RFP_No._SOL-306-17-000044_-_Amendment_No._01.pdf

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044 AMELA – Amendment 01

General

1. Would USAID be able to share a copy of the Afghanistan Mission’s organizational chart?

USAID Response: Please see USAID/Afghanistan organizational chart below:

2. Are Contractors discouraged from executing exclusive teaming agreements with local partners, thereby potentially limiting USAID's access to some qualified partners?

USAID Response: Contractors are not allowed to enter into exclusive teaming agreements with local partners.

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

Section B

3. Page 12, Pricing Table, “Security”, and Page 147, “(8) Security Costs”. Source: (8) Security costs: Security cost will at a minimum address the following:

• Personal Security Detail

• Security and Security Related Communication Equipment

• Security training

• Static Guard Services

• Fully Armored Vehicles and/or Light Armored Vehicles (Property authorized and in accordance with ADS 563)

• Personal Protection Equipment (helmets, flak jackets, etc.) and/or security modifications to residential and office facilities, including but not limited to protective barriers, e.g. blast walls.

A: Is the Contractor expected to procure their own, independent secure facility and staff it with static guards and make security modifications, or is it a viable option to use a DoS-approved secure facility that includes security as part of their services for the AMELA program offices?

USAID Response: Yes, if the Contractor decides to use any physical and personnel security measures they will be responsible for procuring their own guard force and establishing their own secured facility unless you utilize one of the many compounds and villas in Afghanistan that include security as part of their services but none are DOS-approved facilities.

B: Is the Contractor expected to acquire program vehicles, or is it a viable option to lease/rent fully armored and light armored vehicles as required for site visits.

USAID Response: Yes, but Contractors are not required to utilize armored vehicles (AVs).

It is up to their own corporate security Standard Operating Procedures to decide whether to use an AV or soft-skin (regular non-armored vehicle). If the Contractor decides to use AVs and the project is more than five year in duration, they should consider budgeting for the purchase of US DOS Level D Toyota Land Cruisers, Hi-Lux Pick Up Truck, etc. (Vendor list attached) Contractor can rent AVs locally, but their ballistic capabilities are unknown (i.e., Euro B6, Dubai B7, etc.) and the Contractor as such, will have to sign a ballistic waiver.

Again rental/lease AV cost must be factored into the security budget.

C: Are there any program locations that will require other than ground vehicle access, such as helicopter/aircraft transportation? If so, will DoS/USAID air transport resources be available for monitoring/evaluation purposes?

USAID Response: The Contractor is responsible for all types of travel in order to implement the project, whether ground or air, however our activities are accessible by ground or commercial aviation. DOS/USAID air or ground transportation assets will not be available for Contractor use at any time.

D: Are secure communications (Internet, radio, telephone, fax, email) required?

USAID Response: Not required, but most companies have an Information Security

(INFOSEC) protocol already established and part of a IT compliance program. Such secure

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044 communications can include, but not limited to; cell phones, land lines, satellite phones, GPS, vehicle/personnel trackers, computers, password/encryption, firewalls, degaussing of hard drives, crisscross or pulp shredders, etc.

Section C

4. For several of the deliverables,the number is assigned for contract duration (e.g. “a maximum of one (1) impact evaluation over the life of this contract” on page 18 of the RFP).

Does the life of this contract mean five years, or are the deliverables expected within the base period of two years?

USAID Response: The base period of the contract is two years during which, the required deliverables are expected to be provided with the proposal. The Government may exercise any of the three one-year options. If exercised, the required deliverables in the option years will need to be submitted.

5. Please clarify how many activities there will be within each award? (Reference C.4(2)ii(c), page 23)

USAID Response: In this reference, the word “activity” is referring to an individual award (grant, contract, or cooperative agreement), per the ADS 201 definition of “activity.”

6. Please clarify how many activities USAID anticipates being monitored per site visit to ensure all bidders are pricing based on same assumption. (Reference C.4(2)ii(c), page 23)

USAID Response: In this reference, the word “activity” is referring to an individual award (grant, contract, or cooperative agreement), per the ADS 201 definition of “activity.” As stated on page 23 of the RFP, “for the purposes of this award, the Contractor must expect to conduct a maximum of twelve (12) site visits per quarter per activity.” There will be a maximum of 50 awards/activities that receive site visits each quarter. The composition of these 50 awards may change over the life of the contract as some awards end and others begin. The parameters of each monitoring site visit will be determined by the COR/AOR, in collaboration with the Contractor, based on the specific monitoring needs of that activity.

7. Please clarify whether the CLA and KM approach being advanced was already developed in a plan? (Reference C.4(3)(i), page 24)

USAID Response: The CLA and KM approach will be included in the Mission Performance Management Plan (PMP) after the new Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) is approved. Per ADS 201, the Mission is required to develop a new PMP within 4-6 months of approval of the new country strategy. The Mission is also currently working on integrating a CLA section into its existing PMP, which it expects to be updated o/a September/October 2017.

