Attachment_1_to_Amendment_1.pdf

Attachment 1 Amendment 1 to SOL-612-13-000003

Question 1. L.7.2 item V. (p. 77) states that bidder should submit the proposal both in hard copy and by email, however there is no reference to hard copy submission elsewhere. Can the Mission please clarify whether hard copy submission is also desired, and if so, provide details for hard copy deliver?

Answer: Only electronic submissions are required.

Question 2. L.8.1.A (p.78) states that the Executive Summary should state the “level of USAID funding requested and cost-share amount”, however, it is commonplace to abstain from referencing budget in technical proposal, to allow for a separate evaluation process. Can the Mission confirm this request to include the funding amount in the technical proposal?

Answer: This requirement is deleted.

Question 3. Can the Mission please confirm whether bidders are to submit up to 5 past performance reference total (including prime and major subcontractors), or each (5 for prime, 5 for each major subcontractor)?

Answer: Offerors must submit up to 5 past performance reference for the prime and up to five for each major subcontractor.

Question 4. Timing for delivery of Baseline Study. In a number of places in Section C, data for the baseline studies for Tasks 1 and 2 are due to be collected in May 2013. However, the Acquisition Schedule (L.11, page 88) calls for award and mobilization to take place during May 2013. Can the timing specified in F.4 Reports and Deliverables (F.4.6 Baseline Study Report, page 32), 42 days after the acceptance of the inception report, be substituted?

Answer: The Baseline needs to be done before the end of June 2013. Forty two days after the inception report, as suggested, would occur after the school year is out and the Contractor will not be able to collect the required data.

Question 5. Inception Report, F.4.4, page 31. Could you please clarify "billable" in "28 billable days"?

Answer: Billable refers to actual days worked on the evaluation and will be charged to USAID and does not refer to calendar days.

Question 6. Could you please indicate whether a six-day workweek is authorized?

Answer: Only forty hours/ five-day work week is authorized.

Question 7. Period of Performance. The period of performance in F.2 and elsewhere is indicated as five years. However, the instructions for preparing the cost proposal (L.9.2 (b)(iii), page 83) states that the summary budget is "for the 40-month contract period." Please clarify.

Answer: The statement is corrected to read as follows: for the five years contract period”.

Question 8. Section L.7.3 Proposal Format (page 77) calls for submission of the entire technical proposal "both in hard copy and by e-mail." (a) Is the cost proposal also required in hard copy? (b) How many copies, if any, are required? (c) The cover letter refers to the closing date and time for the electronic version, but not for the hard copy. Given the length of time needed for delivery, would we be correct in believing that if hard copy is required, February 8, the date specified for receipt of the electronic version, would be the closing date for handing the hard copy of the electronic version to a recognized common carrier, such as DHL?

Answer: Only electronic submission is required.

Question 9. Thank you for including the Local Compensation Plan effective June 17, 2012 and the note that the rates are in dollars and that there have been major currency fluctuation rates. Could the Mission provide information as to your own policy for currency adjustments?

Answer: For budgeting purposes all figures must be in US Dollars. As per solicitation clause H.6 AIDAR 752.7007 which will be incorporated into the final contract, an offeror/contractor must pay salaries in accordance with the firm’s own corporate policies, hence USAID’s policies should not be applied. Payment of salaries to TCNs and FSNs must be in local currency unless waived by the Mission Director. For informational purposes, The US Embassy/USAID currently pegs local FSN salaries to a fixed US$ figure and pays an equivalent amount in local currency, but this is subject to periodic review.

Question 10. Clearly the work to be performed needs to be performed in close coordination with the MoEST. Could you please advise what part of MoEST will likely be the key counterpart with which the successful bidder would interact?

Answer: The key counterparts in the MoEST include the Directorate of Inspection and Advisory Services and the Department of Planning, particularly the Education Management Information Systems Unit.

