Q&A_RFP_SOL-294-17-000003.pdf

RFP NO. SOL 294-17-000003 Questions and Answers

Solicitation Number: SOL-294-17-000003

Questions Received from Prospective Offerors

A. Contractual Questions

1. For organizations that have ongoing programmatic work in the region, would winning this award lead to issues of ineligibility for USAID program work in the region?

Answer: Please see amended Section H.26 “Organization Conflict of Interest” under Amendment No. 1.

2. Page 89, Section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, states to “not use a type smaller than 11 point font.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to use a font size smaller than 12, but still legible, for graphs, tables, textboxes and figures?

Answer: Offerors may use a font less than 12 ONLY for graphs, tables, textboxes and figures provided such tools are applied economically.

3. Page 94, Section L.7 (b) Organization of the Technical Proposal Volume I, states: “The Summary Budget for the proposed Evaluation Methodology must be included in Annex F and should NOT be included as part of the Cost Proposal.” Can USAID please confirm that the one page Summary Budget is not included in the Annex’s 10 page limit?

Answer: USAID thanks you for your question and we have amended the RFP accordingly.

The summary budget for the Evaluation Approach must be included in the Cost Proposal and not in Annex F. Please refer to Amendment No. Four.

4. RFP page 60, Section H.26 “Organizational Conflicts of Interest: Preclusion from Furnishing

Certain Services and Restriction of use of Information”, sub-section 3 states “Any current USAID West Bank and Gaza Mission implementing partner, contractor or grantee, shall be disqualified from pursuit of work under this solicitation, either as a prime or as a subcontractor, if the assignment under the resulting contract is related to whatsoever to the contractor or grantee’s current award, as determined by the Contracting Officer.”

Question: Can USAID confirm that all organizations (Prime and Subcontractors) involved in the implementation of current projects, but also awarded during the life of the Evaluation, Assessments, Performance Monitoring, and Program Support Services project and subject to an evaluation would be considered to have an organizational conflict based on the wording of Section H.26.3?

Answer: Please see amended Section H.26 “Organization Conflict of Interest” under Amendment No. 1.

5. RFP page 90, Section L.7 (a) – Organization of Technical Proposal – under items “NOT included in the page limitation (15 pages)”, bullet point 9 is “Past performance matrix and past performance report forms, references, Past Performance information in using small business concerns”, however on the same page, Section L.7 (b) – Content of Technical Proposal Volume I – refers to “Annex D – Past Performance Chart.”

Question: Can USAID confirm that the “past performance references and Past Performance information in using small business concerns” should also be included in Annex D?

Answer: Annex D must include the Past Performance Matrix only. All other past performance information must be included in the body of the technical proposal and is subject to the 15 pages limit.

6. RFP page 92, Section L.7 (b) 3. – Institutional Capability, Staffing, Partnering and Management Approach – Key Personnel, in discussing the Key Personnel, the RFP states, in the first paragraph on RFP page 92, “…The resumes will highlight information to demonstrate the qualifications listed in Section F.8”

Question: Section F.8 of the RFP only provides the job titles of the three Key Personnel (Chief of Party (COP), Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) and Senior M&E Specialist and is absent any qualifications for each of these positions. Would USAID please provide the qualifications for each of these three positions so Offerors can comply with the instructions outlined in Section L.7 (b) 3?

Answer: USAID thanks you for your question and we have amended the RFP accordingly.

USAID WBG has now included a description of duties and required qualifications for Key Personnel. Please refer to Section F.8 under Amendment No.4.

7. Section J-1, does a SB Prime Offeror have to submit a Small Business Participation plan?

Answer: This requirement applies to Offerors who are not small business. The plan outlines the small business targets and goals of the prime offeror.

8. Cover Letter, will this solicitation be considered as eligible for HUBZone preference as established within FAR 19.1307?

Answer: This procurement is not a Small Business Set Aside. However, USAID/WBG highly encourages the participation of small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns and women-owned small business concerns in this solicitation as the prime offeror or as proposed subcontractors in accordance with Part 19 of the FAR.

