RFP_SOL52315000002_Amd_1_Mexico_JPV.pdf

JUNTOS PARA LA PREVENCION DE LA VIOLENCIA (JPV)

RFP No. SOL-523-15-000002 – Amendment No. 1

3) Section B.7, Payment of Fixed Fee, is modified to read as follows:

"Payment of fixed fee will be made upon receipt of a proper invoice and subject to FAR 52.216-8, Payment of Fixed Fee, and FAR 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment."

4) The table of deliverables included in Section F.4 is modified to include the Grants Manual, as follows:

"Report/Plan Electronic

Version PDF preferred

Hard

Copies

English Spanish Executive

Summary

English

Executive

Summary

Spanish

Delivery Due Date

Annual Work

Plan Mandatory Two Mandatory Optional Mandatory Mandatory

Within 30 days after mobilization, or 60 days after the award date, whichever comes first, and by August

15 of each subsequent calendar year

Quarterly

Reports

(Technical and

Financial, including

Accruals)

Mandatory Two Mandatory Optional Mandatory Mandatory

20 days after the end of the reported quarter

Gender Equity

Plan Mandatory Two Mandatory Optional Optional Optional

Within 30 days after mobilization, or 60 days after th award date, whichever comes first

Grants Manual

(see Section

H.14)

Mandatory None Mandatory Optional N/A N/A

Within 60 days from the effective date of the

Contract

Performance

Management

Plan

Mandatory Two Mandatory Optional Mandatory Mandatory

60 calendar days after the signature of the contract

Final Report Mandatory Two Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory

90 days after the completion of the program

Other Reporting

[see Section

F.4(F) above]

Mandatory

As instructed by

USAID

Mandatory Optional Optional Optional

Weekly

Highlights Mandatory None Mandatory Optional N/A N/A Weekly

Changes to this chart can be approved in writing by the COR after award.”

5) Section F.4, Reports & Deliverables, Subsection A, Annual Workplans, is modified to read as follows:

“A. Annual Work Plans

Annual work plans will be required from the resulting contractor. The contractor will detail the work to be accomplished during the upcoming year. The initial work plan is due within 30 calendar days of mobilization, or 60 days from the signing of the contract, whichever comes first. Annual work plans must be organized by task and activity and subsequent work plans must be submitted by August 15 of each year, covering the period of October 1-September 30. Annual work plans may be revised on an as needed basis to reflect changes on the ground and with the approval of the COR.

Based on consultations with the COR, the resulting contractor shall develop the initial work plan, as described above, and which shall cover the period from the signing of the contract through September 30, 2016. Subsequent annual work plans and their budgets will be submitted for COR approval by August

15, as stated above. The budget for the work plan period must be attached, and be provided in two versions. The first will be a budget disaggregated by month and budget line items. The second will be a budget organized by task and activity, disaggregated by month, so that monitoring of expenditures can be directly related to the monitoring of planned activities.

COR approval of annual work plans and or requests for modifications will be provided within 15 calendar days of submission. The resulting contractor will then have 15 calendar days to incorporate the modifications and resubmit the plan for COR approval. COR approval will be within 15 additional calendar days. Besides providing the document in hard copy and electronic format as described below, the contractor must schedule a meeting at the time of submission to present the content of the work plan and the annual Performance Monitoring Report –as described below–to the COR.”

6) Section J, List of Attachments, is modified to delete Attachment No. 5, Past Performance Short Form.

7) Page 89, Section L.8, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, is revised to delete all references to recommended numbers of pages per section. Offerors are free to use any number of pages per section, as long as the Technical Proposal does not exceed 30 (thirty) pages.

8) Page 93, Section L.8, Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, is revised to correct its numbering to L.9. In this Amendment, revisions to this Section will make reference to Section

L.9.

9) Section L.9(c), Part 3- Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, is modified to read as follows:

“If Offerors and each proposed subcontractor have not registered electronically in the Online

Certifications and Representations Application (ORCA) and the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with Section L.6.(d)(3), they shall complete all "Representations, Certifications, and Other

Statements of Offeror” as required in Section K, and sign and date on the last page in the space provided.”

10) Section L.9(d), Part 4 – Subcontracting Plan, is modified to read as follows:

“Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals that meet or exceed the following USAID’s subcontracting goals for FY15:

Small Business: 19%

Woman-Owned: 5%

Small Disadvantaged Business (includes Section 8(a)): 5%

Service Disabled Veteran Owned: 3%

Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone: 3%”

11) The Question & Answer document in Annex 1 to this Amendment is made part of this solicitation, as well as the manuals, guides, and other documents that have been attached hereto.

