SOL-527-12-000014_Amendment_1.pdf

SOL-527-12-000014

Amendment No. 1

1) The following questions and answers are hereby included in the RFP:

Questions and Answers for RFP SOL-527-12-000014

Question 1: Could you please provide the point breakdown that will be used to grade the technical proposal by section?

Answer 1: Pursuant to FAR 15.304(d), the RFP states all factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance. The rating method need not be disclosed in the solicitation

Question 2: Could you please provide the suggested page length per section of the technical proposal?

Answer 2: The total page limit for the Technical Proposal is 45 (forty-five) pages. The number of pages in each section can be determined at the discretion of each individual offeror.

Question 3: I would like a list of all those interested companies that are planning to submit or have expressed interest in submitting proposals for the above mentioned RFP. Would you provide me with such list?

Answer 3: An Interested Vendor List (IVL) is not included in this solicitation. Offerors can register and use the IVL on the FBO webpage, so that firms can contact one another for consideration of teaming arrangements and/or small business subcontracting opportunities in response to this solicitation.

Question 4: Component 2 calls for technical assistance to USAID/Peru, as well as training and technical assistance to the Mission's implementing partners (especially local and host country government counterparts) in performance monitoring and evaluation. In order to facilitate technical and budget planning, could USAID please describe: (a) the estimated number of technical assistance/training events to be held under this component; (b) the number of participating individuals (rather than organizational entities) from implementing partners expected to be included; (c) the number of participating individuals from local and host country government counterparts to be included; and (d) if training/technical assistance venues are not to be provided by USAID, the number of these events that are estimated to take place in Lima versus outside Lima?

Answer 4: (a) The Offeror should estimate the number of technical assistance events that may be required based on the expected results. For training events, page 42, Deliverables Component 2, indicates the expected number of M&E workshops for USAID and for partners; (b) and (c) the Offeror should propose the expected number of participating individuals to be included, again based on results desired; (d) Training and technical assistance for USAID is expected to be provided in Lima. The Offeror should propose their best approach to provide technical assistance and training for partners that are located outside Lima, as mentioned on page 16, 2.(ii)

Question 5: Page 15 (item 2.c.1.vi) states that the contractor will "assist in the developing of electronic based tools (spreadsheets, dashboards, etc.) to facilitate performance monitoring and evaluation tracking." Does USAID expect the contractor will directly provide automated products such as dashboards, or is the contractor only expected to be delivering PMP-related technical advice to support design and/or use of such products that would be provided by other means?

Answer 5: Offerors should evaluate their own capabilities and present their strongest proposal consistent with their capabilities and budget. This proposal may include either of the possibilities mentioned in question 5.

Question 6: Page 17 states that the contractor will provide support for data quality assessments led by the USAID/Peru Evaluation team members. What is the expected content and scope of this support? Would it include, for example, contractor staff accompanying USAID staff on data verification site visits? Or is this support expected to be limited to technical preparation and consultation for USAID staff on data quality assurance requirements and techniques?

Answer 6: Both

Question 7: Page 14 states that the first annual M&E workshop with USAID is to be delivered within 30 days after award date. Given likely project startup activities and the need for technical preparation for the workshop, will the Mission consider revising this timeline in order to allow adequate time for preparation?

Answer 7: Yes, there is flexibility on the timing of the first annual M&E workshop.

Nevertheless, the Offeror should consider that this first workshop will provide inputs for the Initial Workplan.

Question 8: Page 109 includes among proposal evaluation criteria the "extent to which the Offeror proposes a clearly organized, comprehensive and appropriate field monitoring protocol...for collecting, analyzing, tracking and reporting data for all three components." Is this field monitoring protocol the same as the project Performance Monitoring Plan as described on page 38 (Section A.b)?

Answer 8: Yes.

Question 9: What is the relationship, if any, between the USAID activities described under the San Martin Model Impact Evaluation (page 5) and the Alternative Development Support for the Regional Government of San Martin (page10)?

Answer 9: Alternative Development Support for the Regional Government of San Martin is a current alternative development project in San Martin. The San Martin Model Impact Evaluation will evaluate all alternative development programs from 2002 to present.

Thus, “Support for the Regional Government of San Martin” is one of many programs to be evaluated in the “San Martin Model Impact Evaluation.”

