MSP_RFP_Amendment_02_-final.pdf

SOL-306-14-000010

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers X

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning ___1______ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR AC-

KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 STANDARD FORM 30

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 25

02 (Two) April 8, 2014 REQ-306-13-000158

Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA)

USAID/Afghanistan

DPO AE 09806

03-15-2014

The purpose of amendment number 02 (two) is to 1) Revise the RFP; 2) Provide responses to questions received by the deadline of March 31, 2014; and 3) Extend the deadline for receipt of proposals to May 12, 2014.

Accordingly, the above referenced solicitation no. SOL-306-14-000010 is amended as follows:

[See continuation pages]

Sonila Hysi

Supervisory Contracting Officer

A. RFP - IQC

I. Cover Page, Delete the RFP closing date of “April 30, 2014” and Replace with “May 12, 2014, 4:00PM

Kabul time.” Additionally, on SF-33, box 9, delete “04-30-2014” and replace with “05-12-2014.”

II. Section H.37, page 76, Delete the reference to “Annex 7” and Replace with “Attachment J.19.”

III. Section J - Attachment J.20 has been revised to include plug figures. See Attachment 2 of this amendment for revised J.20 “Sample Cost/Price Evaluation Matrix.”

IV. Section J- Attachment J.27, this Attachment is deleted as it was inadvertently included.

V. Section L.8 (a) RFP Organization, page 137, insert subsection “VIII. Value for Money” in the list of required sections for the Technical Proposal. On the same page, delete “VIII. Annexes” and replace with “IX.

Annexes.”

VI. Section L.8(IV) Past Performance, Delete this section in its entirety and Replace with the following:

(a) The offeror (including all partners of a joint venture) must provide performance information for itself and each major subcontractor (one whose proposed cost are equal to or more than 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost) in accordance with the following (this information can be included in Annex C, but must be summarized in this Section of the Technical Proposal):

1. List in an annex to the technical proposal up to five (5) contracts for the prime offeror (and up to five (5) for each major subcontractor) of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts of similar required skills/expertise performed over the last three years.

2. Provide for each of the contracts listed above a list of contact names, job titles, mailing addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and a description of the performance to include:

• Scope of work or complexity/diversity of tasks,

• Primary location(s) of work,

• Term of performance,

• Skills/expertise required,

• Dollar value, and

• Contract type, i.e., fixed-price, cost reimbursement, etc.

USAID recommends you alert the contacts that their names have been submitted and that they are authorized to provide performance information concerning the listed contracts if and when USAID requests it.

(b) If extraordinary problems impacted any of the referenced contracts, provide a short explanation and the corrective action taken (FAR 15.305(a)(2)).

(c) Describe any quality awards or certifications that indicate exceptional capacity to provide the service or product described in the statement of work. This information is not included in the page limitation.

(d) Performance in Using Small Business (SB) Concerns (as defined in FAR 19.001).

PAGE NO.

SOLICITATION. . AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (CONTINUED)

STANDARD FORM 30 (CONTINUATION)

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

CONTINUATION PAGE

SOL-306-14-000010 02 (two)

AMENDMENT No.02 of SOL-306-14-000010 - MONITORING SUPPORT PROJECT (MSP)

Page | 3

(1) This section (d) is not applicable to offers from small business concerns.

(2) As part of the evaluation of performance in Section M of this solicitation, USAID will evaluate the extent you used and promoted the use of small business concerns under current and prior contracts.

The evaluation will assess the extent small business concerns participated in these contracts relative to the size/value of the contracts, the complexity and variety of the work small business concerns performed, and compliance with your SB subcontracting plan or other similar small business incentive programs set out in your contract(s).

(3) In order for USAID to fully and fairly evaluate performance in this area, all offerors who are not small business concerns must do the following:

(A) Provide a narrative summary of your organization's use of small business concerns over the past three years. Describe how you actually use small businesses--as subcontractors, as joint venture partners, through other teaming arrangements, etc. Explain the nature of the work small businesses performed--substantive technical professional services, administrative support, logistics support, etc. Describe the extent of your compliance with your SB subcontracting plan(s) or other similar SB incentive programs set out in your contract(s) and explain any mitigating circumstances if goals were not achieved.

(B) To supplement the narrative summary in (A), provide a list of the ten (10) most recent contracts for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSRS (FAR 52.219-9(d)(10) and a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS.

(See link to eSRS http://www.esrs.gov/)

(C) Provide the names and addresses of three SB concerns for us to contact for their assessment of your performance in using SB concerns. Provide a brief summary of the type of work each SB concern provided to your organization, and the name of a contact person, his/her title, phone number, and e-mail address for each.

(D) USAID reserves the right to obtain past performance information from other sources, including any SB concern you have not named or government agency.

B. RFP – Task Orders

I. Section F.2, Personnel, pages 209, 246, 286, Delete the title “Program Development Specialist” appearing after Chief of Party.

