Attachment_1_to_Amendment_1.pdf

ATTACHMENT (1)

AMENDMENT (1) TO SOLICITATION SOL-612-13-000004

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1. In the cover letter it states that “Only electronic submission will be accepted” at the address listed there. On p. 75 of the RFP, it states that we should submit the proposal electronically and only email addresses are listed, but on p. 77 of the RFP, it states that we should submit the technical proposal “both in hard copy and by e-mail.”

Please confirm that we should only submit the proposal via email.

Answer: Only electronic submissions are allowed under this RFP.

Question 2. What is the actual/precise final date that USAID must have the completed

Past Performance Questionnaires returned to Mr. Kollars?

Answer: February 6, 2013 as an email attachment to pkollars@usaid.gov and oaa-solicit-lilongwe@usaid.gov

Question 3. Since this is a completion form type of contract, we respectfully request that

USAID provide the magnitude of the requirement in terms of an estimated price range.

Answer: The magnitude of this requirement is between $20 million to $25 million.

Question 4. On p. 18 of the RFP, the first instance of the phrase “Examples of considerations in proposed approaches” – referring to the bullet under section 3-1

Reading Fairs of Component 3 – is marked with footnote 11, which states “Examples for considerations in proposed approaches are not required components of the Contractor’s technical approach, they reflect lessons learned from past activities in Malawi and look at incorporating international best practices in reading acquisition. The Contractor’s technical approach may draw from any or all of the examples provided, but is not required.” Should a similar footnote be understood to apply to the phrase “Examples of consideration in proposed approaches” under section 3-3 Provide Classroom level and

School Support for Reading?

Answer: Examples for consideration under all sections of the RFP are not required components of the Contractor’s technical approach. The “Examples” reflect lessons learned from past activities in Malawi and look at incorporating international best practices in reading acquisition. The Contractor’s technical approach may draw from any, all, or none of the examples provided. The “Examples” included under the various sections of the RFP are not required to be included in the Contractor’s technical approach.

Question 5. The Evaluation RFP (SOL-612-13-000003) calls for measuring how

“community strengthening through capacity-building of local institutions, and promotion of citizen participation impacts sustainable of reading interventions” (p. 10). The EGRA

RFP (SOL-612-13-000004) calls for community strengthening (in particular, Component

3 “Increasing Parental and Community Engagement to support student Reading”, p. 17).

Does USAID require that Component 3 be implemented in all schools?

mailto:pkollars@usaid.gov mailto:oaa-solicit-lilongwe@usaid.gov mailto:oaa-solicit-lilongwe@usaid.gov

Answer: The Contractor’s technical approach can implement additional add-on components to the core literacy intervention in a sub-set of schools. As data is collected of the efficacy of these add-on components, either scale up or phase out should be included in the technical approach.

Question 6. If USAID wishes to test the impact of community strengthening (as manifested in the EGRA RFP as Component 3) and be able to directly attribute the sustainability of reading interventions to these activities, we respectfully suggest that USAID clarify that a subset of intervention schools should not receive Component 3 activities. If all schools receive component 3, USAID will not be able to report on the isolated impact of component 3.

Answer: The Contractor’s technical approach can implement additional add-on components to the core literacy intervention in a sub-set of schools. As data is collected of the efficacy of these add-on components, either scale up or phase out should be included in the technical approach.

Question 7. In the event that a small business’ sole source of relevant past performance consists of work performed under a subcontract to another firm that is also responding to this solicitation, would USAID waive the need to submit past performance references for this particular consortium member?

Answer: Yes.

Question 8. Under Section C.3 Other Programmatic Consideration on page 21, the RFP indicates that a portion of funds will be utilized for Grants Under Contract. Would USAID please provide a plug figure for grants over the life of the contract?

Answer: The plug figure to be used for grants under contract is $476,000 per year and a total of $1,428,088 for three years.

Question 9. Section C calls for extensive collaboration with the Malawi Institute of Education (MIE), which is a statutory body. Does USAID have a preferred or recommended mechanism (e.g. subcontract, grant, MOU, etc.) for formally engaging MIE during project implementation? Are there any mechanisms that USAID would discourage contractors from using?

Answer: The Mechanism will be determined by the level of engagement with MIE. MIE is the custodian of curricular material to be provided to schools. MIE needs to review and approve all materials before they are introduced to schools. There are various methods to achieve this, either by working with MIE from the onset to develop materials, engage MIE as a sub-awardee, include MIE staff in workshop development of materials, etc.

Question 10. Under Section L.7.1. Proposal Submission Instructions on page 75, USAID requests that attachments be compatible with “MS WORD, Excel, and Adobe Acrobat…The Offeror may also send an Adobe Acrobat portable document format (pdf).”

Word documents in a proposal that are signed cannot be combined with other documents. In addition, full-page graphics and letters of commitment are often only available in PDF. Can USAID please confirm that it is acceptable to submit the full technical volume in Adobe Acrobat (PDF)?