9. F.8, does the government have any desired or mandatory qualifiers for the key staff to be presented?

USAID WBG has included qualifications for required Key Personnel. Please refer to Section F.8 under Amendment No.4.

10. Page 43, H.17, Will assigned contracting staff be allowed or required to work within USAID controlled/assigned spaces in the conduct of the work/contract, or will the staff be controlled/assigned spaces in the conduct of the work/contract, or will the staff be located off-site for support needs?

Answer: In accordance with section “H.17 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED FACILITIES OR PROPERTY”, contractor’s staff will not be required or allowed to work within USAID controlled/assigned spaces in the performance of the services specified in the Contract unless the use of Government facilities or personnel is specifically authorized in the Contract or is authorized in advance, in writing, by the Contracting Officer. This may include authorization to facilitate trainings or workshops within USAID assigned spaces during the implementation of the Contract.

11. SECTION F.5.3. Periodic Progress Reports states that: Timing/Receipt: The Contractor will submit Periodic Progress Reports on a quarterly basis by the end of every fiscal quarter to the

COR.

Considering that payment may be withheld for delays in furnishing a progress report (Section F.9 (b)), it is important to clarify when the progress reports are due for submission. This section states that quarterly progress reports should be submitted “by the end of every fiscal quarter” yet if this means “at the end of the quarter”, this is not practical as these reports should report progress up to the last day of the quarter and some time is needed to prepare the report and submit it after the end of the quarter. Usually this would be like 30 days after the end of the quarter. This needs clarification.

Answer: USAID thanks you for your question and we have clarified this in the RFP accordingly. The Contractor will submit Periodic Progress Reports on a quarterly basis 30 days after the end of every fiscal quarter to the COR. Please refer to Amendment No. Four.

12. If our firm chooses to play a sub-contracting role to a local firm, are WB/Gaza firms eligible?

Answer: Yes, U.S. and other organizations within Geographic Code 937 are eligible to participate.

13. Would USAID extend the closing date for full proposals, given the peculiar security implications of this contract that need to be addressed by bidders?

Answer: The closing date and time of the RFP has been amended and is now established as March 30, 2017 16:00 Jerusalem Local Time. Please see Amendment No. 4.

14. Does USAID have an expectation about the proximity of the offeror's office to USAID's Mission in Tel Aviv?

Answer: The Contractor must have local offices, but they may be in Israel, Jerusalem or the West Bank.

15. Section F.6.2 indicates that “…the Contractor must submit its final Management Plan, which will be derived directly from its proposal…” Can the Government confirm that the derived material will originate from the language provided under the solicitation Section L.7.3 requirement?

Answer: Confirmed.

16. Section H.15.c references a USAID/West Bank and Gaza salary survey. Can the Government provide the most recent version of this salary survey to offerors or is the March 8 2011 document the most recent version of this document?

Answer: the Salary Scale Survey dated March 8, 2011 is the most recent version that can be provided to offerors.

17. Page 91, has the following header: “Institutional Capability, Staffing, Partnering and Management Approach (See Section M.2.1)” but there is no corresponding Section M.2.1.

Can the Government clarify what section within Section M corresponds to this requirement?

Answer: USAID thanks you for your question and we have amended the RFP accordingly.

This is a typo. Section M.2.1 is replaced with M.3.1. Please refer to Amendment No. 4 to the

RFP.

18. Page 92, has the following header: “Evaluation Approach (See section M.2.2)” but there is no corresponding Section M.2.2. Can the Government clarify what section within Section M corresponds to this requirement?

Answer: USAID thanks you for your question and we have amended the RFP accordingly.

This is a typo. Section M.2.2 is replaced with M.3.2. Please refer to Amendment No. 4 to the

RFP.

19. On page 71, it denotes the option that “…paragraph (d) of this provision applies.” but the actual paragraph (d) is not included in the text of the clause. We believe its listed as paragraph (e) on page 73. Can the government provide clarification?

