support from ECASE/ESSP has developed a curriculum for the STEM schools.

g) Is delivery expected in Arabic (written content and verbal training)?

USAID RESPONSE: Instruction in STEM Schools is in English. Instruction for teacher training will also be conducted in English.

h) Would any content need to be culturally adapted?

USAID RESPONSE: No.

i) What % of instructors will be native English speakers, Fluent, and Non-English speakers?

USAID RESPONSE: Given that the instructors have not been selected, it is undetermined at this time the percentage who will be native English, Fluent and Non-English speakers.

j) What levels of proficiency will students be required to achieve before they enter the new certification?

USAID RESPONSE: The question is not clear, and we are unable to respond.

k) Do you envisage providing in-person hands-on support for teachers (e.g. modeling and coaching)?

USAID RESPONSE: As stated on page 19 to 21 of the RFP, the activity’s main focus under Component 2 is to provide necessary technical assistance and support, and build the capacities and systems within the MOE to support the strengthening, expansion and sustainability of STEM schools. The Offeror should propose the best support for teachers, based on internationally recognized best practices.

l) How many students are in the addressable Egypt Higher Ed market?

USAID RESPONSE: The activity is not addressing the whole higher education market.

It will only support Faculties of Education to prepare highly qualified STEM teachers through graduate and undergraduate programs.

m) Is there an expected difference in male and female participation in the program(s)?

USAID RESPONSE: Males and females will have equal opportunities to participate in the program.

26.

a) Would Egypt MOE be open to digital delivery (i.e. Connect2)? Do teachers or Higher Ed facilities have the internet bandwidth and hardware?

USAID RESPONSE: The Offeror should propose the best mix of delivery options (digital, hands-on, blended) based on a sound technical approach in order to achieve the intended results.

b) Is 'train-the-trainer' a welcomed approach for PD or is there an expectation that the awarded Contractor would train all teachers directly?

USAID RESPONSE: The Offeror should propose the best mix of training approaches (in-person, distance, one-on-one) based on a sound technical approach in order to achieve the intended results.

c) Would virtual training via a dedicated PD platform be acceptable as a supplement to in person training? Do teachers have access to high-speed internet?

USAID RESPONSE: The Offeror should propose the best mix of platforms (digital, hands-on, blended) for training based on a sound technical approach in order to achieve the intended results.

27 . The table on page 22 of the RFP states that the Assessment System was completed under ESSP and not expected in STESSA. However, elsewhere in the Component 2 description, the RFP indicates that a review of assessment (both formative and summative) systems needs additional support. Can USAID please clarify if applicants should propose activities to review and enhance the assessment capacities of the MOE?

USAID RESPONSE: Although the ESSP has worked with the NCEEE/MOE to develop and implement student assessment, the STESSA will need to work at the system level through building the knowledge and skills required within the MOE and its affiliated institutions to sustain and upgrade assessment systems among other areas as stated in page 9 of the RFP. Also, the Activity (STESSA) will need to build the skills and capacities of the MOE/NCEEE in developing test specification for assessment and writing test items (page 22) to expand the item bank (developed through ESSP) for the STEM school exit exam (URT).

28. On page 31, Section E of the RFP asks the Contractor to suggest how to set up control groups. While the Contractor will work closely with the external evaluation team for mid-term, final, and/or impact evaluation, can USAID please clarify whether the Contractor is expected to identify, determine the methodology, and/or collect data from the control group schools, or whether the external evaluator will be responsible for these activities?

USAID RESPONSE: At this time, USAID has not determined what, if any, evaluations will take place for STESSA. As stated in the RFP, the Contractor “should propose how it will establish comparison groups that will enable USAID to assess the impact of the program on beneficiaries versus non beneficiaries.”

31. Would USAID please consider removing the master’s degree qualification for Deputy Chief of Party and replacing it with years of relevant experience to allow for maximum flexibility in identifying qualified personnel?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to question 4 in this Section.

32. On pg. 100 of the RFP, Section Part IV – Representations and Instructions, it is stated that the Illustrative Monitoring and Evaluation Plan must include performance targets. The required indicators include a count of

• Number of administrator and officials successfully trained

• Number of learners enrolled in STEM (Secondary) schools

• Number of learners enrolled in USAID-funded schools

• Number of learners enrolled in USG-funded higher education programs

• Number of learners in middle schools

• Number of teachers who successfully completed in-service training

• Number of teachers who successfully completed pre-service training but does not include any required targets. Could USAID provide further background information on enrollment and expectations for these targets?

