SOL-514-13-000001_Amendment_No._3.pdf

SOL-514-13-000001

Amendment No. 3

EVAL Project Q&A

Evaluation and Analysis for Learning (EVAL) Project

RFP No. SOL-514-13-000001 Questions and Answers

1. Can an organization that currently has a contract with USAID submit a proposal?

Yes. As the RFP states, the solicitation is open to all interested organizations.

2. The cover letter states that the solicitation is open to all interested organizations.

However, section L.7 states that there is a small-business set-aside. Which one is it?

Amendment No. 1 of the RFP clarified that the solicitation is open to all interested organizations. The language referring to a small business set-aside was removed.

3. On the first page of the RFP, in the cover letter, the closing date and time of the RFP is listed as January 9, 2012. Could you please amend this reference to January 9, 2013?

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation has corrected the due date of proposals to January 17, 2013.

4. On page 2 of the RFP, in the second page of the cover letter, offerors are instructed to direct their electronic proposals to Mr. R. Clark Pearson (rpearson@usaid.gov), with copy to Mr. William Fothergill (wfothergill@usaid.gov); however, page 85 of the RFP instructs offerors to submit their electronic proposals to Mr. William Fothergill;

and Mrs. Christine Edwards (chredwards@usaid.gov). Would you please confirm that electronic proposal should be submitted to Mr. R. Clark Pearson, with copies to Mr. William Fothergill and Mrs. Christine Edwards?

Confirmed. Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation has included R. Clark Pearson (rpearson@usaid.gov) on Page 85 as one of the addressees to which proposals must be sent.

5. In Section C of the RFP, in the second paragraph at the top of page 15, it states:

“The Advisor will be the individual bearing primary responsibility for technical aspects of contract performance.” Would you please confirm that “Advisor” should be replaced with “Lead Evaluation Expert”?

Amendment No. 2 of the Solicitation deleted “The Advisor will be the individual bearing primary responsibility for technical aspects of contract performance.”

6. In Section L.8, Proposal Format and Content, on page 86 of the RFP, in paragraph iii at the top of the page it says “title pages and tables of contents are included from the page counts specified in paragraph (i).” However, further down in that section it states: “Also not subject to the 20-page limitation are: - Cover Page; - Table of Contents…” Can you please confirm that the table of contents and title pages do not count toward the 20-page technical proposal limit?

Amendment No. 2 of the Solicitation has specified that the title pages and tables of contents are excluded from the 20-page limit.

7. In Section L.8, Proposal Format and Content, on page 86 of the RFP, case studies are listed as one of the annex/exhibits to the Technical Proposal that are not subject to the 20 page limitation. However, case studies do not appear to be mentioned elsewhere in the RFP as a submission requirement. Would you please confirm that case studies are not applicable to this RFP?

Amendment No. 2 of the Solicitation has excluded case studies from Page 86.

8. In the same section as indicated in the question immediately above, on page 86 of the RFP, Employee Biographical Data Sheets are listed as a required annex to the Technical Proposal. Given that Biodata Sheets include pricing information, which is prohibited from being included in the Technical Proposal, would you please confirm that the Biodata Sheets should only be included in the Cost/Business Proposal, and not in the Technical Proposal?

Amendment No. 2 of the Solicitation excludes Biographical Data Sheets from the Technical Proposal.

9. In the same section as indicated in the question immediately above, on page 86 of the RFP, “Past Performance Information and Summary Chart” are listed as a required annex/exhibit to the Technical Proposal. Would you please confirm that the “Past Performance Information and Summary Chart” annex/exhibit should consist solely of a matrix containing a summary of five (5) past performance references from the offeror and major subcontractor(s)?

Past Performance Information and Summary Chart annex/exhibit should consist of a matrix containing a summary of five (5) past performance references from the offeror and major subcontractor(s), AND any relevant information regarding the offeror’s actual performance on those projects that would demonstrate a successful history of past performance in projects of similar scope and size. For more information on how USAID will evaluate past performance, please see Section M.3.

10. In Section L.9, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, on page 88 of the RFP it states: “The offeror will submit a complete and current resume, no more than three (3) pages in length, for each of the Key Personnel…The offeror will also submit three (3) references with complete contact information, for the proposed candidates...” Would you please confirm that the references do not need to be contained in these three (3) pages and may be included on a fourth page?