Answer: Paragraph (d) may not be used by the Contractor as the clause at 52.204-7 was included in the Solicitation. Please refer to Section K.2 (b)(2) for more information.

20. The second bullet of Section L.7 references Volume II “instructions described in Section L.7.c”. Does the Government mean to refer to Section L.8?

Yes, this is a typo and it was corrected in Amendment No. 4.

21. Please confirm that the 15 page limit for Volume I applies to Sections IV and V under Section L.7 (b) as it appears all other elements are excluded from the page count?

Answer: The 15 page limit applies to sections IV, V and VI. Please see Amendment No. 4 which clarifies page limit requirements.

22. Per Section L.7(b)(4) it states “the following Evaluation Methodology will be included as an Annex”. Can the Government confirm this section header of Volume I should discuss the “offeror’s evaluation capabilities” and that all other required information be included in the Evaluation Methodology Annex?

Answer: The Evaluation Approach header under Volume I refer to the Evaluation Methodology (Annex F). Section L.7(b)(3) must discuss the offeror’s Institutional Capability, Staffing, Partnering and Management Approach and Section L.7(b)(4) must discuss the Evolution Approach which will be included in Annex F.

23. In section L.7 subsection 5 (a) 1 (pg 94), the Government writes that the Offeror is to “List in an annex to the technical proposal, the five most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal”. Pertaining to the word “organization” does this refer to the prime offeror or the offering team (the prime contractor plus major subcontractors)? Will the government clarify this point?

Answer: This requirement is applicable to prime contractors and major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are partners that would represent 20% or more of the total proposed cost of the award.

24. Under L.7(b)5, Past Performance Information please confirm that no more than five projects should be provided.

Answer: Confirmed.

25. On page 90, the RFP refers to past performance matrix and past performance report forms, references, etc.. Can USAID specify if the “past performance report forms” refers to the past performance reference information sheet?

Answer: The Past Performance matrix is provided as a link. Past Performance Report forms refer to reports available in PPIRS. All contracts listed under the Past Performance section that are not in PPIRS need to follow the instructions provided in Section L.7.b.5. Please refer to Amendment No. Four.

26. Please confirm that “Annex D – Past Performance Chart” refers to the “Past Performance Matrix”?

Answer: Confirmed. Please refer to Amendment No. Four.

27. Also, can the Government confirm that the format for Annex D should be in accordance with https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/past-performance-matrix?

Answer: Confirmed

28. Does the summary budget requirement on page 93 count towards the ten page count total for this Annex?

Answer: No. The summary budget for the Evaluation Approach should be included in the cost proposal and has no page limit. Offerors must use the Budget Template provided under Attachment J-8. See Amendment No. 4 to the RFP for more information.

29. Section L.8(c)1 states, “Fully executed Biographical Data Sheets are required for each identified position.” However under E Supporting Documentation on page 102 it states “…should be submitted for each position with identified personnel”. Can the Government confirm that Biographical Data Sheets are requirement only for those positions that have identified personnel?

Answer: Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheets should be submitted for each position with identified personnel. Please refer to Amendment No. 4 to the RFP.

30. On page 100 it states “All the above instructions apply to small business offerors. However, if the small business offeror does not have a NICRA, the proposal must include either Audited Financial Statements or Reviewed Financial Statements as defined below:…”

30.1 Does this include our small business subcontractors as well?

Answer: Yes.

30.2What percentage of work share is considered “major”?

Answer: 20% or more of the total proposed cost of the award.

30.3 If a small business is the Prime and has established NICRA rates, do the small business subs have to provide any additional information?

Answer: Yes, if they provide 20% or more of the total proposed cost of the award.

31. In section F5.4, the RFP reads, “Timing/Receipt: The Contractor will submit PM&E Training

Materials on an annual basis by the end of every fiscal quarter to the COR.” Could you clarify if training materials are to be submitted on a quarterly or annual basis?

Answer: Please see answer under Question No. 11.