Answer: Yes it is acceptable to submit the full technical volume in Adobe Acrobat (PDF).

Question 11. Under Section L.7.2 Proposal Organization on page 76, could USAID please confirm that we can include the “offer’s validity statement” in a cover letter?

Answer: There is no need for a validity statement, please refer to the Standard Form SF 33 which shows a 60 days validity period in Block 21.

Question 12. Under Section L.7.2 Proposal Organization on page 76, could USAID please clarify what it expects offerors to submit in the section called “exceptions to terms and conditions?”

Answer: USAID has no expectations and offerors are not required to enter anything here unless taking exception to one of the RFPs terms and conditions.

Question 13. Under Section L.7.3 Proposal Format on page 77, for improved readability and presentation, we respectfully request the option of using a different font and size for (small) text boxes within the narrative.

Answer: Acceptable only in text boxes within the narratives.

Question 14. Could USAID please confirm that offerors should submit resumes only for the five key personnel?

Answer: We confirm that offerors should submit resumes only for the five key personnel.

Question 15. In order to maximize offerors’ ability to staff the key personnel positions with Malawian residents, we request that USAID removes “Previous COP/DCOP experience” from the desired qualifications for the Senior Technical Advisor on page 84.

Answer: This requirement is removed from the RFP.

Question 16. Section L.8 A-6 Past Performance Information on page 85 asks offerors to submit up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for this activity in an annex to the technical proposal. Please confirm that consortia consisting of multiple organizations should submit up to a total of five past performance references for the consortium.

Answer: USAID confirm that consortia consisting of multiple organizations should submit up to a total of five past performance references.

Question 17. Please confirm that all past performance information requested in L.A-6 Past Performance Information on page 85 of the RFP may be included as attachments and will not be included in the 35-page limitation. This includes: Annexed list of five most recent contracts (a1) Completed references using the provided attachment in Section J sent directly to USAID by each referee (a2) Narrative description of quality awards or certifications (c) Narrative summary of use of small business concerns over the past three years (d) Copies of SF-294 forms for contracts for the past 5 years (d) Names, addresses, and contacts for three SB concerns and summaries of the type of work provided (d).

Answer: This confirms that the above documents can be provided as attachments; See further clarification in the answer to question 18.

Question 18. Section L.8 A-6 Past Performance Information on page 86 instructs Offerors to provide the most recent SF-294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” for each contract against which they were required to report for the past five years. Our SF- 294s for the past five years total more than 800 pages and consist of more than 20 electronic files of at least 2 MB each. Therefore, we respectfully request the option of selecting 10 of the most relevant SF-294 forms for USAID’s review.

Answer: The requirement for the small business subcontracting and SF-294 is amended to submit five (5) of the most recent, relevant, SF-294s.

Question 19. Section M.2.2 Staffing and Key Personnel on page 95 states that at a minimum, two (2) of the proposed key personnel positions must be filled by Malawian residents. However, Section F.6 Key Personnel on page 38 indicates that at a minimum, three of these Key Personnel must be Malawian Residents or a local hire. Could USAID please clarify how many key personnel positions must be filled by Malawian residents or local hires?

Answer: Page 38 is amended to read “two of these Key Personnel must be Malawian”

Question 20. In order to ensure that USAID is able to best compare proposals from different offerors, we request that USAID provide a total cost estimate range for the contract or an estimate of the level of effort (LOE) required.

Answer: USAID does not “compare” competing proposals during the solicitation evaluation process. An offeror’s approach will drive the development of the offeror’s cost proposal.

Also see answer to question three (3) above.

Question 21. Attachment J RFP Budget Template on Tab 2 Budget by Task calls for Sub- CLIN costs and descriptions. Could USAID please provide additional clarification on what is meant by “Sub-CLIN?” Are these Sub-CLIN’s to be developed by the Offeror to reflect the budget breakdown of the tasks/activities under each CLIN or do they correspond to specific tasks in the RFP?

Answer: The CLINs in the budget are renamed as components in order to be consistent with Section C. See ATTACHMENT J REVISED Budget Template

Question 22. Page 12, Section 1-1: The draft RFP asks for teacher training to support students’ reading practice in Chichewa, Tumbuka, and Yao. Please clarify whether: (i) the Ministry will be implementing a multi-language policy for instruction? (ii) Teachers must be trained to teach reading in all three languages; and (iii) whether the Ministry will develop curriculum and materials in these languages?

Answer: The MoEST allows the use of local language for instruction in the early grades. For districts that have students whose predominate local language is not Chichewa, the Contractor will provide material and training resources for teachers and students that utilize the predominant local language. Teachers do not need to be trained in all three languages but should be trained to provide instruction in the predominant local language of students in the district. The Contractor will work with the MoEST to develop the supplemental materials in the local languages. The MoEST has textbooks in Chichewa for Standards 1 to 4. The Contractor is not expected to provide textbooks but provide supplementary materials to complement the textbooks with local language content.

