Executed_Amendment_no._1_-_ESS_12152016.pdf

PDF 557 KB Posted Dec 15, 2016

Attached to: USAID/HAITI Evaluation and Survey Services Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: SOL-521-17-000002
Issued by: US Agency for International Development Haiti

About this file

From the source

The purpose of the Amendment no. 1 to the solicitation SOL-521-17-000002 is to provide answers to questions received

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to USAID/HAITI Evaluation and Survey Services, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
ESS_AMENDMENT_NO._4.pdf	PDF	Feb 2, 2017
Document.pdf	PDF	Jan 27, 2017
FINAL_REVISED_RFP_ESS_01192017.pdf	PDF	Jan 19, 2017
questions_for_amendment_no._2.pdf	PDF	Jan 19, 2017
EXECUTED_RFP_ESS_11152016.pdf	PDF	Nov 15, 2016

On GovTribe

Work with this file on GovTribe

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

1. Page 10 references the new CDCS. Will the offeror be involved in its development after award, or is the new CDCS almost finished?

Response: The design of the new Haiti CDCS is well underway and while some results of various evaluation activities might input into the design of various projects, the new ESS contractor will not be directly involved in the development of the CDCS.

2. Is the “overarching US Embassy Integrated Country Strategy for Haiti” identical to the 2011 Post-earthquake USG Haiti Strategy?

Response: No, the US Embassy Port-au-Prince has an Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) for the 2017 to 2019 time period. This is an internal document which incorporates the activities of all federal agencies and departments under Chief of Mission authority in Haiti. While USAID is a part of the ICS, USAID primarily operates under the 2011 Post-Earthquake USG Haiti Strategy, which has been extended to September 2018. Once USAID’s new CDCS is adopted, the 2011 Post-Earthquake USG Haiti Strategy will be retired.

3. On page 17, reference to D.4.3.1 refers to a “Post-Earthquake Final Evaluation.” Is this a portfolio-wide evaluation? Is it an evaluation of strategy only, or of program(s)?

Response: It is an endline survey whose goal is to evaluate USAID/Haiti Mission progress over the life of the Post-Earthquake Strategy.

4. On page 17 there is a paragraph numbered D.4.3.1. Components of the USAID/Haiti Post- Earthquake Strategy Final Evaluation. This numbering is out of sequence. What is the relationship of this paragraph to C.4.3 USAID/Haiti Mission Wide Final Survey (page 16)?

Response: They are the same. “D.4.3.1 Components of the USAID/Haiti Post-Earthquake Strategy Final Evaluation” should be replaced with “C.4.3.1 Components of the USAID/Haiti Mission Wide Final Survey”.

5. Page 24 cites a number of illustrative technical specialties. Health is not among them. The only health program cited among the illustrative evaluations on page 59 is for WASH. However, health is a core pillar in the objectives outlined on page 57 and described on page 58. Will HIV/AIDS, notably PEPFAR, and other health programs be a major part of this award, or be covered by parallel M&E mechanisms?

Response: Health project evaluations are not foreseen to be a major component of this contract.

6. Page 12, Section C: The solicitation uses the term “monitoring” a few times, primarily in regard to key personnel. Yet “monitoring” does not appear significantly in the activities of the ESS contract. What specific monitoring activities are envisioned as the components listed are:

1) C.4.1. Performance evaluations,

2) C.4.2. Impact Evaluations

3) C.4.3. USAID/Haiti Mission wide final survey

4) C.4.4. Baseline Surveys

Response: The ESS contract is primarily focused on evaluation and not monitoring. Monitoring is mentioned in the Key Personnel criteria as the monitoring and evaluation skill sets are often linked and therefore experience in monitoring is deemed desirable as it is recognized that an expert would be able to identify possible gaps or strengths in an activity’s long term monitoring capacity during an evaluation. It is not expected at this time that monitoring activities/outputs will take place through this contract.

7. Is there any existing Mission knowledge management platform, and if so, will the offeror be requested to manage aspects of the data entry or data quality? If not, will the offeror potentially be asked to play a role in proposing or establishing one?

Response: The Offeror will not be responsible for creating a Mission Knowledge Management Platform but the Offeror is expected to manage data entry and data quality as part of the evaluation and survey processes.

