Reading_Activity_Q&As_Document.pdf

RFP No. SOL-522-17-000002 / Amendment No. 1 / QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q No. SECTION PAGE QUESTION ANSWER 1 General 1 Would USAID be able to confirm an approximate start date for the new project?

The Activity will commence immediately upon award. It is anticipated that the start date would occur no earlier than June 2017.

2 General 1 Would USAID please provide the anticipated start date for this project?

Refer to answer No. 1.

3 B.4 9 It states that the budget will include $4,000,000 for Grants under Contract. Should potential contractors allocate the funds for this line item evenly during the life of the project for illustrative purposes?

Yes, pg. 42 - Section C.6, the RFP states "This component will provide up to $1 million in cash and in-kind grants per year over four years, totaling $4 million over the life of the Activity."

4 B.7 11 There is a discussion of a Fee Distribution Schedule and Fee Bearing Results or Deliverables. Are potential offerors to assume that they are to create this table and include as part of their cost proposal, as mentioned on Section L, page 153 of the

RFP?

"Fee Distribution Schedule" instructions must be followed as directed in Section L.6 and L.7. See pg. 146 - Section L.6 3. (e) and pg.

153 - Section L.7 (c) xi.

5 General, within

Section C

12 In keeping with USAID's education strategy and strategy on gender and inclusion, would USAID consider making more explicit references in the RFP to advancing "inclusive education" and addressing the needs of learners with disabilities?

USAID invites Offerors to put forward innovative, evidence based and coherent strategies for achieving the objectives outlined in the

RFP.

6 C.3.3 19 Would USAID please provide a copy of the Phase 1 Evaluation of the Food for Education project?

USAID does not have access to the evaluation for the USDA Food for Education (FFE) program. However, this document is not deemed necessary for the completion of the proposal. For information purposes only, three program overview presentations are attached to this amendment.

7 C.4 24 (Pages 24-25) IR 1.1, would USAID please confirm whether the Contractor is expected to work with the MOE to update only the Spanish curriculum within the DCNB, or the entire ‘Communication’ area of the DCNB, which also includes the content areas of English and artistic education?

Pg. 24 - Section C.4, Intermediate Result 1.1, states that the focus will be on updating the reading standards and national curriculum for reading in Spanish for grades 1-6.

8 C.4 24 (Pages 24-25) Also related to IR 1.1, in terms of the Spanish curriculum, will the Contractor work with the MOE to update all of the content blocks within the Spanish curriculum?

Pg. 24 - Section C.4, Intermediate Result 1.1, states that the focus will be on updating the reading standards and national curriculum for reading in Spanish for grades 1-6. This includes all the content blocks within the Spanish Curriculum.

9 C.4 24 (Pages 24-25) Also related to IR 1.1, a. will the Contractor support the MOE primarily in updating the curriculum,

b. or also in its implementation in the classroom,

c. including printing and distribution?

a. Yes, as stated in pg. 24-25, Section C.4, Intermediate Result 1.1, "the focus will be on updating the reading standards and curriculum for grades 1-6, working with the MOE to integrate state-of-the-art thinking on best practices in literacy instruction."

b. Refer to pg. 29, Section C.4, Result two, the RFP states that, "As curricula are updated at the various grade levels, the Contractor will ensure that classroom reading materials reflect and are fully aligned with the new standards and approaches in reading instruction, closely tying this work to Result 3's objective of improving teacher capacity to deliver reading instruction at the classroom level."

c. Refer to pg. 36, Section C.4, Intermediate Result 3.4, regarding printing and distribution of textbooks and materials, the RFP states that, "The amount to be spent on this component must not exceed $2.45 million which may also include printing costs for textbooks and supplementary materials to cover gaps until the separate USAID mechanism focused on production and distribution of materials is available." Offerors should use their best judgement in determining if the curriculum should be printed and distributed.