8. Please clarify whether a CLA and KM plan has been developed? (Reference C.4(3)(i), page

25)

USAID Response: Please see response to question No. 7.

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

9. If there is a CLA and KM plan, please provide a copy and clarify the requirement in the RFP.

(Reference C.4(3)(i)(g), pages 24-25)

USAID Response: Please see response to question No. 7.

10. Section C.4, page 18 of the RFP outlines a requirement to conduct one whole-of-project evaluation and one strategy evaluation over the life of the contract. Would USAID be able to specify during which year of the contract each of these evaluations would take place?

USAID Response: USAID expects the whole-of-project evaluation to commence in approximately year two of the contract, though this timing is subject to change. The strategy evaluation is expected to consist of both mid-term and final reviews of progress toward the key results in the country strategy. Timing ultimately depends on when the strategy is approved, but the Contractor can expect the mid-term review to occur in approximately year 2 of the award.

11. Section C.4, page 20 of the RFP outlines a requirement to conduct one impact evaluation, with baseline data collected as early as possible. We seek to provide an accurate and realistic estimate of the costs associated with this data collection. Would USAID be able to approximate the sample size and/or geographic coverage of the baseline survey, or alternatively to identify the program to be evaluated?

USAID Response: The RFP, on page 18, states that a maximum of one impact evaluation will be conducted over the life on the award. Per text on page 20, section C.1.ii, “depending on operating environment considerations and the nature of the evaluation questions, a rigorous performance evaluation design that allows for before-after comparisons may be favored over an experimental or quasi-experimental design.” USAID will determine whether an impact evaluation is appropriate based on the key evaluation questions identified in the Country Development Cooperation Strategy. If the Agency decides to pursue an impact evaluation, we expect it may be limited to one activity and sector, may be limited to a select population center, would not extend in duration for more than two-three years, and be limited to a focused area of inquiry needed to advance the evidence base for the country strategy.

12. Section C.4, page 20 of the RFP outlines a requirement to conduct up to five assessments, special studies, surveys, or other analytical products per year. We seek to provide an accurate and realistic estimate of the costs associated with this data collection. Would USAID be able to approximate how many of these products will be surveys each year? If so, is USAID able to differentiate between surveys associated with specific programs and surveys aimed at measuring cross-cutting indicators?

USAID Response: Analytical work is undertaken on a demand-driven basis based on the needs of USAID technical offices. Based on past work, as well as future projections, we estimate that up to two assessments/surveys per year will require either population-based surveys or surveys focused on another specific sampling unit, such as schools or health facilities. Surveys generally involve random sampling with 95% level of confidence. Though in some cases surveys could cover all 34 provinces, more typically our assessments and surveys have had coverage of 8 to 15 provinces. Most of our recent assessment and cross-cutting work has been aimed at understanding a specific sector and not activity-specific.

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

Analytical work that does not involve surveys typically involves aggregation and analysis of secondary data combined with limited primary data collection.

13. Reference: Page 18, C.4, 1), Component 1, a). Source: “The Contractor must carry out a maximum of eight (8) activity-level performance evaluations per year for the next five years, which includes evaluations of one government-to-government (G2G) assistance award each year. G2G evaluations must support a close working partnership with government officials, and may require specialized approaches. In the case of G2G evaluations, the contractor, in collaboration with USAID/Afghanistan, must consider the use of host government systems for data collection, but remain prepared to supplement this data with additional data collected by the contractor. In addition, the Contractor must carry out one whole-of-project evaluation,1 as well as one strategy evaluation over the life of contract. The Contractor will also be required to carry out a maximum of five (5) assessments, special studies, surveys or other analytical products per year for the next five years and a maximum of one (1) impact evaluation over the life of this contract. The number of evaluations/assessments may vary, depending on the needs of the Mission.

A: Please define the scope of the projects to be evaluated or assessed to enable accurate estimation of the initial number of personnel required to perform the evaluations and to carry out assessments, special studies, surveys, and other actions.

USAID Response: Regarding assessments, surveys and special studies, please refer to Question No. 12. With regard to evaluations, most recent evaluations conducted by the Mission have been limited scope mid-term and final performance evaluations. The methods used for these evaluations have mostly involved desk reviews, beneficiary interviews, desk review of documents, focus group discussions, interviews with implementing partner and USAID technical staff, and interviews with other key informants. In some cases evaluations have involved sampling of beneficiaries, with surveys conducted through either electronic means or phone calls. Please see the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse for examples of recent evaluations undertaken by the Mission as a general reference. Each of these final evaluation reports includes as an Annex the original Statement of Work, which details key personnel and level of effort.

B: Please identify if an evaluation plan was prepared as part of the project design effort. If so, please provide that plan for each candidate project to be evaluated.