ANNEX 1

RFP No. SOL-523-15-000002 Amd. No. 1

JUNTOS PARA LA PREVENCION DE LA VIOLENCIA (JPV)

QUESTION AND ANSWER DOCUMENT

1) Can you confirm that ARD, Inc. is the incumbent for these services under Task #

AID523TO1200001? If that is not correct, can you please provide the name of the incumbent for this requirement as well as the contract number?

Response: The incumbent is Tetra Tech ARD under Task Order AID-523-TO-12-

00001, which expired on March 27, 2015 and Contract No. AID-523-C-15-00001, which will expire on February 6, 2016.

2) While reading the RFP, I can’t find any information on how to present our technology as a manufacturer. My organization has facilities and integrating partners throughout the world that can help your mission. Could you advise as I am sure that we can solve many issues in this solicitation? We are currently providing video surveillance with analytics in several High Target areas throughout the world. Our mission is to Protect High value targets. Please let me know how this technology could be presented to the RFP and assist you in your mission.

Response: Please follow the RFP instructions and provide solution for the entire

Statement of Work, not just one section.

3) Page 88, clause L.6 (d)(3) of the RFP states that “Section K Certs/Reps need not be completed, upon electronic completion of ORCA prior to submission of proposals.” Page

96, clause L.8 (c) says, “Offeror and each proposed subcontractor shall complete all

Representations, Certifications, and Other Statement of Offeror as required in Section K”.

Please confirm that if the offeror and/or each subcontractors have completed registration on ORCA/Sam.gov, they therefore do not need to submit Section K as part of this proposal.

Response: This discrepancy is being corrected through Solicitation Amendment No.

1. If offerors and/or each subcontractor have completed registration in

ORCA/Sam.gov, they do not need to submit Section K as part of their proposal.

4) Page 6, Section C.2 of the RFP states, “USAID/Mexico and the SsPPC have outlined a framework for USAID support and technical assistance (see Annex 1)…” Annex 1 was not attached to the RFP. Can USAID provide this document?

Response: The current framework between USAID and the SsPCC is being uploaded as an attachment to Solicitation Amendment No. 1 in www.fbo.gov.

http://www.fbo.gov/

5) May the offeror include an implementation timeline (Gantt chart) for the proposed implementation approach in an annex that does not count against the 30-page limit?

Response: Yes.

6) Page 90, item L.8, 2) Monitoring and Evaluation Plan states, “The offeror should submit an illustrative M&E matrix with proposed illustrative indicators tied to program goals, theories of change and the intended impact of the activity.” Should the illustrative M&E

Matrix be included in the 30-page technical proposal, or should it be placed in the

Performance Monitoring Plan Attachment? If it is to be in the 30-page proposal, could a full-page illustrative matrix be excluded from the 30-page limit?

Response: Please include the M&E Matrix as part of the annexes. It will be excluded from the 30-page limit.

7) Section J, page 67, lists J.5, Past Performance Short Form as an attachment to the RFP.

However, the instructions in Section L do not mention including Past Performance Short

Forms with the proposal. Would USAID please confirm that:

a) Past performance information should be included in the table format indicated in

Section L.8.4 on page 91, and

b) This table should be included in an attachment that does not count against the page limit.

Response: Yes to both a and b. Solicitation Amendment No. 1 is eliminating Annex

J.5, Part Performance Short Form.

8) Would USAID please confirm that the recommended 6 pages for Institutional Capacity and Past Performance within the body of the technical proposal does not include the presentation of up to 5 relevant projects, and that these 5 projects should be included in the table format provided, and included as an attachment?

Response: Solicitation Amendment No. 1 is eliminating the recommended number of pages per section. Offerors should only abide by the 30-page limit for the full technical proposal. However, the presentation of up to 5 relevant projects should be included as an annex.

9) Page 9, under item C.3 “Address Gender Issues,” references “the DO1 Gender Analysis.”

Can USAID please provide the complete reference to this document?

Response: The main findings of DO1 Gender Analysis are summarized in the gender section of the USAID/Mexico Country Development Cooperation Strategy

(CDCS) which can be found here -http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1869/Mexico%20CDCS%202014

%202018.pdf. Please also find the USAID/Mexico Gender Assessment linked here -http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadz184.pdf.

10) Component 1 on page 14 of the RFP references establishment of the Center of Excellence

(COE) for Crime and Violence Prevention in Mexico. For implementation planning and budgeting purposes, can USAID provide an estimate as to when (that is, in which project year) the COE might be established?

