Amdt1_Q A_SOL-608-16-000007.pdf

Attachment 1

SOL-608-16-000007 Amendment 1: Questions and Responses

Question 1 (Q1): In Section C. 1, page 141, USAID states that offerors should complete a past performance matrix and provides the following link:

http://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/pastperformancematrix. The link appears to not be working. Can USAID provide the matrix as Word document?

Response 1 (R1): The correct link is: https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/past-performance-matrix

Q2: In Requirement 1.3, The RFP indicates that RFS-NPR will develop experimental materials.

Will these become the basis for new textbooks? Or will the content of the experimental materials inform the public procurement of new textbooks?

R2: The RFP indicates that RFS-NPR will develop experimental materials. These will become the basis for new textbooks AND will inform the public procurement of new textbooks, at the discretion of the Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training.

Q3: On the cover page, the RFP states that there will be a pre-proposal conference on October

20, 2016. Please provide additional information regarding the logistics of the pre-proposal

Conference.

R3: See Amendment 1.

Q4: Page 1: The RFP states that there will be a pre-proposal conference on October 20, 2016.

Will this be an in person conference or will contractors be able to participate by phone?

R4: Offerors will be able to participate to the pre-proposal conference by phone. Please see

Amendment 1 for instructions.

Q5: Page 25: The RFP states that activity startup will begin in March of 2017. Previous communications from USAID stated May 2017 will be the start date. Will USAID please confirm that March 2017 is the anticipated project start date?

R5: As stated in the RFP page 142, Offerors should assume an estimated contract start date of

April 2017.

The below chart depicts the anticipated coordination between RFS-SSE and RFS:

School year 2015-

RFS-SSE RFS-NPR

Sept-Nov 2015 Start up PROCUREMENT http://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/pastperformancematrix https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/past-performance-matrix

Dec-15

EGRA Grade 1 cohort 1

Baseline

Jan-16

Develop lessons Grade 1

(part 1) Train teachers on

Grade 1 lessons

Feb-16

Introduced Grade 1 lessons in classes

Mar-16

Develop lessons Grade 1

(part 2)

Apr-16

Develop lessons Grade 1

(part 2 cont') Develop

Grade 2 lessons

May-16

EGRA Grade 1 cohort 1 mid line (Data collection)

Develop Grade 2 lessons

(cont')

Jun-16

EGRA Grade 1 cohort 1 mid line (Data Analysis)

Develop Grade 2 lessons

(cont')

Jul-16

Harmonize Grades 1 and 2 lessons

Fall-16

Launch call for interest and select associations for summer learning loss activity (summer learning loss activities will be prepared during 2016-2017 to be implemented in summer 2017

School year 2016-2017

Sep-16

EGRA - Grade 1 cohort 2 baseline EGRA - Grade 2

PROCUREMENT

PROCESS

cohort 1 baseline Grade 1 lessons implemented for

Grade 1, Cohort 2

CONTINUES

Oct-16

Train teachers on Grade 2 lessons Introduce Grade 2

Modules (x/2016)

Nov-16

Continue G1 - Experiment

G2

Dec-16

Continue G1 - Experiment

G2

Jan-17

Continue G1 - Experiment

G2

Feb-17

Continue G1 - Experiment

G2

Mar-17

Continue G1 - Experiment

G2

Apr-17

Continue G1 - Experiment

G2

NPR ACTIVITY

START UP

May-17

EGRA - Grade 1 Cohort 2 endline + Grade 2 cohort 1 midline

Review of Grade 1 and

2 lessons already developed under RFS-

SSE

EGRA Grades 3

Baseline instrument adaptation/development

Jun-17

EGRA - Grade 1 Cohort 2 endline + Grade 2 cohort 1 midline

Build on G1 and G2 lessons developed under

RFS-SSE to design

Grade 3 lessons

EGRA Grades 3

Baseline data collection

Jul-17 summer learning loss activities

EGRA Grades 3

Baseline data Analysis

Aug-17 summer learning loss activities

School year 2017-2018

Sep-17

Report on summer learning loss activities

Develop Grade 3 lessons

Oct-17 Activity closeout

Develop Grade 4

Lessons

Note: The activities in the NPR column are only illustrative.