USAID Response: The Mission maintains an annual evaluation plan. However, we do not believe it would be a helpful reference for Offerors as it provides only general information and many of the prospective evaluations listed are tentative and subject to change. Also, it does not contain information such as geographic scope of the evaluation, sampling, etc. as these specifications are determined later during the development of the evaluation statement of work. We believe the RFP provides the relevant information needed for developing this proposal.

C: How many simultaneous evaluations and assessments should be planned for?

USAID Response: Based on the parameters of a maximum of eight evaluations and five assessments per year, and based on historical experience, the Offeror can expect to be managing 3-5 evaluations or assessments concurrently at any given time during the life of the project.

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

14. Page 21, Component 2, (a) Source: Component 2, (a) states “Contractor must provide high-quality, timely, and useful third party monitoring and verification services for USAID programs in areas deemed non-permissible for USAID staff”. If projects to be monitored are in areas non-permissible for USAID staff, who is executing the USAID program and with whom will the monitoring staff be interacting?

USAID Response: USAID implements its programming through implementing partners, who often engage local sub-grantees or sub-contractors in the implementation of activity interventions. Thus, in the field, the third party monitors will be engaging with staff from the implementing partner and/or the sub-grantee or sub-contractor. Currently, USAID staff are unable to conduct site visits for programming implemented outside of Kabul. As the third party monitors are conducting monitoring on behalf of USAID COR/AORs, it is expected that the contractor will have close communication and collaboration with USAID on developing the monitoring tools, communicating monitoring findings, and working with USAID to ensure that third party monitoring information being collected is relevant, useful, and actionable.

15. Page 23, Component 2, (ii)(c); Page 27, Mobilization of Support Services. Source: “Based on the activity work plans for all activities that will receive third party monitoring in the subsequent month, the Contractor will develop a monthly site visit schedule.” And Mobilization of Support Services “The COR will provide prioritized activities, activity-specific requirements, and related documentation (e.g. activity work statements) based on Mission needs and demands, which the Contractor must document in its Annual Work Plan. How and when will the contractor be advised of programs that require monitoring each month?

USAID Response: USAID will work with the Contractor to determine the activities that will receive third party monitoring in advance of each quarter. Some additional activities may be added on an ad hoc basis if the Mission determines that third party monitoring is needed to verify particular data or performance findings. In our current third party monitoring model, the Contractor receives activity work plans that detail specific activity interventions taking place in a given month approximately two weeks prior to the start of the month. Under this award, the timeline is subject to discussion with the Contractor based on the timeframe that USAID and the Contractor agree is the most appropriate to ensure sufficient planning while recognizing the dynamic nature of the operating environment. Given the dynamic and fluid nature of the Afghanistan operating environment, activity work plans are subject to change and require close communication between the Contractor, COR/AOR, and implementing partner to verify whether scheduled activities are expected to take place as planned.

16. Page 35, Performance Indicator Table-Please identify/define the “workshop” referenced in items 3 and 4.

USAID Response: As part of the training and capacity building efforts described in Component 3(ii), the Contractor is expected to deliver targeted trainings/workshops to build the M&E capacity of USAID staff, as well as potentially host country government stakeholders and implementing partners. The word “workshop” on page 35 is being used interchangeably with the word “training.”

17. Page 76, H.37, COMPLIANCE WITH ADS 252 & 253 – TRAINING AND RESULTS AND

INFORMATION NETWORK (TRAINET) (AUGUST 2016) Source: “1. Participant Training Reports. The recipient will collect training data on technical trainings (i.e., conferences and

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044 workshops) provided for beneficiaries that were held in the United States, third countries, or in-country under this contract.” Are any technical trainings anticipated to be held outside of Afghanistan?

USAID Response: No. No technical trainings are anticipated to be held outside of Afghanistan under this award.

18. Page 18, C.4, 1), Component 1, a). Source: “The Contractor must carry out a maximum of eight (8) activity-level performance evaluations per year for the next five years, which includes evaluations of one government-to-government (G2G) assistance award each year.

G2G evaluations must support a close working partnership with government officials, and may require specialized approaches. In the case of G2G evaluations, the contractor, in collaboration with USAID/Afghanistan, must consider the use of host government systems for data collection, but remain prepared to supplement this data with additional data collected by the contractor. In addition, the Contractor must carry out one whole-of-project evaluation,1 as well as one strategy evaluation over the life of contract. The Contractor will also be required to carry out a maximum of five (5) assessments, special studies, surveys or other analytical products per year for the next five years and a maximum of one (1) impact evaluation over the life of this contract. The number of evaluations/assessments may vary, depending on the needs of the Mission. Please provide examples of specialized approaches may be required in evaluating the government-to-government assistance awards each year?

Is there a mandated framework the contractor must follow or is this part at the discretion of the contractor and the M&E design for the G2G project?