32. Will USAID accept a smaller font size (e.g., Times New Roman 10 point font) for tables and graphics used in the proposal?

Answer: Please see answer under question No. Two.

https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/past-performance-matrix

33. Page 93, Item 4.C:

34.1 A summary budget is required for the proposed Evaluation Methodology. Can you confirm that when USAID uses the term Evaluation Methodology, the intent is to develop a budget the entire project evaluation entitled, “Palestinian Municipal Development Project

[PMDP]”.

Answer: Yes. Please refer to Amendment No. Four which includes Attachment J-8.

34.2. It is indicated that a summary budget should be developed for…[the PMDP]; the summary budget should include Direct Costs only (LOE, hourly rates, travel and ODCs). Should we assume that USAID (1) would like to see the extension of costs (hourly rates * LOE days= cost extension) for each of the major direct cost categories; and that (2) Indirect Costs should not be included in the summary budget for the PMDP.

Answer: Please refer to Attachment J-8 included in Amendment No. 4 for more information on the format of the Summary Budget for the PMDP Final Evaluation.

34. We understand that USAID will remove this summary PMDP budget after submission for the purposes of technical evaluation. However, on Page 96 of the Solicitation, under Item 2, it is noted that Offerors must not include any cost information in any other Volume of their overall proposal except Volume II... Please clarify that the inclusion of the summary budget under Volume I, (Annex F) with the information requested is acceptable when considering the requirement on Page 96.

Answer: The summary budget for the Evaluation Approach must be included in the cost proposal. Please see Amendment No. 4 for more information.

35. RFP page 92, Section L.7(b)4 – Evaluation Approach – in the third paragraph relating to Annex F states that “CVs must be provided for the proposed evaluation team…CVs will not be counted towards the 10 page total” for the Annex.

Can USAID please confirm in which Annex CVs for the proposed evaluation team should be included?

Answer: CVs for the proposed evaluation team should be included in Annex F and are not included in the page limit for this Annex.

36. RFP page 92, Section L.7(b)4 - Evaluation Approach – states that “Offerors will briefly discuss their evaluation capabilities in the Technical Proposal (page limit 15 pages).

However, the following Evaluation Methodology will be included as an Annex, and is expected to speak to the Offeror’s technical capability in this area.”

37.1 Can USAID provide further detail as to what should be included under the “Evaluation

Approach” in the Technical Proposal as opposed to what should be included Annex F – Evaluation Methodology?

Answer: The terms “Evaluation Approach” and “Evaluation Methodology” are interchangeable for the purposes of this solicitation. The information that should be included under the Evaluation Approach (Annex F) are outlined in Section L.7 (b)(4).

Please see Amendment No. 4 which provides further clarification.

37.2 Can USAID clarify the Evaluation Criteria for the “Evaluation Approach”?

Answer: The Evaluation Criteria for the Evaluation Approach is outlined under Section M.3.2

37. For planning purposes, can USAID indicate when it expects the period of performance to begin?

Answer: By September 30, 2017

B. Technical Questions

1. Page 24, Section C.4, of the RFP includes a table entitled “Forecast/Illustrative Schedule for the USAID/WBG Evaluation, Assessments, Performance Monitoring and Program Support Services Contract, FY 2018-2020.” The questions are as follows:

1.1 Row B.1 states that “Sector/gender/youth assessments” in year 3 are to be determined.

Could USAID provide a budget plug figure or estimate for these assessments in year 3?

Answer: For budgeting purposes, offerors may estimate a total number of 3 assessments in three sectors (Education, Local Governance and Trade) to be conducted in year 3.

1.2 Row B.3 states that “Other Studies” in years 2 and 3 are to be determined. For budget purposes, could USAID provide a plug figure for the number of these “Other Studies” in years 2 and 3?

Answer: For budgeting purposes, offerors may budget for two studies in FY 2019 and one study in FY 2020.