10 C.4 28 With regard to the statement on page 28 of the RFP, under IR 1.3, “The Contractor will work with the local offices of the MOE and municipalities to regularly track student reading outcomes”, is there a specific expectation regarding how often the Contractor, together with the MOE, should monitor the academic progress of students in reading?

Pg. 28 - Section C.4, Intermediate Result 1.3, the RFP states that offerors should have a clear student assessment plan and schedule to demonstrate YEARLY gains in student reading abilities.

11 C.4 28 Mentions the EGRA tool used under USAID’s EducaAccion

Activity. Can USAID please share the most recent version of the tool?

The most recent version of the tool is the EGRA Spanish Instruments developed for World Bank data collection in October 2008 can be found in the eddata II site at:

https://globalreadingnetwork.net/eddata/current-egra-spanish-instruments-honduras-2008

12 C.4 29 (Pages 29-30) Under Intermediate Result 2.1, “Review and revise existing reading textbooks,” along with providing technical assistance to the MOE for any potentially redesigned and adapted textbooks and teacher guides, should the Contractor also budget for their printing and distribution?

Pg. 30 - Section C.4, Intermediate Result 2.1, states that the contract is authorized to cover costs associated with norming and testing newly developed materials and subsequently making any needed revisions to their content. THEREFORE, Offerors will be responsible for printing materials to be normed and tested. Broader production and distribution of revised materials will not be carried out under this contract.

13 C.4 29 the RFP states: “The Contractor must review the current analysis of existing textbooks and teacher guides and develop a plan for material revision within the first three months of the activity.” Is it USAID’s intention that this will be done in the first quarter of the project, rather than waiting for revision of the curriculum as per IR 1.1?

The Offerors must apply their best judgment to develop a timeline for curriculum and materials revision which will allow the activity to start working within schools and with teachers as early as possible.

14 C.4 30 The solicitation states, “Broader production and distribution of these materials will not be carried out under this contract. The Contractor will be required to coordinate closely with the new mechanism once it is up and running.” Could USAID please provide more detail on this new mechanism and what it might be expected to do?

Develop Quality Reading Materials (2017-2019, TEC: $9-10 million).

The recipient of this award will be tasked with procurement and distribution of quality reading materials, designed and developed in the Reading Activity to target schools located within the DO1 and DO2 Zones of Influence (ZOI).

15 C.4 30 (Pages 24 and 34) Result 2.1 and 3.1 both appear to be asking for the development of a training plan. May we assume that these are the same training plan?

Pg. 30 - Section C.4, Intermediate Result 2.1, the contractor must prepare a training plan detailing mode and schedule for training delivery of teachers and school directors.

Pg. 34 - Section C.4, Intermediate Result 2.3, last paragraph, the contractor must prepare a training plan that lays out a comprehensive approach for training teachers across the basic education cycle grades 1-6.

Both instances reference the comprehensive training plan for teachers and other key education personnel described on pg. 34 - Section C.4, Intermediate Result 2.3, last paragraph.

16 C.4 31 What is the “current USAID funded review”, referenced on pg.

31? Would USAID please provide a copy?

The report is currently in progress and therefore not available at this time.

17 C.4 33 (Pages 33-35) Is work under IR 3.1, IR 3.2, and IR 3.3 focused solely on teachers in grades 1-6, or should secondary school teachers be included as well?

The Scope of this contract is specific to grades 1-6.

18 C.4 34 (Pages 34-35) Would USAID provide guidance as to the duration (number of hours/days) of in-service training that teachers are to receive?

Proposals should demonstrate understanding of the sector and best practices for teacher professional development in the area of reading.

19 C.4 36 Regarding Intermediate Result 3.4., Support the purchase of school equipment and materials, a total of $2.45 million is suggested as a ceiling for this component. Would USAID clarify that this amount does not cover the creation of school libraries as per IR 2.3.?

Pg. 36 - Section C, Intermediate Result 3.4, the $2.45 million does not include the creation of school libraries.