Question 23. Page 12, Section 1-1: Please confirm that the teacher training will be paid for by the MoEST and the contractor will only provide Technical Assistance.

Answer: The MoEST has allocated budget resources to each district to implement Continuous Professional Development (CPD) or teacher training. Each District decides how to allocate those resources and the teacher training to be provided. These District funds are not for the EGRA in-service teacher training. The Contractor shall budget to pay for all expenses and costs associated with teacher training from the EGRA budget. Costs will include preparation of materials, printing, training of facilitators, and allowances.

Question 24. Please clarify expectations for task 1-5:

Page 15: What is USAID’s expected metric for impact on student/teacher/school motivation and performance?

Answer:

The Metric for impact on Student is correct words per minute and number of comprehension questions answered correctly.

Teacher: Classroom instructional methods applied in the classroom.

School performance: Reduction in drop out and repetition rates in the early grades.

School motivation: extension of the school day by one (1) hour for increased instruction, engagement in reading fairs, extra-curricular activities that support reading.

Community motivation: community based activities that support reading: reading clubs, summer clubs, tutoring, classroom volunteers.

Page 15: Please clarify the statement “As evidence on incentives continues to emerge…” Is USAID referring to global evidence or specifically evidence from the project?

Answer: The Contractors technical approach will be based on global and regional evidence. The actual performance of the incentive system adopted and implemented in

Malawi by the Contractor will be assessed by collecting evidence during implementation of EGRA.

Page 15: For the full statement, “As evidence on incentives continues to emerge, the contractor must propose indicative activities”, please clarify the expected timeline for when these indicative activities must be proposed.

Answer: The Contractor will provide illustrative activities in the technical approach including the timeline for implementation. The annual Work Plan will finalize the timeline.

The Contractor will collect evidence of the effectiveness of the incentive system and will use the evidence collected to inform implementation. As evidence is collected by the

Contractor, changes to the incentive system will be made after discussion with the COR and concurrence is provided by USAID.

Page 15: For the statement “…and indicate how they [indicative activities] will be finalized using evidence available at the time of work program design.” please clarify what is meant by “time of work program design.”

Answer: The “time of work program design” is broken down into two components. The program design indicates that the Contractor will provide illustrative activities in the

Contractor’s technical approach including the timeline for implementation in the

Contractor’s proposal. The contractor will refine the technical approach and provide greater detail to USAID in the annual Work Plan which will finalize the timeline for implementation. The Contractor will collect evidence of the effectiveness of the incentive system and will use the evidence collected to inform implementation. As evidence is collected by the Contractor, changes to the incentive system will be made after discussion with the COR and concurrence is provided by USAID.

Question 25. Page 16, Section 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4: Please clarify whether the contract will fund the printing/production of the decodable readers, story cards and letter cards, or will it be responsible for only the development and distribution?

Answer: The Contractor will be responsible for the development, printing and distribution of decodable readers, story cards, and letter cards. The mix of these items and the distribution of quantities will be specified in the Contractor’s Technical Approach. The amount to develop, print, and distribute cannot exceed $1 million annually.

Question 26. Page 16, Section 2-5: Does Table 2 (Material to be developed under the

USAID/Malawi Early Grade Reading Activity) need to be completed as part of the proposal?

Answer: The Contractor needs to fill in Table 2 as part of the proposal. The Contractor will be responsible for the development, printing and distribution of decodable readers, story cards, and letter cards. The mix of these items and the distribution of quantities will be specified in the Contractor’s Technical Approach and will be clearly articulated in Table 2 under section 2-5. The amount to develop, print, and distribute cannot exceed $1 million annually.

Question 27. Page 20, Section 4.5: Will USAID facilitate the discussion around selection of common language of students in each of the intervention districts, as this is a highly sensitive issue?

Answer: USAID will take the lead on discussions with the MoEST on selection and use of common languages of students in each of the intervention districts. USAID will work closely with the Contractor at the central MoEST level and at the District level in determining the common language of instruction for the intervention districts.

Question 28. Page 20, Section III (2): “The Contractor must monitor effectiveness of these materials to improve learning outcomes for students with learning disabilities or physical disabilities in Special Education Needs Schools in target districts.” Please clarify the following in reference to this statement.

Is it expected that outcome indicator #14 (page 26) refers only to students with special needs that attend the Special Education Needs Schools in the target districts?

Answer: Indicator #14 on page 26 refers to students with special needs that attend the

Special Education Needs Schools in the target districts.

Does USAID expect the Contractor to monitor the effectiveness of materials on learning outcomes of all students in Special Education Needs Schools in target districts (census), or can this be a sample?

Answer: Indicator #14 on page 26 refers to students with special needs that attend the

Special Education Needs Schools in the target districts and this can be a sample and does not need to be a census.