II. Section F.2, Personnel, pages 210, 247, 287, Delete the title “Social Scientist” appearing after Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist.

III. RFTOP No.02 (TWO) – Section C.2, page 238-239, Delete references to “TO-1” and Replace with “TO-2.”

IV. RFTOP No.02 (TWO) - Section M.2, page 264, Delete reference to “Task Order One” and Replace with

“Task Order Two.”

V. RFTOP No.03 (THREE) - Section M.2, page 304, Delete reference to “Task Order One” and Replace with

“Task Order Three.”

VI. RFTOP No.03 (THREE) - Sections M.2 (a)(3) and M.2 (a)(4), pages 305-306, Delete references to “TO-1” and Replace with “TO-3.”

http://www.esrs.gov/

Page | 4

ATTACHMENT 1 –

USAID RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY POTENTIAL OFFERORS

1. Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

USAID Response: This is a new requirement.

2. The website states that this opportunity is an 8(a) competitive set aside. Is that correct? SOL-306-14-

000010 - Monitoring Support Project (MSP).

a) Also can you please clarify if this is a set aside RFP or full and open. FBO is showing it’s an 8A requirement but there is no mention of that in the RFP.

b) I just wanted to confirm that this effort is a Full and Open competition with 4 awards. One of which will be going Small business. This is what is stated in the RFP but on the FBO page it says it is an 8(a) set – aside. There seems to be some confusion about this.

c) Can USAID please confirm that the set-aside is indeed unrestricted and available to all small businesses? There are inconsistencies in the language between the FBO page, and the RFP itself.

d) The FBO synopsis states that Component 2 is 8(a) set aside while the RFP only references small business set-aside and not 8(a) specifically. Please confirm that Component 2 is set aside for 8(a) competition.

USAID Response 2 (a)-(d): This solicitation is a full and open competition. The FBO cover page has been amended. The set-aside is restricted to U.S. Small businesses, not 8(a) businesses specifically.

3. Can you please clarify if the IQC Manager is required to be based in Kabul, Afghanistan or whether they can be based out of the Offeror’s home office?

USAID Response: USAID expects offerors to propose a management structure that permits the most effective and efficient implementation of its proposal.

4. Will the awardees of the MSP IQC be precluded from priming or subcontracting on future

USAID/Afghanistan contracts or cooperative agreements?

USAID Response: Please see Sections H.22 and H.23 for restrictions on Organizational Conflicts of

Interest.

5. (a) Due to recent unrest in Kabul due to the upcoming elections to be held (shootings at the Serena Hotel, closing of the Kabul Airport around election day, and potential restrictions on some travel areas within the city), it has been difficult for Offeror’s to go to and/or travel within Afghanistan to meet with local organizations and potential partners for this procurement. Given that requirement to adhere to the Afghan

First Policy and USAID stated preference for “firms that illustrate a commitment to working with Afghan organizations,” we believe it is essential to adequately plan and prepare our technical proposal with our

Afghan partners. Will USAID grant an extension of two weeks from the current due date to allow Offerors

Page | 5 adequate time after the elections to meet with local organizations, thus changing the due date from April

30, 2014 to May 14, 2014?

(b) We kindly request that the submission deadline, due to the effect answers to questions might have on the overall approach, be made 30 days from when Questions and Answers are published.

USAID Response (a) and (b): The closing date for this RFP has been extended to May 12, 2014.

6. The labor categories presented in section B.12.1 for Component 1 coincide with the long-term positions required under each of the Component 1 RFTOPs. We anticipate that there will be requirements for additional international short-term technical assistance in order to perform the work defined in each of the

RFTOPs as well as for future RFTOPs that may be issued over the life of the IQC. Will all short-term consultants also have to work under one of the defined labor categories and the associated ceiling rates? If not, may we propose short-term consultants on a cost reimbursable basis outside of the defined labor categories for long-term personnel?

USAID Response: Yes, an offeror may propose STTA outside of the defined labor categories. As stated in

B.12 (a) actual salaries for all personnel will be negotiated under Task Orders and final approval will be provided by the TOCO.

7. USAID has requested the same KP/personnel for all 3 task orders, yet TO 3 is twice the size of TO 1. We are concerned that the funding level for TO 1 may not support the same level of staffing as TO 3 (for example). Would USAID therefore consider allowing Offerors to propose a mix of personnel in accordance with their technical approach, and in consideration of the estimated funding levels?

USAID Response: The question is unclear. However, USAID emphasizes that minimum personnel requirements are detailed in the RFP. Offerors must comply with the RFP requirements. For the RFTOPs, the Offerors may also propose a mix of personnel in accordance with their technical approach.

8. Section B.12.1 Labor Categories – Component 1 states under 1004 Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist that “S/he may contribute to performance and impact evaluations…” Can you please clarify if USAID intends to contract performance and impact evaluations through the MSP IQC Statement of Work?

USAID Response: The purpose of Component 1 of MSP is monitoring. USAID does not intend to contract performance and impact evaluations through the MSP IQC. Contributions to performance and impact evaluations may come through the use of monitoring data gathered by MSP IQC holders to inform potential performance and/or impact evaluations.

