Amendment_01_(YESA).pdf

AMENDMENT 01

SOL-612-17-000003

PART A: CHANGES TO THE RFP/CONTRACT

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

1) F.4 REPORTS AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OR OUTPUTS

a) 3. Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) DELETE forth sentence in its entirety “Mapping locations of treatment services centers and lab hubs in the selected districts of the program will be essential to understand and demonstrate improved access for the targeted populations.”

b) 9. Cost Data, DELETE in its entirety and INSERT the following in lieu thereof:

“The Contractor is required to comply with the following cost data collection and reporting parameters:

1. Collecting Cost and Ingredients Data: The Contractor should set up a coding system for the project to capture the costs of different components of the intervention and clearly document what activities and other expenditure are included in each code. In collaboration with USAID, the contractor will select from the following list of categories to create cost capture codes relevant for the activity:

1. General Management and Operations,

2. M&E and Reporting,

3. Training,

4. Teaching and Learning Materials,

5. Policy/Capacity Development,

6. Private Sector Assessment/Engagement,

7. Parents/Community Involvement,

8. Safe Schools,

9. Grants, Scholarships and Cash Transfers, and

10. Block Grants.

The first two categories are mandatory for all activities. Activities must create sub-codes for development and implementation activities for categories with a substantial development component. When a cost category includes large and substantively different parts, the use of sub-codes is strongly encouraged. The USAID Cost Reporting Guidance provides a list of suggested sub-codes. An additional cost category may be created if existing categories do not capture a large proportion of expenditure. The final code structure must be informed by the evaluation design or research agenda.

2. Capturing Other Inputs: The Contractor must document and report activity-critical inputs from other sources, including donated resources such as volunteer time, in-kind equipment/ infrastructure and services, and any beneficiary/stakeholder inputs and other unpaid inputs that are often not accounted for in traditional budget. The Contractor is not responsible for monetizing these inputs, unless this information is readily available.

3. Capturing Details of the Intervention: The Contractor must document and report details of the intervention, both as outputs and the dosage at the beneficiary level.

4. Reporting Frequency: The cost data noted above should be collected on a continual basis by the Contractor to ensure that the full program costs are captured in accordance with the requirements noted above. The Contractor must deliver a summary report and supporting data in Excel format quarterly.

The report should include expenditure for the reporting period, disaggregated by the following: labor (rates and units for each rate), fringe, materials procured (disaggregated by type), rent, travel, and overhead recovery. The report must indicate which expenditure was incurred by a sub-contractor. It must also include the average local currency rate for the reporting period. The entirety of activity expenditure must be captured in the report. The report must also include the list of inputs provided by the host Government, by private individuals (e.g., volunteer labor), by private companies (e.g., donations), by other donors, and inputs cost-shared by the implementer, if applicable. The list of non-USAID-funded inputs must include activity-critical ingredients only.”

2) F.6 KEY PERSONNEL

a) Under QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY PERSONNEL 2. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Advisor, DELETE “A Master’s Degree in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) field” and INSERT “A Master’s Degree in Social Sciences” in lieu thereof.

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

3) H.8 GRANTS UNDER CONTRACT

DELETE the first sentence “The Contractor may provide grants to local community based organizations (CSOs) designed to contribute to the achievement of key program results” and INSERT “The Contractor must may provide grants to local community based organizations designed to contribute to the achievement of key program results” in lieu thereof.

4) DELETE H.29 ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ACCESSIBILITY (MAY 2016) and H.30 USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NOTIFICATION (MAY 2016) (DEVIATION NO. M/OAA-DEV-FAR- 16-1c) in its entirety.

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND REFERENCED BY LINK

5) ADD the following:

No. Title Link or Attachment to the Document Malawi Ed Data II https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_ topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_pu blication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports &term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=

J.1 2016 National Reading Assessment (current student/teacher performance data) pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MGB7.pdf

J.4 Budget Template Attached (revised)

J.5 Benchmarks for Early Grade Reading in Malawi

Attached

J.6 Malawi SBCC Baseline report

Attached

J.7 Summary of the Early Grade Reading Materials Survey in Malawi

Attached

J.8 Measurement and Research Support to Education Strategy Goal 1; Malawi Social and Behavior Change Communications Pilot: Endline Report