USAID Response: No, there is no mandated framework the Contractor must follow for G2G evaluations. Per the RFP C.4.1.a on page 18, the unique aspect of G2G evaluations is that they “must support a close working partnership with government officials, and may require specialized approaches.” With regard to data collection, these evaluations may use host government systems for data collection, but the Contractor must “remain prepared to supplement this data with additional data collected by the contractor.” “Specialized approaches” refers to considerations during the design and implementation stage of the evaluation, such as whether it is appropriate to incorporate Ministry M&E staff in the implementation of the evaluation; approaches to verify/validate the data collected through host government systems as part of the data collection and analysis process; engagement of relevant host country government counterparts, as appropriate, in different stages of the evaluation design, implementation, and dissemination process; etc.

19. RFP page 18, Section C.4(1)(a) states that the Contractor must carry out one whole of project evaluation, one strategy evaluation and one impact evaluation.

Question: For budgeting purposes, can USAID specify the year these are anticipated?

USAID Response: Please see the response to question No. 10.

20. RFP page 20, Section C.4(1)(a)(ii) “Impact Evaluation”.

Question: For the impact evaluation, does the USAID mission anticipate needing a baseline, midline and endline?

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

USAID Response: In the event an impact evaluation is undertaken, USAID anticipates needing a baseline, midline, and endline data collection. Please also see the response to question No. 11.

21. RFP page 21, Section C.4(2)(a) states that the Contractor must conduct a monitoring and verification for a maximum of 50 USAID/Afghanistan awards. Page 23, Section C.4(2)(ii)(c) notes that the Contractor must expect to conduct a maximum of 12 site visits per quarter per activity.

Question: Does this mean the Contractor should anticipate visiting each of 50 awards 12 times per quarter?

USAID Response: Yes, the Contractor should anticipate providing monitoring and verification visits for a maximum of 50 awards and maximum 12 times per quarter.

22. RFP page 22, Section C4(2) (i)(a) “Third Party Monitoring Infrastructure (e.g., tools, approaches)” mentions “Utilization of mobile data collection tools (e.g., smartphones) and other technology applications to facilitate monitoring data collection, as appropriate”

Question a: Can USAID please clarify whether those mobile data collection tools and technologies are to be restricted to data entry, or whether can (or should) include tools and technologies for data sensing (audio, video, environmental sensing, biometrics, etc.)?

USAID Response: No, mobile data collection tools and technologies need not be restricted to data entry. USAID is not prescriptive on what the technology approach can or should entail, provided it enables the Agency to do cost-effective monitoring and verification in a challenging operating environment.

Question b: Can USAID please clarify whether those mobile tools and technologies should include certain real-time analysis and interpretation technologies towards assessing the quality and progress of the data collection process?

USAID Response: USAID is not prescriptive on what the technology approach should entail. We encourage offerors to propose cost-effective approaches that they believe will enable the Agency to do effective monitoring, verification, and oversight in light of the challenges of the Afghanistan operating environment. Per Section C.4.2.a on page 21, it is imperative that the Contractor’s third party monitoring approach include “implementing a strong data validation approach to ensure the quality and validity of the data being received from monitors.”

23. RFP page 22, Section C.4 (2) (i)(a) “Third Party Monitoring Infrastructure” states that “The contractor’s approach to third party monitoring must include...development or adoption of a secure, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-compliant technology platform for collection and storage of third party monitoring data.”

Question: Can USAID name a software package as an example that is NIST compliant?

USAID Response: The following website provides examples of software that are NIST compliant: https://www.nist.gov/services-resources/software. The Offeror can also use the NIST standards to identify, adopt, or develop other software packages that are NIST compliant.

https://www.nist.gov/services-resources/software

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

24. RFP page 26, Section C.4(4) states the Contractor may support baseline and ongoing data collection for cross-cutting indicators. Question: Can USAID specify for budgeting purposes what kind of data collection would be required (large scale surveys, aggregating secondary data, etc)?

USAID Response: Please see response to question No.12.

25. RFP page 28, Section C.5 “Data and Knowledge Management” states that “The Contractor is expected to capture, store, and manage this data in such a way that supports aggregation, analysis, visualization, and reporting. The Contractor must make this data readily available to USAID personnel in an easily accessible, consistent, and understandable format.”

Question a: Can USAID please clarify which expectations one should have with respect to the USAID personnel when it comes to data, analytics, and visual interpretations literacy? Is the goal to design for a lowest common denominator among several audiences, or to create a system that can be configured to support various audiences in different settings?

USAID Response: Personnel of USAID/Afghanistan are both consumers of data for regular reporting and adaptive management purposes, as well as providers of data to other consumers. These other consumers of data may be within the Agency, the USG Interagency, Congress, or non-governmental stakeholders, including on occasion members of the Press. The data should be able to be configured in an appropriate manner to support a variety of audiences in different contexts.

Question b: Can USAID please clarify what type of analytical purposes and processes need to be supported? Beyond confirmatory analytics, is there a desire to support prescriptive, predictive and/or exploratory analytics?

USAID Response: The key analytical purposes and processes to be supported include understanding of strategy, project, and activity performance; project adaptive management;

management decision-making; and communication of results information to internal and external stakeholders.