Response: Given that the creation and establishment of the COE will include the participation of multiple stakeholders, it is currently very difficult to estimate when the COE will be “operational” in Mexico.

11) For budgeting and management purposes, can you please clarify the contractor’s responsibility to expand to other high crime locations as described in section C.6 on page

20 (beyond the target cities of Juarez, Monterey and Tijuana) in terms of timing (Y1-Y5) and specific geography (considering the factors in the RFP)?

Response: In the spirit of the USAID/Mexico CDCS, and as it relates specifically to the Development Objective 1 (DO1), the overarching goal is for successful crime and violence preventions models to be replicated by local stakeholders. The contractor is responsible for working towards DO1 and building local capacity to facilitate the replication of successful models in other high crime locations. USAID expects the contractor to develop mechanisms by which the expansion to other high crime locations will be cost-effective, sustainable and represent different contexts to implement crime and violence prevention models in Mexico. That said, there are no specific limitations/guidance on where - and when - the contractor should expand its activities except, as noted above, to encourage the contractor to explore different geographic locations that could be representative of a variety of contexts/realities related to crime and violence prevention throughout Mexico.

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1869/Mexico%20CDCS%202014%202018.pdf http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnadz184.pdf

12) Can you please confirm that for the JPV activity, the age range of 'youth' is defined as 15-

24 years old?

Response: While definitions of youth vary widely, according to the USAID Youth in

Development Policy, youth is defined as those persons between the ages of 10-29 years of age.

13) Will the contractor have the authority to work directly with local and national police?

Response: USAID/Mexico is subject to special notification from the USG on all activities that work directly with the police. At this time, USAID/Mexico does not envision working directly with the police on community-based police training or capacity development of the police re: technical assistance/trainings. While

USAID/Mexico does not envision direct police assistance as part of our crime prevention strategy, activities that contemplate the participation of a broad range of community stakeholders, could also include local police.

Additionally, Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (“Leahy

Amendment”) prohibits assistance “to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights.” USAID/Mexico will ensure that no assistance is provided in violation of the Leahy Amendment.

14) Does USAID intend to transfer any existing equipment from prior programs to the contractor upon award? If so, could you please provide a list so that we can take this into consideration for budgeting purposes?

Response: At this time, USAID does not anticipate the transfer of any existing equipment from prior programs to the contractor upon award.

15) Is there already a preliminary design for the Center of Excellence (COE) for Crime and

Violence Prevention in Mexico?

Response: USAID/Mexico does not currently have a preliminary design of the

COE.

16) Will the COE operate in the Mexican Secretariat of the Interior (Secretaria de

Gobernación) or in a private sector institution?

Response: It is envisioned that the COE will be an independent entity in Mexico.

Therefore, it is not likely that it will operate out of any Mexican government institution.

17) The situation violence that Mexico is currently experiencing does not derive solely from what is known as common crime but also organized crime. Can the offeror include proposals and strategies for this type of crime or should the scope be limited to common crimes?

Response: The offeror can include proposals and strategies for addressing organized crime to the extent that they link to Pillar IV of the Merida Initiative which aims to build stronger and more resilient communities that can withstand the pressures of crime and violence.

18) How is this prevention strategy linked to the investigative policies and entities? The best prevention policy is a low rate of impunity.

Response: The offeror can propose any strategies that will help achieve

USAID/Mexico’s strategic vision for crime and violence prevention and link to

Pillar IV of the Merida Initiative which aims to build stronger and more resilient communities that can withstand the pressures of crime and violence.

It is important to highlight that USAID/Mexico, as part of our DO2 objective of the

CDCS, is working in the implementation of the new criminal justice system which includes the strengthening of investigative units and other areas that aim to lower the country’s impunity rate. USAID’s work with justice sector institutions is a primary component of our criminal justice reform portfolio.

19) Are there USAID complementary efforts or can the offeror propose strategies for this area?

Response: Please see response to the first past of Question No. 21. For a full description of USAID/Mexico’s CDCS, please find link here http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1869/Mexico%20CDCS%202014

%202018.pdf.

20) How is this prevention strategy linked to the anti-corruption policies and entities? There is a close relationship between corruption and the violence addressed to certain population groups. Are there complementary efforts or can the offeror propose strategies for this area?

Response: Please see response to the first part of Question No. 21.

