RFP_SOL-294-17-000004_Q&A_doc.pdf

Request for Proposals (RFP) No. SOL-294-17-000004

Questions and Answers

1. Question: What is the page limit for each section of proposal (i.e.., technical to cost)

Answer: Offerors must refer to Section L.6 ‘Instructions for Preparing the Technical Proposal’ and Section L.7 ‘Instructions for Preparing the Cost Proposal’.

2. Question: Do you need the proposal in English or in English and MSA?

Answer: Proposals must be submitted in English.

3. Question: Please provide a government estimate of the total cost.

Answer: USAID estimates the total cost plus fixed fee of the anticipated contract is between $18,000,000 and $20,000,000.

4. Question: Section L.7.2.g of the RFP states that “All costs for local organizations without a NICRA must be budgeted as direct costs.” We request that USAID provide offerors the flexibility to enter into Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) or Time and Materials (T&M) type subcontracts with local organizations that do not have NICRAs when the following conditions are met:

An organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or T&M type subcontract;

An organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of their indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31;

The prime contractor has appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract with a local organization is administered properly; and, An organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards. With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement that organizations undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve to build the capacity of local organizations so they can eventually have the financial and administrative capacity to receive direct funding from USAID.

Managing direct cost allocation subcontracts typically results in a higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors, and reduces overall cost control.

This is due to monthly costs varying significantly depending on services provided by

SOL-294-17-000004

Early Grade Reading the subcontractor. Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers (under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases, and allow the prime contractor a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight.

Answer: All requests for subcontract approvals will be made in accordance with FAR 52.244-2 “Subcontracts”. Due to the limited information available in this scenario, we cannot provide any further information at this time.

5. Question: USAID has requested a hard-copy submission of Offeror’s proposal. Would USAID consider an electronic submission only for this solicitation?

Answer: Hard copies are required under this solicitation in addition to an electronic submission as specified at Section L.5.2.

6. Question: If USAID will not consider an electronic-only submission, would USAID consider moving the hard copy submission deadline to the end of the day on April 7th?

Answer: Hard copies must be submitted prior to 16:30 PM local Tel Aviv time.

AMENDMENT TO THE RFP: The Closing Time as denoted on the cover page and any subsequent documents is hereby extended to 16:30 (4:30PM) Tel Aviv Local Time on April 7, 2017.

7. Question: Page 137, Section L.5.2 (Delivery Instructions): Can the offeror submit the written copy five business days after the electronic submission deadline?

Answer: No, electronic and hard copies of the proposals must be submitted on the due date for submission stated in the solicitation’s cover letter.

8. Question: Page 138, Section L.5.2 (Delivery Instructions) would an electronic signature be accepted instead of an original?

Answer: Yes, electronic signatures will be accepted.

9. Question: Page 142, Section L.6 (Instructions for Preparing the Technical Proposal), USAID states that “The expectation is that the project will be operational within 30 days of the award.” However, page 99, Section H.25 (AIDAR 752.7032 International Travel Approval And Notification Requirements) states that “The Contractor must therefore present to the Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officer's Representative, an itinerary for each planned international trip, showing the name of the traveler, purpose of the trip, origin/destination (and intervening stops), and dates of travel, as far in advanced of the proposed travel as possible, but in no event less than three weeks before travel is planned to commence.” Can the three week travel notification be waived in order to facilitate quick mobilization of resources?

Answer: Yes, upon written approval from the Contracting Officer to waive the 3 week advance notification requirement.

10. Question: Page. 143, Section L.6, A (Management Approach and Key Personnel) states that “The Offeror must provide as an Annex CVs or resumes not to exceed three (3) pages per each key personnel, with a one (1) paragraph Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) for all proposed key personnel and a USAID Form 1420-17, “Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet” for each key person proposed, if known…” Given that the biodata includes salary and cost information, can USAID Form 1420-17 be provided in the cost proposal only?

Answer: No, not in lieu of the requirement for the Statement of Qualifications nor of the

CV.

