IRLS QA from April 2011 RFP.pdf

Increased Responsiveness in the Legal System (IRLS)

Answers to Questions Received for Previous Pre-Solicitation Notice SOL-383-11-000001

Technical Questions / Comments

Q.1 Page 12 of the document references leveraging the impact of other USG and USAID-funded activities, including the

Land Administration and Protection of Property (LAPP) Program. Will a draft RFP or a pre-solicitation notice for this procurement also be expected and, if so, when might this draft be shared? Additionally, when can we expect the RFP to be released?

Answer: - The Land Administration and Protection of property (LAPP) Program was awarded under an USAID/W

IQC and is being implemented by TetraTech ARD Inc. through September 30, 2012.

- The revised IRLS Small Business Set-Aside RFP should come out in November 2011.

Q.2 Will USAID release a draft scope of work for the anticipated Job Creation through PPPs project and when might we expect the RFP to released?

Answer: This question on this separate activity is not relevant to the IRLS RFP.

Q.3 I assume from the wording in the presolicitation notice (“implementation”) that this is being considered a new requirement. Is this accurate? If not, could you please provide the following information pertaining to the incumbent contractor: contractor name, contract number, and award date? Any information you could provide would be most helpful and much appreciated. Thank you for your time and have a great day!

Answer: The Increased Responsiveness in the Legal System (IRLS) project activity is a new procurement.

Q.4 The RFP provides good specificity about the activities the contractor is expected to undertake. There may be benefit to providing for a “Windows of Opportunity” activity component and budget line item so that the contractor can take advantage of relevant opportunities that arise in activity areas that are outside of the RFP’s list of activities but are related and complementary. This approach may support the contractor’s ability to effectively integrate the various program activities into a cohesive and complementary program and to use windows of opportunity to achieve and maintain strong reform momentum.

Answer: The revised RFP does not include a window of opportunity activity component.

Q.5 On Page 14 under Sub- Deliverable 1.1(c) Annual reports and case digests are produced, the RFP instructs that the contractor will help develop annual reports and a public web-based system for statistical data. It appears from the RFP that official judicial statistics are lacking and yet the RFP does not include an activity to develop the statistical systems. Without adequate statistics available, it may be challenging to help to implement the annual report and web-based data system activities. The RFP could clarify how these activities should be undertaken if statistics are not available, or, alternatively, whether the contractor is expected to work on strengthening statistical systems.

Answer: The courts supply the Ministry of Justice with a range of standard data on cases, but the data may not have been aggregated nationally and it has not been used to define and quantify with any accuracy the inefficiencies in the legal system. As an example, government officials have indicated that the case backlog in the legal system ranges from 500,000 to 800,000 cases.

The implementing Contractor is expected to work with current data collection systems, and where possible, improve on data collection, reporting, and analysis. Compiling and analyzing existing data, the Contractor would be expected to assist in the production of MOJ annual reports and case digests.

Q.6 On Page 14, under Sub-deliverable 1.1(d): A plan for the automation of case management processes is developed, the title of the sub-deliverable refers to “automation” and the following text refers to “design an action plan to implement successful case management that utilizes manual and or electronic techniques. . .” The RFP could clarify this variation in the language. In addition, it is not completely clear what role the contractor is expected to have in action plan implementation, if any.

Answer: We have revised the language in the RFP to clarify this question.

Q.7 In addition, it is not completely clear what role the contractor is expected to have in action plan implementation, if any.

Answer: The implementing Contractor’s staff and/or consultants will have a modest and limited role in action plan implementation.

Q.8 Regarding in-country training described in Section C, does USAID plan for the project to pay all training costs and not just those associated with curriculum development, materials, specialized trainers and TOT costs? For example, would the project cover participant transport and per diem and/or the cost of renting regional training sites (e.g., in Jaffna or Trinco) for all those being trained (judges, stenographers, court administrators)? This would be a major cost item given the importance of training in the SOW.

Answer: USAID anticipates that the majority of training sessions will be held at the Judges Training Institute (JTI) in Colombo. This purpose built facility was opened in April 2011 and has been equipped with funding from the United Nations Development Program. Judges are provided with official transport and the JTI has accommodation available for judges assigned to courts in the provinces.

If training programs are conducted in the provinces, the Offerors should consider the most cost effective options available. USAID is willing to support the cost of renting regional training sites, hotel accommodation and meals.

USAID is not willing to provide the judiciary with a stipend to attend training programs conducted in partnership with the JTI.

Q.9 On page 15, Section C.7, in Component 2, it states that “…training programs offered to government officers may be augmented by the simultaneous procurement of tools of trade in government, such as information technology equipment, printers, and access to the Internet.” Could you elaborate on what is required here, apart perhaps from desktop computers and some printers for the 50 court stenographers? Would the project be providing laptops, printers and internet access for some number of judges trained as well as for stenographers? If so, it would be helpful if a plug figure for IT equipment and internet access could be provided in the final RFP.

Answer: USAID anticipates that the project will not provide information and communication technology equipment for the judiciary. We understand there is a separate court automation program addressing needs in this area.