Question 11. The Sampling Frame, e.g., on page 13 indicates "a minimum of 30 schools randomly selected per district." However, the frame also specifies four categories of schools from which the sample should be developed. Are we correct in assuming that what is desired is -stratified- random sampling?

Answer: Stratified random sampling is desired that enables statistically significant comparisons to be made.

Question 12. On page 88 of the RFP it states that the contract will be awarded on May 1, 2013, with contractor mobilization and post award meeting taking place thereafter. However, the baseline data collection is planned for May 2013, according to the tables on pages 11 and 21. This does not allow sufficient time for the numerous activities required prior to data collection for an impact evaluation including, but not limited to, the preparation of an inception report; development of a sampling design and plan in collaboration with the implementing agency; sampling of schools and comparison districts; design and pilot testing of assessment tools and questionnaires; and preparation and implementation of enumerator training for the data collection. Could you please confirm that USAID expects baseline data collection to occur in the same month that the contract is awarded?

Answer: The academic school year ends at the beginning of July. To conduct baseline data for the impact evaluation, school based data must be collected before the end of June 2013.

Question 13. On page 23 of the Impact Evaluation RFP (SOL-612-13-000003), under outcome indicators, it states that the “highest order indicators tracked by the Contractor…will be assessed bi-annually…before the end of May 2013, May 2015, and May 2017.

We also note that the EGRA Contractor RFP, SOL-612-13-000004, also indicates that “"The Contractor shall receive data from a third party contractor identified by USAID. The highest order indicators tracked by the third party contractor that will be provided to the Contractor will at a minimum include the following indicators. Data for these indicators will be collected bi-annually by the third party Contractor before the end of May 2013, May 2015, and May 2017.” Given the contract award date of May 1, 2013, is it correct to assume that the due date of “before the end of May 2013” for these indicators is an error?

Answer: The academic school year ends at the beginning of July. To conduct baseline data for the impact evaluation, school based data must be collected before the end of June 2013.

Question 14. Pg. 14 of the RFP (SOL-612-13-000003) states that annual results reports will be due to USAID/Malawi by July 31 of each year. On pages 18 and 21 it states that these reports will be due on August 31, 2017. In the EGRA contractor RFP (SOL-612- 13-000004), it states that “The final reports and data [from the third party Contractor] will be made available to the [EGRA] Contractor by the end of August 2013, 2015 and 2017.” Could you please confirm the actual due dates for these annual reports?

Answer: Page 14 should read that the reports will be due on August 31, as indicated on pages 18 and 21.

Question 15. The list of Required Plans and Reports on pgs. 21-22 includes a baseline study report, an annual performance report, a mid-line performance report, and an end-line performance report. How do these reports match up with the results reports due by July 31st (or August 31st) of each year? Are these the same reports? It would be useful if USAID could provide a complete list of reports due for this contract with illustrative due dates to prevent confusion about deliverables and due dates.

Answer: Page 14 should read that the reports will be due on August 31, as indicated on pages 18 and 21.

Question 16. If these sets of reports are different, then please clarify what the expected content of the annual, mid-line, and end-line performance reports? Please also clarify whether midline and annual performance reports and annual and endline performance reports are due in the same years (presumably 2015 and 2017), or whether the midline and endline performance reports will stand in place of the annual performance reports in those two years. Again, the aforementioned single list of deliverables with corresponding due dates will help clear up inconsistencies and doubts on this front.

Answer: F.5.1. REPORT/PLAN TABLE has been replaces with the following:

Report Due Date

Work Plan 30 days after award signing, and September 15 annually

Quarterly Report January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30 annually

Inception Report 28 billable days after award signing

DQA Report Prior to September 2014

Baseline Study Report: August 31, 2013

Report of the Evaluation of the USAID/Malawi Early Grade Reading Activity (EGRA) on Standard 2 and 4 Students Reading Outcomes

August 31, 2013

Report of the Household Survey of Sub- Sampled Standard 2 and 4 Students.