Question 29. Page 21, Section III. 4: Geographic Coverage - The RFP specifies start up in five districts in Year 1. Are five more districts expected to be added in year 2 or can they be phased in in Year 3?

Answer: The Contractor’s Technical Approach will determine the scale up or inclusion of the additional five districts in years two (2) and three (3).

Question 30. Page 21, Section III.4: Geographic Coverage - How many months of preparatory time for materials review and development are included in this timeframe?

Answer: The Contractor’s Technical Approach will determine the time for material review and development. It is anticipated that the Contractor will have between May 2013 and

August 2013 for initial review and development before the first scheduled teacher training that will occur in August 2013. The Contractor’s technical approach will determine the timeframe for material review and development and these will feed into the teacher training schedule.

Question 31. Page 25, Section C.4, 1-1: Please clarify the geographic scope of the annual performance targets for outcome indicator # 8 “Number of public forums.” Is this per district?

Answer: Number of public forums can be calculated at the zone and district levels.

Question 32. The 40 month proposed project period is structured differently across various tables in the RFP. Tables on pages 23-27 and 17 indicate a 3 year structure whereas the table on page 35 indicates a structure of 4 years. Please clarify how Offerors should present the timeframe of the 40 month project period.

Answer: The 40 month period refers to the months between award (scheduled for May

2013) and the start of the 2013/2014 academic school year in September 2013. The contractor will use the period between May and August 2013 for mobilization and start up.

The full implementation of the activity will include the three academic years starting in

September 2013 and ending in July 2016. The months of August and September 2016 would be used for close-out.

Question 33. Page 12, Section C.4, 1-1: Please confirm that contractor need not conduct

Baseline Data collection for student learning outcomes.

Answer: Student learning outcomes baseline data will be collected by a separate

Contractor, see SOL-612-13-000003.

Question 34. Page 35, F.4.B.2, Deliverable Table: Please confirm that while deliverable 4 will contribute to the goal “reduce the repetition and dropout rates in the early grades by providing a quality learning environment”, the contractor will not be held directly responsible for the reduction in repetition and dropout rates as these are often affected by conditions beyond the control and scope of the project.

Answer: USAID/Malawi hypothesizes that reduction in Repetition and Dropout rates will be secondary benefits of improved quality of instruction. The Contractor will track rates in intervention districts to test USAID/Malawi’s hypothesis but the Contractor will not be directly responsible if such reductions are not realized.

Question 35. Please clarify that the term module refers to a course of training, as in one of three to be conducted over the course of a year.

Answer: The term module refers to a course of training, as in one of three to be conducted over the course of a year.

Question 36. Page 44: Please confirm that the annual salary increase max of 5% per year does NOT apply to CCNs (just to US and TCNs).

Answer: The max of 5% annual salary increase applies only to USPSCs and TCN PSCs, CCN PSCs must be in line with the U.S. Embassy/ Lilongwe Local Compensation Plan.

Question 37. Page 46: H.12 COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 508 OF THE

REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED. Please clarify these requirements.

Answer: Please refer to ADS 302.3.4.10 Implementation of Section 508 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Question 38. Pages 76 and 88 indicate that 1420 Bio Data sheets are required for key personnel only. Please confirm.

Answer: Bio Data sheets are required for all but administrative staff level (drivers and secretaries).

Question 39. Page 77, Section L.7.4 (i) and (ii) requests a staffing plan and organizational charts with position descriptions. Please clarify if positions descriptions are required in both attachments or in (i) alone.

Answer: Positions descriptions are required in (i) only.

Question 40. Page 77, Section L.7.4 (vii) authorizes Contractor Performance Report as an attachment. Please confirm that CPRs are required in addition to the Past Performance

Questionnaire Template (Attachment J-7) which is required to be filled out by client personnel that had experience with the Offeror/Major Subcontractor.

Answer: CPARs forms are required where the contractor's performance has been entered into the electronic CPARs/PPIRs systems. The Past Performance Questionnaire Template

(Revised Attachment J-7) is required to be filled out by client personnel that had experience with the Offeror where the performance has not been entered in CPARS/PPIRs. Major

Subcontractors should submit completed Attachment J-7s as the performance of subcontractors in not entered in the CPARs/PPIRs systems.

Question 41. The numbering for the sections in Attachment J-7: Past Performance

Questionnaire Template is not consistent with the instructions for filling out the template.

For example, Sections I and II are not numbered in the template. Please provide a

Template with numbering that corresponds to instructions.

Answer: Please see the attached Revised Attachment J-7.

Question 42. Page 77 indicates that the ‘cover, table of contents, list of acronyms, and attachments’ are not included in the 35 page limit for the technical proposal. Please confirm that the ‘list of tables and figures’ and ‘glossary of abbreviations and acronyms’ required on page 75 are also excluded from the 35 page limit.

