Amendment 1 to SOL-497-11-000004.pdf

RFP No. SOL-497-11-000004 Higher Education, Leadership and Management (HELP) Project Amendment # 01 Page 2 of 16

PART – I: AMENDMENT - RFP NO. SOL-497-11-000004:

SPECIFIC CHANGES IN THE RFP

1. COVER LETTER

Delete the proposal submission date of “March 22, 2011” and substitute “March 28, 2011” in lieu thereof.

Delete the second paragraph on page 3 and substitute the following in lieu thereof:

“An Interested Vendor List (IVL) will be issued by an amendment of the solicitation. Interested vendors should submit the following information with regard to their organization:

1. Contact Person

2. Organization Name and Address

3. Phone Number

4. Business Type (Not more than two to three sentences)

5. NAICS Code for their organization.

This information should be submitted via email at SOL-497-11-000004@usaid.gov by March 4, 2011. The final Interested Vendor List will be issued by March 8, 2011 through an amendment. The purpose of this list is to enable firms to contact one another for consideration of teaming arrangements and/or small business subcontracting opportunities in response to this solicitation.”

2. SECTION F.7.1 “START-UP PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN”

Delete the fifth bullet in its entirety.

Delete the “Note” at the end of this section and substitute the following in lieu thereof:

“*Note: The Contractor’s Chief of Party is required to arrive in-country no later than 30 days following the contract award date.”

3. SECTION F.7.6 “CLOSE-OUT PLAN”

Delete the first bullet and substitute the following in lieu thereof:

“Dates for final delivery of all goods and services for sub-awards”

Amendment # 01 Page 3 of 16

4. SECTION H.5.1 “ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL

COMPENSATION”

Delete H.5.1.I(3) Short Term Technical Assistance (STTA) in its entirety and substitute following in lieu thereof:

“(3) Short-term Technical Assistance (STTA) – Any six-day workweek proposed for STTA requires prior written approval of the COTR. This approval does not incorporate the payment of premium pay, defined to include overtime pay. Any request proposed for premium pay requires prior written approval by the Contracting Officer.”

5. SECTION J – “LIST OF ATTACHMENTS”

Insert the following at the end of this section:

“Attachment 9 - Assessment of Higher Education Institutional Capacity in Selected Geographical and Subject Areas”

(Note: This attachment is now available at www.fbo.gov with this solicitation)

6. Section L.7.2 DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS:

Delete (b)(ii) in its entirety and substitute following in lieu thereof:

“ii) Hand delivery (including commercial courier) – Submit/mail proposals to:

Via Hand-Delivered/Courier Service

U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Procurement c/o American Embassy Jalan Merdeka Selatan No. 3-5 Jakarta 20110, Indonesia Attn: Mr. Dale Lewis, Contracting Officer”

7. Section L.9 “Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal”:

Delete L.9.3(c) “Staffing Pattern and Key Personnel” in its entirety and substitute following in lieu thereof:

“(c) Key Personnel, Staffing Pattern and Management Structure

[see Section F and M.3(b)]

Amendment # 01 Page 4 of 16

The Offeror shall include, in an annex, resumes/CVs for all key personnel candidates. Resumes may not exceed three pages in length and shall be in chronological order starting with most recent experience. Each resume shall be accompanied by a signed letter of commitment from each candidate indicating his/her: (a) availability to serve in the stated position, in terms of months; after award; and (b) intention to serve for a stated term of the service. The Offeror shall also submit a minimum of three (3) references of professional contacts within the last three years. Offerors should provide current phone, fax address, and email address for each reference contact.

Proposals shall (1) identify all proposed partners and discuss their respective roles and responsibilities; (2) specify the composition and organizational structure of the entire project team (including country office and field sub-offices); (3) describe each staff member’s role, technical expertise, and estimated amount of time each will devote to the project; (4) identify areas in which short-term technical assistance (STTA) will be provided, with an illustrative estimate of level of effort for each identified local or international STTA need. Offerors may propose a mix of international and domestic advisors and specialists to cover the full range of objectives and activities; and (5) specify how sub-contracting or institutional partnerships will be used, if any, in order to support contract objectives.”