Attached

J.9 Final Report for Study on Community Perception of Student Reading Abilities

Attached

J.10 Cost Reporting Guidance Attached

J.11 Mission Local Compensation Plan (guide) Attached

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.6 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

6) Under 8.Past Performance, DELETE Annex 7, ESRS and Small Business Utilization in its entirety.

https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89 https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89 https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89 https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89 https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89 http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MGB7.pdf

L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE COST PROPOSAL

7) Under 2.Content, Part 2 - Proposed Costs/Price (4)(K) Windows of Opportunity DELETE “The Offeror is encouraged to budget for Windows of Opportunity” and INSERT

“The Offeror should budget for Windows of Opportunity” in lieu thereof.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

8) M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA, 4.Past Performance (d) INSERT the missing sub-item (4) as following: “Cost control, including forecasting costs as well as accuracy in financial reporting”.

9) M.6 CONTRACTING WITH SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS AND

DISADVANTAGED ENTERPRISES DELETE the last sentence: “In the event that proposals are deemed equal, the proposed participation of such organizations may become a determining factor for selection”.

PART B: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

COVER PAGE, SF-33

1. Both the RFP cover letter and SF 33 state that proposals are due February 21 at 4p Lilongwe time. However, page 96, Section L.5 (a) states proposals are due February 21, 2017 at 4:00pm EST. Could USAID please confirm when on February 21 proposals are due?

USAID Response: Proposals are due at 4 pm Lilongwe time on February 21, 2017.

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICE/COSTS

2. Page 8, B.7 Payment of Fixed Fee: While it is understood that Fixed Fee may be withheld should the Contracting Officer choose to do so, it should be noted that this puts additional burden on the Contractor particularly as this is a multi-year contract and the contractor will need to finalize its indirect cost rates annually. Typically, the final indirect cost rate proposal is submitted to the closeout branch of a cognizant agency, and it can take several years for that rate to become final, and by that time, the contract could close and the funds be de-obligated.

It will be particularly important that a sufficient amount remain obligated upon contract expiration so that contractors may be reimbursed at their final indirect cost rates and for their full fixed fee.

USAID Response: This comment is well noted.

SECTION C: DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT

3. Section C.2.2.1, page 12, states that, “in mid-November 2014 the MoEST, with technical assistance from USAID, created benchmarks for Standards 1-3 in syllable reading, familiar word reading, oral reading fluency, and reading comprehension for Chichewa. In January of 2016 the utility of these benchmarks was reviewed, revised as needed, and Standard 4 added.

It is anticipated that national reading benchmarks will eventually be officially adopted.” Can USAID please provide the proposed benchmarks from 2014 and 2016 and progress reports related to their establishment?

USAID Response: Pleases see pages 2-4 of the National Reading Assessment Report (Attachment J.2 to the RFP) on progress pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MGB7.pdf . The benchmarks are noted below:

Reading Comprehension Std 3 Std 2 Std 1 Average in 2012 14% -- 6% Recommended benchmark 80% 80% 60%

% of students meeting benchmark (2012) 6% -- 7%* Recommended objective:

% at benchmark in 5 years 50% 40% 35%

% of students scoring zero (2012) 51% -- 94% Recommended objective:

% of zero scores in 5 years 10% 20% 30% Familiar Word Reading Std 3 Std 2 Std 1

Average in 2012 16.9 -- 1.9

Recommended benchmark 45 40 30

% of students meeting benchmark (2012) 10% -- 2%

Recommended objective:

% at benchmark in 5 years 50% 50% 40%

% of students scoring zero (2012) 29% -- 80%

Recommended objective:

% of zero scores in 5 years 5% 10% 20%

Syllable Reading Std 3 Std 2 Std 1

Average in 2012 26.3 -- 3.2

Recommended benchmark 65 60 50

% of students meeting benchmark (2012) 12% -- 1%

% at benchmark in 5 years 60% 55% 50%

(2012) 20% -- 70%

Recommended objective:

% of zero scores in 5 years 5% 10% 15%

Oral Reading Fluency Std 3 Std 2 Std 1

Average in 2012 15.4 -- 1.3

Recommended benchmark 50 40 30

% of students meeting benchmark (2012) 6% -- 12%*

% at benchmark in 5 years 50% 50% 40%

(2012) 39% -- 89%

% of zero scores in 5 years 5% 10% 20%

However, please note that Section C.2.2.1, page 12 of RFP also states that, “It will be the job of YESA to work with USAID and the MOEST to make adjustments to the benchmarks grounded in reading data from the implementation of the NRP and previous reading assessments in order to finalize high level benchmarks.” Additional references materials are attached to this amendment.