9. Section H.22 and H.23 incorporate USAID’s standard conflict of interest clauses. In Attachment J.23

USAID has provided a list of all active projects in Afghanistan. Obviously, it would be a conflict of interest for an existing contractor to monitor its own performance under a separate USAID/Afghanistan implementation project. Given the requirement in section L.6 page 135 that “Offeror’s MUST respond to all three of the RFTOPs,” can you please clarify whether Prime Contractors of active USAID projects listed in Attachment J.23 are eligible to bid on the MSP RFP?

USAID Response: Prime Contractors of active USAID projects listed in Attachment J.23 are eligible to bid on the MSP RFP. Attachment J.23 was provided to assist potential offerors in the creation of their

Page | 6 proposals. Actual project partners and total projects in each region will vary over the length of MSP. If a contractor is selected as part of MSP and also has other active awards, the contractor will not serve as both the project implementer and monitor, as USAID will monitor the project with other resources. However, the proxy project totals provided in the RFP and the projects cited in J.23 should be used by all offerors to inform their cost estimates and technical proposals irrespective of whether the offeror has other active projects in Afghanistan.

10. (a) Section L.8 Roman Numeral (V) on page 144 is titled Value for Money. Can you please clarify if

Offeror’s technical proposals for the IQC should include a separate section addressing the issue of Value for Money or whether it should be incorporated within the technical approach? Section L.8 page 137 details how “Technical Proposals must be organized” but value for money is not one of the listed sections.

(b) In which section of the technical proposal would USAID like to see the Value for Money discussion for Component 2?

USAID Response (a) and (b): Section L.8, page 137, has been amended to include the Value for Money section. The IQC technical proposal should include a separate section addressing the issue of Value for

Money.

11. (a) Section D- Packaging and Marking, outlines the Branding Strategy, Branding Implementation Plan and

Marking Plan (pages 205-207; pages 242-244; pages 282-284), for all three Task Orders. However, there is no reference of including a Branding Implementation and Marking Implementation Plan (BMP) in either the IQC or the three task orders. Can USAID please clarify whether a BMP the Branding Implementation and Marking Implementation Plan developed for the main IQC contract will serve as the master plan for all

Task Orders or, if in addition to the IQC, each of the three Task Orders requires their own Branding

Implementation and Marking Implementation Plan? This would total of four BMPs with the proposal submission. If the latter, should the BMPs for each Task Order be included in be included in Annex F –

Other Charts and Figures?

(b)Under Section D of each Task Order RFTOP (on pages 205, 242, and 282), it notes that each “Request

For Task Order Proposals (RFTOP) under this contract shall request a program-specific BIP and MP. For each Task Order, the Contractor shall develop a detailed Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking

Plan (MP)”, however in the Proposal Structures in Section L of each of the TO RFTOPS, there is no mention of a BIP or MP. Could you please confirm that no BIP or MP is required at this time, and the successful Offeror will need to submit a BIP and MP after award?

USAID Response: Please review section D.2, p. 37 (“Contractors are to follow branding and marking requirements provided in the task orders.”), and section D.1(b) for each task order: “The Contractor shall develop a broad Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) and Marking Plan (MP) for the contract to describe how the program deliverables shall be branded.” The BIP and MP can be submitted as an Annex to the

Task Order proposals. There is no requirement for Branding and Marking Plans at the IQC level.

12. (a) On pages 137-138, Section L.8 (b)-Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, Page

Limitation mentions what is not included in the page limitation. Not listed is the Transmittal Letter. Can

USAID please confirm that the Transmittal Letter will NOT be included in the page limitations?

Page | 7

(b) In addition to the pages listed on 138 of the RFP that are not included in the page limitations for the

IQC and Task Order proposals, could you please confirm that a cover letter would not count against the page limits?

USAID Response to question (a) and (b): Transmittal Letters and cover letters are not included in the page limitation.

13. On pages 217, 255, and 295 Section L.19 (a) Organization - Instructions for the Preparation of the

Technical Proposal for Task Order One/Two/Three references “Annex B – Key Personnel Summary

Table.”

(a) Can USAID please clarify what information USAID wants in this Key Personnel Summary Table?

(b) Is this personnel table only for Key Personnel (Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, Finance

Manager), or should required Expertise (Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist, Survey Design Specialist, Information Management Specialist) also be included in this table?

(c) Section J.13 (pg. 308) provides a “Key Personnel Summary Table.” Can USAID please confirm that this table is only requested for the RFTOPs and not the IQC proposals?

USAID Response (a): Please see attachment J.13

USAID Response (b): Both Key Personnel and Required Expertise should be included in the table in

Attachment J.13.

USAID Response (c): Confirmed.