The listed references should be included within the three (3) page limit of the résumés.

11. In Section L.9, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, at the bottom of page 89 of the RFP, USAID recommends that offerors “utilize Attachment 2 (Past Performance Questionnaire) to request Past Performance feedback from your contacts, to be sent to USAID directly. Offerors must complete the top portion of this form and advise contacts to submit the completed form to wfothergill@usaid.gov and chredwards@usaid.gov.” However, the Past Performance Questionnaire included as Attachment 2 on page 122 of the RFP contains the following information: “REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS No.: 518-12-000004. Please fill out the following questionnaire as clearly and as objectively as possible. The information you provide will be used for source selection purposes. Please send the filled out questionnaire directly to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Peru by email at LimaSolicitations@usaid.gov, not later than October 16, 2012.” We have the following related questions:

a. Would you please confirm that Attachment 2 should read: “REQUEST FOR

PROPOSALS No.: 514-13-000001. Please fill out the following questionnaire as clearly and as objectively as possible. The information you provide will be used for source selection purposes. Please send the filled out questionnaire directly to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Colombia by email to wfothergill@usaid.gov and chredwards@usaid.gov...”?

Amendment No. 2 of the Solicitation has corrected the solicitation number to SOL-514-13-000001 and the E-mail addresses for wfothergill@usaid.gov, chredwards@usaid.gov and rpearson@usaid.gov have been included.

b. Additionally, would you please provide an amended deadline for receipt of the

Past Performance Questionnaires as this RFP was issued on November 23, 2012 and the due date listed in the attachment is October 16, 2012?

Amendment No. 2 of the Solicitation has corrected the due date to January 17, 2013.

12. Page 86 requests that letters of commitment from subcontractors be placed in an annex of the technical proposal, whereas page 96 requests that these letters be included in the cost proposal. Please clarify where offerors should place letters of commitment from subcontractors.

Letters of Commitment should be part of the Cost Proposal. See RFP Amendment No. 2.

13. Page 86 requests that letters of commitment from individual consultants be placed with resumes in the technical proposal, while page 96 notes that these letters should be placed in the cost proposal with the Biodata sheets. Please clarify where offerors should include these letters.

Letters of Commitment should be part of the Cost Proposal. See RFP Amendment No. 2.

14. A case study is indicated as an annex on page 86; however, the RFP does not reference a format or the requirements for the case study. Please clarify.

Amendment No. 2 of the RFP excluded Case Studies.

15. Will the evaluation projects be assigned on a task order basis, similar to an IQC or should proposals include full budgets for all evaluation activities listed in the RFP, including primary data collection requirements in Colombia?

As stated in the RFP, “USAID/Colombia anticipates awarding a cost reimbursement completion-type contract as a result of this solicitation.”

This is not an IQC and Task Orders will not be issued. Proposals should include full budgets.

16. Must the proposal specifically name local Colombian vendors who would provide administrative support services? Or merely provide evidence that the contractor has experience with and access to such vendors?

It depends on what is meant by “administrative support services.” Local subcontractors responsible for significant portions or the success of the performance under this contract must be named and their budgets and letters of commitment must be included in the proposals.

17. Would winning this contract preclude the contractor from submitting to any USAID contracts for work in Colombia that might be issued during the period of performance?

Please refer to Section H.34 of the RFP regarding Conflicts of Interest associated with performance under this contract.

18. In the introduction to the solicitation it is stated that "All types of organizations are eligible to compete." However, in Section L.7 (1) it is stated that "This Solicitation is a small business set-aside." Could you please clarify the competition type for this contract?

Amendment No. 1 of the solicitation clarifies that the competition is full and open.

19. On page 86 of the RFP, there is reference to case studies. However, case studies are not mentioned elsewhere in the RFP. Can USAID provide further guidance on the case studies (i.e., number required, types).

Amendment No. 2 of the RFP excluded Case Studies.

20. Given the upcoming holidays and the fact that many institutions and organizations in

Colombia will be closed, will USAID consider an extension to the submission deadline?

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation has extended the due date for proposals.

21. In order to properly budget for security, can USAID confirm if mission personnel travel in armored vehicles anywhere in Colombia?

