Amendment 2.pdf

RFP No. SOL-497-11-000004 Higher Education, Leadership and Management (HELP) Project Amendment # 02 Page 2 of 4

SPECIFIC CHANGES IN THE RFP

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.

(10 points)

2. Provides a clear, appropriate and effective methodology for analytical support, policy review, and institutional strengthening.

The proposed methodology demonstrates both a logical sequencing

(20 points)

Amendment # 02 Page 3 of 4 of interventions, knowledge of Indonesian academia and the project’s required execution.

3. Describes a clear and specific approach to deliver interventions 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.

(15 points)

(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.

(20 points)

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)

(10 points)

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.

(5 points)

Amendment # 02 Page 4 of 4

(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 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.”

This constitutes Amendment 02 to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. SOL-497-11-000004.

[End of Amendment # 02]