21) With regard to geographic targeting, the cities and communities targeted under USAID

Pillar IV are mentioned and the contractor is asked to further develop the work in these targeted areas y to expand to other localities. Is there an established goal that should be met or can the offeror establish the targeting strategy and goal?

Response: USAID/Mexico will continue to work in the target border cities of

Ciudad Juárez, Monterrey and Tijuana but there are no restrictions in which specific communities the contractor should work in these three cities. Additionally, offerors may propose other high crime locations in Mexico as long as their approach is in line with achieving the overall objective(s) of the solicitation with regards to replication and sustainability.

While there is not an established goal, the expansion to other locations should result in the development, or strengthening, of models and methodologies that can respond to different scenarios and realities related to crime and violence prevention in the country, and that those models/approaches can be shared and replicated by local stakeholders in other states/cities with similar characteristics.

(Please also see response to Question No. 12.)

22) Does the Geographic code 937 for procurement of short-term consultant services apply?

Response: Yes.

23) How are the services for this contract classified severable or non-severable?

Response: The resulting contract will use program funds (ADS 602). The classification of severable vs. non-severable services applies to non-program funds

(ADS 603), and therefore not applicable to this solicitation.

24) In order that we may have adequate time to obtain the appropriate documentation from our local partners and prepare a fully compliant submission, we respectfully request an extension from May 13, 2015 to C.O.B. May 27, 2015.

Response: Solicitation Amendment No. 1 is extending the due date for receipt of proposals through Wednesday, May 27, 2015, at 4:00 pm (Mexico City local time).

25) Part 2, Proposed Costs/Price, section (A) Wages and Salaries states in part that the compensation of TCNs and CCNs employees shall be paid in the currency of the cooperating country. Please confirm that in accordance with AIDAR 722.170, the

Mission Director and Assistant Administrator may grant waivers for the TCNs and CCNs local currency compensation requirement.

Response: This is correct; however these waivers, if any, will be pursued after award, so approval is not guaranteed at this point.

26) According to Page 86, Section L.4 52.216-1, Type of Contract, the government contemplates the award of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Completion type contract, in which the work is described by stating a definite goal or target and end product (frequently a report) however the Fixed Fee application described in page 4, Section B.7 appears to be written in accordance with the requirements contained in a level of effort contract. In order to properly align the payment of fee with the intended CPFF, completion contract type we request the removal of the LOE requirement as a condition of fee payment.

Response: Section B.7 is being revised through Solicitation Amendment No. 1.

27) Page 96, Part 4 - Subcontracting Plan – If the Offeror is other than a small business, it must submit a Subcontracting Plan (see Attachment J.4). Subcontracting Plans must address subcontracting with small businesses (SB), which may include: veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUB zone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

This plan will be the equivalent of a master subcontracting plan for the overall contract.

These plans must contain small business subcontracting goals of at least 5% of the total planned subcontracting for any/all categories of small business concerns. The USAID

Small Business Goal for FY 15 is 19%, with a break-down as follows: SDVOSB 3%, HUB Zone 3%, WOSB 5% and SDB 5%. The requirements in the solicitation seem to exceed the requirements in the stated USAID goal, please clarify.

Response: Solicitation Amendment No. 1 is revising the language to clarify our requirement. Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals that meet or exceed the above USAID's subcontracting goals.

28) Does USAID intend to fund an external mid-term and final evaluation or should the program budget for these?

Response: USAID encourages offerors to budget for both an external mid-term and final evaluation.

29) Is 12 point Times New Roman an acceptable font for the text of the technical proposal?

May smaller fonts be used in tables and graphics?

Response: Yes, 12 point Times New Roman is acceptable font for the text of the technical proposal. Please do not include fonts smaller than 10 point for tables and graphics.

30) Since USAID provided LCP salary guidance, will USAID also share the corresponding benefits information?

Response: No, benefits must be proposed in accordance with local labor law.

31) Please confirm the 30-page limit for technical proposals excludes the institutional capacity and past performance information requested on pages 91-92, including the use of small businesses.

Response: This is correct.

32) Section L.8 on page 91 states that if sub awardees/partners will be implementing significant portions of the activity, the proposal must include the prime’s evaluation of the proposed sub awardees/partners past performance. Can USAID confirm that this information can be included as part of the approved additional information on proposed sub-awardees or sub-contractors annex?

33) Please confirm the 30-page limit for technical proposals excludes the Contractor’s proposed organizational chart, and that the organizational chart can be included as an annex.