August 31, 2013

Annual Performance Report October 30 annually

2014 Report of the National Reading Assessment for Standards 1 and 3 students

August 31, 2014

Midline Activity Evaluation Report August 31, 2015

Report of the Evaluation of the USAID/Malawi Early Grade Reading Activity (EGRA) on Standard 2 and 4 Students Reading Outcomes

August 31, 2015

Report of the Household Survey of Sub- Sampled Standard 2 and 4 Students.

August 31, 2015

2016 Report of the National Reading Assessment for Standards 1 and 3 students

August 31, 2016

Final End-line Evaluation Report August 31, 2017

Report of the Evaluation of the USAID/Malawi Early Grade Reading Activity (EGRA) on Standard 2 and 4 Students Reading Outcomes

August 31, 2017

Report of the Household Survey of Sub- Sampled Standard 2 and 4 Students.

August 31, 2017

Annual Evaluation Report Briefs September 30 annually

School Report Cards November 30 annually

Early Grade Reading Policy Briefs November 30, 2013, 2015,and 2017

Consultant Reports 15 days after the end of the assignment

Disposition of Assets and Closeout Plan 120 days prior to the end of the contract

Final Report 90 days after the end of the contract

Question 17. The list of reports on pgs. 21-22 also includes school report cards and early grade reading policy briefs. How often is the evaluation contractor supposed to deliver these? Please provide due dates for these deliverables.

Answer: The School Report Cards are due September 30 annually and the Early Grade Reading Policy Briefs are due November 30 annually.

Question 18. On p.17, it says that “Malawi has set benchmarks and targets for performance in Standards 1 through 3”. Would USAID be willing to provide more details about those benchmarks and past data collection results?

Answer: The past data collection on learning outcomes are in the EGRA Baseline 2010 Report and the EGRA Mid-line 2011 Report.

MTPDS also collected internal data about the literacy intervention in Ntchisi and Salima. These reports are available on-line at mtpds.org. EGRA 2011 and the Ntchisi and Salima snapshot have been included as attachments in Section J.

The following are the benchmarks and targets established and agreed to with the MoEST-convened EGRA Coordinating Committee Meeting at Crossroads Hotel, Lilongwe, October 27 2011.

Benchmarks and Targets for EGRA, 2012–2017

Subtest Measure

Suggested

Benchmark

Std. 1

Suggested

Benchmark

Std. 3 Possible

Std. 1

Std. 3

Std. 1

Std. 3

Std. 1

Std. 3

Letter naming correct letters per minute (clpm)

24+ [2.3%) 50 (unlimited)

60% 60% 25% 25% 10% 10%

Syllable segmentation % correct 70 [0%] 80 [3.6%] 10/20/30…100 60% 70% 40% 50% 20% 30%

Initial sound identification

% correct 80 [0%] 90 [0%] 10/20/30…100

30% 30% 10% 10% 5% 5%

Syllable reading correct syllables per minute (cspm)

30 [1.8%] 60 [9.7%] (unlimited)

50% 60% 20% 30% 10% 20%

Familiar word reading correct words per minute (cwpm)

20 [1.7%] 45 [3.7%] (unlimited)

50% 50% 25% 25% 10% 10%

Nonsense word reading correct words per minute (cwpm)

15 [1.3%] 40 [0.6%] (unlimited)

30% 30% 10% 10% 5% 5%

Oral reading fluency correct words per minute (cwpm)

20 [1.6%] 50 [2.7%] (unlimited)

50% 50% 25% 25% 10% 10%

Reading comprehension % correct 40 [1.6%] 80 [0.8%] 20/40/60/

80/100 30% 30% 10% 10% 5% 5%

Listening comprehension % correct 60 [6%] 80 [24.1%] 20/40/60/

80/100 60% 60% 40% 40% 30% 30%

Note: Benchmarks and targets agreed at the MoEST-convened EGRA Coordinating Committee Meeting, Crossroads Hotel, Lilongwe, October 27

Question 19. Under the impact evaluation RFP, we understand that the contractor collects data for the impact evaluation with Standards 2 and 4 students, while the Standard 1 and 3 data collections are a nationally representative survey of students for monitoring purposes. Can you please confirm that there will be no analysis of treatment vs. control students for Standards 1 and 3 (in years 2014 and 2016)? In this case, could you also confirm that the rigorous impact evaluation with treatment and control groups will only be conducted for Standard 2 and 4 students even though the EGRA contractor is supposed to improve Standard 1-3 student reading scores?