8. What is the current status of USAID/Haiti's knowledge management process?

Response: The Mission has online real-time data management platform in which USAID staff and implementing partners have access to specific project pages to enter and analyze data.

9. The RFP includes an illustrative evaluation plan for ongoing activities within the current Mission portfolio, as well as references to the upcoming new strategy to begin in 2018. Does this RFP intend to encompass both a retrospective evaluation of the current program portfolio as well as a prospective monitoring & evaluation stream for the upcoming 2018 strategy?

Response: USAID plans to conduct a USAID/Haiti Mission Wide Final Survey in 2018, which will be the final step to the initial baseline conducted in 2012 and the mid-term survey conducted in 2016. The 2018-2022 CDCS is currently under development and the Mission does not at this time plan to implement a strategy-wide evaluation for the CDCS. The illustrative evaluation plan covers only the on-going and anticipated evaluation activities.

10. Can USAID provide information on the number of performance baseline surveys, mid-term and final performance evaluations, impact evaluations, sector assessments, and community perception polls likely to be required under this contract?

Response: Please see page 59 of the RFP for the Attachment J.2: Illustrative Schedule of USAID/Haiti Evaluations FY 2016-2018. USAID will post an amendment to the solicitation with additional information.

11. Would USAID please provide the US Embassy Haiti local employee compensation plan (LCP) in order to assist the Offerors with compliance with the clauses.

Response: A copy of the current local employee compensation plan is attached.

12. Page 105, L.3 - General Instructions - RFP Closing Date: Please confirm that there is a typo on page 105, and the RFP closing date is January 30, 2017.

Response: Yes, this is a typo. The date of RFP closing is January 30, 2017.

13. Is there an incumbent for this program?

Response: No this is a new evaluation activity for the USAID/Haiti mission.

14. Page 107, Annex E: “International/Local Sub-Offerors); and”. Please clarify what this annex should include.

Response: This is a typo. Annex E: “International/Local Sub-Offerors); and” should be deleted from the RFP.

15. Page 108 second paragraph cites “improve performance management at all levels to help the mission meet Agency requirements…” Please expand on the reference to “at all levels”. Which activities and levels are envisioned here?

Response: This section should be deleted.

16. The RFP notes that ESS will be responsible for five types of End Products (section C.4.1-5):

Performance Evaluations, Impact Evaluations, Mission-Wide Final Survey, Baseline Surveys, and Other Learning End Products over the life of the contract, but provides no information on the number or scope of each type of activity anticipated. Attachment J.2 provides an “Illustrative Schedule of USAID/Haiti Evaluations FY 2016-2018, which seems to cover only the base period of the contract and not the 3-year option period. This leads us to the following questions:

• Should we use the “illustrative evaluations” as a basis for estimating cost for carrying out these types of activities in the first two years of the project? If so, what assumptions can we make about the number and type of Performance Evaluations, Impact Evaluations, and Baseline Surveys, Studies, and Assessments during the 3-year option period for the purposes of our price proposal? During which period will the Mission-Wide Endline Survey take place?

Response: See response to Question 10.

• If the illustrative activities are not to be used as the basis for pricing, please provide more information about the number of each type of activity that is anticipated over the life of the contract? Can the Mission, for example, provide background documents on each of these proposed programs so that we can understand the scale, objectives, and M&E plans for each of those activities?

Response: See response to Question 10.

17. Section C.7, page 22, outlines the expected qualification for each of three key staff: the COP, Deputy COP, and the Senior Evaluation Specialist. Section C.7.4 states that “the contractor will maintain a continuous presence in Haiti through at least one key local M&E expert…”. Does this mean that it’s acceptable to propose that the COP, Deputy COP, and Senior Evaluation Specialist do not necessarily need to be based in Haiti, as long as at least one key local M&E expert is present on a continuous basis?

Response: All Key Personnel are expected to be based in Haiti.

18. Were the 2012 baseline and 2016 midterm assessments designed to answer the evaluation questions for the Mission-Wide Final Survey (also referred to as the USAID/Haiti Post- Earthquake Strategy Final Evaluation that are listed in the RFP on pp. 16-17?

Response: The 2012 baseline survey and the 2016 Mid-Term Assessment are part of the overall evaluation process of the Post-Earthquake Strategy.