Delete L.9.3(d) “Corporate Capability and Proposed Management Plan” in its entirety and substitute following in lieu thereof:

“(d) Corporate/Institutional Capability [see Section M.3(c)]

Offerors must provide evidence of their technical and managerial resources and expertise (or their ability to obtain such) in program management, design and delivery of technical assistance, development of relationships with universities and with government offices, as well as their experience in managing similar programs in Indonesia or elsewhere. Information in this section should include, but is not limited to, the following:

Brief description of organizational history/expertise;

Past experience and examples of accomplishments in developing and implementing similar programs in Indonesia or elsewhere;

Relevant experience with proposed approaches;

Institutional strength as represented by breadth and depth of experienced personnel in project relevant disciplines/areas and working relationships in pre and in-service training;

Sub-awardee or subcontractor capabilities and expertise; and Financial controls.”

Amendment # 01 Page 5 of 16

8. Section M.3 “Technical Evaluation Criteria”:

Delete this section in its entirety and substitute following in lieu thereof:

“M.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will conduct its evaluation of Offerors’ Technical Proposals as prescribed herein.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

(a) Technical Approach and Understanding 45 points

(b) Key Personnel, Staffing Pattern and Management Structure

35 points

(c) Corporate/Institutional Capability 10 points

(d) Past Performance 10 points

100 points

The following evaluation criteria (1) serve as the standard against which all proposals will be evaluated; and (2) serve to identify the significant matters which Offerors should address in their proposals. The Criteria and sub-criteria are presented below, with the major criteria in descending order of importance with their associated evaluation weighting.

(a) Technical Approach and Understanding

(See Section C and Section L.9.3(b) )

45 POINTS

The Offeror will be evaluated on the creativity and flexibility of its approach to project implementation, as well as its proposed project structure and understanding of those efforts requisite for effective and successful achievement of the objectives outlined in Section C the Statement of Work. The evaluation will be based on the following:

1. Demonstrates a clear understanding of the problems identified in Section

C.3 and thorough knowledge of the technical assistance required to address these challenges. Exhibits comprehensive knowledge of those institutions that demonstrate leadership in problem solving.

2. Provides a clear, appropriate and effective methodology for analytical support, policy review, and institutional strengthening. The proposed methodology demonstrates both a logical sequencing of interventions, knowledge of Indonesian academia and the project’s required execution.

3. Describes a clear and specific approach to deliver interventions

Amendment # 01 Page 6 of 16 which meet the expected project objectives, results, and required activities as identified in Section C.4. Statement of Work, Work Plans as required by Section C.5.7 and Performance Management Plan as described in Section C.6. The approach will be evaluated as to its plan to carry out activities within the three (3) stages and Components A thru E as prescribed within C.4, taking into consideration activities needed to accomplish measurable results, utilizing pragmatism and creativity in the overall approach.

Timelines and sequencing of interventions should reflect understanding of tasks and concept.

(b) Key Personnel, Staffing Pattern and Management Structure (See Section C.8 and L.9.3 (c)

35 POINTS

The Offerors’ staffing patterns and key personnel will be evaluated based on the following:

1. Key Personnel. Individuals proposed as key personnel will be evaluated for their strengths and skills, including education and prior work experience and past performance, interpersonal skills, technical skills and knowledge of the area of work for which they are proposed. They will be evaluated in terms of their ability to fulfill the criteria described in Section C.8.

2. Staffing Pattern. The proposed staffing pattern will be evaluated on the extent to which the proposed positions will provide the requisite expertise, experience, language skills, and other capabilities necessary to effectively launch and implement the contract (see also C.9 Gender), including all other personnel as described within C.8.2.(a) thru (d)

3 The Government will evaluate the quality and responsiveness of the proposed management structure reflected in the proposed management plan. The management structure will be evaluated as to the technical competencies, capacity to expeditiously structure teams and commence rapid program start-up, and the ability to respond to the needs of the program during implementation. The evaluation will consider the soundness and functionality of the plan to manage the contract and achieve the desired project results and outcomes as well as the proposed level of support from the Home Office.

(c) Corporate/Institutional Capability [See Section L.9.3 (d)] 10 POINTS

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated as to its relevant demonstrable capability as well as of any proposed subcontractor to carry out the work described within Section C. in accordance with the following:

USAID will evaluate Offerors and their proposed major subcontractors on the depth of their corporate capabilities and their organizational experience

Amendment # 01 Page 7 of 16 in managing similar programs. The evaluation will consider the depth of the offeror in the context of being capable of successfully implementing the project.