1.3 Row C.3 “Review of project/activity PM&E plans and Data Quality assessments

(DQAs)” states the number of “MEL/DQA per year.” Can USAID please clarify whether “MEL” stands for the “project/activity PM&E plans?

Answer: Yes.

1.4 Row C.4 “GeoMIS and data review/analysis” lists 2-3 visits/reviews to implementing partners/reports per month for years 1-3. This work is not described in the narrative regarding Performance Management Support Services on pages 18-20.

1.4.1 Can USAID please provide further information on these visits/reviews and what they entail?

Please refer to Section C.3.3 under Amendment No. 4.

1.4.2 Can USAID please provide further information on what GeoMIS work will be required?

Please refer to Section C. 3.3 under Amendment No. 4.

1.5 Row D.2 “Other trainings and workshops” list “as required” the number of such activities. Could USAID provide some information on the number of workshops, participants, or a plug budget figure that should be used for these activities?

Answer: USAID thanks you for your question and we have amended the RFP accordingly. For budgeting purposes, offerors must budget $25,000/ year for D.2 Other Trainings and Workshops.

1.6 Row E “Field Monitoring Activities” states that no field monitoring activities are forecasted in year 1, and “if required” for years 2 and 3.

1.6.1 Could USAID please provide a budget plug figure for field monitoring activities?

Answer: Field monitoring will be requested from the contractor on an if-needed basis. No activities are currently planned for field monitoring. Offerors must NOT budget for Field Monitoring Activities.

1.6.2 Could USAID kindly confirm that these field monitoring activities will be limited to West Bank projects, and not those in Gaza, per page 23 of the RFP?

Answer: If field monitoring is requested during implementation or prior to award, the location would be in the West Bank or in Israel for conflict mitigation grants.

As noted above, field monitoring will only be requested on an if-needed basis.

2. RFP page 20, Section C.3.4.1 “M&E-Related trainings, workshops and coaching for USAID staff and partners” states that “At the direction of the COR, the Contractor will organize and facilitate trainings, workshops, training-of trainers sessions and related events for USAID staff and implementing partners, including other USAID Contractors.”

2.1 Can USAID please clarify where the trainings, workshops, and coaching will be provided? Will they be predominately at the USAID Mission or in the West Bank and Gaza?

Answer: Training, workshops and coaching could be anywhere in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, USAID offices in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Training, workshops and coaching in Gaza will be on rare as needed basis. The location will be determined based on the location of beneficiaries and the required resources.

2.2 Can USAID please provide a breakdown of the anticipated number and types of training, workshops, and coaching by location?

Answer: A breakdown of the number, type, and location of trainings and workshops cannot be anticipated at this stage. Please refer to the answer for Question No. 1.5 for budgeting information for this component.

3. RFP page 21, Section C.3.4.2 “Support performance management follow-up and dissemination” states that, “the Contractor will also support SPA in updating and maintaining an online knowledge management portal through the mission’s GEO-MIS or other data information system.”

3.1Can the Mission provide details regarding the current portal or other data information systems used so that the Offeror can determine the technical support needs?

Answer: Please refer to Section C.3.3 under Amendment No. 4.

3.2 Will there be development needs for new data or management system

Answer: No

4. RFP page 23, Section C.3.5 “Field Monitoring, Verification and Reporting Services” states that “At this time, the Mission does NOT intend to use this contract to provide for field monitoring services in Gaza”.

Considering that this activity is not anticipated at this point, can USAID/West Bank and Gaza clarify if the offeror should be budgeting for these services in its business proposal or would this be added post-award?

Answer: Do not budget for field monitoring in Gaza.

5. RFP page 30, Section 5.4. PM&E Training Materials ‘Timing/Receipt” states that “The contractor will submit PM&E Training Materials on an annual basis by the end of every fiscal quarter to the COR.”

Can USAID clarify if these materials should be submitted quarterly or annually?

Answer: The training materials should be submitted once they are approved by the COR and prior to the training event in a timely fashion to be determined in consultation with the COR.

Please refer to Amendment No. 4.