11. Question: Given the complexity of the program and operating context, we respectfully request that USAID extends the deadline for submitting proposals.

Answer: The Closing Date for submission of proposals remains unchanged as April 7, 2017. However, please note the extended time for submission as noted in Answer 6.

12. Question: Page. 45, Section C.6.6 (Environmental Compliance) states “No activity under this contract will be implemented unless an environmental threshold determination, as determined by 22 CFR 216, has been reached for that activity…” However, the section then continues and says - “…the Contractor must develop within three months of activity inception… ” Can USAID offer any clarity?

Answer: USAID prepares the initial Environmental Examination memorandum for this activity. Within three months of commencing work however, the Contractor is required to have developed an EMMP and an IEE/EA or environmental review process for subawards as required by Section C.6.6.

13. Question: Section C.5.3.1, page 35, states, “The grant money, which will not exceed $1,500 per funded group per award, will offer a small stipend to a facilitator, to buy needed, basic supplies (books, pens, paper), and to host pre-event meetings where a plan of action or lesson plan for the “enrichment” activity would be developed.” However, in Section L.2.h., page 150, it states, “The Contractor must award about five (5) small grants per year to support reading enrichment activities. The Contractor may decide the amount of each grant, and must follow the conditions listed under ADS 302.3.4.13. The overall total granted each year shall not exceed $50,000.” Please confirm that there is no maximum amount per grant, but that the contractor would issue about five small grants and that the total granted amount can’t exceed $50,000 per year? Please clarify if grants may not exceed $50,000 each year or in total.

Answer: The overall total grant amount over the five year period should not exceed $50,000. The estimate per year should be approximately $10,000.

14. Question: Section H.23 states that the contractor shall award such grants only to non-

U.S., or U.S., non-governmental organizations. However, ADS 302.3.4.13 has changed to allow for solely in-kind grants to government entities. Could USAID confirm that solely in-kind grants may be awarded to government entities if the need arises?

Answer: Solely in-kind assistance may be provided to government entities, if approved by USAID, where the need to do so can be substantiated and the need exists to implement the activity.

15. On page 38, the RFP states “The Contractor will pilot the interventions for each grade level in 80-100 schools of each type to ensure that the materials developed (pilot not more than in 10 schools)...”

a. Question: Should the pilot for Evidence-Based Essential Reading Materials for Grades K-2 Distributed to Classrooms (Activity 5.2.1) be conducted in 10 schools of each type for a total of up to 30 schools?

Answer: Yes, in accordance with the RFP, during the material preparation phase material should be piloted in 10 schools of each type for a total of up to 30 schools. Offerors should note that the instructional intervention as a whole should then be piloted in 80-100 schools.

b. Question: Should the pilot interventions for Teachers’, Directors’, and Supervisors’ Skills in Early Grade Reading Instruction Improved” (Activity C.5.2.2) be conducted in 80-100 schools total, across all three types?

Answer: Yes, please see answer above.

16. Question: Section F.8, page 54, in C.5.1.5, calls for the first bi-annual assessment on/around month 6 after award, and for the grade 2 assessment (EGRA/ASER) to be finalized 12 months after award. Please confirm that, given that the project’s refined assessment will not be finalized by month 6, the first bi-annual assessment should utilize the existing grade 2 EGRA?

Answer: USAID expects the baseline, midline, endline to be equated according to best practices. USAID will review offerors’ proposals for achieving this goal.

17. Question: Page 29 of the RFP requires that Offerors include printing student and teacher materials in their technical approach. For the purpose of cost proposal development, and to level the playing field among Offerors, would USAID consider providing a plug figure for printing of student and teacher materials?

Answer: USAID elects not to supply a plug figure, as we prefer that the Offeror determine the appropriate dedication of resources technically necessary.

18. Question: Request for Clarification Page 8, Outcome Statement 2; and page 37 - number of “activity beneficiaries” listed in Table Two. Does USAID expect the offeror to budget for the full cost of the interventions in all 2,830 schools indicated or budget for the full cost of the interventions in only the pilot schools, at a minimum?