Question c: Can USAID please clarify whether the “aggregation” of data needs to allow for capturing and recording of the aggregation process (such as e.g. for audition purposes)?

USAID Response: Generally it is good practice to aggregate data in a manner in which the end users can understand methodologies and/or assumptions employed during the aggregation process.

Question d: Can USAID please clarify whether the data visualization needs to differentiate and make visually apparent the differences in data quality of different data (such as from different sources, methodologies, and/or of different levels of statistical validity).

USAID Response: Generally it is good practice to differentiate data quality among multiple sets of data to allow for adequate comprehension by USAID/Afghanistan staff and stakeholders.

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

26. C.4 Scope of work - The following USAID/Afghanistan technical offices will utilize the AMELA mechanism: Health and Nutrition, Education, Gender, Infrastructure, Economic Growth, Agriculture, Democracy and Governance, and Program and Project Development.

Across these offices and sectors, USAID/Afghanistan currently manages an active pipeline of $3.2 billion within a portfolio of approximately 115 active awards and with activity implementation taking place in all 34 provinces. Please share list of 115 awards to stratify quantum of sector wide interventions. Province wise details will help in stratifying the risk profile of the projects.

USAID Response: USAID’s website contains lists of our active awards by sector: https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/our-work.

27. C.4 Scope of work - The AMELA Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), with the written approval of the Contracting Officer, will issue work orders that will require the Contractor to carry out specific tasks within the broad components outlined. If possible please share, award wise expected quantum / volume of such work orders. Maximum number of evaluations is provided, however it would be necessary to have the minimum and maximum both. It is required for resource and logistics commitment.

USAID Response: We do not have a separate estimate of minimum deliverables. The Contractor must be prepared to provide the maximum number of deliverables (evaluations, assessments, etc.) described in section C.

28. C.4 Scope of work - The Contractor must carry out a maximum of eight (8) activity-level performance evaluations per year for the next five years, which includes evaluations of one government-to-government (G2G) assistance award each year. Please share the rationale behind this number. Rational would help us determining the expected volume of work. Such as if performance evaluation is to be carried out for a 5 million $ project implemented in five provinces, it would be of obvious difference in case of 50 million $ project in 20 provinces.

Again such information would help us providing/obtaining the proposed resources’ tentative commitment over the five years.

USAID Response: The estimates provided are based on what we have done historically as well as future projections based on assumptions about portfolio size and assistance levels.

Based on our historical evaluation cost data, it generally does cost more to evaluate larger activities but not substantially so unless there is need for extensive primary data collection, which is something uncommon in our evaluations. Based on historical data, the LOE range of evaluations with travel to multiple provinces has generally been between 180-330 days of LOE for the entire team, including expats and local members. For evaluations limited to one or two provinces, the LOE range has typically been 50-80 days for the entire team, including expats and locals. Please see the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse for examples of recent evaluations undertaken by the Mission as a general reference. Each of these final evaluation reports includes as an Annex the original Statement of Work, which details key personnel and level of effort.

Please see the cover letter of the solicitation for the estimated cost range of the contract over five years.

29. C.4 Scope of work - In addition, the Contractor must carry out one whole-of-project evaluation, as well as one strategy evaluation over the life of contract. It is the applicable to all 115 projects/awards?

https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/our-work

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

USAID Response: The strategy evaluation will cover key results in the strategy but is not anticipated to cover every award in the portfolio. USAID has not yet identified which project will be subject to the whole-of-project evaluation, but our current projects consist of 3-5 activities. The purpose of a whole-of-project evaluation is to collectively evaluate the contribution of the activities that comprise the project to achieving the project purpose.

30. C.4 Scope of work - The Contractor will also be required to carry out a maximum of five (5) assessments, special studies, surveys or other analytical products per year for the next five years and a maximum of one (1) impact evaluation over the life of this contract. The number of evaluations/assessments may vary, depending on the needs of the Mission. Please provide the rationale of this selection. How much variation is expected to both sides?

USAID Response: The estimates provided are based on what we have done historically as well as future projections based on assumptions about portfolio size and assistance levels.

Based on the dynamic nature of the portfolio, there are many factors that may prompt a technical office to undertake an evaluation or assessment. The Contractor should be prepared to undertake the maximum number of deliverables required under this award.

Please see response to question No. 11 for more information on the impact evaluation.

31. C.4 Scope of work - (iii) Assessments/Special Studies/Surveys a) The Contractor must carry out up to five (5) assessments, special studies, surveys or other analytical products per year for the purpose of informing strategy/project/activity progress, understanding the contextual factors impacting programs implementation, and/or design or redesign efforts. Selected assessment themes may include, but are not limited to, gender analyses; sustainability analyses; cost-benefit analyses; political economy analyses; youth and-women-engagement in Mission interventions; environmental analyses; climate risk screening; and/or sectoral or geographic assessments across USAID/Afghanistan’s portfolio. Surveys may include baseline or beneficiary surveys. Is Up to 5 is maximum number? Rational need to be known which can be applied over all 115 awards to assess the maximum level of work.