14. (a) On page 137, Section L.8(a) Organization - Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal references “Annex A – Resumes (Key Personnel: IQC Manager), and pages 217, 255, and 295 Section

L.1(a) Organization - Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal for Task Order

One/Two/Three references “Annex A – Resumes.” Can USAID clarify page length of resumes for the Key

Personnel, and page length of resumes for Required Expertise?

(b) Is there a page limit to the CV for key personnel for Component 2 (IQC Manager)?

USAID Response (a) and (b): All resumes for proposed key personnel should be limited to a maximum of

3 pages.

15. On page 137, Section L.8(a) Organization - Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal references that “Offerors must organize the Technical Proposal to follow the technical evaluation criteria in

Section M. ” On page 153, Section M.3 Technical Evaluation Factors/Criteria lists the first rating factor as

“1. Rating and Ranking of Task Order Proposals.” However, the task order proposals are not listed under how the Technical Proposal should be organized on page 137.

(a) Can USAID please clarify if offerors submitting technical proposals for Component 1 (unrestricted) submit one technical volume inclusive of the technical proposal for the IQC and each of the three task orders or whether USAID prefers that four separate technical proposals be submitted separately (one for the IQC and one for each of the task orders)?

(b) If the task order USAID responses are to be part of one technical volume submission, we would appreciate if you could clarify how you would like to see the full technical volume organized and the order of the IQC and the three RFTOP technical proposals and the associated attachments.

Page | 8

(c) Please confirm that the proposal instructions for Component 2 follow the instructions on page 137 sections L.8 (a) and (b) of the IQC, specifically the organization of the proposal and page limitations. In other words, are the requirements for Component 2 to submit an IQC proposal limited to 40 pages for the technical with the sections and annexes (minus the RFTOP proposals) as per page 137 L.8(a)?

USAID Response (a): Offerors must submit one technical proposal for the IQC and one technical proposal for each of the task orders. Please review section L.8(I), p. 138.

USAID Response (b): See response 15(a).

USAID Response (c): Yes, Component 2 IQC proposals are limited to 40 pages for the technical proposal, exclusive of those items listed on p. 137. Please review sections L.8 (a) and (b), and L.9 for pertinent information.

16. (a) Are the technical guidelines for submission, including key staff and page limit, the same for component

2 as for component 1?

(b) Please confirm that Component 2 IQC submission is limited to 40 pages; the same as Component 1

IQC.

USAID Response (a) and (b): Please see response to question 15(c). Component 2 IQC technical proposal submission is limited to 40 pages, exclusive of the items listed in L.8(b). Technical guidelines for submission for the two components are detailed in L.8 and L.9. The guidelines are not the same for

Component 1 and Component 2.

17. Section H.37, Subcontractor and Key Individual Vetting (page 76 of the RFP) requests the “USAID

Information Form” in annex 7 to be completed and submitted for non-US key individuals and non-US subcontractors valued at $25,000 or more. Annex 7 has not been included in the RFP package. Can USAID kindly provide the referenced USAID form?

USAID Response: Please see attachment J.19 for the relevant form.

18. Can USAID clarify whether the USAID Information Form referenced in Section H.3, Subcontractor and

Key Individual Vetting (page 76 of the RFP), should be included in the Cost/Business Proposal?

USAID Response: The information form should be included in the cost/business proposal. Vetting forms may be submitted after award, however, if the offeror has identified subcontractors at this stage that will need to be vetted, including the information in the proposal package will speed up that process in the event the offeror is selected for award.

19. Paragraph B of Section L.9, Part 2 Labor Costs (page 147 of the RFP) requests offerors to provide a Prime and Major Subcontractor Percentage of Labor Overview Chart as an annex to the Cost/Business Proposal.

Does USAID have a preferred format for this chart, and if so can a template be provided?

USAID Response: USAID has no preference.

20. Page 59, section H.7 (e) states that Offerors must provide a Consultant Pay Scale.

Page | 9

(a) Would USAID please provide a suggested template for Offerors to provide this information?

(b) Are we correct in assuming these scales are only for International Consultants and for labor categories

1001 – 1006 listed in RFP Section B.12.1 (page 13).?

(c) Will this scale also set the minimum and maximums allowed to be compensated for Consultants used in these six labor categories?

(d) If consultants are required that aren’t covered under these six labor categories, under what levels will they be allowed to be compensated?

USAID Response (a), (b), (c), and (d): USAID first clarifies that the Labor Categories in B.12.1 are for

Long-Term positions, not STTA positions. In addition, if the offeror determines that STTA is required for any particular Task Order, the offeror must submit a Consultant Pay Scale for that Task Order. Section

H.7(e) references STTA consultants. Local professional salaries are governed by H.7(a) and (f). Short-term technical assistance pay scales for individual task orders will be governed by the Consultant Pay Scale negotiated and agreed to by the TOCO. USAID has no preferred template for a Consultant Pay Scale at the individual Task Order level. Additionally, please see Questions 6 and 7.

21. Page 59, section H.7 (f) also references a request for a salary scale for all CCN/TCN staff.

(a) As staff would fall within the Local Compensation Plan, would not the range be the local compensation plan itself?