20 C.4 38 (Pages 38-39) Under Result 4.1, is the Contractor expected to prioritize work with COMDEs and CEDs, or could work with Parents' Associations (APFs) be considered as well? Could work with APFs be included under IRs 4.2 and 4.3?

Yes, work with Parents' Associations may be considered as well.

21 C.5 41 The RFP states: “Student gains on regularly administered classroom literacy assessments. The Contractor will partner with MOE counterparts, municipalities and schools to conduct student assessments in target schools during each school year to measure progress in reading in grades 1-6. Assessments will utilize appropriate monitoring, evaluation, and learning tools, in line with the USAID global goal of “improved reading skills” as “increases in fluency and comprehension in reading grade level text”. USAID has partnered with the MOE to set a baseline of achievement in the target municipalities in 2015 and it is planning to have an end line in 2021. The Contractor must propose a baseline for the activity and propose ways to track achievement in between these two MOE data points and on a yearly basis through the life of the program.” Can USAID please provide a copy of the baseline of achievement set in the target municipalities in partnership with USAID?

The 2015 baselines for specific municipalities can be found in the:

Informe Nacional de Rendimiento Academico 2015 at:

http://www.desempenoacademico.hn/resultados2015.

Also refer to Attachment J.6.

Note that these are municipal level baselines and that the contractor is expected to propose baselines for the activity as stated in the RFP pg. 41, Section C.5.

22 C.5 41 the RFP states: “USAID has partnered with the MOE to set a baseline of achievement in the target municipalities in 2015 and it is planning to have an end line in 2021. The Contractor must propose a baseline for the activity and propose ways to track achievement in between these two MOE data points…” Could USAID share this baseline of achievement in target municipalities for 2015?

Refer to answer No. 21.

23 C.6 42 Grants Under Contracts (GUCs) mechanism, it states that the contractor will offer in-kind grants to municipal governments and the grants decisions must consider cost sharing from municipal governments (among other organizations). Would USAID clarify the following: a) is the Contractor to use MOU with the municipalities as it seems to indicate in some of the expected results in Section C? If so, b) Would USAID work closely with the Contractor to ensure that there are a firm, binding ‘contractual arrangement(s)’ with the municipalities, whether those agreements are in the form of subawards or other binding agreements, to follow any required, non-binding MOUs? c) If the municipalities are to be potential awardees while providing ‘cost-share’, please clarify if USAID will consider leveraged resources from them instead?

See resonses below:

a. Pg. 19 - Section C.3.3, Memorandums of Understanding - This section only refers to USAID led MOUs for purposes of coordinating USG activities in municipalities;

b. Pg. 42 - Section C.6, Grants under Contracts (GUCs) Mechanism -will be carried out in accordance with ADS 303 and the GUC manual prepared by the contractor;

c. Not at this time. There is no conflict between having a municipality as recipient of in-kind assistance and having a cost-share responsibility.

24 C.6 42 the solicitation indicates that “the contractor will offer in-kind grants to Municipalities.” Can USAID provide any further detail about the types of resources USAID envisions to be provided?

Offerors are expected to demostrate an understanding of the education sector and therefore must establish the types of resources that will best fit as part of their proposals.

25 C.6 42 Are COMDES eligible to compete for Grants Under Contracts? COMDES are not eligible to compete for Grants Under Contracts.

These organizations are usually not legally organized under the laws of Honduras.

26 C.7.7 47 States that the Contractor will be expected to plan and budget for due diligence procedures related to partnerships with private sector entities, however USAID’s due diligence guidance that the contractor will be required to adhere to will not be provided until after the award is made. Is it possible for USAID to provide this guidance now so that the appropriate costs can be included in the cost proposals?

Yes, the implementing partner will be expected to conduct due diligence on each potential private sector partner for the activity to evaluate the risks and benefits of working with the partner. Private sector partners include private for-profit entities such as a business, corporation or private firm; private equity or private financial institutions; private investors; other private businesses or industry associations; private grant-making foundations or philanthropic entities; and private individuals and philanthropists.

