Amendment_-_02.pdf

Amendment No. 2

Request for Proposal SOL-391-13-000013

PCDS – Small Business

Amendment Item 1:

(a) On the cover letter of the RFP, delete the Closing Date for Receipt of Proposals “July 28, 2017, 1500 ours (Pakistan Time)” and replace with “August 25, 2017, 1500 hours (Pakistan Time)”.

(b) On the cover Letter, end of page 2 of the RFP, delete the Contracting Officer Name “Anthony E.

Amerson” and replace it with “Patrick E. Robison”.

Amendment Item 2:

Specific changes to the Request for Proposal are as listed below:

A. In Section C.2 Background (page-10) is revised and “Direct and” deleted.

B. In Section C.4 Scope of Work, numbering of component 1 & II is revised.

C. In Section F.6.16, Media Communication Plan is revised and all bullet points deleted.

D. In Section F.6.1 replace “Within thirty (30) days after award” with “Within sixty (60) days after pre-mobilization phase is completed”.

E. In Section F.6.11, Additional Reporting Guidelines, Safeguarding Against Double Counting is revised and the word “CAP” is deleted.

F. In Section H.27a (2) is revised and “H.2” is replaced with “H.26”.

G. In Section H.30 title is revised and “ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTREST” is replaced with

“ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND MANAGEMENT”.

H. In Section I, Clause 52.219-8 and I.10 AIDAR 752.219 are deleted.

I. In Section I, Alternate of clause I.29 AIDAR 752.204-71 PARTNER VETTING (FEB 2012), Alternate 1

(FEB 2012) is deleted.

J. In Section L.6.1 (1) delete “Microsoft Word” and replace with “PDF”.

K. In Section L.7.b Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal notes delete the sentence “No annexes are permitted”.

L. In Section L.7.b Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal notes delete the bullet point

“Contractor Performance Report – Short Form” and replace with “Past performance Information Sheet”.

M. In Section L.7.b Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal notes, delete the bullet point

“Past Performance information in using small business concerns”.

N. In Section L.7.b Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal notes, delete the bullet point

“Labor Distribution Chart”.

O. In Section L.7.e b Instructions for the preparation of the technical proposal , Senior Team Leader is replaced with Chief of Party. Also in section L.7.e delete the sentence “The senior Team Leader must have Chartered Accountants certification (CPA, ACCA)”.

P. In Section L.7.f delete the existing heading and replace with “ Technical Approach / Proposed

Methodology”.

Q. In Section L.7.f add sub section iii and iv

iii. “Inception plan demonstrating how mobilization will be accomplished in a timely manner with tasks listing, descriptions, and realistic timelines. The Inception Plan must present a complete, clear, appropriate, and effective plan to meet USAID/Pakistan’s technical requirements as described in Section C. USAID will also consider the extent to which the Offeror demonstrated the reliability and prospective effectiveness of the task lists and descriptions as well as a proposed realistic mobilization and performance timeline.

iv. Demonstrate to include both men and women in all aspects of this program including participation and leadership.USAID policy requires that gender issues be addressed as appropriate in all USAID-funded activities. The technical approach will describe how gender considerations will be integrated throughout the program and into specific activities as appropriate. The Contractor must look for gender implications or opportunities in the program, seeking to address embedded gender issues and promote gender equity, as appropriate, in all phases of program implementation and internal management.”

R. In Section L.7.g insert new section Management Approach “

(g) Management Approach

The offeror must describe the overall management approach it will use to provide the services described in Section C.4 of the statement of work through which the offeror must:

• Propose a management structure which clearly demonstrates the lines of responsibility, relationships, and communication through which tasks will be managed and the extent to which the offeror’s management procedures are sound and ensure quality control. Propose the procedures to manage contract proposal requests are efficient and may appropriately engage with stakeholders, subcontractors, and other technical assistance contractors. The offeror should fully demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness to manage and ensure the reasonableness of costs to enhance the potential for program sustainability.

• Management of key personnel, including appropriateness of personnel for the job to include recruitment, retention and replacement to ensure adequate management oversight is present at all times.

Key Personnel identified under the management approach should demonstrate the capability to simultaneously manage multiple task orders involving collaborative efforts drawing upon the full range of available skills and experience available under contractual arrangements and demonstrate capability to effectively select and manage the work of local partners (with appropriate local languages) in the implementation of the project.

• Propose their organizations' proven capabilities and and experience in program management, contract management, sub-contract and/or sub-grant management and how the Offeror's experience is relevant to successfully performing Section C and achieving the overall objective.

• Propose their organizations' proven capabilities and capacity to mobilize quickly and effectively to establish a presence in the country/region, react to changing conditions in a complex and difficult environment, and move immediately to address implementation issues. “

S. Change the number sequence of Key Personnel section L.7.g to L.7.h and Past Performance Section

L.7.h to L.7.i .

T. In Section L.8.2.e.7.v replace “L.9” with “L.10”.

U. In Section L.8.2.e.9 paragraph “Indirect Cost Information: While only the prime offeror's applicable indirect costs will be utilized for evaluation purposes, the prime and all major subcontractors must propose ceiling indirect cost rates pursuant to their Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA).

These ceiling indirect cost rates will be incorporated into the contract (See Section B.6.).” is deleted.