When proposing a San Martin Model Impact Evaluation, offerors are free to limit the dates of the evaluation to a shorter timeframe if this allows the offeror to propose a technically stronger evaluation. The offeror will not be expected to evaluate the impact of programs that occur outside their designated timeframe.

Question 10: Page 26, regarding Component 3 states the purpose is to “to strengthen the technical capacities of at least two local Monitoring and Evaluation institutions so that they are able to design and conduct effective performance and impact development evaluations, according to international standards”. On page 27, it says that “Rather than expanding the core team, the contractor is encouraged to maximize the use of Peruvian and regional organizations and experts to conduct activities that require an expansion beyond the capacity of the core team. It should be understood that the purpose of the use of local expertise is not just to achieve the tasks under each component, but to leave capacity to continue similar activities in Peru. Therefore, the contractor will be expected to strengthen and not just use local capacity”. Under Component 3 are qualified private service providers also to undertake the assignments, prior to releasing the TOR for the evaluations? Please clarify if this understanding is correct? However, the timing for this component does not seem to support this as stated on page 42, the first deliverable, the plan, is for six months after the award date.

Answer 10: The text on page 27 (Labeled 18 in the RFP) refers to an approach that offerors are encouraged to pursue where it is practical. Offerors should structure their offers to meet the requirements, while making use of Peruvian providers to the best of their ability, as stated in the RFP.

Question 11: Page 29, item 3, is a request “to the extent possible, evaluations shall be coordinated with other entities’ (APCI, donors) efforts”. Does this imply co-execution, or simply allowing the other entities to participate, such as having the inputs of these entities mostly in the design and analysis?

Answer 11: Participation is sufficient. There is no expectation of co-execution.

Question 12: Will USAID please clarify whether the local Peruvian organizations named on bidder’s proposals are to be exclusive or nonexclusive as was originally stated in the calls for expressions of interest?

Answer 12: Local Peruvian organizations will be non-exclusive.

Question 13: Page 40, the deliverables for Component 1 indicate there will be 23 evaluation designs, however, the break out of the types of evaluations and assessment designs totals 19. Please clarify the types of the remaining four evaluation designs to be conducted.

Answer 13: Proposals should anticipate 23 total evaluations. In addition to the 19 evaluations identified on page 40 and described on pages 5 – 14, four additional performance evaluations are anticipated under the contract that will be similar in size and scope to those already described in the RFP. This is referred to on page 12, item (11), which indicates that there are “other performance evaluations” in addition to the 19 that are specifically described.

Question 14: Under (6) Part 6 - Evidence of Responsibility, the RFP requires the offeror to "submit sufficient evidence of responsibility, including a Certificate of Competency, for the Contracting Officer to make an affirmative determination of responsibility..." The FAR 19.6 description of the Certificate of Competency program states that the "Certificate of Competency (COC) program allows a small business to appeal a contracting officer's determination that it is unable to fulfill the requirements of a specific government contract on which it is the apparent low bidder." Since the need for a certificate is based an appeal of a decision for any given contract award, we do not understand how the offeror could solicit a COC before a determination is made by the CO for this particular bid. Question: Could USAID clarify its position on whether and how the offeror should provide a COC at this point in the solicitation?

Answer 14: Offerors should not provide a Certificate of Competency (COC) as part of their proposal at this time. If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines an apparent successful small business offeror to be nonresponsible, that small business will be referred to the SBA for a possible COC.

Question 15: Please clarify how the proposed payment structure for fixed fee against deliverables will be administered, with the fixed fee being paid on a performance-based construct. It is unclear what USAID standards USAID will use to make payments or withhold payments for the fixed fee.

Answer 15: A cost-plus-fixed fee completion form contract is anticipated for this particular set of government requirements because the activities can be defined well enough to permit the development of estimates within which the contractor can be expected to complete the work. According to FAR 16.306(d) “The completion form describes the scope of work by stating a definite goal or target and specifying an end product. This form of contract normally requires the contractor to complete and deliver the specified end product (e.g., a final report of research accomplishing the goal or target) within the estimated cost, if possible, as a condition for payment of the entire fixed fee. However, in the event the work cannot be completed within the estimated cost, the Government may require more effort without increase in fee, provided the Government increases the estimated cost.”