Answer: Offerors’ proposals must reflect impact in all 2,830 schools.

19. Page 18, Section C.5 (Statement of Work) Heading 2a states: “Standard Indicator under U.S Education Strategy (ES) 1.1, adapted: Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling, demonstrate reading fluency and understand the meaning of grade-level text with USG assistance:

● EGRA: 27% performing at or above benchmark without diacritics

● Baseline expectation: (27-30%)

● Midline expectations for KG: (31-45%)

● Endline expectations for KG: (46-60%).”

Question a: Should the last two bullets actually be for G 2 rather than for KG?

Answer: USAID thanks you for your comments. AMENDMENT: Page 18, Section C.5 is hereby amended as follows:

● EGRA: 27% performing at or above benchmark without diacritics

● Baseline expectation: (27-30%)

● Midline expectations for G2: (31-45%)

● Endline expectations for G2: (46-60%)

Question b: Assessing reading fluency and writing, as used for grade 1 and up, is not directly applicable for the KG age group. Would USAID consider instead allowing the implementer, in collaboration with the MOEHE, to identify the most appropriate indicator for assessing learning improvements for this age group?

Answer: USAID is open to considering all evidence-based assessment procedures proposed for use at the KG level, provided that they are approved by the MOEHE in the course of implementation.

20. Page 18, Section C.5 (Statement of Work) Heading 3b states: “Required Percent of students who, by the end of grade 1 and 2 of primary schooling, are able to express their thoughts through writing. (See Section C.5.2)” whereas Pg. 24 Section C.5.1.5 (West Bank and Gaza Systems for Student Assessment in Reading and Writing Strengthened) states “Draw on tests such as the EGRA and ASER to develop, test, refine, and finalize a standardized assessment for grade 2 national testing in early grade reading that is aligned with the new standards and curriculum for the grade 2 year.”

Question: There is no mention of development of grade 1 assessment in section C.5.1.5 while Required Indicator 3b states that the implementer will track students at the end of grade 1. Is the expectation that the EGR project will conduct baseline, midline and end line assessments for all three grades or just KG and grade 2?

Answer: USAID expects formative results to be available for Grade 1 but does not expect a baseline, midline, endline EGRA results for Grade 1.

21. Page 24, Section C.5.1.5: (West Bank and Gaza Systems for Student Assessment in Reading and Writing Strengthened) states “Administer bi-annual assessments using these evaluations in samples of schools in the target regions as part of the EGR Monitoring Learning and Evaluation Plan (MELP);”

Question: please clarify whether this refers to assessments occurring twice within the school year or every other year – i.e., the baseline, midline and end line assessments?

Answer: These assessments refer to every other year i.e. baseline, midline and end-line assessments.

22. Question: Page 37, C.5.4.1: please clarify if “activity beneficiaries” is meant to include direct beneficiaries, indirect beneficiaries, or a combination of the two?

Answer: “Activity beneficiaries” refers to “direct beneficiaries.”

23. Page 38, C.5.4.1, Table Two:

Question a: What does the asterisk next to the total number of KG teachers in the TOTALS row refer to?

Answer: The asterisk indicates a need to reconfirm the figure with the MOEHE upon award.

Question b: Can USAID provide the number of MOEHE school directors for each District row as an additional activity beneficiary?

Answer: USAID is relying on the Offeror’s familiarity with the context to find and use this information.

24. P. 39, section C.6.1 (Education Sector Strategic Reporting); Licensing Language Sample

#1 and Licensing Language Sample #2:

Question a: What entity does USAID intent to be the holder of the copyright? the MoEHE or the implementer?

Answer: USAID intends to exercise its rights as provided under FAR clause 52.227-17 which is incorporated in the solicitation.

Question b: Has USAID already discussed copyright issues and Creative Commons with the MoEHE? Have USAID and the MoEHE come to any agreement on Creative Commons licensing terms and conditions already?

Answer: No, this matter will need to be discussed between the Contractor, USAID and the MOEHE after award.