(b) If USAID would like Offerors to state a minimum and maximum range for each position (1001 – 1006) will this become the minimum and/or maximum for the base year only with inflation (up to the maximum allowed by USAID) to be applied this schedule?

(c) Is this schedule for just staff hired in Kabul or for all regions/provinces in Afghanistan?

USAID Response (a): Please see section B.6(d)(3) for details on total compensation for CCNs and TCNs.

USAID/Afghanistan’s Local Compensation Plan may be one tool used to help determine the reasonableness of the proposed salaries; however, it is not the only consideration.

USAID Response (b): The Offeror may propose CDRs that increase over time. USAID would evaluate the reasonableness of those yearly CDRs.

USAID Response (c): The schedule is for all staff. Please see section H.7(f): “Contractor shall submit a salary scale which reflects its proposed task order staffing plan covering all planned non-US (CCN/TCN) positions together with Contractor's compensation policies. The compensation plan shall cover all proposed initial salaries and salary ranges for all positions.”

22. (a)We would appreciate if USAID/Afghanistan could share the Mission’s current and approved

Performance Management Plan (PMP).

(b) Could you please provide Offerors with the Mission PMP?

(c) We would appreciate if USAID/Afghanistan could share the Mission’s current Mission Order on

Performance Monitoring.

(d) The RFP highlights the importance of approved project-level work plans and PMPs, and the Mission

PMP, as the basis for monitoring to provide USAID/Afghanistan “sufficient, accurate and verified” information. Can USAID provide an estimate of what percentage of projects currently have approved work plans and up-to-date PMPs?

Page | 10

USAID Response (a) – (c): The Mission PMP is being revised. As such, the current PMP would not be useful to potential offerors. The mission order is also being revised. Offerors can refer to Automated

Directive System 203 for specifics related to agency performance monitoring and evaluation.

USAID Response (d): All projects should have approved work plans and up-to-date PMPs.

23. Do you anticipate additional task orders being awarded beyond the initial ones specified in the RFP?

USAID Response: Yes.

24. (a) Section B.12.1 Labor Categories – Component One (pg.13) Labor Category 1001 is titled “Chief of

Party, Senior Level”; however, the CDR table calls for both a Mid-level and a Senior-level CDR. Can you please confirm that Offerors shall propose both a Mid- and a Senior-level for this category, to allow for maximum flexibility and cost effectiveness.

(b) For the Labor Categories for Component 2 as represented in Section B.12.2 and Attachment J.20, can

USAID confirm that the Offeror should provide unburdened mid and senior daily rates for all labor categories? If so, the offeror would have to provide mid and senior rates for Chief of Party and Deputy

Chief of Party when traditionally these are senior positions rather than mid.

USAID Response (a) and (b): The offeror must propose both a mid and senior level CDR for all labor categories listed in B.12.1, or B.12.2, depending upon whether the proposal is for Component 1 or

Component 2 of the IQC. The level of the Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party will depend upon the

Task Order minimum requirements, and the offeror’s proposal to perform the work required.

25. On pages 209, 246, and 286 in Section F of each of the TOs, the required KPs include: “Chief of Party

(COP) (Program Development Specialist): Please refer to Section B.12.1 of the IQC.” However, in section

B.12.1 of the IQC, the Chief of Party labor category is not called “Program Development Specialist”. Can you please confirm that the reference to “Program Development Specialist” should be deleted?

USAID Response: Confirmed; the title “Program Development Specialist” in Section F of each Task

Order is deleted.

26. On pages 210, 247 and 287 in Section F.2 of each of the TOs, the required positions include: “Monitoring

& Evaluation Specialist (Social Scientist – Mid): Please refer to Section B.6 of the IQC.” However, Section

B.6 does not discuss this labor category, Section B.12 does. We have the following related questions:

a. Please confirm that this should read “Section B.12 of the IQC”.

b. Further on the preceding question: in Section B.12.1, the category “1004

Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist” does not refer to “Social Scientist”. Can you please confirm that the reference to “Social Scientist” should be deleted?.

USAID Response (a): Confirmed.

USAID Response (b): The title “Social Scientist” in Section F of each Task Order is deleted.

27. Page 34 states: “All contractors will be required to work with the Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF), if they determine the need for armed commercial security.” However, we understand that the GIRoA is currently moving to disband the APPF and merge it with the national police. At the same time, many

Page | 11 established security contractors are having their licenses revoked and the list of available security contractors may change dramatically in the next few months. Given the uncertainty of this transition period, would USAID consider providing a plug figure or percentage of total value to include for security costs?

USAID Response: Uncertainty is part of doing business in Afghanistan. Although GIRoA has indeed made plans to absorb APPF into the Ministry of Interior, it has also instructed the international community that all is “business as usual” and that APPF will continue to exist in some fashion. Thus, Offerors should estimate security costs to the best of their abilities, based on current conditions. No plug figure will be provided.