Given the above, the payment of fixed fee is not a “performance-based construct.” A fixed fee payment schedule would tie payment of portions of the fixed fee to the accomplishment of specified end products (i.e., deliverables) , in accordance with the FAR subpart referenced above. The establishment of a fixed fee payment schedule is entirely at the discretion of the offeror, and it is meant to assist the contractor recoup the fixed fee as deliverables are incrementally completed. If a schedule is not established, then the entire fixed fee will be due and payable upon completion of the contract performance and the deliverables specified in the contract.

An example of a fixed fee payment schedule is hereby included (see Attachment J.6 as a separate file in FBO.GOV). The percentage tied to the completion of each deliverable should be commensurate with the level of effort and risk (among other things) associated with completing the deliverable.

Question 16: Please clarify the contract type being called a “completion type” contract, as this implies the termination of the contract at some point in the future based on the completion of certain tasks or level of effort, regardless of the stated period of performance.

Answer 16: Please see Answer 15 above.

Question 17: Please clarify the limitations on paid leave and sick leave. Are these limitations for local (CCN) personnel only, and if so, how do these compare with Peruvian labor law requirements for paid leave or sick leave? Do these limitations also apply to U.S. personnel to be based in Peru, or to STTA personnel?

Answer 17: Without a specific reference to the RFP section that requires elaboration, this question is vague and unclear, as there are multiple RFP terms that pertain to paid and sick leave. Offerors are encouraged to be specific in the future. However, USAID will clarify the following:

Page 101 states “The Offeror must submit information concerning work-day, work-week, and paid absences. The offeror and each proposed major subcontractor shall indicate the number of hours and days in its normal workday and its normal work-week, both domestically and overseas, for employees and consultants. In addition the offeror and each proposed major subcontractor shall indicate how paid absences (US holidays, local holidays, vacation and sick) shall be covered for this contract.” These proposed work-days, work-week and paid absences are limited to the ranges established in H.9 AIDAR

752.7031 LEAVE AND HOLIDAYS (OCT 1989) on page 59 of the RFP. These terms are all consistent with the current Peruvian labor law requirements.

Question 18: Please clarify whether proposed salaries for local employees will be subject to any USAID FSN salary ceilings, as the RFP indicates that salaries should be based on market rates. Would USAID please provide the FSN local compensation plan?

Answer 18: Pursuant to AIDAR 722.170(b), “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.” While USAID cannot provide offerors with a copy of the USG Local Compensation Plan (LCP) because the LCP is based on a unique mix of benefits and cash salary payments, specific to the USG alone, USAID can and will evaluate the offeror’s own total compensation plan, as further described in Section H.7 of the RFP. For the proposed salary ranges, the offerors must take into account their own policies and practices regarding benefits and the “market value” of the position to be filled.

Question 19: Please clarify the Limitations on Subcontracting clause, and whether this applies to local (Peruvian) subcontractors.

Answer 19: FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting states “By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for services, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.” Yes, this applies to local (Peruvian) subcontractors.

Question 20: Is a bilateral tax treaty in place between the U.S. government and the government of Peru such that the contractor would have tax exempt status?

Answer 20: In general, U.S. Foreign Assistance is not subject to taxation, however, Peruvian taxes may be imposed on contractors depending on their legal registration status in Peru. The Offeror would have to consult with the Government of Peru (GOP) regarding what taxation is applicable and must follow Peruvian law. In the case of VAT tax, the reimbursement to Contractors is done after the costs have been incurred, so they must be included in the budget (as part of unit costs, where applicable). If a contract is awarded, USAID/Peru will instruct the successful offeror how to proceed with obtaining the reimbursement of the VAT.

Question 21: Does the overall amount budgeted ($5-8.5 million) for the project include the costs of implementing 3 Impact Evaluations, 10 performance evaluations and 3 assessments, or will there be additional funds for these activities?

Answer 21: There will be no additional funds for these activities. The budgeted amount includes the cost of implementing 23 evaluations as described on pages 5 - 14.

Question 22: How many IPs/activities does the Mission have per DO?

Answer 22: The Mission currently has 8 activities for DO1, 11 for DO2, and 6 for DO3.

Question 23: How many DQAs does the Mission anticipate doing in each year of the contract?

Answer 23: The Mission will not know until the DO PMPs are finished. However, in the FY 2011 Performance Plan and Report the Mission reported on 30 indicators for its Peru portfolio and 8 indicators for its South America Regional portfolio.