6. RFP page 31, Section F.5.5.2 Component Coordination, sub-section (a) Components A&B states that “For every approved evaluation or study, SPA and the relevant technical office will develop a DRAFT SOW which will be provided to the Contractor o/a June 15 of every year. Then the Contractor will work with the COR and the technical office to finalize the SOW and incorporate elements of evaluation Approach/methodology, schedule, dissemination, CLA and management by o/a July 31 of every year”.

Considering the number of activities anticipated under this project, as outlined on RFP pages 24-25, Section C.4 “Forecast/Illustrative Schedule for the USAID/WBG Evaluation, Assessments, Performance Monitoring and Program Support Services Contract, FY 2018- 2020”, can USAID clarify if draft SOWs for all of the above-mentioned activities are due at the same time?

Answer: This process is applicable to Components A and B only. For components C, D & E the COR will work with the contractor on SOWs and deadlines on an annual basis and as needed.

7. RFP page 93, Section L.7(b)4(C) – Institutional Capability, Staffing, Partnering and Management Approach – Proposed Design Methods – Summary Budget, requests Offerors to provide a summary budget for the proposed Evaluation Methodology and states “Please note: this budget will be separated by USAID after submission for purposes of technical evaluation”. This is then further emphasized with an asterisked comment stating “*The Summary Budget for the proposed Evaluation Methodology must be included in Annex F and should NOT be included as part of the Cost Proposal”. Contrary to these instructions, the opening paragraph of RFP Section L.7 says, “The technical proposal must be entirely separate from the cost proposal and it must not include cost/price information in the content of the technical proposal.” This separation of the Technical and Cost Proposals is further elaborated in Section L.5 – Proposal Submission, which includes the following statement, “The Technical Proposal must address technical aspects only while the Business (Cost) Proposal must present the costs and address related issues such as responsibility”

7.1. It is standard practice in USAID competitive procurements that Cost information is never referenced nor provided in any section of the cost proposal, this is confirmed by the language stated in the opening paragraph of Section L.7 and Section L.5 referenced above. Will USAID therefore please amend the language contained in Section L.7(b)4(C) and the asterisked footnote also contained in that section requesting Cost Information to be included as Annex F of the Technical Proposal?

Answer: USAID thanks you for your question and we have amended the RFP accordingly. The summary budget for the Evaluation Approach must be included in the cost proposal. Please see Amendment No. 4.

7.2.Can USAID please clarify how often the contractor will be expected to meet in person with the Mission?

Answer: The contractor is expected to meet in person with the Mission on a bi-monthly basis or on as-needed basis as relevant to ongoing activities.

7.3. Can USAID confirm if it has a preference for the location of the Evaluation, Assessment, Performance Monitoring, and Program Support field office?

Answer: The Contractor can propose any location that is most convenient to the implementation of the Contract. It’s worth mentioning that most of USAID/WBG Contractors have offices in Ramallah or Jerusalem.

8. Section F.8, Are there any security considerations necessary or prevalent on the contractor to ensure the safety of assigned key staff, or is security provided by embassy/USAID control?

Answer: Palestinian staff who hold West Bank or Gaza identification documents need a permit from the Israeli government prior to entering Jerusalem or Israel; the Mission can facilitate the permit issuance. However, no other security services will be provided by the U.S. Consulate, U.S. Embassy or USAID.

9. For budgeting purposes, would USAID be able to offer more of an understanding of the type and scope of the Forecasted "Baseline Surveys" (2-3 per year on page 24), for instance whether these will include large samples at household level?

Answer: Surveys could be conducted on but is not limited to household level, Mayors/municipalities, Firms, schools, clinics, teachers, health workers, etc.

10. Can USAID provide more about the nature of expected impact evaluation? will this include baseline and final surveys?

Answer: The Mission forecasts that over the first three years it intends to order one impact evaluation. We see it including a baseline and end line survey, control and target groups, etc.

For budgeting purposes, the contractor must budget an amount for one impact evaluation.