28. Can you please confirm that only one security plan must be submitted (i.e. not a separate security plan for each Task Order).

USAID Response: Security plans should be submitted for each task order. However, if your security plan is identical for all three task orders, you may explain that in the plan and submit a single copy of the plan as part of your proposal.

29. (a) Attachment J.20: the Cost/Price Matrix does not specify the number of person/days for each required position. Can USAID please provide the LOE for each line item in order to ensure an “apples-to-apples” comparison among Offerors.

(b) For a fair comparison of the Cost/Price Matrix of Component 2, could USAID please provide plug figures for the number of "person-days" for all the "Short-Term (Home Office) US-based" Labor

Categories (Communications Manager (Mid), Finance Manager (Sr.), Finance Manager (Mid), Knowledge

Management Specialist (Sr.), Knowledge Management Specialist (Mid), IQC Manager (Sr.), IQC Manager

(Mid))?

USAID Response (a) and (b): Attachment J.20 has been amended to include plug figures for the LOE for the positions. Attachment J.27 was included in error and has been removed.

30. Section C.2 (pg. 21) states that “USAID will use MSP initially to meet the narrow purpose of verifying implementing partner reporting on their project performance. As the MSP evolves, USAID might expand the use of this project to perform enhanced monitoring of project performance and other development outcomes.” In order to assist Offerors to be responsive to USAID’s needs, can you provide any further information regarding the difference between “narrow” verification and “enhanced” project monitoring?

USAID Response: USAID/Afghanistan views "narrow" monitoring as focusing on verification of project activities at the output level. A "more enhanced" level of monitoring would include verifying the outcome of activities. An example of narrow monitoring would be verifying the number of teachers trained, where more enhanced monitoring would verify the impact of the training. Currently, USAID is focused on verification of outputs, but should there be a need further on in the life of the project to monitor at the outcome level, the monitor will need to have technical expertise on-hand necessary to collect the requested information.

31. Section C (pg. 22) states that, “In addition to verification, the MSP contractor in some cases will be required to assess the quality of the data collected and to confirm activity implementation.” We have the following related questions:

Page | 12

a. Is it possible for USAID to provide an approximate estimate of the percentage of projects for which this may be required?

b. Does USAID have any guidance on how such cases will be determined?

USAID Response (a): It is difficult to estimate a percentage as it will depend on what the Project Manager determines is necessary to ensure adequate project oversight. It will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Offerors should focus on ensuring they are able to cover the basic monitoring described in the RFP, but also be aware that in some limited cases, data quality assessments and activity implementation confirmation may be required.

USAID Response (b): Please see 30(a).

32. In footnote 2 on page 22 of the RFP, it states that MSP is designed to provide verification and monitoring services for sixty to eighty (60-80) technical projects. We have the following related questions:

a. Are the on-budget assistance “projects” included within the 60-80 project number cited?

b. Can you clarify how many “G2G” projects there are (in the Project List in Attachment J-23, it does not appear clear which if any of the projects are through on-budget assistance)?

c. Which task order is intended to cover the “G2G” projects?

USAID Response (a): Yes.

USAID Response (b): The following are the on-budget G2G projects:

Afghanistan Workforce Development Project (AWDP)

Mining Investment and Development for Afghans Sustainability Project (MIDAS)

Basic Education and Literacy and Vocational Education and Training (BELT)

Partnership Contracts for Health (PCH) Program

USAID Response (c): All task orders may contain on-budget projects. Offerors should be prepared to conduct monitoring on both on- and off-budget projects. Whether an on-budget or off-budget program, the verification of activities will remain the same.

33. Survey work is discussed in the IQC RFP SOW (pg. 26), but is not mentioned in Section C of any of the individual TO RFPs. We have the following related questions:

a. Could you please clarify how USAID plans to order survey work?

b. Are the “larger, more rigorous surveys” expected to cross the TO geographical boundaries?

c. If so, under which TO would they be requested

USAID Response (a): Please review the IQC RFP Statement of Work, which states:

“USAID/Afghanistan’s technical offices will work with the Office of Program and Project Development

(OPPD) to design a Statement of Work for the verification and monitoring needs of each project’s performance, including a set of output and outcome indicators and potential monitoring methods. … To implement the tasks outlined in the verification and monitoring Statements of Work for each project, the

Contractor must manage a diverse selection of monitoring tools. Additionally, the Contractor is expected to propose to USAID additional innovative tools and approaches not listed here to achieve the MSP goal.”

(p. 24) Surveys as a monitoring tool will be used when identified as the best methodology to verify project data.

USAID Response (b): No

USAID Response (c): Please see response to (b).

Page | 13

34. Given that the initial three Task Orders are divided regionally, and numerous projects listed in attachment

J-23 appear to be implemented across the geographic boundaries that the three Task Orders define, we have the following related questions:

a. Can you please clarify how monitoring and verification of the projects (specifically those listed in

Attachment J-23, but also new projects as they arise) that are implemented across the geographic boundaries that distinguish the three TOs will be handled?

b. If each TO has a separate contractor, would they only monitor and verify those activities under the multi-region projects that take place in their region?

c. Does USAID have in mind an approach to ensure consistency across such a project that crosses the boundaries?