Question 24: To what extent are the Mission DO PMPs finalized?

Answer 24: CDCS has been approved in June 2012. Development of the PMP for DO1 is almost complete. Work is advanced for DO3. It is very likely that development of DO PMPs will be very advanced before the contract is awarded.

Question 25: Was a baseline survey/study ever done in San Martin for this activity? If so, could the Mission please share this information with offeror?

Answer 25: No baseline study was done in San Martin. The contractor will need to make use of publicly available data. USAID/Peru recognizes that this is a significant challenge to designing the impact evaluation and advises offerors to plan accordingly.

Question 26: Please advise what other donors are working in San Martin on these or similar activities?

Answer 26: USAID/Peru does not track the work of other donors in San Martin in any structured way.

Question 27: Please confirm whether a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) is required as part of the proposal. The RFQ requests one on Page 105, Part 10), but it is not listed as part of the Annexes required in section L(a) of the RFP, page 96.

Answer 27: A Branding Implementation Plan is required as part of the Business Proposal (see Section L.7), not the Technical Proposal, which has different requirement in Section L.6.

Question 28: The page numbers of the RFP are a little off. For example there are double/repeat pages 2-10 and pages 22-31 are missing. Please correct this.

Answer 28: This is a typographical error. For consistency, USAID/Peru will refer to the page numbers as they are in the original RFP.

Question 29: As this is a very important project for USAID/Peru, please allow more time for offerors to do a thorough data collection/analysis exercise in-country, recruit suitable local personnel, and write a competitive/responsive proposal consistent with the RFP requirements. This offeror would greatly appreciate at least a 10-day extension of the submission due date.

Answer 29: This RFP is open for 45 calendar days, which is normally sufficient time to prepare a well-informed proposal. In addition, a Presolicitation Notice was posted on FBO.gov more than 3 weeks prior to the RFP release. Prior to that, notification for the upcoming opportunity was also provided via the Expressions of Interest call. Therefore, the offerors have had ample opportunity to prepare an adequate, well-prepared and well-researched offer.

An extension beyond the due date is not possible at this time.

Question 30: Please advise whether offerors have the flexibility to structure the core team and key personnel position to ensure operational efficiency and cost-effectiveness (i.e., combining/consolidating positions, reducing the number of key personnel, etc.).

Answer 30: The number of key personnel cannot be reduced. The RFP indicates that three key personnel with the required skills are required. The offeror may propose to recombine the skills and associated responsibilities among the three positions, but three key personnel must be identified.

Question 31: Please clarify/elaborate on place of performance. Will this project operate in Peru as well as “throughout South America”?

Answer 31: Place of performance for the regional evaluations, “Amazon Malaria Initiative” and “MAXIMUS project for people with disabilities,” are identified on pages 11 and 12 of the RFP. The Amazon Malaria Initiative works in Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, and Suriname; and in Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama. MAXIMUS works in Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, Brazil, and Uruguay. USAID anticipates that travel to a sample of the countries where these activities take place will be sufficient to answer the evaluation questions.

Question 32: Would it be possible to receive the Word Version of the Peru Evaluation Services RFP? That would facilitate the review and proposal preparation process for us.

Answer 32: A Word Version of the Peru Evaluation Services RFP cannot be provided due to copy control.

Question 33: Do you require detailed budgets from subs in the format provided in the RFP?

Answer 33: Yes.

Question 34: Is there a DBA waiver in place for Peru?

Answer 34: No.

Question 35: Under H.7 – Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation

(a) (1) it is stated: “Salary ranges for ALL the professional positions in this contract shall be established based on the market value of the position in the country of performance. …… The salary ranges shall be certified by the Contractor and submitted to the Contracting Officer with the proposal.” Then, under Section L.7, C. Content: (A) Salaries and Wages, it is stated (last sentence, first paragraph) : ………”As indicated in the budget template, the offeror must separate expatriate and cooperating country national labor categories for all staff.” Expatriate personnel salaries could not be based on the market value of positions in the country of performance. Please clarify.