(d) Past Performance (See Section L.9.3 (e)

10 POINTS

The contractor and major subcontractor(s) (defined as exceeding 10% of the proposed budget for any one contract year) performance information determined to be relevant will be evaluated in accordance with: demonstrated success in implementation of programs of similar size and complexity, timeliness of performance, including adherence to contract schedules and other time-sensitive project conditions; and effectiveness of home and field office management to make prompt decisions and ensure efficient completion of tasks; effectiveness of key personnel, including retention of key personnel and prompt and satisfactory changes in personnel when problems with clients where identified; cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting.

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 # 01 Page 8 of 16

PART II: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM OFFERORS:

Q1. The cover letter and Section L.7.2 state that the original and hard copies of the proposal must be submitted by the date on the cover letter, 3:00pm (Jakarta time) on March 22, 2011. Given that courier service from the United States to Jakarta takes at least three business days, would USAID accept the e-submission of our proposal by 3:00pm local time on March 22, 2011 as the official version, to be followed by hard copies delivered to the Mission no later than March 25, 2011?

Ans: Both, electronic and hard copies are required by proposal submission date and time.

Q2. The cover letter and Section L.7.2 (b) (i) indicate that six (6) hard copies of the technical proposal should be submitted, but Section L.7.2 (b) (ii) on page 124 of the RFP indicates that only five (5) hard copies of the technical proposal need to be submitted. Please clarify whether offerors should submit five or six copies of the technical proposal.

Ans: Please see Part I.6 of this Amendment.

Q3. Section L.9.2 lists the documents that are not included in the page limitation.

Please confirm that an acronym page will not count against the page limit.

Ans: Yes, acronym page will not count against the page limit.

Q4. Would USAID allow for the 30-page narrative in the technical volume to be numbered consecutively (per Section L.9.2) and the annexes to remain unnumbered or numbered separately, each starting from 1?

Ans: Each document should be numbered separately.

Q5. For the cost volume, would USAID allow for the cost notes and spreadsheets to be numbered consecutively, and the rest of the sections in the cost volume to remain unnumbered? Most of these sections will contain PDF files that we are unable to number, such as biographical data sheets and NICRAs.

Ans: Budget narrative and spreadsheets should be numbered separately. The Offerors should use their own judgment about other documents.

Q6. Would USAID consider providing advance approval of a 6-day work week for

STTA in this contract?

Ans: USAID may approve 6-day workweek for STTA following of award. See Part I.4 of this amendment.

Amendment # 01 Page 9 of 16

Q7. On page 58, Section F.7.1, the RFP states: “*Note: The Contractor’s Chief of

Party is required to arrive in-country no later than 15 days following the contract award date.” As Section L.7.1 of the RFP indicates that the validity of offer is for 210 days, is it possible for USAID to either provide an estimated start date for HELM or allow the offerer to confirm the chief of party’s availability to arrive in-country no later than 30 days following the contract award date? This will allow offerors to communicate a possible timeframe with potential Chiefs of Party in order to plan start dates accordingly.

Ans: The USAID is anticipating making this award by July 30, 2011 and project Start date could be in August. Please note that Contractor’s Chief of Party arrival in-country is required no later than 30 days following the contract award. The solicitation has been amended accordingly, please see Part I of this amendment.

Q8. On page 70 of the RFP, Section H.5.1 (b) states that “Salaries and wages must be reflective of the ‘market value’ for each position along with salary history. By example, the ‘market value’ for an expatriate Chief of Party under a USAID project in Indonesia is in the range of $94,000 to $130,000”. Please confirm that in addition to the market value established by USAID, that the offeror may also take into account salary history when negotiating a proposed salary.

Ans: Offerors should propose salaries which are reflective of the candidate’s salary history, organizational policies and procedures and the position’s market value.

Offerors are advised to thoroughly read the provisions at Section H.5.1(b) of the solicitation.

Q9. In section H.5 (a) the RFP states that “Direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.”

Section H.5.1 (f) however states that salary ceilings have been established for international CCN staff. Please clarify.

Ans: See Q8.

Q10. Would USAID please clarify whether the Subcontractor Information requested in

L.12.6(4), such as the NICRA, Section K, Policies, and Information Concerning Work-day, Work-week, and Paid Absences, should be submitted in Part 6 as instructed on p.138, or with their respective sections as instructed for Parts (2), (3), (4), and (7) of L.12 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost Proposal?

Ans: The information on Subcontractor should be submitted in Part 6.