Q.10 On page 16, in Section C, Deliverable Number 2.2 states – “A technical cooperation partnership between the Judges

Training Institute and a state judicial college or center in the United States is established.” Would the Mission consider allowing offerors to propose an alternate location for an appropriate judicial training institute or college?

There are relevant institutions in countries other than the US that specialize in mixed law systems that may be a better match with Sri Lanka’s own mixed legal tradition, as well as providing an opportunity for cost savings.

Answer: USAID is willing to consider alternate locations for an appropriate judicial training institute or college and Section C of the revised draft RFP has been amended accordingly.

Q.11 On Page 18 under Deliverable 3.3, the RFP provides that a road map will be developed for case management reforms. The RFP could clarify what support if any the contractor will be expected to provide for road map implementation.

Answer: The implementing Contractor’s staff and/or consultants are expected to facilitate discussions led by the Ministry of Justice with Government of Sri Lanka actors and representatives of the judiciary to develop a road map for the implementation of case management reform.

Q.12 On page 73, Section L.8 Instructions for the Technical Proposal, it states: “In designing their technical response to this statement of work, Offerors must be cognizant of the Mission‘s Democracy and Governance program and where possible, establish a credible technical approach that creates linkages between the Mission‘s Democracy and Governance, Economic Growth and Transition Initiatives programs." Since those projects are implemented by organizations that could bid on this RFP, would USAID consider making some basic information about these projects and their activities available in an Annex to the RFP, as this will help protect a level playing field?

Answer: See Section J - Attachment 8: Current USAID/Sri Lanka Program Activities.

Q.13 Page 73 of the RFP indicates “any page in the technical proposal that contains a table, chart, graph, etc., not otherwise specifically excluded below, is included within the above page limitation of the technical proposal.” In the paragraph below on page 73, the RFP states “charts” are not included in the page limitation. Would USAID please confirm that all charts are not included in the page limitation?

Answer: The revised RFP clarifies this question in Section L.

Q.14 Page 73 of the RFP provides instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal and references appendices.

The RFP could clarify what type of material is appropriate for inclusion in appendices including Program Monitoring Plans, Draft Annual Plans, and detail on methodological approaches summarized in the technical proposal.

Q.15 On Pages 74 to 75 in Section L.7, the RFP instructs that project management related sections should be in Section 2 of the Technical Proposal. On Pages 90 to 91 under Section M.3, the evaluative criteria state the project management related considerations will be evaluated as part of the Technical Approach evaluative criterion. This variation makes it difficult to determine how to organize the technical proposal.

Q.16 Pages 75 to 76 provide that key personnel should have extensive professional work experience in the implementation of justice sector and judicial training programs in the Asia region. The Chief of Party (COP) must have a Juris Doctor (JD) Degree or equivalent and a minimum of ten years’ experience in senior management positions (COP or DCOP) in the rule of law field. The Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP) must ideally have a minimum of seven years’ experience as a DCOP for justice sector programs.

In our experience the RFP’s minimum requirements for the COP and DCOP will restrict the pool of candidates significantly. We know many outstanding, energetic candidates for the COP and DCOP roles that do not meet the minimum years of experience requirements. We also know of many strong candidates with extensive judicial reform experience that do not possess a JD or equivalent (some of our strongest rule of law program COPs have not been lawyers but rather court administrators).

We understand RFP personnel requirements guide offerors on the types of candidates USAID wants to see for the project. In the end, USAID will evaluate the candidates appropriately. We do however think the minimum requirements can cause offerors to exclude candidates that they believe are appropriate for the position because of high experience requirements. We therefore suggest USAID consider:

- Making the Asia experience requirement “preferred” rather than required

- Broadening the “JD or equivalent” requirement to include “JD, public administration, international development, or related degree”

- Adjusting the number of years required for COP and DCOP candidates to “10 years rule of law experience of which five should be as COP or DCOP.”

Answer: USAID has considered this comment and Offerors are directed to Section L in the revised draft RFP.

Q.17 In Section L.8.2, on Page 76, the RFP states that "the candidates for Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of party must be non-Sri Lankan citizens and have demonstrated ability to administer such programs in an unbiased and neutral manner." Would USAID accept Cooperating Country National (CCN) candidates for the COP and DCOP roles if these individuals have a green-card or permanent residency status in a third country? 7

Answer: The COP position is restricted to non Sri Lanka nationals. The revised draft RFP indicates that Sri Lanka nationals may be nominated for the DCOP position.

Q.18 On page 76, Section L.8, Instructions for the Technical Proposal, regarding the requirements for the Senior Program

Managers for Judicial Training and Case Management & Training - given the likely difficulty of identifying Sri Lankan senior Rule of law professionals willing to leave existing employment or practice to work full time on a relatively short 30-month project, would the Mission consider allowing greater flexibility in experience and background for these two positions?

Answer: USAID is willing to allow for greater flexibility in experience and background for the abovementioned positions and Section L of the revised draft RFP has been amended accordingly.