Q6: Pages 53–54, Section F.4 and F.7: Language requirements for reports and deliverables in

English, French and Arabic appear to be in conflict, considering that providing each report or deliverable in all three languages presents significant administrative and cost burdens to the program. Could USAID further clarify which languages are required for each specific report and deliverable?

R6: All Reports and Deliverables shall be submitted in English and in Arabic. See Amendment

1.

Q7. Page 53, Section F.6 Authorized Workday/week: Please provide advance approval of a 6-day workweek for the first 12 weeks of the program to facilitate rapid start-up.

R7: Once the contract is awarded, a request for a six day workweek can be submitted by the contractor. Alternatively, an Offeror can propose a six day workweek in their proposal with appropriate justification.

Q.8: Page 54-55, USAID provides a table of deliverables for Grade 1-2 and Grades 3-4 curricula and for reading and writing instructional materials. Both curricula and materials are due at the same time (Grade 1-2 at 6 months, Grade 3-4 at 18 months). Could USAID further clarify the difference in the deliverables, as at time materials are seen as part of curriculum?

R.8: Both curricula and materials are due at the same time (Grade 1-2 at 6 months, Grade 3-4 at 18 months) as specified in the RFP. There is no difference in the deliverables, the curriculum and the materials are closely connected and one cannot be complete without the other.

Q.9: The timeline for RFS-NPR deliverables on page 55 do not match up with coordination tables for RFS-SSE on pages 25-26. Rather it shows further Grade 1-2 implementation by RFS-

SSE at month 6, just prior to close-out, at a time when RFS-NPR would presumably be submitting revised Grade 1-2 materials for approval. Will USAID please clarify the timeline for

RFS-NPR deliverables with respect to coordination with RFS-SSE.

R.9: The coordination table for RFS-SSE on pages 25-26 was just illustrative to show possible ways the RFS-SSE and NPR may overlap. Offerors shall consider the table of deliverables in section F as the only timeline they should follow.

Q.10: Page 69, Section F.8.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan, with respect to assessment explained in the first bullet of Page 69, which states: “Baseline, midline and endline assessments of a random sample of students in grades 1- 4. The Offeror shall conduct reading assessments of a random selection of students (control and intervention groups). The Offeror shall propose the timing of baseline, midline and endline reading assessments as part of the work plan and the research agenda. Offeror will coordinate with RFS-SSE on Grade 1-2 assessments, and shall develop and implement assessment tools for grade 3-4. It is expected that the lessons for all four grades will be gradually rolled out first in all primary schools of the

RFS-SSE four experimental regions (Souss Massa, Oujda Anjad, Rabat-Kenitra, Fes Meknes).

The final decision regarding the roll out plans and sampling will be made in consultation with the

MNEVT and USAID.”

R.10: The question is missing.

Q.11: Could USAID confirm that roll-out will in fact occur in the four experimental regions, as this is not explicitly stated anywhere in Section C?

R.11: As stated in the RFP and above: It is expected that the lessons for all four grades will be gradually rolled out first in all primary schools of the RFS-SSE four experimental regions (Souss Massa, Oujda Anjad, Rabat-Kenitra, Fes Meknes). The final decision regarding the roll out plans and sampling will be made in consultation with the MNEVT and USAID.”

Q.12: Could USAID explain the coordination required with respect to Grade 1-2 assessments with RFS-SSE?

R.12: The contractor is expected to coordinate with RFS-SSE implementer to use all the materials produced under RFS-SSE in the development of the curriculum for grades 1-2 under

NPR as/if appropriate.

Q.13: Is there particular guidance to be provided on proposed sampling and assumptions for the purposes of elaboration of the technical proposal, given these “expectations” cited in the following paragraph in the first bullet on page 69, particularly with respect to RFS-SSE control group schools that are presumed to receive RFS-NPR program interventions first?

R.13: There is no particular guidance. Offeror shall propose sampling methods based on their expertise.

Q.14: Page 31: The RFP states “The Offeror will propose a plan for the implementation of RFS-

NPR activities to achieve its objectives. The plan should include the number of schools to be reached initially; the number of direct and indirect beneficiaries; and, the level and type of involvement for these schools, teachers and students. Additionally, the plan should include capacity building activities of Ministry staff as well as activities to support the Ministry to develop their plans to scale up NPR to a national level.” Is the plan for implementation something separate from the RFS-NPR technical proposal to be submitted by the bidders, or is the statement above simply saying that the proposal itself constitutes the plan?