Answer: The ‘list of tables and figures’ and ‘glossary of abbreviations and acronyms’ required on page 75 are excluded from the 35 page limit.

Question 43. Please clarify if Letters of Support from collaborating organizations/ entities are included as an authorized attachment that will not count towards the 35 page limit of the technical proposal.

Answer: Letters of Support will not count towards the 35 page limit of the technical proposal.

Question 44. Page 78, Section L.8.A.4: Please clarify that a Performance Milestone Plan is the Performance Management Plan, containing indicators, targets and data collection methods and periodicity.

Answer: On page 78, Section L.8.A.4: The Performance Milestone Plan is the Performance

Management Plan or PMP.

Question 45. Section L.8.A.A01 Executive Summary: The sixth bullet requires Offers to provide level of USAID funding requested and cost-share amount (if applicable). This is in contradiction to Section M.1.4 Evaluation of Cost Proposals which states that evaluation points are not awarded for cost proposals. Please confirm that cost information should not be included in the Technical Proposal.

Answer: The requirement above has been deleted from the RFP. We confirm that cost information should not be included in the Technical Proposal.

Question 46. Page 80, A-2.2: Please clarify what is meant by the requirement that the

Offeror “articulate the required structured and highly scripted daily lesson plans.” Given the required reviews and analyses of existing materials and reading needs, it seems premature to ask for a scope and sequence of scripted lessons in the proposal.

Answer: The Contractor is not required to provide a full/completed lesson plans, but examples/models /templates that reflect their approach must be included with the proposal for inclusion in the technical evaluation.

Question 47. Page 80, A-2.3: Given the review and analyses of materials, it seems premature that the “Offeror must articulate the required and the amounts of supplementary reading material.” Please clarify what is meant by this.

Answer: The articulated amounts of supplementary reading material can be changed after award and upon completion of the Contractor’s review. The Offeror must articulate the envisioned required amounts and mix of supplementary reading material that corresponds with the Offerors proposed technical approach.

Question 48. Page 81, A-2.6: By “framework” does USAID mean outline or a template?

Answer: The “framework” should provide a basic outline or template of the proposed MOU.

Question 49. Page 85, Section A-6 (d) 1-3: Please confirm that the Offerors past performance in using small businesses and references can be included in an annex to the Technical proposal.

Answer: USAID confirm that the Offerors past performance in using small businesses and references can be included in an annex to the Technical proposal.

Question 50. Please clarify if the implementation plan can be included as an Annex.

Answer: We confirm that the implementation plan can be included as an Annex.

Question 51. Page 87, Section B.2.(iv).13: With reference to the fixed fee payment, please confirm that USAID/Malawi will pay the Contractor a percentage of the fixed fee that directly corresponds to the percentage of allowable costs being paid, as noted in B.3 (b) rather than being associated with each CLIN and sub-tasks as noted in B.2.(iv).13

Answer: Payment of fixed fee will be associated with each component.

Question 52. Please clarify what USAID is looking for in “Sub-CLIN Cost” listed under tasks under each Component?

Answer: The term CLIN has been modified to read COMPONENT and USAID expects the contractor to classify all costs relating to each of the four components.

Question 53. Page 76 and 88 indicate that cost proposals must include a ‘structured fee analysis…to support the proposed Fixed Fee.’ Please clarify the requirements of this cost proposal component.

Answer: This requirement is deleted.

Question 54. Section L8.B.2 (b)(iv) 4: Please confirm that the geographic code is 935.

Answer: We confirm that the USAID Geographic Code for this procurement is 935

Question 55. Section M.2.2 (e): Please clarify that the minimum number of Key Personnel expected to be Malawian residents is two as stated in the evaluation criteria and not on page 38.

Answer: The minimum number of Key Personnel expected to be Malawian residents is two

(2).

Question 56. USAID Forecast lists another procurement on community mobilization for education. Please clarify ways in which USAID envisions how that project will coordinate and complement this project, especially related to component 3.

Answer: The USAID Forecast of the community mobilization for education will coordinate with EGRA and complement the efforts outlined in this solicitation but will not duplicate efforts as outlined in this solicitation.

Question 57. Please specify the agreements reached with the central MOE about the program and which costs will be borne by the MOE?

Answer: USAID is working closely with the MoEST on the implementation of the EGRA.

Costs for the implementation of EGRA in the initial target districts will predominately be borne by USAID. The MoEST provides in-kind contributions including paying the salaries of the teachers being trained and implementing the Early Grade Reading Activity in the intervention Districts.

Question 58. The RFP states that the award is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract, but does not provide an award ceiling. Page 7 states “…estimated cost for the performance of work” is “TBD.”

There are 3 potential items on a recent USAID/Malawi forecast that may be interpreted as being encompassed by this RFP. Has USAID an estimate of the “cost for the performance of work” that can be shared with prospective bidders?

Answer: See related answers above.