Yes, Mission personnel travel in armored vehicles in areas where there are security risks.

22. On page 91 of the RFP, letter “C”, (2) Proposed Costs/Prices is stated: “… Provide a statement verifying that you have an approved Accounting System… a statement of your Cost Accounting Standards Disclosure Statement, and the status of any unresolved Cost Accounting Standard issues.” Please clarify if the following can suffice in place of said requirement: a) The issuance of a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) which includes approval of URC’s accounting procedures, consistent with FAR Part 31 or b) Cost Accounting Standards and Notices and Certification (as per FAR 52.230-1).

Yes, a NICRA suffices, when available. Otherwise, the requirement stands.

23. On page 92 of the RFP, iv. Procurement: “The offeror must submit a list of proposed non-expendable property… including the manufacturer…” Please confirm that USAID is requesting to include possible manufacturers for all listed items.

The manufacturer should be submitted, if available. However, given that the “origin” requirement for procurement of goods and services is no longer part of USAID regulation (rather only source and nationality), you may omit this information if it is not available.

24. RFP section L.8 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT, (3) Proposal Page

Limitation, iii, states, "- Case Studies (There is a 4-page limit for every case study)".

We find no other reference to these case studies in the RFP. Would USAID confirm that case studies form part of the RFP requirements for the Technical Proposal and, if so, clarify:

a. What its expectations are for the inclusion of case studies, i.e., what studies they might refer to, how many they would like, etc.; and

b. How these case studies relate to RFP section "M.3 Evaluation Factors"?

Since the presentation of case studies requires significant technical input and preparation from bidders, and considering the timeline for this proposal includes a major holiday period during which human resources will not be readily available for consultations, we request that USAID respond to this question as soon as possible.

25. Please advise the correct addressee and date for submitting information on the past performance questionnaires we are providing to our past performance references.

Amendment No. 2 of the RFP clarifies to whom past performance references must be sent.

26. The USAID MONITOR MIS represents an important tool for informing the design of program evaluations and understanding what tools already exist to support evaluations, as opposed to what might be proposed under the EVAL project. The MONITOR implementers’ Web site states the following: "The MONITOR system includes separate interfaces for users from USAID, implementing partners, and other read-only users, ability to generate reports at the activity, program, project, and Mission levels, interfaces in English and Spanish, user manuals and online tutorials, and integrated secondary and GIS data." Would USAID provide limited access to the MONITOR system for the purpose of informing proposals? If not, would USAID provide a detailed description of the system’s capabilities and the information it contains?

USAID does not consider the requested information necessary for the preparation of the offerors’ proposals.

27. Would USAID share its results framework and PMP so that the various evaluations can be put into the context of the USAID/Colombia objectives and results indicators?

No, USAID cannot share its results framework and PMP at those documents are internal to USAID.

28. Would USAID please provide information regarding how VAT is recovered under

USAID contracts in Colombia? Considering this, how are contractors expected to treat VAT in program budgets?

Upon award, USAID provides letters to contractors that allow for VAT reimbursements in Colombia. Thus VAT should be EXCLUDED from the budgets.

29. Are the existing prime and subcontractors implementing the programs listed on page

33 eligible to submit a proposal in response to the Evaluation and Analysis for Learning RFP, or would this constitute a conflict of interest?

Organizational Conflicts of Interest are governed by Section H.34 of the RFP and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

30. Will the prime and/or subcontractors awarded the EVAL Project be restricted from participating as a prime or subcontractor on future USAID/Colombia procurements during the life of the EVAL Project?Please kindly provide the size limit of each attachment for submission.

Please see Section H.34 of the RFP regarding Conflicts of Interest, and AIDAR 752.209-71 titled "Organizational Conflicts of Interest Discovered after Award".

31. Please confirm that short term technical assistance and long term technical assistance that the Contractor proposes (exclusive of the key personnel) do not require signed letters of commitment nor two page CVs from each individual.

Confirmed.

32. Please clarify that the contractor is not to submit a roster of Short Term Technical

Assistance and Long Term Technical Assistance in a matrix.

This question is unclear. Please follow the budget format provided, if this question is regarding cost. If the question is regarding names of consultants/employees, they should also be provided, to the extent that they are known.