USAID Response (a): Project Managers will provide the Task Order Contractors with the activity level information to be monitored based on the geographic location of the activities. In this way, it will be clear which Task Order Contractor will perform the required work.

USAID Response (b): Yes.

USAID Response (c): Task Order Contractors will coordinate with the USAID COR and other IQC holders to define best practices and ensure consistency.

35. The project list in Attachment J-23 contains fewer than 20 projects that will continue beyond an MSP start date on or around 9/30/14. However, on pages 22, 23, 210, 247, and 287, the RFP suggests the use of 56 projects as a proxy, with the understanding that between 60-80 projects could be active in a region. Does

USAID have a more up-to-date list of projects which MSP is intended to cover?

USAID Response: As the USAID/Afghanistan portfolio of projects is constantly changing, the projects listed in Attachment J-23 should be considered as a representative snapshot of the portfolio from which offerors can build their proposals and budgets.

36. On page 143 and 144 of the RFP, it requests Performance Using Small Business Concerns, which it states does not apply to offers from small business concerns and refers to “the extent you used and promoted the use of small business concerns under current and prior contracts.”

However, the RFP further states that “all offerors that are not small or local business concerns must do the following”, which includes providing “a narrative summary (as part of Annex C) of your organization use of small or local business concerns over the past three years. Describe how you actually use small or local businesses—as subcontractors, as joint venture partners, through other teaming arrangements, etc. Explain the nature of the work small or local businesses performed—a substantive technical professional services, administrative support, logistics support, etc. Describe the extent of your compliance with your small business (SB) or local subcontracting plan(s) or other similar SB or local incentive programs set out in your contract(s) and explain any mitigating circumstances if goals were not achieved.”

In Section M on page 156, with regards to the evaluation criteria related to the Performance Using Small

Business Concerns, it does not reference local organizations, stating that for “prime offerors who are not small business concerns, their utilization of Small Business Concerns as subcontractors, including efforts in achieving small business participation goals.”

In addition, statutory requirements for subcontracting plans and goals appear to refer only to small business subcontracting, not to local subcontracting.

Page | 14

Could you please confirm that references to local business concerns, local businesses, local subcontracting plan(s), and local incentive programs in the Performance Using Small Business Concerns on pages 143 and

144 of the RFP should be deleted?

USAID Response: Pages 143 and 144 have been revised. References to local businesses have been deleted.

37. Attachment J.11 REQUEST FOR TASK ORDER PROPOSALS TWO (pages 230 to 268) indicates that all material within these pages refers to “TO-2.” However, from page 238 (M.2 (a) (3) Management

Approach) to page 239 (C.2, B. Components, 2. Programmatic Scope of Monitoring Activities) of the RFP, references are made to “TO-1.”

Can you please confirm that instances indicating “TO-1” on pages 238 and 239 actually refer to “TO-2?”

USAID Response: Yes, this refers to TO-2.

38. Similarly to the above, Attachment J.12 REQUEST FOR TASK ORDER PROPOSALS THREE (pages

269 to 307) indicates that all material within these pages refers to “TO-3.” However, from page 305 (M.2

(a) (3) Management Approach) to page 306 (M.2 (a) (4) Cross-cutting Considerations) of the RFP, references are made to “TO-1.”

Can you please confirm that instances indicating “TO-1” on pages 305 and 306 actually refer to “TO-3?”

USAID Response: Yes, this refers to TO-3.

39. We wanted to know if there is a pre-bidding conference scheduled in the next couple of weeks in Dubai or elsewhere on this RFP. We have heard there is such a conference scheduled and would like to attend if there is one.

USAID Response: There is no planned pre-proposal conference.

40. For Component 2 of the RFP, does USAID expect the implementer to establish a field office in

Afghanistan?

USAID Response: It is up to the offeror to propose how best to meet the IQC requirements for Component

2. Offerors should consider what degree of in-country presence they feel would be necessary to complete the work and budget and plan for it accordingly.

41. Please clarify the following sentence on page 158 of the RFP, section M.6: "If one or more small businesses are selected for award in the full and open unrestricted award pool, the next highest ranked qualified small business proposal determined to be the best value to the Government, based on evaluation of technical and cost criteria, will be selected for the set-aside award, unless the proposal is considered technically marginal or unacceptable." Specifically, please explain what the "next highest ranked qualified small business" refers to, for example is the ranking for Component 1 or 2 or both?

USAID Response: Please review the entirety of section M.6. All proposals will first be evaluated for an unrestricted award. If a small business is selected for the unrestricted award, it would not also be awarded a

Page | 15 set-aside, the next highest ranked qualified small business would be awarded the set-aside. Only those proposals that meet the requirements for Component 1 will be evaluated for Component 1, and only those proposals that meet the requirements for Component 2 will be evaluated for Component 2. If a small business proposal meets the requirements for both Component 1 and 2, is selected for an unrestricted award, and is also superior to another small business in Component 2, the next highest ranked qualified small business would be awarded the set-aside, rather than the small business that was selected for the unrestricted award.