11. USAID offer more guidance about the sectoral areas most likely to be evaluated from its portfolio in the West Bank and Gaza. For instance, will it include the two humanitarian cooperative agreements to NGO consortia in Gaza?

Answer: Evaluations are anticipated to be conducted in all sectoral areas over the life of the contract.

12. USAID states in the solicitation that the evaluation team will need to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority. Does this go beyond registration to include any joint planning

Answer: Cooperation with the PA may include activities such as sharing statistics and briefing them on findings, etc.

13. Is the contractor expected to maintain offices in all or some of the proposed locations (WB, Gaza and Jerusalem)?

Answer: No, only one field office is necessary. Please see answer to Question No.7.3.

14. The solicitation references GeoMIS data review. Can USAID explain how this contract will feed into planned management information system or knowledge management system(s) at the Mission?

Answer: The purpose of the review is to ensure partners are correctly entering data. Please refer to the response to Question #3.1

15. For Budgeting purposes, would USAID suggest indicative scales for the undefined work included for: Training; and any monitoring?

Answer: Monitoring is NOT forecasted at this time, and therefore should not be budgeted.

16. In addition to M&E&L trainings in Israel, does USAID envision trainings to occur in Gaza and the West Bank, each, among local data collection and evaluation personnel?

Answer: Please refer to answer for Question 1.5

17. Impact evaluations often take up a considerable amount of financial resources and C.4 calls for one impact evaluation. How does USAID expect to accomplish all of the other activities outlined in C.4 while also allowing for sufficient budget resources to perform this impact evaluation?

Answer: The primary focus of the contract is on performance evaluations. Please see USAID’s response to Question No. 10.

18. In Section C.4, Forecast/Illustrative Schedule, in what sectors are the GIS/MIS applications work expected?

Answer: Please see Amendment No. 4 for more information on GeoMIS

19. For budgeting purposes should we assume that all project related travel be based on activities in the West Bank and Jerusalem only, unless indicated differently in section C.4, Forecast/Illustrative Schedule?

Answer: The majority of the project-related travel is in the West Bank and Jerusalem but also includes Israel and Gaza.

20. How important is it to propose key personnel who speak Arabic?

Answer: We have clarified this. Please amendment #4.

21. Is there a preference of the location of key staff and operations between the West Bank or Jerusalem

Answer: Yes, please see amendment #4.

22. What is the anticipated scale of the impact evaluation in terms of the size of the project and number of beneficiaries?

Answer: Please refer to USAID’s response to Question No. 10.

23. The following question is in reference to the Illustrative Schedule for this contract, provided by USAID, in section C.4 on page 24 of the RFP. For Component A.1 (Performance Evaluation) under FY 2019, USAID states, “Two (2) Mid Term Performance Evaluations for projects in Health and humanitarian/emergency assistance in Gaza.” Could USAID confirm whether both the health project and the humanitarian/emergency assistance project evaluations are to take place in Gaza or whether only the humanitarian/emergency assistance evaluations is to take place in Gaza?

Answer: Both projects operate in Gaza.

24. To better inform a precise cost estimate, can USAID please provide additional details regarding the anticipated impact evaluation, surveys, and assessments to be conducted under the contract? Helpful details would include the relevant sector, anticipated sample sizes, and whether any of these activities would take place in Gaza.

Answer: Please refer to USAID’s responses to Questions No.1, 9 and 10.

25. On Page 13, Components A through E are noted with specific LOE percentages identified.

The footnote (1) indicates that these are projected LOE and that the actual LOE performed during the course of the project may vary. Understanding this background, it is not explicitly stated that USAID requires that a budget be developed by Component. Should the Offeror assume that a Component budget is not required?

Answer: Yes.

26. Section F.8, Where are key staff expected to be located?

Answer: Please see amendment #4.

27. Section H.3, Aside from English, what other languages are considered as beneficial to support Mission needs, or considered as mandatory?

Answer: Please refer to Section F.8 under Amendment No. Four.

[End of Q&A]