The implementing partner will be expected to complete a due diligence review on each proposed private sector partner prior to entering into a partnership, including any understanding for actual or prospective collaboration to leverage resources (cash or in-kind).

The due diligence review (to be documented in a due diligence memorandum) is expected to include at a minimum a review of the following four essential areas with respect to each partner:

corporate image, social responsibility, environmental accountability, and award compatibility. Detailed due diligence guidance and recommendations will be provided to the implementing partner following award.

For additional information, the USAID/Honduras Guidance on Private Sector Engagement and Due Diligence powerpoint presentation is hereby attached to this amendment.

27 F.7, A.5 59 Security Situation Plan. Please confirm that all potential offerors may include security assessment-related costs in their initial detailed budget.

Yes, all prospective offerors must budget for security-related actions as part of the proposal preparation.

28 F.8.2.1 73 Would USAID consider allowing the DCOP to be a regional candidate (TCN), rather than Honduran?

Yes, the section entitled "2. Deputy Chief of Party" on page 73 is amended to DELETE the following sentence: "The DCOP will be responsible for management of the technical activities and implementation of the project and must be a Honduran", and INSERT IN LIEU THEREOF the following sentence: "The DCOP will be responsible for management of the technical activities and implementation of the project. A Honduran citizen is preferred for this position."

29 H.7 (o) 84 The RFP states: “Although there is no restriction on the value of individual grants that may be provided to non-U.S.

organizations, USAID intends that these grants will not exceed $250,000.” We respectfully request that USAID remove this language, as the Contractor will be required to follow ADS 303 (and the individual thresholds as set within) during the implementation of the grants under contract program.

Please note that USAID only intends that these grants will not exceed $250,000. Therefore, this threshold is not restrictive.

30 H.11 85 In Section H, Personnel Compensation, it states that the direct compensation should be done in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, among other factors. Would USAID respect the salary history and unique, relevant education, training, and/or experience of the local staff in support of proposed salary, even if it would exceed the current LCP salary ranges?

The Local Compensation Plan (LCP) currently in force was last updated in August 23, 2015 (Refer to Attachment No. 5). Offerors are advised that the LCP should not be considered as the sole measure for what constitues "prevailing compensation" for comparable work in the cooperating country, as discussed in AIDAR

722.170. In their budget narrative, Offerors must explain how they arrived at the proposed rates of compensation and any market research that contributed to proposed rates.

31 I 108 Consistent with the guidance in FAR 37.113-1 and considering that the anticipated contract will be performed entirely overseas, we respectfully request that USAID include FAR 52.237-9, Waiver of Limitation on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals, to prevent conflict with applicable local employment laws.

Some offerors may bill USAID in part for US Home Office Support.

Therefore, the contract will not be performed entirely overseas.

USAID has considered this request and determined that it will not approve such waiver in this instance, preserving instead the initially contemplated allocation of costs with the selected contractor with respect to severance payments contemplated by FAR 31.205-6(g).

32 I.7 124 FAR 52.247-67 – Submission of Transportation Documents for Audit (Feb 2006) on Page 124: Please explain USAID/Honduras’ process for the prepayment audit as it seems to put a risk on the Contractor because the bills of lading would not be issued, and therefore cannot be submitted, until after the contract for the shipment is issued and shipment is underway.

Section I.7, pg. 124 is removed from the solicitation.

33 J 127 Would USAID please provide the most recent annual reports from the EducaAccion and MIDEH projects?

The most recent quarterly reports for these programs are hereby attached to this amendment.

34 L.4 141 As USAID/Honduras may be aware, due to the holiday season, many local professionals and local organizations will be on holiday and unavailable during the final three weeks of the proposal time frame. Accordingly, we would like to request that USAID consider granting a two-week extension to the proposal due date.

The deadline of January 10, 2017 remains unchanged.