4. On page 12 the draft benchmarks are discussed. Will USAID please share these draft benchmarks?

USAID Response: Please refer to response to the question above.

5. Are the end-of-cycle assessments the same as the National Reading Assessment, or are these two separate assessments? If they are different, can you please specify what is meant by the end-of-cycle assessment, i.e. – what standard level should be assessed and with what frequency?

USAID Response: They are the same as the National Reading Assessments.

6. In which Standards should the National Reading Assessment be administered in both Chichewa and English? In other words, does the English assessment need to be administered in both Standards 2 and 4? What about the Chichewa assessment?

USAID Response: Both Assessments are expected to be conducted in standard 2 and 4. The Assessments are in both languages.

7. With what frequency does USAID expect the National Reading Assessment to be administered?

USAID Response: The National Reading Assessment will be conducted in 2018 and 2020.

8. Can USAID clarify at what level they would like to be able to disaggregate results from the national reading assessment? For instance, is it important to disaggregate and provide statistically significant results at the school level, by gender, by urban/rural locality, or any other criteria? Where would they like to be able to disaggregate with statistically significant results?

USAID Response: School level, by gender, by urban/rural locality. More technical direction will be provided by the COR at the work plan stage.

9. Should the end-of-year assessments be administered in each standard and tailored to that standard? To what extent does USAID expect the end-of-the-year assessments to mirror the national reading assessment?

USAID Response: Yes. USAID is open to sound technical approaches proposed by offerors that understand the purpose of the different types of student learning assessments stated in the RFP.

10. Does USAID expect for YESA provider to develop new continuous assessment tools or only to support and evaluate existing assessments used by MERIT?

USAID Response: Yes. The Contractor will develop new continuous assessment tools that are equated, levelled and directly assess teaching and learning materials used in the implementation of

MERIT.

11. Does USAID require that the MOE have the resources necessary to conduct national reading assessments on their own, without any donor funding, following the end of this contract?

USAID Response: The MOEST may set aside their own funds or negotiate the use of other development partner funds to support national reading assessments. It is important that the national reading assessment is institutionalized within the MOEST such that is owned, valued, administered, analyzed and used in planning and decision making.

12. The RFP states in the Scope of Work under C.5, Results: “Percentage of school grants (by grant type) used to support early grade reading activities.” This seems to be more of a performance indicator for the AMELP than an objective-level result. Is it possible that USAID/Malawi would prefer to substitute another result statement in its place?

USAID Response: No.

13. On p. 24, the RFP states that “YESA will also work in collaboration with MERIT, ASPIRE, and SEGREM to develop, create demand for, and execute a cost-effective English language proficiency assessment for lower-primary teachers”. Can USAID clarify the expectations on the part of YESA vis-à-vis the other activities for this assessment, for planning, programming, and budgeting purposes?

USAID Response: YESA will enhance or revise assessment materials that are being developed by existing USAID programs to improve the English language proficiency of lower-primary school teachers and support the expansion of the English language proficiency skills development program to early grade teachers using a low cost activity model supported at the school level by teachers and head teachers.

14. On Outcome 3, the RFP requests that the Contractor build the capacity of local communities to develop and carry out household-based community-led assessments, to generate awareness of reading outcomes and create demand for better quality of reading instruction. However, it is not clear who will be responsible for the implementation of such assessments and where the resources would come from. Please clarify whether an additional pool of resources is available for communities for such assessments. Since a number of illustrative indicators measure the extent to which communities implement such assessments and their scope (measured in the number of children assessed), it is important that the communities be provided the resources to enable this to happen, and that for the Contractor to be provided a means to build linkages between these resources and the community members whose capacity will be built through this process.

USAID Response: The contractor is responsible for both capacity building and resourcing the community level assessments.