33. It appears that biodatas are to be attached to the Technical Proposal. Please advise whether the biodata sheets could be attached as annex to the Cost Proposal instead.

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation excludes Biodata sheets from the technical proposal. They should be included in the cost proposal.

34. Please kindly provide documents related to the baseline studies currently underway or completed for projects listed on page 33 of the RFP, such as questionnaires, survey methodologies, datasets, etc.

Baseline Studies are currently underway but not finalized. Therefore, these documents are not readily available.

35. Please provide how to structure the four-page case studies, and how they will be evaluated. Are we to use one case (for example, CSDI) for the impact evaluation, ADAM as another for performance evaluation?

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation excludes case studies from the RFP.

36. How many case studies are required for submission?

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation excludes case studies from the RFP.

37. Please provide, however possible, available documents related to the baseline studies and data collection that has been carried out for CSDI projects (such as survey instruments, survey designs).

The requested information is not necessary to submit a proposal. Baseline Studies are currently underway but not finalized. Therefore, these documents are not readily available.

38. Regarding page 98, please kindly give anticipated start date as the date listed

“May/June 2012” has already passed?

Amendment No. 2 changes 2012 to 2013.

39. On page 52, “An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) has been approved for the

USAID Colombia Democracy & Human Rights Program.” Does also mean that the IEE have been approved for the EVAL Project.

Yes.

40. Regarding page 15, please clarify who the “Advisor” is, who is purported to bear primary responsibility for technical aspects of contract performance.

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation excludes this language.

41. On page 59 of the RFP reads “Sustainability will be determined by the capacity of

Peruvian evaluation providers, and their ability to produce quality evaluations after the program ends.” Should this read “Colombian?”

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation corrects this language.

42. We kindly request a clarification on the Attachment 2 page 122 which reads

“REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS No.: 518-12-000004 Please fill out the following questionnaire as clearly and as objectively as possible. The information you provide will be used for source selection purposes. Please send the filled out questionnaire directly to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Peru by email at LimaSolicitations@usaid.gov, not later than October 16, 2012.” In this case, is the contractor required to send the past performance questionnaire to the contract person directly so that they can respond to USAID/Colombia?

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation makes a correction to Attachment No.

2.

43. Given that the holiday season is approaching and Colombian public and private institutions are generally closed from at least Christmas Eve on December 24 through Epiphany on January 5, we request that the deadline for submission of the proposals be extended significantly past the holidays to provide for sufficient time to develop responsive and compliant proposals for USAID/Colombia.

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation has extended the due date for proposals.

44. Please clarify whether the LOE table is to include all of the LOE of the staff of the prime contractor and subcontractor, or the prime contractor only.

The cost proposal should include LOE for the prime contractor and its subcontractors.

45. Regarding pages 8 and 9, do you anticipate only the award fee being proposed? Or do you anticipate a two-tier fee structure (i.e. an award fee plus a fixed fee) being proposed?

This is not an award fee contract, and offerors are encouraged to note well the contract type and what it entails under the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Thus, there will only be a fixed fee.

46. On page 44 H.7 Additional Requirements For Personnel Compensation, no. 3: e)

Consultants, please let us know which part Pay Scale is to be a part of the Cost Proposal, as the biodata sheets were requested to be placed in the Technical Proposal.

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation excludes Biodata sheets from the technical proposal. It is to be included in the cost proposal.

47. On page 44 H.7 Additional Requirements For Personnel Compensation, no 3. E)

Consultants, it seems that the contractor is required to submit, in effect, a fixed labor category table as the Pay Scale. However, given that we are also required to submit a LOE spreadsheet with the Consultants’ actual rate as well as the contractor’s proposed rate and commentary, could you please clarify whether 1) which rate will be used in the actual implementation of the program, and 2) should the Pay Scale present burdened or unburdened rates of each of these labor categories?

The Pay Scale for Consultants is not a “fixed labor category table.” Rather, it must represent a pay RANGE for the type of consultants that the offeror intends to hire for the implementation of this project (e.g., senior, mid-level, junior), as appropriate, along with the responsibilities and qualifications that may be associated with each level, independent of who the candidate hired might be.

Thus, the rate that will be used during program implementation is one that falls within the appropriate range of consultant qualifications and is based on the employment/salary history of that individual. Consultant rates are typically fully burdened.