R.14: The plan shall be part of the technical proposal.

Q.15: Page 73, Section F.12 Key Personnel Qualifications, states that, “any relevant information obtained from references will be evaluated.” However, Section L does not mention key personnel references as a requirement. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors are not required to submit key personnel references with their proposal?

R.15: References should be included as part of the Key Personnel CVs which are required to be submitted as part of the Technical Proposal.

Q.16: Page 81, Section H.3 DBA: Does USAID have a DBA waiver for Morocco? What is the standard DBA coverage practice in Morocco for TCNs and CCNs?

R.16: Please see Acquisition and Assistance Policy Directive (AAPD) 16-04 at https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/AAPD16-04.pdf for guidance on DBA coverage.

Q.17: Page 84, Section H.10 VAT: As noted in 52.229-8 Taxes—Foreign Cost-Reimbursement

Contracts, VAT would only be allowable should the U.S. Government have in place a bona fide exemption upon which an organization would be excused from paying that specific tax. Should the U.S. Government fail to secure such an exemption or fail to enforce the exemption, the taxes would therefore be allowable under the Changes Clause.

We respectfully request the following: 1) 52.229-8 be included in Section I, 2) a copy of the documentation upon which an exemption would be claim, and 3) any information USAID might have on the current time to process a claim for reimbursement if the exemption scheme is a reimbursement scheme rather than a point of sale exemption so that we can evaluate the cost implications of forward funding taxes.

R.17: 52.229-8 TAXES-FOREIGN COST-REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS (MAR 1990)

clause was already included in Section I, I.6. A VAT presentation has been added under

FOLDER 12 in the Google Drive Material references.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/AAPD16-04.pdf

Q.18: Page 85, Section H.12(d) Annual Salary Increases: As the budgeted annual salary escalation rate reflects an overall average over the life of the project for all positions including yet to be identified personnel, will USAID consider revising this section to allow for a maximum annual increase of 10% for annual and promotional increases within CST and LCP thresholds for full-time staff in the field, in order to ease the administrative burden for CO approval of such annual increases which may exceed the budgeted escalation rate?

R.18: As noted in Section H.12(d), “Annual salary increases (e.g. cost of living and merit increases and other) for the current labor pool may be granted once a year and cannot exceed the escalation rate that was negotiated for in this contract.” Each Offeror will include a proposed escalation rate for salaries in their submitted cost proposal.

Q.19: Page 89, Section H.23: Please clarify whether or not a subcontracting plan is required for submission; and if required, should subcontracting plan be submitted with the cost Proposal?

R.19: A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required for submission and should be included in the cost proposal under the section entitled “Information to Support Consent to

Subcontractors”.

Q.20: Page 91, Section H.31 Environment Compliance: Please provide the latest IEE forms specified in this section.

R.20: ME-14-65 form has been added under FOLDER 13 in the Google Drive Material references.

Q.21: Pages 91, 92, and 93 Section H.32 Grants under Contract and L.7.2.h. Sub-grants/GUCs:

Please confirm that GUCs should be budgeted at a ceiling of $50,000 per year. Are offerors allowed to propose GUCs lower than $50,000 per year?

R.21: GUCs shall be budgeted at a ceiling of $50,000 per year, and offerors are allowed to propose GUCs lower than $50,000 per year.

Q.22: Page 114 refers to the FSN scale for USAID/Morocco. The FSN scale that USAID provided is dated 2015. Could USAID please provide the most recent complete FSN scale as well as the LCP for Morocco for compliance with AIDAR 722.170 and for market analysis of local staff salaries?

R.22: 2016 FSN scale is incorporated in the NPR Reference material in the Google Drive.

Q.23: Page 138 of the RFP states that Proposals must be written in English and typed on standard 8 1/2" x 11" paper or A4 sized paper, single spaced, in a 12 pt. san serif font.

Will USAID allow contractors to use Times New Roman 12 instead of a 12pt San Serif font?

R.23: Yes. See Amendment 1.