15. Outcome 3 on page 8 is summarized as “Community level capacity for the performance and informed use of reading assessments and reading activities instituted.” Could USAID please elaborate how it will evaluate whether these assessments and activities have been satisfactorily “instituted?”

USAID Response: USAID will conduct a study that will examine the extent to which community level capacity for the performance and informed use of reading assessments and reading activities has been instituted out of the implementation of YESA.

16. Outcome 3 -- it appears that we are to develop capacity to make use of reading assessments while measuring the indigenous ability to do so as well. Will we be required to measure the increased use of reading assessments, while also the capacity for local providers/educators to create and implement such assessments in the future?

USAID Response: Outcome 3 requires the Contractor to build assessment capacity at all levels (school, community and classroom); measure how well this capacity is utilized and support local institutional capacity building in assessments to enable institutionalization of assessment practices for continuity purposes.

17. The RFP states that YESA will work with the MOEST to carry out “two-three high quality studies” in support of the NRP. Can USAID clarify the potential scope of these studies and illustrative research questions?

USAID Response: This will be determined together with the Contractor, MoEST and USAID during the implementation stage.

18. Children with Special Needs: The Contractor is responsible for integrating measures for identifying students with special needs as part of each assessment. Are there interventions that provide support for such students and relevant remedial services to which these students may be referred to?

USAID Response: Yes. They could be referred to schools or other institutions that have the appropriate capacity to support students with special needs.

19. Will bidders have access to activity descriptions, project baselines & evaluations for all current and recent past reading/literacy projects?

USAID Response: Please check the Development Experience Clearing House at https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx.

20. Will bidders have access to the evidence from the EGRAIE and SBCC/Malawi projects about effective communications?

USAID Response: Please check the Development Experience Clearing House at https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx for EGRA IE reports. SBCC Malawi project reports are available at https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_public ation_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89.

The SBCC reports are attached to this amendment (see Part A above).

21. Will YESA contractor be responsible for training teachers on how to use student data to adjust instruction or for developing a system and tools to train those responsible for teacher training (e.g. MIE and Primary Education Advisors)?

USAID Response: The Contractor will develop tools and systems to inform teachers on how to adjust instruction according to data available. The Contractor will also be responsible for the training of the teachers and integration of such skills in school based in-service trainings for teachers.

22. The instructions about the responsibility of this project to issue grants is unclear. Will YESA be responsible for issuing school grants, or, assisting in generation and linking of the data to be used as the basis for decision-making in school grants by MOEYS PSIP, MERIT and GPE (Outcome 2, p17, 18, etc.)?

USAID Response: Yes, the Contractor will issue grants under the contract.

https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/home/Default.aspx https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89 https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89

23. What mechanism should the contractor plan to rely on to address any challenges with having all implementing partners cooperate with YESA to develop a standardized and integrated M&E system?

USAID Response: The Contractor will work with USAID and the National Reading Program Steering Committee to ensure collaboration of partners in the development of the integrated M&E System.

24. Will YESA be responsible for vision screening of assessment participants or for identifying or developing and training on use of appropriate screening test and process by teachers, primary education advisors, health officials, etc.?

USAID Response: Yes. The Contractor will be responsible for vision screening of assessment participants. How this is efficiently done, depends on the Contractor’s approach.

25. The guidance for provision of pedagogical materials and technical inputs to USAID’s Open Data Policy is confusing. For example, will the YESA project be generating scripted lesson plans and supplementary readers as mentioned in the guidance?

USAID Response: We anticipate that the Contractor will provide assessment data and tools in accordance with USAID’s Open Data Policy. Please find attached guidance for more information.

26. Page 16 states: “YESA will allow for comparison of data within and across standards and over time.” Page 19 further references “end of cycle Chichewa and English assessments.”

(a) Does USAID intend the National Reading Assessments to be instituted under objective one to include tasks that are comparable across English and Chichewa?

(b) If the answer to above is yes, does USAID have internal priorities for which tasks should be comparable?

USAID Response: N/A

(c) Does USAID foresee including tasks that assess reading ability in languages other than

English and Chichewa, i.e. large minority language groups such as Chitumbuka? If the answer to any of the above is yes, does this requirement vary by standard? (e.g. standard 2 v. standard 4)

27. A number of the illustrative indicators listed by USAID depend on the successful implementation of activities beyond YESA's scope, and under a contract, it may be unrealistic to hold YESA accountable for meeting targets. Much of YESA's responsibility will be in the arena of making recommendations, building capacity and working with stakeholders to enhance data utilization rather than implementation activities that will directly improve teaching and learning outcomes. For example:

• Percentage of teachers adopting new behaviors to address deficiencies identified in the NRA.