Question 59. Attachment J-4. For budgeting and operational planning purposes, when will the awardee have access to the use of and assume the responsibility for the 14 vehicles? Also will there be additional equipment or furniture available from closing USAID projects?

Answer: The vehicles will be available in May 2013. There will be additional equipment and furniture available at this time as well.

Question 60. Pages 113/114 – the Form 1420 illustrated is the (4/95) version; however, the latest Form

1420 is (04/2007). Can USAID please clarify which form is to be submitted with the proposal documents?

Answer: Prospective Offerors must use the latest standard for (1420 (04/2007).

Question 61. Please confirm that the staffing plan is not to be included in the technical narrative and does not count toward the 35 page limit.

Answer: USAID confirm that the staffing plan is not to be included in the technical narrative and does not count toward the 35 page limit, however, a summary version of the staffing plan should be included in the technical narrative. This should focus on the key personnel with abbreviated background information. Detailed vitae of the proposed staff should be annexed.

Question 62. Page 80 of the RFP states that the Executive Summary for the Technical volume shall include “the level of USAID funding requested and cost-share amount (if applicable),” however the RFP states that cost information should not be included in the technical proposal. Could USAID please advise as to whether this information should actually be included in the Executive Summary of the technical proposal?

Answer: This requirement is deleted.

Question 63. Please clarify who is required to submit the Using Small Business Concerns, should subcontractors submit this as well?

Answer: Yes.

Question 64. Page 90 of the RFP requests that “Letters of Availability” for each subcontractor be included in the Cost Proposal. Page 76 references that “Letters of

Intent” should be included in the Technical proposal. Could USAID confirm that “Letters of Availability”, referring to each subcontractors’ commitment to team with the prime, should be located only in the Cost Proposal – no such letters of commitment from subcontractors should reside in the Technical proposal? And that “Letters of Intent” references key personnel’s statement of commitment to the project and should be included in the Technical Proposal?

Answer: USAID confirms the above understanding.

Question 65. Please clarify the requirements for submission of past performance information detailed on p. 85 and Attachment J-7.

Clarification on the total allowable number - Are both the prime and each subcontractor required to arrange for submission of up to 5 past performance questionnaire forms each? Or are only 5 total past performance questionnaires allowed for submission

(prime and subcontractors submissions total)?

Answer: The prime offeror in the consortia (the successful firm which will be awarded the contract) should submit 5 relevant past performance references.

Should these only be contracts, or are cooperative agreements and grants allowable as well?

Answer: Cooperative agreements may be included and will be reviewed for relevance.

While there is no formal evaluation system for cooperative agreements, for the sake of consistency. USAID may apply the standards of CPARs reporting when evaluating cooperative agreement references.

Page 85 of the RFP states that for each PPR, the offeror shall contact the referee and ensure that they provide the completed references to USAID/Malawi by the closing deadline. Is there any recourse if the referee is unable to send in the completed reference by the deadline?

Answer: Offerors are encouraged to contact references at the earliest point in time to make them aware that they will be contacted and the turnaround time for responses may be short.

Depending on the situation, responses that are not timely may be evaluated at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

Page 79, paragraph 7 references “Contractor Performance Reports (CPRs)” – is there a specific form that USAID requires for these?

Answer: If the past performance assessment(s) has been completed in CPARS, the corresponding CPARs report should be supplied.

If the past performance assessment(s) has been completed in CPARS, USAID will rely on this information in evaluating past performance. However, if an offeror does not have relevant past performance information in CPARS, RFP Attachment J-7 should be used to provide this information. Please see the attached REVISED ATTACHMENT J-7.

Question 66. Please confirm that a draft first year work plan is NOT required for this proposal.

Answer: Draft first year work plan is not required for this proposal.

Question 67. On page 20 the RFP defines students with special education needs as those with “learning disabilities or physical disabilities.” On page 26, the RFP sets outcome indicators to measure “improved reading ability” for “students with special education needs” at 10 percent over baseline by June 2015 and 25 percent over baseline by June

2016. These expectations are significantly lower than those set for non-disabled students, and do not seem to take into account the wide spectrum of disabilities nor that some disabilities do not in and of themselves create a barrier to learning. Would USAID consider revising its outcome indicators to recognize that not all disabilities create a barrier to learning?

Answer: The Special Education Needs Schools in target districts work predominately with students with visual and hearing impairments. The outcome indicator refers to change in learning outcomes for the predominant students with visual and hearing impairments. It is accurate that there are a wide spectrum of disabilities and that some disabilities do not create a barrier to learning. It is believed that for students with physical impairments that do not create a barrier to learning would be treated as any other student with an expectation of the same level of improved reading ability.

Question 68. Under task 1-4 (p. 14), regarding supervisory visits to teachers, does bi-monthly refer to twice per month or once every two months?

Answer: Supervision visits are anticipated to occur once every two months. However, this is the minimum required. The contractor’s technical approach can determine the frequency of the supervisory visits.