USAID RESPONSE: Targets should be set based on and in alignment with the proposed technical approach. Targets should be realistic, measurable, and specific.

33. The references to professional development being provided to school staff are without clear indications that school-based work is essential to the project. We need clarity on how much work should be done directly at the schools, and how much should be done with the MOE and the governorate offices. Or if the expectation is that the professional development in STEM teaching methods of teachers gets transferred from the school level (as in the previous project) to the FOEs through the post-graduate certificate programs?

USAID RESPONSE: USAID does not expect the Contractor to provide extensive support to the schools. The Contractor will enable the MOE to assess, identify gaps and provide support to schools.The implementer will help the MOE to develop skills, tools and systems that will help it addressing needs and weaknesses in a sustainable manner. The implementer’s direct intervention at the school level will need to be minimal to avoid creating dependency on project’s resources and staff.

34. How many FOE students are we targeting? What happens if all these students don’t get jobs in the STEM high schools? Will we inadvertently over-produce teachers who may not be qualified for regular positions?

USAID RESPONSE: It is not possible to know or estimate at this point in time. There is a national system for admission to universities. Each FOE accepts about 500 new students/year to study in different depts. The number of students is determined based on the FOE policy and regulations.

35. Do all the UG STEM education courses need to be taught in English? The RFP states that the beneficiaries of English are the student teachers. Is that enough English for them to teach in English at the STEM schools?

USAID RESPONSE: The offerors may propose the activities they believe will help them achieving the Activity’s goals and objectives stated in the RFP.

36. Is the expectation that all 100 FOE members teach future STEM teachers?

USAID RESPONSE:. Yes, as they will be prepared and able to teach future STEM teachers, as well as remain current on STEM teaching practices.

37. Will supervisors of preparatory and secondary education need English?

USAID RESPONSE: Yes, they need English. However, it is important to keep in mind that it is not an English language activity, and propose strategies, interventions and approaches that help achieving Activity goals and objectives.

38. What is meant by “global” knowledge base of STEM, especially as it relates to engineering faculty?

USAID RESPONSE: This is in reference to Egypt’s participation in the global knowledge economy. Faculty will have access to and knowledge of where best practices in teaching engineering are moving forwards in the States, or other nations where this type of teaching and learning is highly advanced.

39. Given that FOEs have departments of science and mathematics and that future science and math teachers take their courses in FOEs within those departments, what is the real role of the faculties of science and engineering?

USAID RESPONSE: The role of the Faculties of Science and Engineering is to work in concert with the Faculties of Education to ensure that future STEM school teachers have necessary and sufficient content knowledge to teach in STEM schools.

40. On page 17, the RFP states that the “Contractor will assist the FOE faculty members to create partnerships and/or linkages with faculty members of universities in the U.S. on the latest STEM education and teaching methodologies.” Page 18 states that “The activity may facilitate the establishment of partnerships or collaboration between universities in Egypt and the U.S.”

Please clarify whether creation of partnerships with US universities is a requirement or an option.

USAID RESPONSE: It is an option. Offeror should use best judgement and expertise to indicate how partnerships will be used to achieve STESSA goals and objectives.

41. On page 12, the solicitation notes that “The planned expansion will increase the annual enrollment in STEM schools from 270 in September 2014 to more than 3,500 students once all 27 schools are completed.” Does USAID mean the annual new enrollment per year will increase to 3,500 (only those who newly enroll in Grade 9 in each school annually) or does USAID mean that the full enrollment will be 3,500?

USAID RESPONSE: The annual enrollment will increase to 3500. Ie: 3500 children per year will enter STEM classroom across 27 schools, averaging to 130 children enrolled per school per year.

42. On page 25, the solicitation states “Throughout the activity lifecycle, USAID/Egypt anticipates evaluations that report on and guide major activities, and that ensure desired outcomes are reached not only in Faculties of Education but also in STEM classrooms.” In this sentence, is USAID referring to internal formative evaluations conducted by the implementer, or to external evaluations described on Page 31 under “Evaluation Plan”?

USAID RESPONSE: It is not determined at this time if the evaluations will be conducted by the implementer or by an external evaluator.

43. On page 25, the solicitation refers to the “STEM Classroom Observation scale.” Is this a scale that has already been developed? Please describe this scale and how it has been used, and/or provide the scale itself to bidders.

USAID RESPONSE: Through the ESSP, a STEM Classroom Observation Scale was developed and used to observe teacher’s performance and student behavior at the classroom level for the purpose of improving his/her performance. The use of this tool helps supervisor provide constructive feedback to the teacher, and maybe planning for teacher’s training needs. A copy of the Classroom Observation Scale is attached.