• Number of students undergoing reading remediation.

• Number of communities performing regular community-led assessments

• Change in assessed reading skills in areas with community-led reading assessments

• Number of SMCs’ gathering key school performance data

In addition, some indicators would require substantial data collection efforts that might be better aligned with the activities of MERIT. For example, classroom observation (fidelity of implementation) indicators that could be integrated into MERIT's FOI approach might include the percentage of teachers conducting formative assessments with fidelity and the percentage of early grade primary school classes (disaggregated by Standard) implementing continuous assessment.

Is it acceptable for the offeror to suggest alternative indicators and associated targets that are more directly aligned with the scope of work under MERIT?

USAID Response: No. It is within the scope of YESA to train teachers on the use of remediation tools and assessment tools. The indicators mentioned above are in fact directly related to the interventions that the YESA Contractor will be responsible for.

28. Under C.6.2 of the solicitation, in which USAID cites that the Offeror should "implement associated activities and interventions consistent". Would USAID please suggest how these should be budgeted?

USAID Response: We expect the Offeror to make a determination and budget for such activities.

These activities relate to the technical approach that Offerrors will propose.

29. How does USAID define the difference between the use of sub-awards with local institutions (C.6.5.1) and grants under contract to CSOs (H.8)?

USAID Response: Sub-awards are generally used to partner with local organizations for program implementation while grants under contract are used to provide funds to beneficiaries or groups representing beneficiaries that allow them to carry out key activities.

30. Section C.6.5.1: Can the prime contractor use either subcontracts or grants under contract as mechanisms for working with local institutions?

USAID Response: Both.

31. Section C.6.5.2: "The Contractor may be required to coordinate with USAID to facilitate the transition of activities to local institutions that will receive direct USAID funding during the activity." It is not clear whether this is meant to be for continuation at the end of the project, or at any point during it. Is it possible that YESA activities may be transitioned to other firms?

Would this imply a change in the SOW and/or funding of the YESA project?

USAID Response: YESA activities will not be transitioned to other firms. Offerors may decide to partner with local organizations on particular aspects of the contract.

32. Would USAID be willing to share a copy of the USAID/Malawi Early Grade Reading Project strategy plan?

33. On page 26, reference is made to attending relevant working group meetings. Will the contractor, in doing this, also be attending World Bank and other donor gatherings?

34. Does USAID prefer exclusive or non-exclusive partnerships with local institutions for this proposal?

USAID Response: USAID requires Non-exclusive partnerships with local institutions for the proposal.

35. In Outcome 2, the RFP states that YESA will establish capacity for continuous and end-of-year assessments at every school. Can USAID please clarify whether YESA will be responsible for the implementation of continuous and summative end-of-year assessments? If not, is it expected that the Government of Malawi will provide the resources for the actual implementation, scoring, analysis, and integration of these assessments into the education system?

USAID Response: Yes. The contractor is expected to develop tools and train teachers to use the tools for continuous assessment and summative assessments.

36. The RFP states that “universal” is meant that assessment takes place at every school, not necessarily for every student, and suggests that sampling techniques can be used. However, the Contractor is required to report the percentage of learners who are provided remedial services based on continuous assessment. This would presume that every learner is assessed on a regular basis to screen for the need for remedial instruction. Please clarify the extent and scope of assessment activity for the purposes of screening for remedial instruction.

USAID Response: School-based continuous assessment should regularly incorporate formative and summative assessment practices by teachers such that over time, they are able to determine which students require additional remediation support. The extent and scope should be proposed by the offeror.

37. On P. 17, the RFP states that “YESA will work with School Management Committees to collect school performance data, such as attendance…, timeliness…, distribution of textbooks, and other relevant indicators determined by USAID.” It appears that this effort goes far beyond the reading assessment data. Can USAID clarify what data is currently being collected by SMC’s as a result of support from MERIT and what level of engagement is expected from

YESA in establishing such comprehensive performance management systems on the part of the SMC’s?