Answer: The National Reading Assessment for Standards 1 and 3 students is a nationally representative sample and will not include a treatment and control group. The Evaluation of the USAID/Malawi Early Grade Reading Activity (EGRA) on Standard 2 and 4 Students Reading will include control and treatment groups and will only be conducted on Standard 2 and 4 students.

Question 20. What is the Government cost estimate for this proposal?

Answer: The magnitude of this requirement is between $2.3 million and $3.3 million.

Question 21. The geographic code on page 47 is stated as 935 but on page 84, the geographic code is stated as 000. Could USAID please clarify the geographic code?

Answer: The geographic code is 935.

Question 22. On page 30, the stated period of performance is five years but on page 83 the stated period of performance is 40 months. Could USAID please clarify the period of performance?

Answer: The period of performance is five years as stated on page 30.

Question 23. Would USAID consider alternative key staffing structures?

Answer: Alternative key staffing structures that best fit with the Offeror’s technical approach can be proposed.

Question 24. Must key staff have 100% levels of effort?

Answer: Key staff do not need to be on 100% level of effort.

Question 25. Is USAID open to the contractor proposing evaluation tools other than the Early Grade Reading Assessment tool?

Answer: The Contractor may propose evaluation tools consistent with the Offerors technical approach provided that they can sufficiently answer the evaluation questions.

Question 26. Is USAID interested in estimates of outcomes for subpopulations? If so, which subpopulations?

Answer: Sub populations include: male and female and Standard. The national assessment of Standard 1 and 3 students shall also disaggregate by urban and rural and by the six (6) education divisions.

Question 27. What is the desired precision of the estimates of interest for the full sample and for the identified subpopulations?

Answer: The desired precision of the estimates should have a 95% Confidence level and a 0.05 Confidence Interval.

Question 28. On page 26 of this RFP, USAID outlines its guidance for avoidance of conflict of interest (C.7.4). Can USAID please clarify when the conflict will activate? For example, is the conflict of interest consideration activated during the pre‐award stage?

Answer: Section C.7.4 is removed and replaced with the following which will be incorporated as a clause in the resulting contract:

Organizational Conflicts of Interest:

PRECLUSION FROM FURNISHING CERTAIN SERVICES AND RESTRICTION ON USE OF INFORMATION.

(a) This contract calls for the Contractor to furnish important services in support of the evaluation of the “Malawi Early Grade Reading Activity”. In accordance with the principles of FAR Subpart 9.5 and USAID policy, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE INELIGIBLE TO FURNISH, AS A PRIME OR SUBCONTRACTOR OR OTHERWISE, IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES UNDER ANY CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER THAT RESULTS IN RESPONSE TO FINDINGS, PROPOSALS, OR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE EVALUATION REPORT WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF USAID ACCEPTING THE REPORT, unless the Head of the Contracting Activity, in consultation with USAID's Competition Advocate, authorizes a waiver (in accordance FAR 9.503) determining that preclusion of the Contractor from the implementation work would not be in the Government's interest.

(b) In addition, BY ACCEPTING THIS CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT USE OR MAKE AVAILABLE ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED ABOUT ANOTHER ORGANIZATION UNDER THE CONTRACT IN THE PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS OR

OTHER DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ANY SOLICITATION FOR A CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER.

(c) If the contractor gains access to proprietary information of other company (ies) in performing this evaluation, the contractor must agree with the other company (ies) to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary, and must refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE A PROPERLY

EXECUTED COPY OF ALL SUCH AGREEMENTS TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.