Q11. In Section L.12.6 Part 6: Sub-Contractor Information (3) of the RFP, it states” A discussion and arrangement of type(s) of subcontract(s) to be used, and approximate percentage of each type of work to be subcontracted” must be

Amendment # 01 Page 10 of 16 included. Can USAID please clarify what is meant by "percentage of each type of work"?

Ans: The text which reads “percentage of each type of work” is to be interpreted as which will be preferred by a sub-contractor as recorded in U.S. Dollar value.

Q12. Can USAID please provide a plug figure for the expected grants program?

Ans: References to grants has been deleted. See Part I of the Amendment.

Q13. Can USAID please confirm that the contract will include authorization to award grants under contract?

Ans: See Q12.

Q14. We need to know if participation in the HELM project as a sub-contractor or partner would preclude the university unit from participating in another USAID-funded project, such as the upcoming procurement for University Partnerships

(UP).

Ans: The Successful offeror for this project and its sub-contractors will not be precluded to participate from any other USAID project.

Q15. How will they select and with what criteria the universities in target group? Will religious and private universities be picked? Rural and urban? Outer islands and Java? Institutions with relationships with academies and polytechnics, which now have articulated programs with universities (career ladders)?

Ans: Offerors may propose any religious, private, urban, rural and outer island institutions which meet the criteria stated in Section C.4.5 of the RFP.

Q16. Does USAID have a preference for the size of the institutions that are selected for

HELM?

Ans: See Q15.

Q17. On page 17 - Is it possible to get a list of and access to the "Numerous formal and informal assessments" that "indicate that the majority of lecturers at higher education institutions neither employ effective instructional methodologies nor use relevant, high-quality curriculum."?

Ans: USAID does not have list of and access to "Numerous formal and informal assessments" that "indicate that the majority of lecturers at higher education institutions neither employ effective instructional methodologies nor use relevant, high-quality curriculum." However, Offerors are suggested to read DIKTI’s Strategic Plan available at www.dikti.go.id/dmdocuments/HELTS2003-2010E.pdf

Amendment # 01 Page 11 of 16 and USAID’s report on “Assessment of Higher Education Institutional Capacity in Selected Geographical and Subject Areas” attached (See Prat I of this Amendment). Offerors are also advised to review the MONE and MORA higher education websites as well as other related higher education links, such as BAN- PT (National Accreditation Board for Higher Education).

MONE http://dikti.kemdiknas.go.id/ MORA http://pendis.kemenag.go.id BAN-PT (National Accreditation Board for Higher Education) http://ban-pt.depdiknas.go.id

Q18. On page 24, it is noted that 'In light of this situation, DIKTI has requested assistance to help DIKTI and a select set of Indonesian higher education institutions develop, implement, and disseminate effective solutions" Has the "select set of institutions" already been selected? If so, which ones have been selected? If not, is there already a process and timeline for conducting such a selection?

Ans: The “select set of institutions’ has not been identified yet. Section C.4.4, “Results, Required Activities, and Deliverables”, Component C Deliverable 13 requires that the,: “Selection of 25 institutions of higher education due by the beginning of Year 2”.

Q19. On page 34 –No. 4, “Conduct a collaborative assessment of a strategic sample of

10 Indonesian higher education institutions to inform the development of follow-on activities”. Are these 10 Indonesian higher education institutions included in the 25 that will be selected?

Ans: The 10 Indonesian higher education institutions might be included in the 25 that will be selected.

Q20. Articulation with high schools for curriculum transition and recruitment. Will there be a place for this in activities of project, since the universities are dependent upon prepared students and need to offer a minimum of remediation and redundancy (efficiency consideration); are there any mechanisms for HS/university articulation? What are the graduation rates from HS and what are the projections of college enrollments for net ten years and what is the availability of other demographics related to HE development?

Ans: No. HELM focuses on providing technical assistance to strengthen the capacity of

Indonesian higher education institutions to perform effectively in four core areas:

financial management; general administration and management; quality assurance; and collaborative with external stakeholders.

Q21. What kind of governing boards are there for the institutions, both public and private and do they have accountability requirements? If so, what are they? Can

Amendment # 01 Page 12 of 16 we have a description of the governance of Indonesian HE at national (DIKTI an MORA), provincial and local institutional levels and the role of DIKTI and MORA in management, coordination and accountability versus provincial and institutional controls?

Ans: All information regarding MONE and MORA higher education institutions is available at:

MONE http://dikti.kemdiknas.go.id/ MORA http://pendis.kemenag.go.id

Q22. Will Indonesians be counterparts on the project and can Indonesian academics and administrators be used as short and long term consultants, especially those whom we have educated and those who have the required background and expertise to be involved?