Q.24: Page 139: the RFP states “The Offeror must propose a Draft One Year Work Plan that briefly describes activities for the first six months of implementation. The Draft Work Plan must describe each proposed activity; list the deliverables; the time and level of effort, commodities, and other resources required to achieve each stated result. The draft work plan is not included in the 25-page technical proposal limit.” Please confirm that that the One-Year Work Plan with six months of implementation detail requires the list of deliverables, time and level of effort, commodities and other resources for those first six months only.

R.24: The One-Year Work Plan with six months of implementation detail requires the list of deliverables, time and level of effort, commodities and other resources for the first six months only.

Q.25: Will USAID please provide all contractors with the Quarter 4 quarterly report for RFS-

SSE?

R.25: Quarter 4 of the RFS-SSE has just started and the report will not be available until the quarter ends in December 2016. Delaying submissions until the fourth quarter ends will cause project start up delays that shall not be accepted by USAID Washington.

Q.26: 1) In Section L.7.2.g, page 145, the RFP states that “All costs for local organizations without NICRAs must be budgeted as direct costs.” We request that USAID provide offerors with the flexibility of entering into cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) or time and materials (T&M) type subcontracts with organizations that do not have NICRAs when the following conditions are met:

● An organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or T&M type subcontract

● An organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of their indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31

● The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract with a local organization is administered properly

● An organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve as a tool to build the capacity of local organizations so they can eventually have the financial and administrative capacity to receive direct funding from USAID.

Furthermore, managing direct cost allocation subcontracts typically results in higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors and reduces overall cost control due to monthly costs varying significantly depending on the services being provided by the subcontractor.

Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers (under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases and allow for a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

R.26: Once the contract is awarded, a request for T&M or other type of subcontracts may be submitted by the contractor for approval by the Contracting Officer.

Q.27: RFP Section H.12 (a) (2), page 85, states “there is a ceiling on the reimbursable base salary or wage paid to personnel under the Contract equivalent to the maximum annual salary rate specified in H.8 above unless an advance written waiver is granted by the USAID

Procurement Executive.” However Section H. 8 refers to MEDEVAC, which does not provide the ceiling paid to personnel. Can USAID kindly provide the ceiling paid to personnel?

R.27: The correct section to refer to is H.11 instead of H.8. See Amendment 1.

Q.28: RFP Section I.8, page 109, appears to have missing information. Would USAID kindly provide the clause in its entirety?

R.28: See Amendment 1.

Q.29: RFP Section L.5.1.(e), page 134, states, “the authorized source for procurement of goods and services is Geographic Code 937 and no waivers for other than Geographic Code 937 have been approved as a part of this RFP.” The RFP also states on page 46: “…RFS-NPR may include partnerships with external entities, such as national and international universities, to provide MNEVET official and technical staff with focused and intensive training…” To provide a comprehensive response to engage with national and international universities, would USAID kindly consider providing a waiver for Geographic Codes other than 937?

R.29: USAID will not consider providing a waiver for Geographic Codes other than 937.

Q.30: In RFP Section L.6 C. 1, page 141, the link to the past performance matrix is broken.

Would USAID kindly send a new link for the past performance matrix?

R.30: The correct link is: https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1868/past-performance-matrix. See

Amendment 1.

Q.31: RFP Section L.6.B., page 140, states, “The expectation is that the project will be operational within 25 days of the award.” The RFP also states in Section M.3 B. a) “The expectation is that the project will be operational within 60 days of the award.” Would USAID kindly clarify?

R.31: This was an unintentional error. The expectation is that the project will be operational within 60 days of the award. See Amendment 1.

Q.32: RFP Section L.7.2.a, page 143, states, “Salaries and wages may not exceed the Offeror’s established pay scale for equivalent classification of employees, which shall be certified by the

Offeror. Can USAID please confirm that submitting a salary scale is not required if an offeror’s standard local compensation policies and procedures do not include an established salary scale?

R.32: USAID confirm that a salary scale submission is not required if an offeror’s standard local compensation policies and procedures do not include an established salary scale.

Q.33: RFP Section F.9, page 75, requires a doctorate degree in teacher professional development and/or coaching or relevant field for the teacher professional development/training specialist (senior) position. Would USAID consider revising this requirement and accept years of experience in lieu of a degree?

R.33: USAID maintains the requirements in section F.9.

End of Questions and Responses

SOL-608-16-000007 Amendment 1