USAID Response: MERIT is not working with SMCs. YESA goes beyond evaluation. The component on community mobilization and social behavioral change on reading practices requires that SMCs are using data to drive change in schools they represent. USAID therefore expects that SMCs will be supported to collect the data, use the data and make decisions on how to improve reading performance for schools they represent.

38. On p. 39, Technologies. The RFP states that “technologies should be sustainable”. Can USAID clarify the expectations for technologies used in YESA?

USAID Response: A realistic use of technology is based on the Offeror’s technical approach. The Contractor will be required to seek additional opportunities to use technology throughout implementation.

39. Are there and specific, existing hardware/technology limitations and/or opportunities you envision relating to this project?

USAID Response: None is anticipated.

40. The RFP states “The Contractor must at all levels, at a minimum, conduct simple vision screening and testing on assessment participants.” Is the Contractor expected to procure special eye testing equipment and/or enlist eye-specialists for this activity?

USAID Response: No. We expect the contractor to conduct simple vision tests that do not require eye specialists.

41. For budgeting purposes, can USAID please provide an indicative number of learners with

Special Needs/Learning Disability? Students with Special Needs/Learning Disabilities

USAID Response: Please see below.

Number of Pupils with Learning Needs by Sex and Division

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Central East Education Division

2434 2381 37 46 2474 2559 174 170 1148 877 5773 5473 23546 20.4

Central West Education Division

3838 3705 63 70 3656 3853 514 489 1384 1012 7104 6367 32055 27.8

Northern Education Division

1949 1805 31 26 2126 2064 360 281 892 680 4001 3587 17802 15.4

Shire Highlands Education Division

1237 1288 46 48 1302 1556 343 299 652 524 2840 2640 12775 11.1

South East Education Division

2159 2110 23 29 2177 2233 278 239 979 892 3896 3581 18596 16.1

South West Education Division

1312 1219 52 36 1249 1154 223 167 647 513 2148 1790 10510 9.1

Grand Total 12929 12508 252 255 12984 13419 1892 1645 5702 4498 25762 23438 115284 100.0

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

42. On Page 36, “Performance Evaluation Criteria,” could USAID please provide additional detail on how these criteria will be applied to the YESA activity? As they are currently written, they do not seem specific to this activity.

USAID Response: The Performance Evaluation Criteria stated in the RFP is based on the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

SECTION F: DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

43. In section F.2, the Period of Performance is noted as four years. Can USAID please provide the anticipated start date?

USAID Response: The anticipated start date of this activity is expected to be in the 3Q of FY 2017.

44. For the deliverables listed in section F.4., can USAID provided sample preferred deadlines and share with potential bidders the criteria for complete and acceptable deliverables to assist in the budgeting process?

USAID Response: Deliverable due dates are provided in Section F.5 and a description of each deliverable is provided in Section F.4. Further, more detailed guidance concerning the contents of each report will be provided during implementation by the COR.

45. Section F.4.1 & H.8: Is Grants under Contracts component optional or required?

USAID Response: Minimum of $700,000 should be budgeted for GUCs. Please see also response on question#59 and Part A.3 above.

46. On p. 38 AMELP: the RFP states: “Mapping locations of treatment services centers and lab hubs in the selected districts of the program will be essential to understand and demonstrate improved access for the targeted populations.” Please clarify if this is referring to YESA.

USAID Response. The language has been deleted as stated in Part A of this Amendment.

47. Page 39, F4. REPORTS AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES OR OUTPUTS 9. Cost Data:

The requirements to collect all cost data, using the ingredients method and capturing in-kind contributions by all parties involved, including stakeholders, is far beyond what may be captured in a contractor’s financial system. Capturing and reporting this information will require a sophisticated and highly involved level of financial analysis, and the cost of obtaining, analyzing, documenting and reporting such customized cost data may far outweigh the benefits of collection. It should be noted that these costs will need to be built directly into this program’s budget and will require a senior financial analyst and additional staff to fulfill the role. Would it be possible for USAID to provide additional information as to why this information is required and how it will be used? Also, does USAID have templates for ways that this information may be captured for every activity, at the level of the individual beneficiary, i.e. the student or teacher, as requested by the RFP?