Ans: Please see Component C.8, “Staffing”, which states, “USAID encourages the use of Indonesian professionals to the greatest extent possible. Where qualified Indonesian professionals are not available, the Contractor will consider building the capacity of senior Indonesian professionals to take over increasing levels of responsibility during the course of the project”.

Q23. Does the accrediting board (BAN) have its own EMIS for accountability purposes? Does DIKTI have an EMIS and does MORA still have its own EMIS?

Ans: All information related to MONE and MORA higher education institutions is available at:

MONE http://dikti.kemdiknas.go.id/ MORA http://pendis.kemenag.go.id BAN (National Accreditation Board for Higher Education) http://ban-pt.depdiknas.go.id KOPERTIS Private University Consortium http://www.dikti.org

Q24. Who will do the monitoring and evaluation of the project? The ex-pats or

Indonesians or both in partnership?

Ans: Please see Section C.6.3, “Monitoring and Evaluation”. “The Contractor will be responsible for establishing and operationalizing a user friendly monitoring and evaluation capability and a project-level Performance Management Plan (PMP), to plan, manage, and document how performance data are collected and used”.

Offerors should propose monitoring and evaluation of the project in accordance with Sections C.6.3, C.8 and other requirements stated in the solicitation.

Amendment # 01 Page 13 of 16

Q25. What will be the mix between long and short term consultants?

Ans: Offerors should propose staffing as per the requirements stated in SOW and

Section C.8 of the Solicitation. Specifically Section C.8.2, “Other Personnel”, which states “The Offeror is required to propose, recruit, and maintain a team of technical experts and supporting staff to implement the program described in this scope of work and manage its range of central and institutionally-based activities.

The Offeror should propose a staffing pattern that includes resident positions, consultant, short-term technical assistance, institutional service providers, and/or other staffing arrangements that is adequate to achieve the desired results. The Offeror should propose a defendable mix of policy advisors, technical specialists, and other types of positions or modalities of assistance, in light of the proposed technical approach”.

Q26. Can we use a cascade training model?

Ans: Please see Section M.3.a, “Technical Approach and Understanding”. “The

Offeror will be evaluated on the creativity and flexibility of its approach to project implementation, as well as its proposed project structure and understanding of those efforts requisite for effective and successful achievement of the objectives outlined in Section C, ”The Statement of Work”.

Q27. To what extent have representatives from individual campus institutions been involved in developing the 2003-2010 National Strategy? In the current revision of the national strategy?

Ans: USAID was not involved in the development of DIKTI’s 2003-2010 Strategic

Plan. Therefore, USAID is not in the position to answer this question.

Q28. In the description of the elements related to "Organizational Capacity" - what are the "peer organizations" that DIKTI and constituent institutions should rely more heavily upon for fulfilling key functions?

Ans: The “Organizational Capacity – Rely more heavily on peer organizations to fulfill key functions” is quoted from 2003-2010 Strategic Plan for Higher Education, Chapter III.A “Institutional Capacity Building”, bullet 35. “Responding to paradigm changes in the context of autonomy and decentralization, institutions should consistently improve their institutional capacity and assure quality toward a particular standard. However, due to the disparity among institutions, in terms of development stage, wealth, and opportunity, different implementation practices are needed. Good practice should be inventoried, published, and disseminated by DGHE to institutions, in accordance with their peer groups. In addition, DGHE should provide leadership and guidance, through various capacity building programs and financial as well as academic incentives for those who adopt and implement such practices”.

Amendment # 01 Page 14 of 16

Ans: The “Organizational Capacity – Rely more heavily on peer organizations to fulfill key functions” is quoted from 2003-2010 Strategic Plan for Higher Education, Chapter III.A “Institutional Capacity Building”, bullet 35. “Responding to paradigm changes in the context of autonomy and decentralization, institutions should consistently improve their institutional capacity and assure quality toward a particular standard. However, due to the disparity among institutions, in terms of development stage, wealth, and opportunity, different implementation practices are needed. Good practice should be inventoried, published, and disseminated by DGHE to institutions, in accordance with their peer groups. In addition, DGHE should provide leadership and guidance, through various capacity building programs and financial as well as academic incentives for those who adopt and implement such practices”.

Peer groups in this context means other institutions which share the same development stage.