USAID Response: The figure of maximum five assessments/special studies/surveys is based on historical figures and future projections. USAID/Afghanistan’s assessments/special studies/surveys have historically been sector-focused or thematic-focused in nature and not specific to a set of awards. For the purposes of this award, the Offeror can assume that approximately two assessments per year will rely upon large-scale primary data collection/surveys across provinces, while the others will rely upon desk reviews, secondary data collection, and limited primary data collection (e.g., focus group discussions, key informant interviews, etc.).

32. C.4 Scope of work - (ii) M&E Capacity Building c) As part of this component’s capacity-building work, the Contractor must produce relevant technical guides and training and reference materials that support the M&E skills enhancement of USAID/Afghanistan staff and partners and Host Country Government stakeholders. Please provide a list of Host Country Govt. Stakeholders. This is a need to assess the quantum of capacity building work.

USAID Response: USAID does not currently have a list of host country government stakeholders that it seeks to provide training to under this award. In the past, we have provided training on a demand-driven basis, in response to specific areas of interest among our government counterparts. We do not foresee the LOE requirement for delivering

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044 training and related materials to host country government stakeholders to be dissimilar to that for delivering training to USAID staff. Our trainings have historically consisted of 25-50 participants, sometimes divided into two sessions. Section C.4.3(ii)b on page 25 of the RFP identifies the maximum number of trainings anticipated per year.

33. C.5 Contractor Coordination with the COR - a) The Contractor must work closely with the COR and OPPD on all relevant coordination issues related to implementation of activities, including capacity building. The Contractor must propose a workflow process, to be approved by the COR upon start-up, and incorporated into each year’s Annual Work Plan. Is this needed at proposal stage?

USAID Response: The Annual Work Plan and the requirements mentioned in Section C.5

a) must be submitted after contract award and not with the proposal.

34. Given the uncertainties about the scope of each survey, can USAID provide a plug number for all survey work under Component 1 (ii) – Impact Evaluations – for budgeting purposes?

USAID Response: Please see response to question No. 11.

35. Can USAID provide an estimate of the anticipated number of surveys to be ordered, out of the total of up to 25 total requirements possible under Component 1 (iii)?

USAID Response: We undertake analytical work on a demand-driven basis based on the needs of our technical office and, as such, scope of each may vary. However, for the purposes of budgeting for this award, the Offeror can assume that approximately two surveys/assessments will rely upon large-scale primary data collection/surveys across provinces, while the others will rely upon desk reviews, secondary data collection, and limited primary data collection (e.g., focus group discussions, key informant interviews, etc.).

36. Given the uncertainties about the scope of each survey, can USAID provide a plug number for all survey work under Component 1 (iii) – Assessments/Special Studies/Surveys – for budgeting purposes?

USAID Response: Please see response to question No.11.

37. Please confirm that a maximum of 50 awards will be subject to third-party monitoring conducted by the AMELA contractor.

USAID Response: Yes, this is correct, each quarter there could be third party monitoring on up to 50 awards. However, the composition of the 50 awards may change over time as some existing awards end and new awards access third party monitoring services.

38. Can the Mission provide any further information about its CLA and Knowledge Management approach?

USAID Response: See answer to question No. 7.

39. Does the Mission now have a learning agenda, and if so could you share it with all offerors?

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

USAID Response: The Mission does not have a separate learning agenda. See answer to question No. 7 for more information on the status of the Mission’s CLA and KM approach.

40. Regarding M&E capacity building (p.25, Component 3 (ii)):

a) Please clarify if each individual training must include the topics listed in the bullet points or if the contractor is expected to cover those topics over the life of AMELA.

b) Please clarify whether capacity building will include learning topics.

c) How long is each training expected to take (e.g., one day, two days, etc.)?

USAID Response: The topics listed in the bullet points are illustrative topics to be covered over the life of AMELA. The topics of individual trainings will be based on identified training needs of our staff, host country government counterparts, and/or IPs. We are interpreting “learning topics” in part b of this question as the nature of content generally found in USAID’s collaboration, learning, and adapting approach. It is accurate that “learning topics” could be interpreted as falling into the category of “other topics, as needed and appropriate” (the final bullet point on page 25). Historically, we have not had a set length of training, though almost all of our trainings are not more than 1-2 days.

41. Does the maximum of three trainings per year include the trainings to GIROA audiences and

IPs or are those trainings counted separately?

USAID Response: Yes, the maximum of three trainings per year includes trainings for host country government counterparts and IPs.

42. Is it possible that the work under Component 4 may include project and/or activity design?

USAID Response: No, the Contractor will not be directly involved in project and/or activity design under this award. However, the award supports assessments, evaluations, surveys, etc. that may inform project and/or activity design.