USAID Response: Cost Data will be used by USAID for internal programming purposes. The revised language is in Part A.1 above. Cost Reporting Guidance is attached to this Amendment in J.10.

48. P. 40 Delivery Schedule: Please clarify if working days or calendar days are meant in the number of days allowed for each type of report.

USAID Response: Please refer to the section F.5 of solicitation. All due dates are in calendar dates.

49. F.6 (pages 40-42) explicitly states the Chief of Party and Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

Specialist key personnel positions should be 100% LOE. The Reading Assessment Specialist and Community Mobilization and Engagement Specialist, however, do not have any LOE requirements. Please confirm that USAID does not expect these two key personnel positions to be budgeted at 100% LOE. Will USAID clarify if the other positions are also 100%?

USAID Response: All Key Personnel positions are at 100% LOE

50. Master’s Degrees are required for all staff. Will USAID allow for additional years of relevant experience to be used in lieu of a Master’s Degree? This will expand the pool of candidates, particularly from Malawi and the region.

USAID Response: Master’s Degree is the minimum requirement for the Key Personnel.

51. In the absence of a Master’s degree for the key personnel positions, how many additional years of experience with other post graduate degrees will USAID consider to be adequate for qualification as key personnel?

USAID Response: Master’s degree is the minimum requirement. Please see response to the question above.

52. Regarding key personnel requirements qualifications, F.6 (page 41) states the COP must have experience in "one stint as COP, or equivalent Program Manager function." As the definition of Program Manager can be quite broad, would USAID please provide additional detail on acceptable substitute COP experience?

USAID Response: The complexity of the program requires a COP with the programe management experience of activities with a similar scale and scope to YESA.

53. One of the minimum requirements for the MEL Advisor is “A master’s degree in monitoring and evaluation field.” Would USAID consider expanding the areas of study for the Master’s Degree? The requirements for a degree is M&E may be quite limiting and disqualify many senior and seasoned MEL Advisors.

USAID Response: The requirement is revised as stated in Part A of this amendment.

54. Monitoring & Evaluation Advisor. Is the expectation that the incumbent is expected to serve in a capacity building role, as well as the traditional M&E role for the project?

USAID Response. Yes.

55. Only the Chief of Party’s responsibilities are outlined in the RFP. Does USAID have expectations for the responsivities of other key staff, or is the Offeror free to propose the role as deemed appropriate?

USAID Response: The Offerror should include this as part of their management plan as identified in Section L.6 of the RFP.

56. The reporting schedule listed on page 38 and page 39 would require a great deal of staff time at the expense of the project. Would USAID consider removing individual consultant and STTA reports as stand-alone deliverable and allow for those activities to be reported in the quarterly reports?

USAID Response: No, USAID needs to verify that the required work of each consultant and STTA was performed.

57. On Page 39, the Ad Hoc reporting requirement is challenging to budget for in the context of a contract. Could USAID consider providing examples of anticipated ad hoc reports and their expected frequency?

USAID Response: USAID expects the contractor to collaborate with stakeholders implementing the National Reading Program. For example, partner meetings may require from time to time the drafting of minutes and reports that are assigned to implementing partners on a rotating basis.

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

58. Could USAID please provide the Accounting and Appropriations data missing from page 47 of the RFP?

USAID Response: Accounting and Appropriation data will be included in the resulting contract.

SECTION H: SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

59. Section H.8, and Section L.7.2.4 (J) at page 104, anticipate the provision of Grants under

Contracts (GUCs) as part of the implementation of this Activity. Can USAID please provide guidance or a “plug” amount that Offerors can utilize to budget for Grants under Contract?

USAID Response: Minimum of $700,000 should be budgeted for GUCs.

60. Section H.14(d) states that “one annual salary increase (includes promotional increase) of not more than five (5) percent may be granted according to the Contractor’s established policy and practice.” This restriction may preclude offerors from complying with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated by reference in RFP Section H.13, which states that “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices, and the cost principles applicable to this contract.” Specifying the annual salary increase offerors can provide their staff may result in offerors deviating from AIDAR 752.7007. We respectfully request that USAID revise the annual salary increase percentage to state “to be determined”, thereby allowing offerors to submit cost proposals in accordance with their established policies, procedures, and practice.