25. Question: Page 53, Section F.8 (Deliverables and Reporting Table): Would USAID consider changing the deliverable to "National Standards Workshop implemented and preliminary standards drafted" which is more feasible in the desired timeframe of 2-3 months?

Answer: USAID understands that the standards adopted might eventually require modification in the course of implementation. However, at this time USAID will not change this deliverable.

26. Question: Page 54, Section C.5.1.5 a states “b. EGRA/ASER develop, test, refine, and finalize a standardized assessment for Grade 2” “12 months after award but before intervention” while point e states “Administer bi-annual assessments (EGRA {or like} baseline, midline, end-line) “1st (o/a 6 month after award before intervention), 3rd, and 5th year of the Activity.” Is the baseline assumed to occur 6 months after award or 12 months after award?

Answer: USAID expects Offerors to propose a schedule for conducting baseline, midline, and endline assessments that ensures that those assessments are conducted at the end of the relevant school years. USAID further expects that the baseline assessments for each grade level and cohort will be conducted before any interventions take place.

USAID relies on the Offerors to propose the best, evidence-based scheduling possible to achieve both of these two outcomes.

27. Question: Page 141, Section L.6 (e), (Body of the Proposal): Will USAID allow offerors to use serif fonts?

Answer: Yes, in 12 point.

28. Answer: Page. 141, Section L.6 (e), (Body of the Proposal): Will USAID allow the font size for graphics and tables to be as small as 10 point so long as they are readable?

Answer: Yes, USAID will allow 10 point font in graphics and tables ONLY provided that such effects are used economically and the font size is still legible and readable.

USAID will, though, not be held accountable for any misinterpretation caused by the size of the font.

29. Question: Page 141, Section L.6, f, Annexes: Can additional annexes be provided so long as they are relevant and succinct?

Answer: No. Offerors must not submit annexes which are not referenced in the RFP as superfluous annexes will not be reviewed.

30. Question: Page 144, Section L.6, C, Past Performance: Can the offeror assume subcontractors, who play a significant role but whose proposed cost does not exceed 20%, submit past performance information in Annex 6?

Answer: Yes, if the subcontractors will play a significant role in implementation.

31. Question: The RFP addresses writing skills development in Kindergarten with what appear to be two different sets of expectations. In the expected outcomes, it provides midline and endline expectations for a proportion of Kindergarten students to be “able to express themselves through writing.” However, in section C.5.1.4, it focuses primarily on “pre-writing skills” attainment in the draft curriculum. Please address the extent to which the early draft curriculum developed by the MOEHE includes formal writing instruction at the Kindergarten level, and the suggested dissonance between the curriculum focus and the assessment benchmarks for writing in Kindergarten in the language of the RFP?

Answer: USAID expects evidence based skill expectations to drive the development of both the instructional intervention and assessment at the kindergarten level. USAID cannot comment on the MOEHE draft curriculum. USAID will review offerors’ proposals that will demonstrate how they will conduct the review of the curriculum and how they will develop classroom interventions and assessment as part of that review.

32. Question: The improvement of parent understanding and participation in their children’s education is a key component of the required activities in the RFP. However, the expectations for midline and endline results in this area seem low. With no existing data included on this component of parent support and participation, can USAID clarify what information was used in setting the midline and endline expectations for improvement?

Answer: USAID has proposed the minimum midline and endline results in the RFP based on the scant information available regarding this domain of work in the country’s context. USAID looks forward to reading the Offeror’s proposals for technical work in this area and the accompanying results Offerors believe they can achieve. Offerors are free to propose more ambitious baseline, midline, and endline results targets, provided they can justify how their technical approach will enable the achievement of these targets.

33. Question: Substantial teacher training time is required (8-10 days), with coaching as an additional activity (quarterly recommended at a minimum). With research suggesting that ongoing coaching can provide even more benefit for teacher improvement than formalized training, please provide more information about the rationale to emphasize training than coaching for teachers. Are there logistical and practical reasons for this trend toward training instead of coaching?