34) Per USAID’s request to provide a combination of short-term expatriate and local consultants to provide technical assistance and training in response to the specific demands generated by the activities on page 36, please confirm the 30-page limit for technical proposals excludes a short-term technical assistance matrix, and that the matrix can be included as an annex.

35) Section L.8 on page 94 provides minimum and maximum salary rates for different professional CCN and TCN levels. According to AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated in H.15 of the RFP, “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices.” Can USAID please confirm that offerors are not held to the salary rates and levels listed in Section L.8 and instead should follow their established policies, procedures, and practices for direct compensation of personnel?

Response: Even though offerors should follow their established policies, procedures, and practices for direct compensation of personnel, AIDAR 722.170 also applies, an excerpt of which reads as follows:

“(b) Compensation. Compensation, including merit or promotion increases paid to

TCN’s and CCN’s may not, without the approval of the Mission Director or the

Assistant Administrator having program responsibility for the project, exceed the prevailing compensation paid to personnel performing comparable work in the cooperating country as determined by the USAID Mission…”

The salary ranges included in the solicitation serve as a guide to offerors. Salaries for CCN and TCN personnel that exceed the rates in the Local Compensation Plan for comparable positions must be approved by the Mission Director after award, on a case-by-case basis. This approval is not guaranteed at this point of the procurement process.

36) The first paragraph at Section F.4 Subsection A states that the initial work plan “is due within 30 calendar days of mobilization, or 60 days from the signing of the contract, whichever comes first.” The second paragraph of the same section states the first work plan shall be submitted for approval “within 30 calendar days from the signing of the contract,” and that the work plan should “cover the period from signing of the contract through September 30, 2015.” Would USAID please clarify when the initial work plan is due, and confirm that the period would cover from signing of the contract through

September 30, 2016?

Response: The initial work plan shall be submitted for approval within 30 calendar days from mobilization, or 60 calendar days from the signing of the contract, whichever comes first. The initial work plan should cover the period from the date the contract is signed through September 30, 2016. Solicitation Amendment No. 1 is revising the language in Section F.4.A accordingly.

37) Section H.14 on page 46 states that the Contractor will present a copy of its Grants

Manual for Contracting Officer approval within 60 days from the effective date of the contract. However, Section F.4 of the RFP does not list the Grants Manual as a contractual deliverable. Please clarify.

Response: Section F.4 of the RFP is being modified through Solicitation

Amendment No. 1 to include this deliverable.

38) Section H.19 on page 49 mentions that an Environmental Threshold Decision regarding the IEE has been issued. We respectfully request that USAID share the IEE.

Response: We do not have a public version to share at this time. It is important to note that prior to the implementation of any activities that may have any potential negative impact on the environment such as the rehabilitation, reconstruction, or small-scale construction of facilities, all activities will need to be screened for potential environmental impacts. For further information on USAID Sector

Environmental Guidelines, more information can be found here -http://www.usaidgems.org/sectorGuidelines.htm

39) Section C.3 on page 8 states “USAID’s experience in crime and violence prevention in

Mexico and in the region has led the Mission to identify a set of interventions that effectively address risk factors that lead to crime and violence” with a footnote to a document that only references Central America. Does USAID have Mexico-specific information in this regard, and can it be shared?

Response: Please note link below to the Executive Summary of a USAID/Mexico

Pillar IV assessment on crime prevention models in Ciudad Juarez, Monterrey and

Tijuana. The findings from this report are very similar to the findings outlined in the Central America report, which was a much more detailed evaluation.

http://www.usaid.gov/mexico/pillar-iv-assessment

40) Section C.4 on page 10 states “Now that USAID has piloted activities and tested prevention models in target communities in the border cities of Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana and Monterrey, the focus for the next implementation period will be to strengthen the capacity of the GOM and local partners and leverage resources for crime prevention through strategic partnership in order to facilitate the replication of successful crime prevention models in vulnerable communities.” Which models does USAID intend to replicate and why are they considered successful? Have these efforts been evaluated, and if so, can these evaluations be shared?

Response: The offeror is encouraged to identify models* and methodologies that have been identified as being successful (through external evaluations, cost effectiveness, impact/results etc.) and facilitate their scaling-up and replication in vulnerable communities by local stakeholders. Per the Executive Summary of

USAID/Mexico’s Pillar IV assessment, crime prevention interventions should be assessed by their effectiveness in reducing the risks of crime (i.e., by positively http://www.usaidgems.org/sectorGuidelines.htm http://www.usaid.gov/mexico/pillar-iv-assessment addressing risk factors), rather than actual crime rates. Please note link to full summary above.