Answer 35: Please refer also to Answer #18 for more information on this. Pursuant to AIDAR 722.170, it is USAID policy to generally treat the compensation of CCNs and TCNs equally, for equal work. Thus, all professional positions shall be established based on the market value of the position in the country of performance and the contractor’s own personnel policies and practices, regardless of the nationality of the individual proposed for that position. The offeror can choose if the proposed individual is a cooperating country national or an expatriate, though USAID would strongly encourage employment of Peruvian professionals to maximum extent possible.

Question 36: Are the Key Personnel References considered part of the page count for the CVs or are they outside of the page count for the CV’s?

Answer 36: The Key Personnel References are not considered part of the page count for CVs.

Question 37: Re H.7 – Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, (e) Consultants (Short-term Technical Assistance), please clarify whether the requested Pay Scale includes expatriate and local consultants.

Answer 37: Pay Scales must be included for expatriate and local consultants.

Question 38: Re L.7, C. Content: (A) Salaries and Wages (paragraph two) “For All Other Long-Term Positions”, will you provide range of positions under Local Compensation Plan?

Answer 38: No. This will be part of the offeror’s proposal.

Question 39: Is it possible to get a copy of the newly signed CDCS? If not, can a list of Dos and IRs for the Mission be provided?

Answer 39: A public version of the CDCS has not been clear at this time. All DOs and IRs for USAID/Peru are provided on page 122 of the RFP.

Question 40: Section H.7 talks about submission of a Certified Salary Range for each professional position. Please explain the details of the “Certified Salary Range”. The rates of proposed personnel are always based on the certified biodata forms, and we apply an annual salary increase as per our personnel policies. We do not have a Certified Salary Range for professional positions.

Answer 40: The salary range requirements are fully explained in Section H.7, paragraph (a) for all long-term professional positions, and paragraph (e) for consultants.

Salary increases are also addressed in Section H.7, as is the role of Biodata Sheets, which must be utilized for placing a candidate within a salary range as they represent a certified salary history. USAID strongly encourages the offeror to read carefully Section H.7 and respond accordingly in the offer, if one is submitted.

Question 41: Per the timeline of scheduled activities, there are no evaluations scheduled for completion in 2017, which would be Year 5 of the contract. Is it expected that the “to be named” evaluations will be conducted in 2017?

Answer 41: Some of the “to be named” evaluations may be conducted in 2017.

Question 42: Regarding Component 1 (a), which South American Regional portfolios are to be evaluated?

Answer 42: The regional evaluations, “Amazon Malaria Initiative” and “MAXIMUS project for people with disabilities,” are described on pages 11 and 12 of the RFP.

Question 43: Regarding Component 2 (c) (2) (i), how many partner organizations or individuals does USAID anticipate the training plan will cover?

Answer 43: See information on possible partner organizations on page labeled 15 section b. Background. For number of individuals see answer to Question 4.

Question 44: Regarding Component 3 (a), does USAID anticipate that the local Monitoring and Evaluation institutions will be non-governmental organizations, or could this target government organizations?

Answer 44: It could target government organizations.

Question 45: Please clarify USAID’s position on the exclusivity of local partners for this RFP. Should local partners be expected to be available to any winning consortium, or enter into exclusive relationships with selected consortia?

Answer 45: Local partners are non-exclusive and can therefore enter into partnerships with more than one firm.

Question 46: Re. RFP p. 5, Section d.1(Evaluation Time Frame). -- The impact evaluation time frame for the San Martin Model is 6 months, from Jan-Jun 2013.

Should we interpret this short time frame to mean that only follow-on data collection and impact analysis is to be undertaken for this evaluation? Is baseline data available from 2001 or 2002 for targeted areas in San Martin?

Answer 46: No specific baseline study was done in San Martin. The offeror is requested to make use of publicly available data. USAID/Peru recognizes that this is a significant challenge to designing the impact evaluation and encourages offerors to plan accordingly. The timeline is flexible if justified by the details of the proposed impact evaluation.

Question 47: Re. RFP p. 5 Section d.1 and p.10, Section e.7. (Time frame of impact and performance evaluations) – The impact evaluation time frame for the San Martin Model is completed in June 2013, yet the final performance evaluation for the support for the Regional Government of San Martin (final), is completed by November 2014. Can USAID please explain the lack of coincidence of timing of the evaluations?