48. Please provide guidance how to include program management cost for each the

CLINs.

The question is unclear. If the offeror means “cross-cutting” costs, or costs that are shared among the CLINs, then the offerors can approximate an allocation for such costs that is commensurate with the management burden associated with each CLIN, based on the offeror’s technical approach.

49. Please clarify the recipients of the proposal, as the RFP cover letter and Section L.7

(13) name different recipients.

Please see earlier answers and Amendment No. 2 to the RFP.

50. Are the Cover Page, Table of Contents, List of Acronyms, and Dividers subject to the

20-page limitation? Section L.8(3)iii (p. 86) appears to have conflicting information.

The Cover Page, Table of Contents, List of Acronyms, and Dividers are not included in the page limitation.

51. Do non-key personnel CVs and letters of commitment have to be in English, or may they be submitted in Spanish?

All documents must be provided in English.

52. Is there any evaluation factor attached being a veteran-owned small business, as opposed to not having any status?

There is no preference provided for small-business or veteran-owned status under this solicitation.

53. Please clarify the security measures we should anticipate in terms of the project office and staff residences in Bogota, as well as on field visits.

Each offeror should propose its security measures considering the current security situation in Colombia and its specific regions.

54. Section L8 (page 86) includes "Case Studies" to be included as an annex; however, we saw no references elsewhere to "case studies."

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation excludes case studies.

55. Attachment 2 - Past Performance Questionnaire states "Please send the filled out questionnaire directly to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Peru by email at LimaSolicitations@usaid.gov, not later than October 16, 2012." Could you please confirm the email address and the date?

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation corrects this information.

56. Pg. 86 “Case Studies (There is a 4-page limit for every case study).” Can you please provide instructions for what information must be included as a part of the Case Studies?

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation excludes case studies.

57. Pg. 86 “Glossary.” Can you please provide instructions for what information must be included as a part of the Glossary?

A Glossary is optional. For a definition of “glossary” please refer to http://www.merriam-webster.com/

58. Pg. 86 “Employee Biographical Data Sheets.” Can you please clarify if Employee

Biographical Data sheets are to be included in both the Technical and Cost proposals?

Biodata sheets should be included in the cost proposal.

59. On page 59 of the RFP, H.36 Transition of Knowledge, Skills and Abilities is stated:

“… Sustainability will be determined by the capacity of the Peruvian evaluation providers, and their ability to produce quality evaluations after the program ends…” Can USAID please clarify the role of the Peruvian evaluation providers?

Amendment No. 2 of the solicitation corrected this language.

60. Section C4 on page 15 lists several programs that will require evaluations. Page 14 lists the one of the required deliverables as “Formative evaluations4 of program and project implementation and summative evaluations of program and project results (including experimental and quasi-experimental designs and case studies) requiring primary data collection in the field”. Does USAID want to have a budget for carrying out these kinds of evaluations for each of the programs listed in section C4? Are their different priorities for any of the programs listed? For example, some have budgets over $200 million and some under $2 million. Is the expectation that all programs will have the same level of evaluation conducted? Primary data collection may take the form of surveys, depth interviews, focus groups, desk research, and other forms of collections. Are there preferences as to what kind of primary data should be collected for each program listed in the RFP?

The Offeror will need to propose a budget following the format provided and considering ALL the evaluations listed in Section C. All programs will not have the same level of evaluation conducted; some will be more rigorous than others as reflected by the type of evaluation (Performance or Impact) and description in the solicitation. The kind of primary data needed will vary by evaluation and will be decided by USAID and the contractor.

61. Please clarify on page 22 if personnel proposed for illustrative technical capabilities are also required to submit a signed LOC and CV for this proposal. If no, would an STTA matrix demonstrating named personnel’s qualifications be adequate?

An STTA matrix as indicated would be adequate. The list of technical areas is illustrative and can be augmented, if consistent with the offeror’s technical approach.

62. Does USAID require that the Evaluation Leader be based in Colombia full-time or may the individual be based in another country with regular visits to Colombia?

The Evaluation Team Leader should be based in Colombia for the majority of the contract period of performance.