44. Point C of section E.3 on page 30 of the RFP states “The following indicators are derived from the Logical Framework [IL1] (attached in relevant part in Section J) and must be used to measure progress of the activity, with standard and custom indicators.” However, the Logical Framework was not included in Section J or in the list of attachments. Can USAID please provide the Logical Framework to bidders?

USAID RESPONSE: Please see response to Question 2 in this Section (attachment provided).

45. On page 31, the solicitation states “Eventually, USAID will engage an M&E contractor responsible for monitoring control groups and conducting mid-term, final evaluation and /or impact evaluation. The STEM Teacher Education and School Strengthening contractor should propose how it will establish comparison groups that will enable USAID to assess the impact of the program on beneficiaries versus non beneficiaries.” Because STESSA interventions are largely at the level of teacher education and MOE institutional strengthening, rather than at the level of schools, it is not clear what the control or comparison groups would be. Please provide additional information to help bidders understand what type of evaluation design is under consideration.

USAID RESPONSE: Please see the response to Question 42 in this Section.

46. Please confirm that only SOQs are required at this stage and that full CVs or resumes are not required.

USAID RESPONSE: Confirmed.

47. Procurement of IT and laboratory equipment. The reference made to no more than $1m USD for laboratory equipment is unclear in the scope of the RFP. There is exceedingly little reference to school-based work in the RFP, so we are not sure what this is for.

USAID RESPONSE: If included in the proposal, the provision of IT and laboratory equipment must support the achievement of the Activity’s goals and objectives. Accordingly, equipment may be provided to targeted Faculties of Education/universities if needed to support the implementation of graduate and undergraduate courses designed through Component 1 of the STESSA; and/or provided to STEM schools based on the minimum operational standards that will be developed through its Component 2.

48. The lists of required indicators listed on pages 25 and 30/31 are slightly different. Please clarify which of these two lists is considered final.

USAID RESPONSE: Both. As stated on page 35 of the RFP, “Offerors are encouraged to propose other indicators that will assist in managing the activity”

Procurement/Budget Questions

1. Can USAID clarify whether “Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience” is a separate section, as referenced on page 98, or incorporated into the Management Approach and Institutional Capacity section, as indicated on page 114?

USAID RESPONSE: As per page 97, and page 114 of the RFP, key personnel is part of Institutional Capacity, and included in the 35 page limit). The Statement of Qualifications for key personnel and technical experts is not part of the page limitation.

2. On page 55, Section H.20(d) states, “One annual salary increase not more than 5% (includes promotional increase) may be granted after the employee's completion of each twelve month period of satisfactory services under the contract.” Specifying the maximum amount for annual salary increases may result in offerors deviating from AIDAR 752.7007. Can USAID please confirm that offerors should comply with AIDAR 752.7006, and follow their established policies, procedures, and practices for establishing individual salaries and administering salary increases?

USAID RESPONSE: Salaries and salary increases must comply with AIDAR 752.7007.

3. The budget template on page 106 includes a line item for grants under contract (GUC). Can

USAID confirm that the offeror is authorized to implement a GUC component, in accordance with GUC-authorizing language of ADS 302.3.4.13? If so, can USAID please provide a plug figure for this component for budgeting purposes?

USAID RESPONSE: What is provided in page 106 is a template that to be followed, but it does not cite what you must include in the budget. The budget line items should follow what is requested in Section C of the RFP and reflecting the technical approach. No grants under contract are contemplated under this RFP.

4. Will cost sharing arrangement be considered in evaluation of proposals?

USAID RESPONSE: No cost sharing is required.

5. Will there be any provision for working capital up front (advance) as part of the contract award?

USAID RESPONSE: The offeror should propose, as part of the cost proposal, costs associated with financing through a private financial institution. Advance payments are not contemplated.

See FAR Part 32.4

6. To support the development of accurate and realistic cost proposals, can USAID provide us with the FSN scale for Egypt?

USAID RESPONSE: The local compensation plan scale is provided below.