Q.19 Page 79 of the RFP indicates the offeror should provide past performance information for up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. Would USAID please clarify if there is a fixed year period for which to provide the past performance information?

Answer: 10 years.

Q.20 Would USAID kindly provide the draft Rule of Law Assessment along with the final RFP?

Answer: USAID will make available an executive summary version of the 2010 Rule of Law assessment report as an attachment to the RFP.

Cost / Business Questions

Q.21 Can USAID kindly confirm if responses to all “expressions of interest, comments, questions and capability statements” will not be made public or not?

Answer: Comments, questions and USAID’s responses are hereby made public. Expressions of interest to the previous notice are mute at this point.

Q.22 We fear there may be a disconnect between the available funding ($4.3-$4.5M) and the requirements of the RFP.

We are concerned that the resources needed to support two expatriates long-term over the life of the project (possibly as high as $1.75 million all inclusive during the LOP) along with the 7 CCN professional staff (plus office and administrative/logistics support), and the subcontracts, sub grants, procurement and activities required to fulfill the scope of work, could exceed the funding level. We respectfully request that USAID reconsider its calculations.

Perhaps USAID could consider revising the RFP to specify a smaller number of required positions and providing illustrative activities, thereby allowing offerors to propose additional staffing and activities within the available funding that would provide the highest impact to ensure project success.

Answer: USAID has considered this comment and Offerors are directed to the revised Section L in the Request for Proposals.

Q.23 Page 5, Section B.2 states that this will be a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract. However, Section B.8 on Page 7 describes a mechanism for fee payment that would be variable, up to a maximum fee amount, which seems contrary to the FAR definition of Fixed Fee. We therefore request that USAID consider a Cost Plus Award Fee contract pursuant to

FAR 16.405.2

Answer: Proposed award is on a CPFF basis.

Q.24 In Section B.6 (pg. 7), USAID states that “The prime contractor shall not receive indirect costs that exceed rates two percentage points or 10% of the individual indirect cost rates above, whichever is lower. The prime contractor shall also negotiate ceiling indirect costs rates that do not exceed two percentage points or 10% of the individual indirect costs rates in NICRA at time of award.” Under this standard, a contractor with one or more indirect rates under 20% would receive a 10% ceiling, but a contractor with a higher indirect rate would only receive 2 percentage points of flexibility, which could amount to a ceiling only 2% or 3% above their current rate. As this phrasing seems inconsistent with agency policy on ceilings at ADS 302.3.6.8 and its incorporated CIB 92-17, can USAID please confirm that offerors should follow the policy established in the ADS and propose ceilings no greater than 10% above their current provisional rates?

Answer: The revised RFP clarifies this question in Section B.

Q.25 Page 33 Section H.2 lists the Geographic Code for this procurement as 000 United States, which will restrict the ability of offerors to work with organizations, institutions and specialists from other countries. However, given that this procurement focuses on improving the management and efficacy of the Sri Lanka legal system, it will be key to the successful implementation of this program to be able to access expertise related to similar successful improvements or best practices in countries with legal systems that are more similar to Sri Lanka than is the US. We therefore request that USAID consider revising the Geo Code to 935, Free World.

Answer: The USAID Administrator’s 2010 and 2011 blanket waivers should alleviate any issues or concerns in this area, and should an Offeror envision a need for a subcontract arrangement outside of the existing waiver parameters, then, should award be made, the Mission will consider processing a specific waiver for the requirement.

Q.26 Would USAID please confirm the applicability of the following FAR clauses included in section I (pages 47-49):

Answer:

• 52.203-14 Per FAR 3.1004(b) this may be applicable to a CR Services type contract

• 52.204-2 Per FAR 4.404(a) this may be applicable to a CR Services type contract

• 52.222-3 Per FAR 22.202 this may be applicable to a CR Services type contract

• 52.248-1 Per FAR 48.201 this may be applicable to a CR Services type contract

Q.27 Page 82 of the RFP provides a plug figure of $455,000 for grants under component 4. Would USAID please confirm the total amount for grant funding excludes fee?

Answer: The funds for the abovementioned component are limited to a maximum of 10% of the contract budget which would include any fee application proposed.

Q.28 In the Cost Proposal Instructions on page 87, Subcontracting Plan, it stipulates that “These plans must contain small business subcontracting goals of at least 20% of total planned subcontracting, including non-zero goals (greater than 1%) for each of the following: veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business.” Given that this program focuses on in-country implementation, with a significant portion of resources going to local organizations and non US businesses, we are deeply concerned that this requirement will only further diminish resources available for the transfer of expertise required. As it stands, every dollar subcontracted to non-US businesses or organizations such as law institutes, universities and other types of organizations that cannot be counted as US Small Businesses will need to be offset by an additional 20% funding to a variety of US Small Businesses. We therefore respectfully request that USAID remove the minimum requirements for all categories of US Small Business Subcontracting, and allow offerors to identify opportunities to the maximum extent possible, given the requirements of the program.

Answer: Your concern is noted and the revised RFP is now set-aside for US Small Business concerns.