63. Is it expected that the two Key Personnel will reside in Colombia for the period of performance of this contract?

The COP must be based in Colombia for the entirety of the contract. The Evaluation Team Leader should be based in Colombia for the majority of the contract period of performance.

64. Regarding page 14, number 9: Is the Contractor asked to carry out the regional population surveys in addition to the impact evaluation surveys?

The regional population surveys are the same as the impact evaluation surveys.

65. What baseline data has been collected for CSDI and other projects listed on page 33? What forms of remedial data collection will need to be carried out in the initial months of the Colombia Evaluation and Analysis for Learning project?

The baseline is currently being collected for the CSDI and ACIP Impact Evaluations. All other Impact Evaluations will require the EVAL implementing partner to gather the baseline.

66. Please confirm the implementers of the projects listed on page 33, including the various implementers who have been involved in CSDI.

Project Name Implementing Partner

ADAM Sustainability Assessment ARD CMM-Land and Natural Resources Mercy Corps

CSDI Evaluation TetraTech - ARD, Chemonics, CHF

Mental Health Conflict Victims Fundación País Libre

Corporación Impacto Vital Landmine Victims Mercy Corps

People‐to‐People Resolution of Land and Natural

Resources Conflicts in Colombia

(PROTIERRA)

Mercy Corps

Bio Redd Chemonics ACIP Impact Evaluation ACDI VOCA

Land and Livelihoods Project TBD Human Rights Program III Chemonics

Victims Program IOM

GHG Emissions Chemonics, TetraTech -

ARD

Access to Justice MSD Assessment of the Activities Implemented

Through Local Systems Various state entities

Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity (FAA 118 and

119) Analyses

NA

67. Page 33 lists the performance and impact evaluations deliverables. For each of the projects what is the status of the development of the Performance Monitoring Plans (PMPs). If PMPs have been developed, has USAID approved them?

All of them have approved PMPs except for: Land and Livelihoods Project, Assessment of the Activities Implemented through Local Systems.

68. Page 13 of the RFP in the section on the Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Program (ACIP) states, “The implementation of the baseline is expected to be completed by August 2013.” Will the EVAL contractor be responsible for the completion of this baseline or is another contractor currently preparing the baseline?

Another contractor is completing the baseline.

69. Page 23 of the RFP refers to the requirement of the contractor to keep APC and other donors appraised of USAID’s efforts and results. Does USAID have an MOU or agreement with APC regarding M&E? What requirements, if any, will the EVAL contractor have to report results and submit data to APC?

APC is the formal GOC counterpart to USAID for all the activities implemented in Colombia under the Country Assistance Agreement (CAA).

Over the last three years 100% of the activities being implemented are within the CAA. There is no MOU with APC regarding M&E. USAID will provide specific direction as to when and what type of information should be shared. This will vary by evaluation.

70. Please clarify if the Impact Evaluation reports (required in the deliverables table on page 33 of the RFP) for the Victims Program and Green House Emissions (DO Level) are mid-term or final evaluations?

These are final evaluations.

71. The Fixed Fee Payment Schedule Example attachment includes the midterm evaluation of Access to Justice and Land and Livelihoods Projects as deliverables in year 1. Could we assume that the baseline data will be collected by the EVAL contract award date for the CSDI, ACIP, AJP and Land and Livelihood projects and that we are not required to submit any baseline deliverables for those?

The contractor will be required to conduct the baseline for each of the projects that require an Impact Evaluation, except for ACIP and CSDI.

Another contractor is currently carrying-out the baseline for ACIP and

CSDI.

72. Is the number (20,000) of treatment and control group households expected to be surveyed longitudinally by the previous contractor a target number for the life-of-project of the new contract? Is it calculated with or without estimated annual attrition rates because of household emigration from the consolidation regions, etc.?

The objective is to obtain an effective sample of 19,220 households that have completed the three interviews of the baseline survey, the mid line and the end line. To obtain 19,220 effective interviews in year five, the baseline sample will include an oversample of 24 percent and midline will include an oversample of 12 percent, assuming a 12 percent attrition rate per survey. In total, the objective will be to have 23,833 completed interviews in the baseline, 21,526 completed interviews in the mid-term survey and 19,220 effective panel interviews in the end line. Another contractor is currently carrying-out the baseline for CSDI.