42. Would we need to register our business as a sub if awarded the contract under Component 1?

USAID: The question is unclear. If an offeror is awarded a contract under Component 1, they are not considered a subcontractor, rather a prime. Subcontracting agreements are arranged between the prime contractor and the subcontractor. See Attachment J.6 for information on registration and tax withholding on

Subcontractors.

43. Section C.6.6 Security on page 34 states "The Contractor must prepare a comprehensive and dynamic safety and security plan pertaining to all aspects of its activities and the activities of its employees in the performance of all work related to this contract as well as the off-duty activities of its employees, as those activities relate to performance of contract work, serving in Afghanistan or elsewhere within the region." In light of this requirement and the request for Security Plans for the Task Orders under Component 1, should a security plan be included for Component 2 at this time?

USAID Response: Security Plans are required under Task Orders. There currently is no Task Order for

Component 2.

44. Could USAID please confirm if the "Local Hired Personnel Labor" should be proposed as Long-Term or

Short-Term, under Component 2 of the Cost/Price Matrix? If the "Local Hired Personnel Labor" is to be proposed as Short-Term, could USAID please provide a plug figure for the number of "person-days" for this personnel?

USAID Response: A level of effort quantity has been included in the Local Hired Personnel Labor line of the Cost/Price Matrix. Please also see response to Question 29.

45. (a) Are offerors required to follow the local compensation plan for the "Local Hired Personnel Labor" position, under Component 2 of the Cost/Price Matrix?

(b) If so, could USAID please provide the local compensation plan for Afghanistan?

(c) Would USAID kindly provide the most recent Local Compensation Plan (LCP) for Afghanistan?

USAID Response (a): The local compensation plan may be used by USAID to help make a determination of reasonableness for proposed local professional labor; however, Offerors must do their own market research and take in consideration their own policies and procedures with regards to total compensation, prior to providing proposed daily rates. Please review sections H.7 and B.6 for specific instructions.

Page | 16

USAID Response (b) and (c): No. The Local Compensation Plan for the USG employees provides a unique mix of cash and non-cash compensation, which may not be appropriate, nor accurate, for Offerors who have their own compensation policies and procedures.

46. Is it safe to assume that only Long-Term US-based personnel are considered employees, under Component

2 of the Cost/Price Matrix?

USAID Response: No. The Cost/Price Matrix is an evaluation tool that USAID will use to determine the reasonableness of the costs and prices proposed by the offeror. The proposed CDRs will be fixed in the

IQC. The personnel policies of an organization should determine the status of staff hired and the technical approach in each TO should determine the labor mix.

47. Does the letter from USAID to the MoFA, referenced in Attachment J.6, also cover subcontractors to the prime contractor? If not, how do prime contractors get exemptions for their subcontractors?

USAID Response: The letter attached as part of Attachment J.6 is simply a letter indicating to the GIRoA that the U.S. Embassy has delegated to USAID the authority to sign and transmit certain letters to the

MoFA. Please review the entirety of Attachment J.6 for guidance on applicable tax exemptions. See

Attachment J.6, Section II. D.

48. Attachment J.6 mentions a bilateral agreement with the GIRoA several times. The 1951 Bilateral

Agreement is cited with a reference to the specific language of the tax exemption provisions in the SOAG in Attachment 1. No Attachment 1 is included in the RFP that states the tax exemption provisions. If possible, please provide.

USAID Response: The SOAG tax exemption provision begins on p. 183.

49. Given the cost implications of unscheduled and unbudgeted tax payments that may be demanded by the

GIRoA, what taxes must be included in the cost proposal? Specifically, withholding tax, income tax and business receipts tax are a few of the taxes mentioned.

USAID Response: The partner must follow all host country regulations and laws specific to taxation.

Attachment J.6 is provided as a resource to potential offerors when creating cost estimates for USAID’s requirement under this RFP.

50. How does USAID anticipate Task Orders under Component 2? Will TOs be specific to regions? To sectors?

USAID Response: Please review the RFP Statement of Work for specific requirements relative to

Component 2. Currently, no Task Order for Component 2 is being solicited. Those requirements will be defined at a later point.

51. Please provide an organizational chart of the mission/offices at USAID/Afghanistan.

Page | 17

USAID Response: Please refer to http://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan.

52. (a) Is there an OCI between local monitoring partners under Component 1 and local partners under

Component 2?

(b) Is there an OCI between offerors who would like to bid on both components? Can an organization be prime on both Component 1 and Component 2?

USAID Response (a): USAID does not foresee any OCI concerns.

USAID Response (b): No to both parts of the question.

53. Please consider issuing guidance to local organizations that will discourage them from exclusive agreements at the proposal…