*successful models do not necessarily have to have been supported by USAID or implemented previously in Mexico.

41) Section C.5 on page 18 states that USAID and the GOM have developed an expert advisory group to develop national guidelines and promote the expansion of crime and violence prevention observatories to municipalities throughout Mexico. The advisory group has identified a need to strengthen crime observatories by defining objectives and goals, developing standardized tools to measure results and impacts, and disseminating results. Can USAID share which organizations are involved in the advisory group and provide the document defining the objectives and goals, and standardized tools to measure results and impacts, and disseminate results?

Response: USAID/Mexico, through our current Crime and Violence Prevention program (Programa para la Convivencia Ciudadana - http://www.pcc.org.mx/), has been working with the GOM to form an advisory group to develop national guidelines for the creation of crime and violence prevention observatories to states/municipalities throughout Mexico. A document defining the objective and goals of the advisory group is being posted as an attachment to Solicitation

Amendment No. 1.

At this time, the national guidelines are still in development. Since the guidelines are not yet public, any reference to them will not be considered in the technical review of the proposals received under this RFP. No, standardized tools to measure results and impacts have been developed at this time.

42) Section C.5 on page 19 states that one of the expected results for Activity 4 is "Improved institutional capacity to implement evidence-based crime and violence prevention policies and plans and better support victims of gender based and intra-familial violence.”

Could USAID please clarify that the first part of that sentence refers to the general population that the project will serve and that the activity should also (but not exclusively) support victims of gender-based and intra-familial violence?

Response: To clarify, “Improved institutional capacity to implement evidence-based crime and violence prevention policies and plans” refers to the general population for this activity. “Better support to victims of gender based and intra-familial violence” should be included, but not exclusively, for this activity.

43) Section C.5 on page 19 (last paragraph) mentions an online database and knowledge management system that contains manuals for proven prevention interventions. Are these documents accessible or could USAID provide them? Were the proven prevention interventions developed by the current program?

Response: The online database and knowledge management system, which is being developed with the GOM, is not yet operational. However, all manuals and guides that have been developed by the current Crime and Violence Prevention Program can be found as attachments to Solicitation Amendment No. 1 in www.fbo.gov. For additional information about the current Crime and Violence Prevention Program, please note link here: http://www.pcc.org.mx.

44) On page 19 the RFP refers to "manuals for proven prevention interventions in; children and youth violence, community policing, community resilience processes, state-society relationships, community-based communication strategies, community healing, and victim's assistance". These documents are directly related to the RFP requirements since they indicate what USAID considers to be proven prevention interventions. Could

USAID please provide access to each document to inform proposals?

Response: All manuals and guides that have been developed by the current Crime and Violence Prevention Program can be found as attachments to Solicitation

Amendment No. 1 in www.fbo.gov.

45) On page 18 the RFP indicates that "USAID and the GOM have developed an expert advisory group - which includes representatives from local organizations, government officials, CSOs and international organizations - to develop national guidelines for and promote the expansion of crime and violence prevention observatories to municipalities throughout Mexico." On page 19, the RFP describes one of the expected results under

Component 4 as "Established observatories in the country based on standard guidelines that effectively analyze data and promote change to improve citizen security." We have the following related questions:

a. Could USAID please provide further information (eg. the reports, guidelines, minutes or any document produced by the expert advisory group) in order to understand the content of the guidelines and be able to produce a cost-effective proposal to implement them while establishing observatories as required?

Response: USAID/Mexico, through our current Crime and Violence

Prevention program, has been working with the GOM to form an advisory group to develop national guidelines for the creation of crime and violence prevention observatories to states/municipalities throughout Mexico. A http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.pcc.org.mx/ http://www.fbo.gov/ document defining the objective and goals of the advisory group has been uploaded in www.fbo.gov, as an attachment to Solicitation Amendment No.

1.

b. In case the standard guidelines that effectively analyze data and promote change to improve citizen security are different from those produced by the aforementioned expert advisory group, we respectfully request clarification on whether:

JVP is responsible for the development of the guidelines; or

These guidelines have been produced by a body different from the expert advisory group, in which case we respectfully request access to them.

Response: USAID/Mexico, through our current Crime and Violence

Prevention program, has been working with the GOM to develop national guidelines for the creation of crime and violence prevention observatories to states/municipalities throughout Mexico. At this time, the guidelines are still in development. Since the guidelines are not yet public, any reference to them will not be considered in the technical review of the proposals received under this RFP.

http://www.fbo.gov/