43. Section C.4 Component 4 – Program Support Services, (page 26) states: “The Contractor is expected to support the completion of a mission-wide DQA report for a maximum of 100 selected PMP and PPR indicators and DQA reports for up to thirty (30) additional indicators…through the life of this contract.” However, Section F.5, deliverable 4.1 (page 42) states: “An annual, mission-wide DQA report for a maximum of 100 selected PMP and PPR indicators and DQA reports on up to 30 additional indicators…” (Italics added).

Can USAID please confirm whether the DQAs for up to 130 indicators are to be done:

a) once over the life of the project, or

b) twice over the life of the project, to comply with the ADS requirement that DQAs be done every three years for indicators reported to Washington, or

c) annual DQAs will be required, for up to 130 indicators?

USAID Response: The Contractor is expected to produce annual, mission-wide DQA reports that cover up to 100 indicators ahead of the annual Performance Plan and Report.

In addition, USAID may contract ad hoc DQAs for up to 30 additional indicators over the life of the project.

44. Could USAID please provide offerors with a copy of the most recent Mission Order(s) on monitoring and evaluation and CLA?

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

USAID Response: Please see attached. The Mission is currently clearing a new Mission Order on Performance Monitoring. The Mission does not have a separate Mission Order specific to CLA. We see CLA as embedded in our other Mission Orders.

Section F

45. Section F.4 (A) 2. Annual Work Plans, (page 34) states: “The work plan must be accompanied by a financial plan linked to the activities proposed in the work plan.” Because the technical proposal is not to include any cost information, can USAID please confirm the draft Year One Work Plan, in Annex F, should not include a financial plan?

USAID Response: Draft year 1 Work Plan does not require a financial plan linked to the activities proposed.

46. Under Section F.5, on page 40, bullet No.5 under Component 2 states: “Beneficiary monitoring reports for a maximum of 10 awards, four times per year for the period of performance of the contract.” Section F.5 further states on pages 41 – 42 that USAID requests “Monthly monitoring reports that summarize and analyze the quantitative and qualitative data from site visits and other monitoring tasks, including supplementary materials (site visit reports and raw data) for a maximum of fifty USAID/Afghanistan awards each quarter.” Would USAID please clarify if the Contractor is expected to submit a maximum of 50 monthly reports or 10 monthly reports during each quarter?

USAID Response: We envision beneficiary monitoring reports as a subset of the monthly monitoring reports. Thus, the Contractor is required to submit both a maximum of 50 monitoring reports per month AND 10 beneficiary monitoring reports per quarter.

RFP section C.4.2(ii)a identifies “beneficiary-based outputs” as a type of output that requires monitoring. As part of its third party monitoring approach, the Contractor must be able to design and deploy beneficiary surveys that provide an indication to USAID on activity performance. These are not expected to be large population-based surveys but rather fairly quick surveys that involve a random sample (or other appropriate and agreed upon sampling approach) of beneficiaries. Beneficiary surveys are not necessary for all awards and will be staggered depending on the monitoring and verification needs of a given activity, which is why the estimate of maximum number of beneficiary surveys is considerably lower than the estimate of maximum number of site visits.

The beneficiary monitoring report may be an attachment to the monthly monitoring report, if additional monitoring visits occurred for the activity in the preceding month, or it may be submitted as a stand-alone document to USAID if the beneficiary monitoring was the only monitoring event that took place for the activity in the preceding month

47. RFP page 39, Section F.5 states that deliverables may include large maps.

Question: Does USAID anticipate the need for a map printer for this activity?

USAID Response: USAID will seek to provide the Contractor with a map printer from a closed-out award; in the event this is not possible, USAID has the ability to print maps produced by the Contractor.

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

48. Section F.4 (A) 2. Annual Work Plans, (page 34) states: “The work plan must be accompanied by a financial plan linked to the activities proposed in the work plan.” Because the technical proposal is not to include any cost information, can USAID please confirm the draft Year One Work Plan, in Annex F, should not include a financial plan?

USAID Response: Please see answer to question No. 45.

49. Section F.5 (B) Component 2 – Monitoring Technical Support Services Deliverables, (page

40) references “beneficiary monitoring reports” as an expected deliverable. Are these reports a subset of the “monthly monitoring reports” required under deliverable 2.5, Section F.5, on page 41?

USAID Response: Yes, it is accurate to interpret the beneficiary monitoring reports as a subset of the monthly monitoring reports. RFP section C.4.2(ii)a identifies “beneficiary-based outputs” as a type of output that requires monitoring. As part of its third party monitoring approach, the Contractor must be able to design and deploy beneficiary surveys that provide an indication to USAID on activity performance. These are not expected to be large population-based surveys but rather fairly quick surveys that involve a random sample (or other appropriate sampling approach) of beneficiaries. Beneficiary surveys are not necessary for all awards and will be staggered depending on the monitoring and verification needs of a given activity, which is why the estimate of maximum number of beneficiary surveys is considerably lower than the estimate of maximum number of site visits.