V. In Section L.8.2.e.9 fixed fee duplicative paragraph (i) & (ii) are deleted.

W. Duplicative section L.8.8 is deleted.

X. In Section M.5, Technical Proposal Evaluation Factors, Sub Section (Factor 4) Relevant Past

Performance, Paragraph two, replace “10%” with “20%”.

Y. In Section M.5, Technical Proposal Evaluation Factors, Sub Section (Factor 4), b. ii, delete the sentence

“Prime offerors who are not small business concerns will be evaluated on their performance in using small business concerns as subcontractors, joint ventures, and in other teaming arrangements.”

Z. In Section M.5, Technical Proposal Evaluation Factors, delete entire Factors 1 to 4 and replace with the following.

Factor 1 Technical Approach 30 Points

Sub-Factor 1.1 Technical Approach [20 Points]

USAID will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Technical Approach based on the completeness and quality of the proposed plan to achieve or surpass the objectives of the SOW (As per the requirements of section

C.4 - Component I and II and conforming to preparation instructions in Section L), including capability in assembling high quality technical assistance teams including local experts and a demonstrated ability to build and maintain relationships with all stakeholders.

Sub-Factor 1(a) Inception Plan [05 Points]

USAID will evaluate the quality of the “Inception Plan” on the extent to which the offeror proposed a complete, appropriate, realistic, and effective plan to meet USAID/Pakistan’s technical requirements as described in the SOW (As per the requirements of section C.4 - Component I and II and conforming to preparation instructions in Section L).

Sub-Factor 1(b) Incorporation of Gender [05 points]

USAID will evaluate the demonstrated strength to which the approach includes both men and women in all aspects of this program including participation and leadership (As per the requirements of section C.5 and conforming to preparation instructions in Section L).

Factor 2 Management Approach 30 Points

Sub-Factor 2(a) Management Approach [20 Points]

USAID will evaluate the offeror’s proposed management structure based on the soundness and completeness of the management plan in describing the processes and approaches necessary to address all the components in the SOW (As per the requirements of section C and conforming to preparation instructions in Section L), including the appropriateness of personnel, the organizational chart, and the ability mobilize quickly.

Sub-Factor 2(b) Use of Local Partners [10 Points]USAID will evaluate the soundness and completeness of the offeror’s management plan to effectively select and manage the work of local partners (with appropriate local languages) in the implementation of the project. (conforming to preparation instructions in Section L).

Factor 3 Key Personnel 20 Points

USAID will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Personnel on the demonstrated appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience to successfully implement the activity in the SOW (As per the requirements of section C and conforming to preparation instructions in Section L).

Factor 4 Past Performance 20 Points

a. Instructions to Offeror:

Offerors are required to provide past performance references for itself and each proposed major subcontractor. Demonstrated success in providing similar services on past contracts similar in scope and cost as USAID is interested, in prior activities where the offeror has previously worked on similar assignments in minimum time.

b. Evaluation Criteria:

Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with the demonstrated breadth and depth of experience of the Offeror and any proposed major subcontractor (defined as exceeding 20% of the proposed budget for any one contract year) as it relates to the size and complexity of activities described in Section C.

(i) The contractor performance information determined to be relevant will be evaluated in accordance with the elements below:

a) Quality of product or service, including consistency in meeting goals and targets;

b) Schedule, including the timeliness against the completion of the contract, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements (e.g., efforts that contribute to or affect the schedule variance);

c) Business relations, addressing the history of professional behavior and overall business-like concern for the interests of the customer, including the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior (to include timely identification of issues in controversy), customer satisfaction, timely award and management of subcontracts, cooperative attitude in remedying problems, and timely completion of all administrative requirements;

d) Management of key personnel, including appropriateness of personnel for the job and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems with clients where identified.

(ii) Prime offerors who are not small business concerns will be evaluated on their performance in using small business concerns as subcontractors, joint ventures, and in other teaming arrangements.

(iii) Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. USAID may use performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror/subcontractor. USAID will utilize existing databases of contractor performance information and solicit additional information from the references provided in Section L of this RFP and from other sources if and when the Contracting Officer finds the existing databases to be insufficient for evaluating an offeror’s performance.

(iv) If the performance information contains negative information on which the offeror has not previously been given an opportunity to comment, USAID will provide the offeror an opportunity to comment on it prior to its consideration in the evaluation, and any offeror comment will be considered with the negative performance information.

(v) USAID will initially determine the relevance of similar performance information as a predictor of probable performance under the subject requirement. USAID may give more weight to performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current.

(vi) In instances where (a) an Offeror lacks relevant performance history, or (b) information on performance is not available, then the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on performance. The “neutral” rating assigned to any Offeror lacking relevant performance history is a score commensurate with the percentage of points received vs. possible points. Prior to assigning a

“neutral” past performance rating, the Contracting Officer may take into account a broad range of information related to an Offeror’s performance. For example, if this sub-factor is worth a possible 10 points out of a total possible point value of 100 for the technical proposal, then the Offeror’s technical proposal would have a maximum of

90 possible points. If it was assigned a score of 80 points out of the 90 maximum possible points, the

Offeror’s technical proposal for evaluation against the other Offerors would be 88.89 (i.e., 80/90).

USAID

Understands that there might be minor arithmetic differences in percentage terms as a result; however, it considers these differences to be minor and that would not impact any best value decision made under this solicitation.

Amendment Item 3:

In Section J “LIST OF ATTACHMENTS” add the following attachment:

“Attachment J-11: Questions and Answers”.

[END OF AMENDMENT 02]