19. Page 108, Section L.6.1.3 MANAGEMENT APPROACH, subsection (1) Management/Staffing Plan and Organizational Structure states that “the Offeror must propose an appropriate balance between: (a) the skillsets and number of personnel dedicated to the project (especially procurement, financial, and technical specialists); (b) the ratio of program to operational costs; and (c) the need to expand or activate options as needed.”

Question: Since Technical proposals should not reflect any cost elements, are we correct to interpret item 1(b), “the ratio of program to operational costs”, as actually a narrative about the balance and not a numeric equation?

Response: The paragraph should read as: Section L.6.1.3 MANAGEMENT APPROACH, subsection (1) Management/Staffing Plan and Organizational Structure states that “the Offeror must propose an appropriate balance of skill sets and number of personnel dedicated to the project (especially procurement, financial, and technical specialists) and demonstrate the ability to expand or activate options as needed.”

20. Section C.7 of the RFP (page 23) references the minimum qualifications for the Key Personnel. We have the following related questions:

a. The COP requires a Masters plus a minimum of 10 years’ experience. Given the emphasis on management and evaluation expertise, we respectfully request that USAID allow additional years of work experience (3-4 for example) to count in lieu of an advanced degree.

Response: No. The COP should have at least a Master Degree with a minimum of ten years of experience in conducting evaluations and/or assessments.

b. The DCOP requires a Masters plus a minimum of 8 years’ experience. Given the emphasis on management expertise, we respectfully request that USAID allow additional years of work experience (3-4 for example) to count in lieu of an advanced degree.

Response: No

21. Can USAID please confirm that the “one key local M&E expert” listed under section C.7.4 Other Required Personnel (page 24) is not a Key Personnel position?

Response: The sentence “The Contractor will maintain a continuous presence in Haiti through at least one key local M&E expert, in order to develop and maintain a contextual knowledge and understanding of ongoing USAID/Haiti activities.” should be deleted.

22. We respectfully ask whether bidders can include a cover letter that does not count against the 35-page limit.

Response: Agreed that a cover letter will not be counted against the 35-page limit.

23. On page 104, the RFP states, “Offerors must limit technical proposals to no more than 35 pages in length…excluding annexes.” On page 107, Past Performance is listed as Annex D.

Please confirm that there is no page limitation for Past Performance.

Response: Correct, Past Performance can be listed as an Annex and will not be counted towards the 35 page limit.

24. On page 104, Section L.3 under Length and Format, the RFP states, “Offerors must limit technical proposals to no more than 35 pages in length…single-sided pages…” Since the proposal requires an electronic submission in PDF format, can USAID please confirm that the single-sided format does not pertain to this submission?

Response: Correct.

25. On page 107, as a subheading under “8. Annexes,” is “E. International/Local Sub- Offerors); and” a duplication of Annex D or is it its own annex?

a. If Annex E is separate, what information is necessary to include for the Sub-offerors?

Response: See response to question 14.

26. On page 111 under Past Performance, a sentence from section L.6.1.4.2(c) states, “This information is not included in the page limitation.” We respectfully ask USAID to clarify what page limitation this sentence is referring to?

Response: The page limitation refers to past performance information submitted in Annex D. Past Performance.

27. Section L.6.1.4 on page 111 states to list up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts of the offeror and of each major subcontractor. Could USAID please confirm that this means that up to five past projects can be listed for the offeror and an additional five projects may be listed for each major subcontractor?

Response: Correct

28. The second sentence under the heading “L.8 Instructions for Preparation of the Branding Implementation and Marking Plans” on page 118 is unfinished. We respectfully ask USAID to complete the sentence.

Response: The full paragraph should read as follows: As per RFP Section D, Offerors must submit a Branding and Marking plan as part of the Annex documents. The apparent successful Offeror will be required to negotiate and submit a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) which will be included in and made a part of the resultant contract. The BIP will be negotiated within the time that the Contracting Officer specifies. Failure to submit and negotiate a BIP will make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract. Offeror(s) should submit a preliminary BIP and MP (not to exceed two pages) as a separate annex to the technical proposal using the USAID Branding Plan Guidelines provided at http://www.usaid.gov/branding. The BIP and MP will not be a part of the technical evaluation.