35 L.4 141 Would USAID consider an extension to the deadline for receipt of proposal, as the proposal is being developed over the holiday season?

Refer to Answer No. 34.

36 L.5 144 Proposal Submission, it is stated that “…the Business (Cost Proposal) must present the price and address related issues such as past performance and responsibility.” Please confirm that the past performance requirements are part of the Technical Proposal.

For purposes of clarification, the section entitled "L.5 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION" on page 144 is amended to DELETE the following sentence: "The Technical Proposal must address technical aspects, only, while the Business (Cost) Proposal must present the price and address related issues such as past performance and responsibility."

We confirm that past performance requirements are part of the Technical Proposal.

37 L.6, 3. (c) 146 The solicitation requests a draft Life of the Activity Work Plan that must follow the guidelines stated in Section F. On pages 57- 58, Sections F.A.1 and F.A.2, the solicitation stipulates that during the life of the project the Contractor must develop a Year 1 Work Plan and Annual Work Plans for the following years, each of which must be sequenced by month. For the purposes of developing a draft Life of Activity Work Plan in the proposal, may the Contractor sequence the activities on a monthly basis for Year 1, and a quarterly basis for the remaining years?

The Offerors must use their best judgement when developing a draft Life of the Activity Work Plan that fits their model and methodology.

38 L.6, 3. (c) 146 In section L.6. (3) (c), the solicitation requests that for the proposal, the offeror develop a “Life of Activity Workplan”. . .

“This Work Plan must follow the guidelines stated in Section F.”

The guidelines in Section F.7. A. (1) (page 57) says: “Based on the Statement of Work the Contractor will prepare and submit a 12 month, detailed annual, costed Work Plan to guide the implementation process with a breakdown of activities and timelines and anticipated progress in the achievement of the activity results (consistent with the Activity ME&L Plan), as well as the associated costs.” There are several questions: a. Should we prepare a Life of Activity draft workplan or only a Year 1 draft workplan? b. In section L.5 the solicitation indicates that:

“The Technical Proposal must address technical aspects, only, while the Business (Cost) Proposal must present the price and address related issues such as past performance and responsibility.” Would USAID consider revising the guidance on the workplan to exclude costing information?

See responses below:

a. As stated in pg. 145-146 - Section L.6, offerors must include, as an annex, a draft Life of the Activity Work Plan.

b. For purposes of clarification, the section entitled "3. Technical Understanding and Approach" on page 151 is amended to DELETE the following sentence: "This Work Plan must follow the guidelines stated in Section F.", and INSERT IN LIEU THEREOF the following sentence: "This Work Plan must follow the guidelines stated in Section F, without costing information."

39 L.6, 5. (a) 148 The RFP states that the Past Performance References (PPR) annex should not exceed ten pages. However, on page 149, section L.6.5.c, the proposal requests documentation to evaluate the Contractor’s use of small business concerns as part of the PPR annex. Is this documentation part of the PPR annex’s 10 page limit?

Yes, this documentation must be part of the Past Performance References (PPR) annex and within the ten page limit.

40 L.6, 5. (a) 148 Under Contractor Performance Information, the solicitation states that “the most relevant indicators of performance are contracts, assistance will not be considered, of similar activities in terms of scope, size, and complexity”. Would USAID consider allowing cooperative agreements to be included as relevant past performance, since these do also measure achievements in education indicators within the country and reflect experience working within the sector and local context?

For purposes of clarification, the section entitled "5. Contractor Performance Information" on page 148 is amended to DELETE the following sentence: "The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts, assistance will not be considered, of similar activities in terms of scope, size, and complexity.", and INSERT IN LIEU THEREOF the following sentence: "The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts and cooperative agreements of similar activities in terms of scope, size, and complexity."

41 L.7 (c) iii. 151 Consultants, it is stated, “…services rendered by persons who are members of a particular profession or possess a special skill and who are not officers or employees of the Contractor.