Answer: USAID West Bank/Gaza requires the submission of a technical approach that includes both face-to-face training and coaching, with a minimum of 8 to 10 face-to-face days of training required. USAID West Bank/Gaza does not advocate a “trend towards training instead of coaching,” but rather seeks offers that combine the two as informed by best practice and the evidence base in the field of early grade reading.

34. Question: The RFP suggests a clear distinction between time for training and time for coaching. Given the practical and applied requirements included for the training approach, please provide more information about how training and coaching are viewed as uniquely different within the vision for this program?

Answer: Offerors should inform themselves about the differences between training and coaching, and should prepare their submissions accordingly.

35. Question: The RFP mentions a 2014 MOEHE, Assessment and Monitoring Department, Initial Results for the National Standardized Tests in Arabic, Math and Science for Grade

4. Is this document available and could USAID provide it on the fedbizopps.govwebsite?

Answer: Please access the link below for further information:

http://www.moehe.gov.ps/en/Plans-Strategies/Education-Dev-Strategic-Plan-EDSP/2014

36. Question: Will the EGR project need to finance the bi-annual EGRAs (or similar assessments, including writing) that are conducted during the project period. Will these be conducted in 2018, 2020, and 2022 at the end of both KG and grade 2?

Answer: Yes, these assessments should be performed as part of the EGR program budget.

37. Question: Should the Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS) assessments (early grade reading and writing) align with the bi-annual KG and grade 2 assessments? Or should other grade levels be tested?

Answer: LQAS assessments should be used as a monitoring device and should take place more frequently than the bi-annual assessments. Offerors should inform themselves about LQAS methodology and propose approaches that leverage that methodology for a reasonable but rigorous collection of monitoring data for the program.

38. Question: Will the project need to develop standards or benchmarks for teacher performance? If so, will the assessment tools for teachers’ learning gains relate to the benchmarks for teacher performance?

Answer: Assessment tools for teacher gains must relate with MOEHE expectations for teacher performance. Offerors are encouraged to consult the MOEHE regarding these expectations and to work with MOEHE to make them as reading specific as possible.

39. Question: As per PFR Section F.7.2 (page 61), “The Contractor will go beyond its own activity budget and examine the costs associated with all the ingredients of an activity, including donated resources such as volunteer time, in-kind equipment/infrastructure and services, and any required beneficiary/stakeholder inputs and other unpaid inputs that are often not accounted for in traditional budgets. ….. Cost data should identify start-up versus recurrent costs and fixed vs variable costs.…. Costs must be broken down by input (e.g. textbooks) and beneficiary (e.g. per teacher, per area), if possible……” please clarify if it is required in the proposal budget to break down all the ingredients of activity budget as per the section, or it is only a post-award reporting requirement?

Answer: Cost data referenced is only a post-award reporting requirement.

40. Question: On page 69 under F.9.1, RFP requests the implementer perform classroom observations. Please confirm that MOEHE has agreed to allow the implementer to conduct these observations? Or will the implementer need to negotiate this with MOEHE upon contract award?

Answer: The MOEHE has agreed to the broad lines of the activity and once award is made, the Contractor and the MOEHE will negotiate the details.

41. Question: The Past Performance instructions require up to three recent and relevant contracts:

a. Must they be contracts, or are Cooperative Agreements acceptable?

b. If partnering with other organizations, can the applicant submit three Past

Performance References (PPR) for themselves and one additional PPR for each major subcontractor? Or is it three total for both the prime implementer and all of its major subcontractors?

Answer: Yes, they must be contracts. Offerors should submit a minimum of three PPRs for their organization and up to three PPRs for each major subcontractor.

42. Page 73, F.13 states, “The Statements of Qualifications and any relevant information obtained from references will be evaluated.”

Question a: Does this mean the Offeror should include references for each proposed key personnel position?

Answer: Yes.

Question b: If the answer is yes, how many references should the offeror provide? Can these references be excluded from the 3 page limit for CVs?

Answer: Three references are to be provided and are inclusive in the three page limit.