29. In order to ensure compliance with RFP Section H.4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR PERSONNEL COMPENSATION, Part (a) Limitations, # 3. Employment of third country nationals (TCN'S) and cooperating country nationals (CCN'S), requiring that contractors’ CCN staff salaries and benefits shall not exceed the thresholds in the US Embassy Haiti local employee compensation plan, could USAID please provide a copy of the Local Employee Compensation Plan?

Response: See response to question 11.

30. Section H.15 of the RFP, SUBCONTRACTING PLAN AND THE SF 294 –

SUBCONTRACTING REPORT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AND SF 295 –

SUMMARY CONTRACTING REPORT, requires that the contractor’s subcontracting plan be incorporated as a material part of the contract. Could USAID please confirm whether a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required to be submitted as part of the Cost Proposal?

Response: Yes, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required to be submitted as part of the initial proposal.

31. Attachment J.2: Illustrative Schedule of USAID/Haiti Evaluations FY 2016-2018, includes an illustrative list for evaluation services required during the Base Period. Could USAID provide a similar list of evaluation services required for the Option Period, which would facilitate cost estimates by offerors?

Response: See answer to Question 10.

32. Page 3, the SF-33, box 9 indicates that “1 original and 1 copy” will be submitted in hard copy, however, page 105 states that “only electronic submissions of Proposals will be accepted for receipt under this solicitation.

a Question: Can USAID confirm that no hard copy submission is required?

Response: Correct. Only electronic submissions of proposals will be accepted. No hard copies are required.

33. Page 23, Section C.7.2 Deputy Chief of Party, the qualifications state that the candidate must have a “minimum of eight years of experience leading an organization, in both management and technical fields…”

Questions:

a. Can USAID please define “leading an organization?”

Response: USAID is looking for eight years of experience of leadership in either senior technical or managerial roles in activities in a similar scope to the ESS contract. Work experience must reflect demonstrate professional and technical capacity for the ESS contract.

b. Will USAID accept experience serving in a senior level position in an organization?

Response: Yes

c. Will USAID accept serving in a senior level position (such as Chief of Party or Deputy Chief of Party) on a USAID or other donor-funded development program?

Response: Yes

34. Pages 22-24, Section C. 7 KEY PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS. Does USAID intend for the three key personnel positions (Chief of Party, Deputy Chief of Party, and Senior Evaluation Specialist) to be full-time positions fully dedicated to the Evaluation and Survey Services contract?

Response: Yes

35. Page 43, H.10 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, Subsection (d) states that “if the potential conflict relates to performance of work hereunder (e.g. where the Contractor is to evaluate an activity in which the Contractor had some previous involvement, thereby rendering the Contractor unable or potentially unable to provide impartial assistance or advice, or impairing or potentially impairing the Contractor’s objectivity) and the Contracting officer cannot neutralize, mitigate, or avoid the conflict, the Contracting officer may decline to authorize performance of that work by the Contractor.”

Question: Can USAID confirm that all organizations (Prime and Subcontractors) involved in the implementation of the projects not only listed in Attachment J.2, “Illustrative Schedule of USAID/Haiti Evaluations FY 2016-2018” (RFP page 59) but also awarded during the life of the ESS project and subject to an evaluation would be considered to have an organizational conflict based on the wording of Section H.10(d).

Response: Correct

36. Page 59, Section J.2, provides the Illustrative Schedule of USAID/Haiti Evaluations FY 2016-2018. However, there are no specific deliverables for evaluations; baseline surveys, studies, and assessments; and impact evaluations provided in Section F.4 Reports and Deliverables or Outputs.

Questions:

a. Can USAID confirm that this illustrative scheduled should be used as the illustrative deliverables for budget purposes and for consideration in the preparation of the technical proposal?

Response: See answer to Question 10.

b. Does USAID/Haiti anticipate additional illustrative deliverables to be required in FY 2018 in addition to the evaluations; baseline surveys, studies, and assessments;

and impact evaluations presented in section J.2?

Response: Not at this time.

37. Page 104, Section L.3 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, “Proposal Submission”, states that “Cost proposals must also be submitted in Microsoft Excel format with unlocked formulas.”

Question: Can USAID confirm that just the budget needs to be submitted in Microsoft Excel?