For more information about DIKTI’s Strategic Plan please go to www.dikti.go.id/dmdocuments/HELTS2003-2010E.pdf.

Q29. What Indonesian universities (if any) does USAID want to ensure are included to partner on this project? Or, is it entirely open at this point?

Ans: See Q15.

Q30. The RFP states the period of performance is 5 years, however, there was no start date listed. Can USAID estimate when the start date will be for budgeting and planning purposes?

Ans: See Q7.

Q31. Since approximately half of the targeted institutions will be nominated by USAID based on linkage to other USAID projects and DIKTI priorities. Is it possible to know how many will be selected from Java Island only to help us strategically select the rest of the 25 institutions among 33 provinces?

Ans: No more than 10 of the institutions will be located on the island of Java. Please see Section C.4.5, “Key Beneficiaries and Selection of Target Universities”.

Q32. Will the PAG consist of provincial representatives or strictly from their offices in

Jakarta? Same question for DIKTI offices?

Ans: The PAG might consist of provincial representatives as long as the members are from the higher education community, such as BAN-PT, KOPERTIS, academic leaders, and NGOs (Please see Section C.5.1.b). However, since DIKTI does not have offices at the provincial levels, PAG members from DIKTI should be from the Jakarta office.

Amendment # 01 Page 15 of 16

Q33. Section F.7.1 identifies “a mechanism and procedures for grant making” as a step in project start-up and in Section F.7.6, grants are mentioned in the context of project close-out. Three related questions follow:

i. Would USAID indicate how grants are anticipated to be used on

HELM?

ii. Would USAID provide an estimate of the amount of funding intended for grants?

iii. Would USAID include authorization to award grants under contract?

Ans: See Q12.

Q34. In regards to the work week for STTA, which is discussed in Section H.5.1, page 73, would USAID consider providing advance approval of a 6-day work week for STTA in this contract?

Ans: Any such approvals will be considered upon their submittal during the implementation of the project. See Q6.

Q35. Section H.5.1 (f) states the salary ceiling for international and CCN staff, but section H.5 (a) says direct compensation of personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract. Does one of these statements take precedence over the other?

Ans: All cited factors are considered in establishing salaries. See Q8.

Q36. Referring to Section L.7.2, would USAID consider the electronic copies of the proposal as the official submission, allowing for hard copies to arrive soon after?

Ans: See Q1.

Q37. Referring to L.9.2 and L.9.3, is the executive summary part of the 30-page limit of the technical proposal?

Ans: The executive summary is part of the 30-page limit.

Q38. Referring to Sections L.9.3.(d), should the offeror present the organizational structure and roles and qualification of staff and STTA in the section “corporate capability and proposed management plan?” Or, should the offeror present the staffing pattern and qualifications of the staff in the section “staffing pattern and key personnel,” as per M.2(b)?

Ans: See Part I of this Amendment.

Amendment # 01 Page 16 of 16

Q39. Section L.12.6 (3) states, “A discussion and arrangement on type(s) of subcontract(s) to be used, and approximate percentage of each type of work to be subcontracted.” Would USAID clarify what is meant by “percentage of each type of work”?

Ans: See Q11.

Q40. On page three of the cover letter of the RFP, it is mentioned that offerors can register on the Interested Vendor List (IVL) but we couldn’t find such a list on www.fedbizopps.gov for this project?

Ans: Due to technical reasons this list cannot be activated at the FedBizOpps at this stage. An Interested Vendor List (IVL) is being issued through this Amendment.

USAID is planning to issue the IVL by March 8. Interested organizations should submit information as per Part I of this amendment.

This constitutes Amendment 01 to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. SOL-497-11-000004.

[End of Amendment # 01]

INTERESTED VENDOR LIST

No. Contact Person Contractor Business Types NICS Codes

1 Ray Giles Vice President

College Brain Trust 1415 L Street, Suite 720, Sacramento, CA.

USA 95661

(916) 446-5058

The College Brain Trust is an educational consulting firm providing academic, planning, research, governance, human resource and financial expertise to community colleges throughout the United States.

College Brain Trust consultants are former college presidents, vice presidents and deans who are experienced experts in all phases of higher education management, decision-making, teaching and learning.

611710

2. Edwin Eisendrath Managing Director

Huron Consulting Group 550 W. Van Buren Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 880-0414

Huron Consulting Group is a full-service consulting firm with the world’s largest practice dedicated to providing strategic, financial, and operations consulting services for higher education institutions.

541611