Separate Short Term Technical Consultants (STTA) cost into two categories: those which are employees of the Offeror (In-House STTA), and those that are contracted. All costs associated with each STTA engagement (Salaries and Wages, Fringe Benefits, Allowances, Travel and Transportation, Equipment or supplies specific to the engagement, etc.) should be included in this cost category.” However, per FAR Part 31, consultants constitutes one of the final cost objectives based on “the contractor’s accumulation system.” Therefore please confirm that all of the Contractor’s Home Office-based STTA should be under the Home Office line item, and any the other associated costs, such as with fringe benefits, travel and transportation, should be in their corresponding line items and not a cumulative amount on any specific single line, in order to be in compliant with the potential offeror’s USG approved cost structure.

For purposes of clarification, the section entitled "iii. Consultants:"

on page 151 is amended to DELETE the following sentence:

"Separate Short Term Technical Consultants (STTA) cost into two categories: those which are employees of the Offeror (In-House STTA), and those that are contracted."

STTA that are employees of the Contractor must be budgeted under "Salary and Wages" and STTA who are not officers or employees of the Contractor must be budgeted under "Consultants".

42 L.7 (c) i. 151 The RFP states: “Offerors must submit a completed and signed Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet for all key personnel and professional positions expected to perform on the contract and must be included in the cost proposal.”

Questions: a. We respectfully ask USAID to clarify what is meant here by “professional positions.”; b. Additionally, would USAID consider amending this to require biodatas solely for proposed key personnel?

For purposes of clarification, the section entitled "i. Salary and Wages:" on page 151 is amended to DELETE the following sentence:

"Offerors must submit a completed and signed Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet for all key personnel and professional positions expected to perform on the contract and must be included in the cost proposal (Attachment J.1).", and INSERT IN LIEU THEREOF the following sentence: "Offerors must submit a completed and signed Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet for Key Personnel only expected to perform on the contract and must be included in the cost proposal (Attachment J.1)."

43 L.7 (c) i. 151 the RFP states: “Proposed daily rates for local staff must be within the local compensation plan” per Section J, Attachment

5. However, this restriction may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007(cited in Section L.7 and referred to in Section H.11 - Personnel Compensation), which states: “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.” We therefore respectfully request that USAID remove this language, thereby allowing offerors to submit cost proposals in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and practices.

For purposes of clarification, the section entitled "i. Salary and Wages:" on page 151 is amended to DELETE the following sentence:

"Proposed daily rates for local staff must be within the local compensation plan (refer to Section J Attachment 5).", and INSERT IN LIEU THEREOF the following sentence: "For proposed daily rates for local staff use for your guidance Section J, Attachment 5 - USAID/HONDURAS Local Compensation Plan, effective August 23, 2015."

44 L.7 (c) x. 153 Requests the NICRA from the offeror and for each proposed ‘major subcontractor’ while many other documents are requested from ‘subcontractors’ in pages 154-155, such as Representations and Certifications, Evidence of Responsibility, and Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week and Paid Absences. Questions: a. Please clarify which documents are required from all subcontractors and which are only required from Major Subcontractors? b. If a subcontractor does not have a cognizant U.S. Government Audit agency, may they use the 10% de minimis rate provided for in 2 CFR 200.414 (f), 2 CFR 200.403, and the table under 2 CFR 200.101(b)?

See responses below:

a. RFP Sections L.8(d), L.8(e), L.8(g), L.8(h), and L.8(j) are hereby amended to read "major subcontractor", instead of "subcontractor".

b. No, the 10% de minimis rate for Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC) can only be elected under a Federal award by a non-profit organization (Recipients and subrecipients) that has never held an indirect cost rate agreement.

45 L.7 (e) 154 (e) Policies and Procedures, please confirm that, for those offerors that have previously submitted a copy of personnel policies to USAID, there is no need to re-submit for this proposal.

Offerors that have approved personnel policies that were previously submitted to the Agency, please identify to whom and when they were submitted.

Sheet1