Response: Yes

38. Pages 106-112, Section L.6 -INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, includes very detailed instructions on various areas required to be covered in the Technical Proposal. However, Section M.2, TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA (RFP Pages 121-124) Subsections M.2.1 and M.2.2, provide very little detail on the basis for evaluation compared to the requirements outlined in Section L.6.

Question: Can USAID please provide Offerors with the additional sub evaluation criteria for M.2.1. and M2.2. on these sections of the Technical proposal and how they will be evaluated/relate to the requirements in Section L.6?

Response: No, there is no additional sub-criteria.

39. Page 107, Section L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, outlines how the technical proposal must be organized including Annexes. There is not an Annex listed to provide CVs or an illustrative roster of short-term illustrative specialists, for those areas highlighted on Page 24, Section C.7.4 Other Required Personnel “examples of short-term illustrative technical capacities likely needed” over the life of the ESS contract. We request that USAID/Haiti allow an additional Annex to be used to demonstrate capacity to recruit illustrative short-term experts.

Response: USAID concurs that an additional Annex can be included to demonstrate the capacity of short-term experts.

40. Page 107, Section L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, Annex G is listed as “Final Evaluation of the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) and Annex A is listed as “Resumes of Key Personnel.”

Question: Can USAID confirm if Offerors should include the key personnel candidates for the IFMS evaluation team in Annex A or as a separate Annex?

Response: The CVs of the key personnel candidates for the IFMS evaluation should be a part of the design of that particular evaluation and should be submitted as part of Annex G. CVs for the overall ESS contract should be included in Annex A. These are two distinct requirements.

41. Page 107, Section L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL provides an outline by which technical proposals must be organized. #7 of the outline is titled, “Program Management, Performance Plan, and Evaluation Methodology.” For each of the other sections of the outline (e.g. Technical Approach and Understanding, Management Approach, Key Personnel, etc.), USAID provides details on the information expected to be presented by offerors in each section of the technical proposal (pages 107 – 110). However, no additional information is provided for Program Management, Performance Plan, and Evaluation Methodology.

Questions:

a. Please clarify the information that offerors are expected to provide in response to #7 (Program Management, Performance Plan, and Evaluation Methodology) of the outline, on page 107.

Response: This requirement will be deleted.

b. If Offerors are expected to provide detailed information under #7 (Program Management, Performance Plan, and Evaluation Methodology), then also please clarify how this section will be scored against the criteria presented in Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award.

Response: This requirement will be deleted.

42. Page 110, Section L.6.1.3 MANAGEMENT APPROACH states that “Offerors may submit CVs for notional non-key personnel to demonstrate skills, experience, and capabilities…” Section L.6 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 107, outlines how the technical proposal must be organized including Annexes. There is not an Annex listed for non-key personnel.

Question: Can USAID confirm that Offerors can include CVs for notional non-key personnel in an additional annex?

Response: Additional CVs are not necessary at this time.

43. Page 110, Section L.6.1.3 MANAGEMENT APPROACH, subsection 2. Key Personnel, specifies the requirements for the CVs, references, and Letters of Commitment for those Key Personnel listed under Section C.7, on pages 22-24, however no page limit is included for these CVs.

Question: Can USAID confirm that there is no page limit for these CVs?

Response: Please limit CVs to no more that two pages per CV.

44. Page 112, Section L.6.1.4 PAST PERFORMANCE, subsection d) “Performance in Using Small Business Concerns” states that “in order for USAID to fully and daily evaluate performance in this area, all offerors who are not small business concerns must do the following:

a. Provide a narrative summary of your organization's use of small business concerns over the past three years.

b. Provide a list of three recent contract for which you submitted subcontract reports to eSR.

c. Provide the names and addresses of three SB concerns…”

Question: Can USAID confirm that the narrative, subcontract reports, and references can be included as an annex?

Response: Yes, included in Annex D: Past Performance.

46. Can you tell me if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing work for this requirement? If so, could you please provide their company name and contract number?

Response: There is no incumbent. This is a new activity.

LOCAL COMPENSATION PLAN

40-hour workweek

Effective date: July 10, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 WGI

FSN-1

Basic Rate 226,758 238,096 249,434 260,772 272,110 283,448 294,786 306,124 317,462 328,800 340,138 351,476 11,338