Grade Step 1 (Egyptian Pounds) Step 13 (Egyptian Pounds)

FSN-1 30,756 48,009

FSN-2 43,875 68,998

FSN-3 50,845 80,154

FSN-4 55,353 87,375

FSN-5 65,690 103,908

FSN-6 76,130 120,612

FSN-7 108,903 172,744

FSN-8 132,717 210,099

FSN-9 159,771 252,637

FSN-10 217,392 340,634

FSN-11 271,890 427,828

FSN-12 383,116 605,785

Grades 1-4 Custodial Staff, Drivers, and Clerical position Grades 5-9 Admin positions Grades 10-12 Professional positions

7. Page 76: The past performance table is not consistent with the information required for past performance that is discussed in section L.6(6)(10). Please clarify which should be followed to prepare past performance, the bullet list on page 101 or the table in the listed attachments on page 76.

USAID RESPONSE: The past performance information on page 101 of the RFP is controlling.

Please provide past performance information based on this information.

8. Page 94: The RFP states that proposals must be submitted electronically and not exceed 8MB. It goes on to say that the proposal must be submitted in two parts: Technical and Cost.

Does the 8MB limit apply to both documents individually or combined?

USAID RESPONSE: The capacity of email for attachments combined is 25MB.

9. Page 96: The RFP states that Time New Roman, 12pt font is to be use. Could larger or smaller font sizes and/or styles be utilized for tables/graphics and/or headers to allow for a better fit and/or readability within the proposal?

USAID RESPONSE: The proposal text and tables must be Times New Roman, 12 pt font. For graphics or header, it can be larger or smaller, but it has to be readable.

10. Section L.6: (a and b) Section L.6(a) requires offerors to “provide a Technical Proposal including a Statement of Work (SOW) and supporting narrative that addresses each of the following criteria: (1) Technical Approach, (2) Management Approach and Institutional Capacity,

(3) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, (4) Past Performance.”

Section L.6(b) then lists the components of the Technical Proposal as follows: (1) Executive Summary, (2) Technical Approach (including Statement of Work - SOW), (3) Management Approach and Institutional Capacity. Is it USAID’s intent for the SOW to be a stand-alone section, or should it be included as part of the Technical Approach?

USAID RESPONSE: the SOW is part of the technical approach and included in the page limitation.

11. Section L.6(a) lists Past Performance as part of the supporting narrative for the Technical Approach. Section L.6(c)(10) indicates that Past Performance is not part of the page count.

Should offeror’s include a discussion of Past Performance as part of the Technical Approach supporting narrative (which is subject to the 35-page limit)?

USAID RESPONSE: Past performance information must be included as an Annex to the Technical Proposal. It is not expected that the past performance information be part of the page limited section of the Technical Proposal.

12. Section L.6(c) states, “The Technical Proposal must follow the order of the components as list and described below” and then details all of the various pieces of the technical proposal. The order indicated mixes sections subject to the 35-page limit with those that have no page restrictions (i.e., (5) Draft First Year Work Plan, which has no page restriction, is placed between

(4) Statement of Work and (6) Management Approach and Institutional Capacity). Section L.6(b) requires pages to be numbered consecutively. Please clarify the order in which Technical Proposal instructions should be structured.

USAID RESPONSE: Offeror’s technical proposal must follow the order stated in Section L.6(c).

Materials that are excluded from the page limitation are to be referenced in the technical proposal and contained in an Annex that will not count toward the page limitation.

13. Page 98: The RFP states that staffing plans and budgets should be aligned to the results provided in Section C. However, Section C says these results are “illustrative”. Does this mean we should modify the results or provide our budgets and staffing 100% aligned to the results in Section C? Also, there are multiple references to “results” in section C. Which results should be utilized for budgeting and staff - those on page 14 (CLIN level results) or those provided on pages 23-24 (illustrative detailed results)?

USAID RESPONSE: The budget and staffing plan proposed must align with the technical approach proposed. The technical approach proposed must address the results as stated in Section C, as detailed on pages 22 and 23 of the RFP. As stated on page 23, “Proposal submissions may build on these activities and provide rationale and resources for any amendments and additions made to this list. USAID/Egypt remains open to expert recommendations in the area of STEM Teacher Education.”

14. Page 103, in Section L.7: Instructions for Preparation of the Cost Proposal, the RFP requires submission of "a Draft Security Plan detailing an approach to security for their personnel and facilities." The RFP clarifies that "All costs associated with security should be detailed in the cost proposal and not in the security plan." Please confirm that both the Security Plan narrative and costs are to be submitted as part of the cost proposal package. Alternatively, if the security plan is to be submitted as part of the Technical proposal, please confirm that it is a component to be included in the annex and will not count towards the 35-page limit.

USAID RESPONSE: The Security Plan should be submitted as part of the cost proposal package.