Answer 47: Alternative Development Support for the Regional Government of San Martin is a current alternative development project in San Martin. The San Martin Model Impact Evaluation will evaluate all alternative development programs from 2002 to present. Thus, “Support for the Regional Government of San Martin” is one of many programs to be evaluated in the “San Martin Model Impact Evaluation.” Since USAID/Peru has many ongoing programs in San Martin, some programs (including “Support for the Regional Government of San Martin”) will inevitably be incomplete as of the evaluation date.

Question 48: Re. RFP p. 18, 2nd parag. (Local Partners) – Does USAID expect bidders to propose as their local subcontractors the two (or more) local M&E organizations that are to assist with institutional capacity development throughout the course of the project? If so, can USAID confirm that local subcontractors cannot enter into exclusivity agreements with bidding Consortia (i.e., cannot commit exclusively to one prime contractor’s bid)?

Answer 48: See answer to question 45.

Question 49: Re. RFP page 39 (Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports) – USAID is clear that the three Quarterly Progress Reports should be disseminated to “South American Governments, the U.S. Embassy and other donors.” Can USAID confirm that that the Annual Reports also be disseminated to these entities?

Answer 49: Yes, at USAID’s request, the Contractor will provide annual or quarterly progress reports to the South American Governments, the U.S. Embassy and other donors.

Question 50: Re. RFP Attachment J.2 (Past Performance Questionnaire) – Can USAID confirm that the RFP number at the top of this questionnaire should be RFP SOL-527-12-000014 and not the number shown (RFP 518-12-000004)?

Answer 50: This is a typographical error. The RFP number for Attachment J.2 is SOL- 527-12-000014.

Question 51: Re. RFP p. 37, f(5) and RFP p. 57 (g)(2) – (Clarification on allowed days in work-week) – The RFP states that no overtime or premium pay will be allowed under this Contract; however, page 57 (g) (2) authorizes a six-day work week for consultants and overseas-based staff engaged in time-sensitive tasks.

Can bidders propose that short-term experts may work a six-day work week on time-sensitive tasks or will the earlier citation (p. 37) be followed?

Answer 51: Six-day workweek is authorized only for consultants and overseas personnel for time-sensitive tasks. While this is not anticipated to be normally used, the Contractor shall document these rare instances and inform the COR with a copy to the Contracting Officer.

Question 52: Re. Salary Scales/Compensation Plan Ranges for proposed positions vs. Salary History shown on Forms 1420-17 of candidates – USAID is clear that bidders are to submit, for each long-term position (key or other), a Salary Scale that is in accordance with Local Market Value, and not base a candidate’s proposed base salary purely on his/her past-salary history.

Nonetheless, the RFP includes, as Attachment J.2, the standard USAID Biodata Form (Form 1420-17). Please clarify.

Answer 52: Certified Biodata Forms are required for each proposed individual to confirm that they meet the minimum qualifications for the positions and will also be used to determine where the candidate’s salary will fall within the appropriate salary range.

Question 53: Time Range for Contract, for Costing Purposes and related – Can bidders assume a start-up date of November 1, 2012 for the five-year project? If not, can USAID please provide bidders with an alternate anticipated start-up date, for the purpose of uniform costing, work plan development, and obtaining ‘start-date’ commitments from key personnel candidates, to be reflected in Candidate Letters of Commitment? (We understand that, regardless of eventual start date, bidders are to make bids valid for at least 120 days after submission date.)

Answer 53: Offerors may assume a start-up date of January 1, 2013.

Question 54: The RFP provides the following instructions: “In Annex F (but summarized in this portion of the Technical Proposal), offerors must provide information on up to five (5) recent (within the past 3 years) performed contracts or on-going contracts as a prime or as a major sub-contractor, team or consortium member that demonstrate past experience in carrying out tasks similar in content, magnitude and complexity to this requirement.” Do we understand correctly that the offeror must submit information on up to five (5) recent or on-going contracts for each of the prime or major sub-contractors, or a combined total of up to five (5) for the prime and all major partners?

Answer 54: Offerors must provide information on up to five (5) recent (within the past 3 years) performed contracts or on-going contracts of which the offeror was or is a prime contractor, sub-contractor, team or consortium member. In other words, offerors as the potential prime for this award, need to provide this institutional past performance information about themselves. Offerors do not need to provide institutional past performance about proposed sub-contractors for this award.

Question 55: May the offeror provide annexes in double page/spread sizes?