73. If the previous contractor falls short of the target of 20,000 households, should the new contractor continue the baseline survey work until the target level of 20,000 surveyed households is reached?

No, the baseline contractor will finish the number of surveys required for it.

74. Is it advisable to visit some or all of the households surveyed by the previous contractor to verify the survey instruments utilized and the data collected? What other measures will be in place to ensure that there is a smooth transition of the longitudinal survey to the new contractor?

It is a panel study and as such the new contractor will need to visit the same households. The previous contractor is willing and able to ensure a smooth transition with the Eval contractor.

75. In addition to continuation of the longitudinal survey of 20,000 households in the named consolidation regions, will the EVAL contractor be asked to perform baseline analyses and/or longitudinal surveys corresponding to any of USAID’s other projects?

The EVAL contractor will need to perform other baseline surveys for the evaluations stated on page 33. In some cases municipalities overlap but this is part of the proposed design presented by the offerors. Also, some of the projects don’t have a definition regarding geographic focus as of today, so the Eval contractor will need to be flexible and adapt to the project’s decisions.

76. Will the EVAL contractor be asked to assume responsibility for any remaining components of the previous contractor’s portfolio of activities? What will be the ultimate disposition of the clearinghouse ("Monitor") indicators currently being collected?

No, these are two separate contracts. The EVAL contractor will need to ensure reporting of all evaluation indicators for all projects stated into Monitor. This means the EVAL contractor will access Monitor as a user but not as an administrator.

77. What are the fluency standards for key personnel for both English and Spanish fluency?

Minimum level 4 (in speaking, reading, and writing) in both English and Spanish on the Interagency Language scale. ILR Level 4 – Full professional proficiency is the fourth level in the scale. This level is sometimes referred to as S-4 or level 4. A person at this level is described as follows:

able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels pertinent to professional needs can understand and participate in any conversations within the range of own personal and professional experience with a high degree of fluency and precision of vocabulary makes only quite rare and unpatterned errors of pronunciation and grammar can handle informal interpreting from and into the language.

78. Are background documents available describing each program and/or its beneficiaries?

Please see http://colombia.usaid.gov/index.php/en/ for a description of USAID programs in Colombia.

79. In order to facilitate well-informed costing and technical approaches in our proposal, could USAID please provide Performance Management Plans (PMPs) and periodic reports for the projects to be evaluated?

No, USAID will not share its results framework and PMP

80. Over the 60-month period of the project, the schedule of technical deliverables (p.

33) calls for the awardee to deliver 14 major deliverables clustered into 7 calendar months. This includes 4 performance evaluations (PEs) in May/June 2013; 2 mid-term impact evaluations (IEs) in February 2014; 2 mid-term IEs in November 2014; 1 IE and 1 assessment in September 2015; 2 final IEs in August 2016; and 2 final IEs in September 2016. To optimize technical quality and cost efficiency in these evaluations, could USAID please identify a revised schedule that distributes deliverable dates more evenly across the full contract period?

The current schedule reflects the needs of USAID/Colombia. The schedule may change slightly in the future, but at this point we do not anticipate any major changes.

81. Will USAID provide a plug cost for data collection and/or a hypothetical sample size on which to base cost estimates?

No. The Offeror should propose a budget, using their best estimate and based on their expertise.

82. Should offerors base their proposal and budget on the listed 14 evaluations and assessments or also include the additional 6 future evaluation activities referenced on Page 20?

To the extent possible, proposals and budgets should be based on the 14 specific evaluations and assessments as well as the 6 future evaluations yet to be defined.

83. Could USAID provide additional information on the activities and status of implementation of the USAID/Colombia Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Program?

In addition to the information in this solicitation’s performance work statement, the contractor is currently conducting the baseline for ACIP and

CSDI.

84. (Pg. 87-88) Would USAID allow offerors to move the requested PMP to an annex in the proposal, rather than in the body of the technical approach?

Yes

85. Is the PMP that is required for this proposal designed solely to track the offeror’s progress in implementing the EVAL Project, or does USAID/Colombia expect us to submit a PMP designed to track performance for other projects in their portfolio, i.e.

not including or perhaps in addition to the EVAL project?

Yes, it’s only for the EVAL Project.

[END OF AMENDMENT NO.3 TO SOL-514-13-000006]