Question 69. Regarding task 1-4 (p. 14), could technology take the place of some of these in-person visits so that there is still support and feedback but not necessarily in-person every month?

Answer: The supervision visits do not need to be in person. The use of technology or other means of providing support and feedback to teachers on a regular basis is acceptable.

Question 70. Regarding task 2-1 (p.15), the RFP states that the contractor must develop

“students book with decodable text that accompany the scripted lesson plans”. Is this book referring to a work book or to supplementary reading texts that go along with the lessons?

Answer: The contractor may determine the most appropriate material to accompany the scripted lesson plans. These may include, story cards, work book, supplementary reading texts, the use of existing text, etc.

Question 71. Regarding task 4-4 (p. 20), The RFP states that the contractor must “identify the common language of students in the district that shall be used”. If there is more than one language community in the same district, can there be more than one language of instruction in the same district?

Answer: The language of instruction per District should be the predominant local language.

If there are major geographical sub-divisions by language within the District, the Contractor will work with USAID and the MoEST to determine whether the population is large enough to develop materials in additional local languages.

Question 72. Bottom of page 11 and top of page 12 – one can infer that USAID is suggesting the building of capacity of a local entity vis-à-vis USAID “M&E.” Please explain further the implied ties between work expected under the Early Grade Reading

Activity and USAID M&E.

Answer: The Impact Evaluation of EGRA via SOL-612-13-000003 will build local M&E capacity. However the capacity building expected under the EGRA RFP specifically relates to improving early grade reading skills of standard 1 to 3 learners. During implementation of the EGRA, the Contractor shall work with and build the capacity of a Malawian organization to effectively implement an Early Grade Reading Activity. The contractor shall also work through the MoEST during the implementation of EGRA to ensure that Host Country capacity and ownership is developed through implementation.

Question 73. Page 12 – though the four main objectives of this EGRA are noted, there are no weights implying relative importance. Page 94, M.2, Technical Evaluation Criteria do not seem to relate directly to the Page 12 objectives. Please advise/clarify.

Answer: On Page 94, M.2.1.c should read “The extent to which leveraged resources are used to support the main objectives and key components outlined in Section C3 and key principles (See Section J.2). The timing of the employment of the resources is realistic, appropriate and in line with the Offeror’s technical approach.

Question 74. Page 14, 1-4, 3rd bullet re “auto programmed standard coaching response…” and footnote 6 – what languages are expected to be supported by such activities?

Answer: The use of Chichewa and English for auto programmed coaching or mobile messaging targeting teachers is expected. The use of additional local languages would depend on the Offeror’s technical approach.

Question 75. Page 15, Component 2 leading paragraphs – the text seems to imply that

“reading material” should be limited to those materials starting with PPP-provided resources (along with all “prior USAID funded activities) and then be revised/reprinted for distribution. Are these the only sources to be considered? Can original materials be created by the EGRA implementer?

Answer: Original materials can be created by the EGRA implementer, however all material developed requires USAID and MoEST review and acceptance prior to distribution in schools.

Question 76. Page 19, 4-2, item a) a. – please explain “Are learning in a classroom.”

Answer: On page 19, under 4-2,a) a. Are learning in a classroom, refers to prioritizing early grade students to having instruction within a physical classroom and not being relegated to learning outside under a tree.

Question 77. Page 20, III, 2 – please explain what “…ceiling established in Component 2 above” refers to.

Answer: The ceiling established in Component 2 refers to the $1 million annual budget for material development, printing and distribution. Materials developed for students with special learning needs will need to be accounted for within the $1 million annual budget material development.

Question 78. Page 27, Figure 1 – IR 1.1 and IR 1.4 appear to be missing from this figure.

Are they relevant or helpful, or have they been deleted entirely from the USAID/Malawi Results

Framework?

Answer: The language for I.R 1.1 and 1.4 is corrected as follows:

a. IR 1.1 Improved curriculum & instructional approach for reading in primary grades.

b. IR 1.4 Established classroom level support for teaching reading.

Question 79. Page 13, section 1-3 states that “scripted lesson plans for the first term must be available by August 2013 for the initial in-service training to be conducted”. Given that the contract award will be made June 1-15, 2013, less than two months prior to this date, would USAID consider revising this timeline or the scope of the deliverable?

Answer: Please refer to the estimated award schedule in Section L.11.

Question 80. On page 13, please clarify section 1-2. Does this section request the contractor students in grades 1-3 be available during the holiday break for the in-service practicums?

Answer: The MoEST has requested that all teachers training occur during school breaks or on weekends. To ensure a practicum for teachers to implement and practice material presented during the teacher training sessions the Contractor through the technical approach will need to incorporate a teacher practicum into the design within the constraints of providing teacher training during non-school hours.

Question 81. Page 22, section 1.1 states “the contractor will also conduct student assessments at purposively selected schools on a more regular basis throughout the year” – please clarify and provide the criteria for the purposively selected schools.