Answer 55: The question is unclear. Please use 8.5 inch by 11 inch (210mm by 297mm) paper with margins no less than one inch on each border in the Annex.

Question 56: What does “integration with other USAID projects” refer to in the following statement in section M, B. Project Management, point 2: “The extent to which the offeror’s institutional experience, staffing and partnership arrangements demonstrate expertise and commitment towards achieving the contract objectives, developing sustainable local capabilities and integration with other USAID projects; and the extent to which the proposed management plan supports directly and clearly the successful implementation of the program; and developing sustainable local capabilities and integration with other USAID projects”?

Answer 56: “Integration with other USAID projects” refers to the need to establish good working relations and cooperate with USAID partners when needed.

Question 57: If a sub-partner on a proposal for the Peru M&E Services award has participated in an activity that will be subject to evaluation under this award, should the offeror describe the processes and policies that it will establish to firewall this evaluation from the participation of any partners that would otherwise generate the appearance of a possible conflict of interests?

Answer 57: Yes. Sub-partners in current USAID projects should not evaluate activities that they participated in. This should be disclosed in the proposal.

Question 58: Section L.6.c.1.b includes the following requirement: “This must include the approach that the offeror will take to ensure sustainability and ownership by Local Organizations, and what the integrated communication strategy will be to sustain the future evaluations and monitoring processes.” It is not clear to us what the “integrated communications strategy” refers to in section C, or how a communications approach would lead to the sustainability of future evaluations or monitoring processes. Could USAID specify to which elements and results of section C this refers?

Answer 58: Sustainability and ownership by Local Organizations is the objective.

However, USAID hereby modifies the referenced section to read: “This must include the approach that the offeror will take to ensure sustainability and ownership by Local Organizations.” All references to a communication strategy have been removed for the purposes of the RFP.

Question 59: The RFP has required the Contractor to “propose other long-term and short-term personnel consistent with its technical and management approach.” (Section C.4, last sentence, page 20.) Section L specifies annexes D and E for the CVs and letters of commitment from Key Personnel; may the offeror include supporting documents the other proposed personnel in these annexes?

Answer 59: Annexes D and E are for CVs and Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel only. No other CVs may be included.

2) Section F.6. B. Reporting and Deliverables Matrix, Component 1: Evaluations is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following table:

Component 1: Evaluations

Description No. Timing Quality

Evaluation Design

23 As requested by USAID/Peru and scheduled in the annual work plan – See Section C.

Delivery of a high-quality and concise evaluation design report that incorporates Mission comments on the first draft. Strict adherence to the schedule in the scope of work prepared for the activity.

Adherence to USAID evaluation policy standards.

Impact evaluations

3 As requested by USAID/Peru and scheduled in the annual work plan – See Section C.

Partial deliveries (e.g.

baseline report, mid-term review, final review) for each

Delivery of a USAID/Peru and USAID/PPL acceptable, high-quality and concise final report that incorporates Mission comments on the first draft. Development hypotheses must be approved by USAID. Empirical tests must meet standards for scientific rigor comparable to that required by the American Economic Review. Strict adherence to the schedule in the scope

Description No. Timing Quality impact evaluation will be specified in each evaluation SOW.

of work prepared for the activity.

Adherence to USAID Evaluation policy standards.

Mid-term performance evaluations

4 As requested by USAID/Peru and scheduled in the annual work plan – See Section C.

Delivery of a high-quality and concise final report that incorporates Mission comments on the first draft. Strict adherence to the schedule in the scope of work prepared for the activity.

Adherence to USAID evaluation policy standards.

Submitted to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC)

Final Performance evaluations

13 As requested by USAID/Peru and scheduled in the annual work plan – See Section C.

Delivery of a high-quality and concise final report that incorporates Mission comments on the first draft. Strict adherence to the schedule in the scope of work prepared for the activity.

Adherence to USAID evaluation policy standards.

Sector and cross-cutting assessments

3 As requested by USAID/Peru and scheduled in the annual work plan – See Section C.

Delivery of a high-quality and concise final report that incorporates Mission comments on the first draft. Strict adherence to the schedule in the scope of work prepared for the activity.

3) Section J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS is hereby modified to include Attachment “J.6 Example Fixed Fee Payment Schedule” as a separate file in FBO.GOV

[END OF AMENDMENT NO.1 TO SOL-572-12-000014]