15. Page 113, Section M.2: Technical Evaluation Criteria, the RFP provides four criteria in "descending order of importance." Can the Mission clarify the weight of the Technical approach vs Management Approach & Institutional Capacity, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, and Past Performance?

USAID RESPONSE: Weights for the evaluation criteria are provided in the RFP. See page 113 -Technical Approach is more important than Management Approach and Institutional Capacity.

Management Approach and Institutional Capacity is more important than Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan is more important than Past Performance.

When the technical evaluation criteria are combined, they are more important than cost.

16. General question: In light of upcoming holidays including Ramadan in Egypt and Memorial

Day in the United States, the length of time required to obtain a business visa for Egypt, and the less than three weeks between the “pre-proposal conference” and the due date, would the Mission consider extending the deadline for submission?

USAID RESPONSE: While we are mindful of the upcoming holidays, given that we have shared a full draft RFP in November 2016 through a Request for Information (RFI) and that the present RFP was posted on May 8, this opportunity has been available for a sufficient time. We will add one day to the closing date which will now be June 20, 2017 at 1pm. This gives offerors a full 4-weeks between the pre-proposal conference and the RFP closing date.

17. J.2 SF LLL DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES

The “SF LLL DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES” form referenced by USAID on page 74, in field 1, has pre-filled the field for “grant”, instead of “contract”. Please confirm that bidders are to change this field to “contract”. In addition, in field 4, “Prime” is pre-filled for reporting entity. Please confirm that this form should also be submitted by sub-contractors as relevant, and that in this case the pre-filled field should be changed to “SubAwardee”.

USAID RESPONSE: Bidders to change the field to read “contract” and have subcontractors complete the form as well.

18. J.7: Template of Budget Submission by Line Item The RFP references that budget details be submitted by CLIN, as well as by line items per the Section J template, however the line items mentioned in section J are different from those in the template in the RFP, page 106. Please clarify which cost categories should be reflected in the submission.

USAID RESPONSE: Modified Budget Template is attached.

19. The “Budget Detail” worksheet has columns for “Option 1” and “Option 2”. We request the Mission please clarify what is meant by Option 1 and Option 2 in this context.

USAID RESPONSE: Options were erroneously included. They are removed. The correct template is attached.

20. Page 55 of the RFP: “1) Salaries and wages may not exceed the Contractor's established policy and practice, including the Contractor's established pay scale for equivalent classifications of employees, which shall be certified to by the Contractor. Nor may any individual salary or wage, without approval of the Cognizant Contracting Officer, exceed the employee's current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years.”

Could USAID please provide the following clarifications:

1. For all proposed staff, are proposed salaries required to match their current salaries? Since many proposed individuals will be taking on increased responsibility from their previous work and are positioned to receive an appropriate increase in salary, would USAID consider removing this stipulation?

USAID RESPONSE: offeror must justify increases over current salary if based on increased responsibility.

2. Due to the increased inflation of Egyptian currency in recent years, would USAID consider removing the 3 year benchmark under this requirement to allow Contractors to ensure staff are adequately compensated?

USAID RESPONSE: The 3 year benchmark cannot be removed. Offeror must provide justification if salary exceeds 3 year benchmark.

21. Can USAID please confirm that offerors can use less than 10 point font in graphics and tables only to improve readability, if all other text is in 12 point font?

USAID RESPONSE: See response to question 9 in this Section.

22. Page 101 of the RFP, Section L.6 (10) Past Performance: Can USAID please confirm that offerors can present 5 projects in the last 5 years for the prime offerors and up to 3 projects for each subcontractor?

USAID RESPONSE: Please adhere to the language of Past Performance in Section L.6 (10) on page 101 of the RFP.

23. Attachment J7 - Template of Budget Submission: The Detailed Budget Tab has a columns titled “Option 1,” “Option 2,” and “Total Options.” Since there are no option years on this project, can USAID please confirm that offerors can delete these columns from the budget template?

USAID RESPONSE: Option years are erroneously added, please follow the attached modified template.

24. In preparing the budget, should offerors include Social Insurance in a separate tab or in the fringe calculation?

USAID RESPONSE: Social Insurance should be included in the budget as a separate line item (as per the modified template attached). Social Insurance will be budget for in US Dollars but it will be paid in Egyptian Pounds.

25. On pg. 100 of the RFP, Section Part IV – Representations and Instructions, it is stated the inclusion of the Statement of Qualification (SOQ) is required by Offerors for all key personnel.

Would USAID clarify that potential offerors are to submit CVs in addition to this requirement for key…