Answer: As part of the Contractors performance monitoring, the Contractor will collect assessment data on a regular basis throughout the year. This data on student learning outcomes and teacher implementation should inform future teacher training, and shape coaching and mentoring content to support teachers and students. Information does not need to be a census but should be drawn from a sample of schools, classrooms, and students via coaches, mentors, teacher collected data, Primary Education Advisors (PEAs) classroom observations, Inspection and Advisory data, School report cards, or some other method. How this data will be collected should be identified in the Offerors technical approach. USAID is not specifying or requiring a set means but is allowing Offerors to propose a method that is compatible with their technical approach.

Question 82. Per pages 21-22, the second cycle of intervention districts are receiving a delayed intervention of at least several months into the program, and will thus have significantly less time in the program – is it expected that the targets will remain the same for both the first cycle of intervention districts and the second cycle of intervention districts given the different time frames?

Answer: There may be variation in learning outcomes for students in Standard 3 in those districts receiving a delayed intervention as students in Standard 3 will not have received the same level of intervention. However, it is anticipated that by the end of three years, students in Standard 1 and most of Standard 2 should be performing at about the same standard whether they are in the original districts or the delayed intervention districts as they would have received the same intensity of the intervention.

Question 83. On page 20, paragraph 1, please clarify or correct the phrase “local sub-partner will have the capacity to manage and implement a direct awardee” [emphasis added].

Answer: Language corrected as follows: “local sub-partner will have the capacity to manage and implement a direct award”

Question 84. Page 48, H.17, 2 – Please clarify or correct whether there is an error in this first sentence.

Has USAID already made a negative “environmental threshold determination” for this project, or is the expectation that the implementer will conduct this compliance work?

Answer: USAID already made a negative “environmental threshold determination” for this activity. However, depending on the Offerors technical approach, if construction is included under any of the activities, the implementer will be required to work with USAID to conduct additional compliance work in accordance with USAID environmental requirements.

Question 85. The pre-solicitation provided a proportioned level of effort for each component.

Has the consideration of level of effort changed in the final solicitation?

Answer: The level of effort for each component will be determined by the Offerors technical approach and will not be prescribed by USAID.

Question 86. Pages 22-26 USAID provides three lists of required indicators. There is some duplication of indicators across the three lists. Please confirm that there are 26 discrete indicators required in the PMP.

Answer: On page 23, the text is corrected to read as follows: “The following output indicators are illustrative indicators but are not required to form part of the Early Grade

Reading Activity Performance Management Plan (PMP) to be collected by the Contractor on an annual basis”. The final set of indicators will be determined in consultation between

USAID and the Contractor with the approval of the Contractors PMP to be submitted to

USAID no later than 90 days from the contract start date.

Question 87. Our understanding is that the 26 discrete indicators listed on pages 22-26 of the RFP are prescribed and not illustrative. Please confirm.

Answer: The discrete indicators listed on pages 22-26 are illustrative. The final set of indicators will be determined in consultation between USAID and the Contractor with the approval of the Contractors PMP to be submitted to USAID no later than 90 days from the contract start date.

Question 88. Does USAID expect customized indicators beyond those 26 discrete, prescribed indicators listed on pages 22-26 of the RFP?

Answer: USAID does not expect additional customized indicators. The indicators on pages

22 – 26 of the RFP are illustrative. The final set of indicators will be determined in consultation between USAID and the Contractor with the approval of the Contractors PMP to be submitted to USAID no later than 90 days from the contract start date.

Question 89. Should we assume Lilongwe Rural District includes both the districts of

Lilongwe Rural East and Lilongwe Rural West?

Answer: yes, Lilongwe Rural District includes both the districts of Lilongwe Rural East and

Lilongwe Rural West.

Question 90. Page 77. Is the three-page Executive Summary included in the 35 page limit?

Answer: The three-page executive summary is included in the 35 page limit.

Question 91. Page 77. Can we submit attachments that are not included in the “authorized” attachment list? If yes, please confirm these will not be included in the 35 page limit.

Answer: Only attachments that are included in the authorized attachment list are allowed.

Question 92. Page 79. The RFP states that “the offeror will propose implementation plans…” Can an initial work plan or implementation plan be included as an attachment and not be included in the 35 page limit?

Answer: An initial work plan or implementation plan be included as an attachment and not be included in the 35 page limit

Question 93. Page 80. The RFP states that the Executive Summary should include the

“level of program funding to be expended” and “level of USAID funding requested and cost-share amount (if applicable)”. Can USAID please confirm this information should not be included in the technical Executive Summary as cost information should not be included in the technical proposal?

Answer: This requirement is deleted.

Question 94. Is a Small Business Contracting Plan required? We note that the small business contracting requirements are no longer included in Section L.9 and the template has been removed from Section J.

Answer: A Small Business Contracting Plan is not required