50. Section F.5, deliverable 2.5 (page 41) requires: “Monthly monitoring reports…for a maximum of fifty USAID/Afghanistan awards each quarter” (Italics added). However, deliverable 2.3 (on page 41) and Section C.4 (page 21), indicate that a maximum of 50 awards will be monitored over the life of the contract

If the requirement is that 50 activities will be monitored over the life of the contract, our assumption is that not all 50 activities will be monitored at the same time, based on past experience with third party monitoring projects; rather, the monitoring of those activities will be staggered over the life of the program.

Can USAID please confirm our assumption that a maximum of 10 activities per year (up to 10 per month) will be monitored; or otherwise, can USAID please clarify the number of activities to be monitored?

USAID Response: Each quarter there could be third party monitoring on up to 50 awards.

The “maximum of 50 awards” is based on USAID/Afghanistan’s intention that third party monitoring be used for any applicable award for which COR/AOR direct observation/site visits are not possible. Over time, the composition of the 50 awards may change as some awards end and other awards begin. Some awards, such as many grants with Public International Organizations, rely on the M&E systems of the implementing partner and are thus not included in this estimate. The frequency of third party monitoring is at the discretion of the individual COR/AOR and thus it is correct to assume that there will be some staggering of site visits over the quarter and year. Per Section C.4.2(ii)c, “for the purposes of this award, the Contractor must expect to conduct a maximum of twelve (12) site visits per quarter per activity.”

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

51. Section F.5, deliverable 2.5 (page 41) refers to “monthly monitoring reports.” Can USAID please clarify whether separate monthly reports are required for each activity being monitored?

USAID Response: Yes. One monthly monitoring report is required for each activity being monitored.

Section H

52. Page 64, H.17, F. USAID/AFGHANISTAN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION (DECEMBER 2016): Is AMELA considered to be a “personal services” contract?

USAID Response: No.

53. Page 63, H.17, A. Limitations: How and when will salary ranges be established and certified by the Contracting Officer?

USAID Response: The salary ranges for all positions listed in the detailed budget of the successful offeror will be considered approved. The salary ranges for any additional position requested during the period of performance will require Contracting Officer’s approval.

54. RFP page 114, Section I.10 “Organizational Conflicts of Interest Discovered after Award

(Jun 1993” notes that “The Contractor agrees that, if after award it discovers either an actual or potential organizational conflict of interest with respect to this contract, it shall make an immediate and full disclosure in writing to the Contracting Officer which shall include a description of the action(s) which the Contractor has taken or proposes to take to avoid, eliminate or neutralize the conflict.”

RFP page 78, Section H.39 “Organizational Conflicts of Interest” regarding Evaluation Services notes that “This contract calls for the Contractor to furnish important services in support of the evaluation of USAID/Afghanistan Infrastructure Activities. In accordance with the principles of FAR Subpart 9.5 and USAID policy, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE

INELIGIBLE TO FURNISH, AS A PRIME OR SUBCONTRACTOR OR OTHERWISE,

IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES UNDER ANY CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER THAT

RESULTS IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS, PROPOSALS, OR RECOMMENDATIONS IN

THE EVALUATION REPORT WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF USAID ACCEPTING THE

REPORT.”

Question a: Is this only for infrastructure activities or for all evaluation activities?

USAID Response: This restriction applies to all evaluation activities. Section H.39 (a) has been revised as follows:

“H.39 (a) This contract calls for the Contractor to furnish important services in support of the evaluation of USAID/Afghanistan Activities. In accordance with the principles of FAR Subpart 9.5 and USAID policy, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE INELIGIBLE TO FURNISH, AS A PRIME OR SUBCONTRACTOR OR OTHERWISE, IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES

UNDER ANY CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER THAT RESULTS IN RESPONSE TO

FINDINGS, PROPOSALS, OR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE EVALUATION REPORT

WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF USAID ACCEPTING THE REPORT, unless the Head of the

Attachment 1 - Questions & Answers SOL-306-17-000044

Contracting Activity, in consultation with USAID's Competition Advocate, authorizes a waiver (in accordance FAR 9.503) determining that preclusion of the Contractor from the implementation work would not be in the Government's interest.”

Question b: Given the need to ensure that the successful offeror is an independent third party that can serve as an “honest broker” by avoiding conflicts of evaluating or monitoring their own work, can USAID confirm that current USAID implementers to be monitored or evaluated by AMELA, in either a Prime or Sub (contract/agreement) role in Afghanistan are not eligible for this RFP?

USAID Response: USAID confirms that current USAID implementers to be monitored or evaluated by AMELA, in either a Prime or Sub role in Afghanistan are eligible for this RFP;

however, there is a requirement to submit an OCI mitigation plan to address the situation in which the contractor is in the position of evaluating themselves.

55. Section H.4, page 55, “USAID/Afghanistan Maximizing Use of Local Entities (August 2016)” directs the Contractor “to channel most of the program implementation costs toward Host Country implementers…