USAID Response: USAID must minimize excessive salary increases of Offeror’s employees that are proposed for this activity and the resulting Contractor’s annual salary increases. The Contractor must follow its established personnel policies in accordance with AIDAR 752.7007 subject to this contract’s limitations regarding annual salary increases. This limit neither includes an employee that assumes greater responsibilities in a new position nor a person newly employed by the Contractor for YESA. USAID will closely review the proposed salaries in these instances, but they may exceed five (5) percent with justification.

61. In section H17, it states that all international travel needs to be approved at least three weeks prior to any given trip. Would it be acceptable to USAID if travel were elaborated in the annual workplans and approved annually?

USAID Response: Yes.

62. We understand that clauses H.29 and H.30 are flowing from and governed by the policies as provided under AAPD 16-02, and would like to ask USAID to further clarify the applicability of these clauses to contractors, as follows:

a. Page 3 of the AAPD, just above 3. Guidance, says, “M/CIO and M/OAA will initiate formal rule-making procedures immediately to incorporate the revised clause along with the new special contract requirements into the AIDAR.” This language indicates that clauses H.29 and H.30 in the RFP (and other similar Information Technology clauses as written in the AAPD) are not yet a formal part of the AIDAR.

Under standard rulemaking procedures, these clauses would normally be published in the Federal Register, whereby contractors or affected implementers would have the opportunity to assess their impact and cost, digest their applicability, and respond accordingly, and only then the clauses might become applicable to contractors in original or revised form. As far as we know, USAID did not engage in such rule-making procedures, which has had the effect of preventing contractors from discussing with USAID the impact and applicability of these clauses to contractors, or digesting the operational costs of implementing these clauses, all while the clauses themselves appear to carry significant new requirements that could result in major operational costs to contractors. Moreover, the clauses are written so as to bar the contractor from billing USAID for any additional costs associated with their implementation. This concerns us. As a result, we kindly ask USAID to clarify the following questions:

i. Relying on the definition provided for Information Technology (on Pages 3 and 4 of the AAPD, or Pages 62 and 63 of the RFP), on what basis are clauses H.29 and H.30 applicable to contractors?

USAID Response: H.29 and H.30 were removed from solicitation. Please see Part A.4.

ii. Does USAID plan to engage in formal rulemaking procedures to support its implementation of clauses H.29, H.30, and any other similar IT-related clauses flowing from AAPD?

iii. Does USAID envision that this contract will require the use of any information technology resources consistent with the definition provided under Clause H.29 (a)? If yes, please indicate the type of information technology required, and how USAID envisions its relationship with the contractor will work given the provisions and requirements of Clauses H.29 and H.30.

iv. The definition of “Information technology” is provided under H.29 (a) as follows:

“(1) any services or equipment, or interconnected system(s) or subsystem(s) of equipment, that are used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the agency; where;

(2) such services or equipment are used by an agency if used by the agency directly or if used by a contractor under a contract with the agency that requires either use of the services or equipment or requires use of the services or equipment to a significant extent in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product.

(3) The term “information technology” includes computers, ancillary equipment (including imaging peripherals, input, output, and storage devices necessary for security and surveillance), peripheral equipment designed to be controlled by the central processing unit of a computer, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including provisioned services such as cloud computing and support services that support any point of the lifecycle of the equipment or services), and related resources.

(4) the term “information technology” does not include any equipment that is acquired by a contractor incidental to a contract that does not require use of the equipment.”

Provided the definition above, in our analysis, both clauses H.29 and H.30 would be applicable to contractors only if the underlined portions of the definition above was true – meaning specifically, only if USAID required and specified the use of particular services and equipment under this contract that would be used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by USAID. Our question then is - will USAID require the contractor, under this contract, to enlist the use of services or equipment to be used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by USAID? If yes, please specify the type of services and/or equipment that would be required for this purpose, and therefore subject to the applicability of this clause? Or, if USAID finds that the clause is not applicable to contractors, we kindly request the removal of Clauses H.29 and H.30 from the RFP.

63. (General) Given the highly integrated nature of the “Assess the Learners” (YESA) Activity with other USAID education programs in Malawi, will the implementing partner of the MERIT Activity be precluded from bidding in the YESA Activity?

USAID Response: USAID has determined that, because of potential organizational conflicts of interest, the implementing partner of the MERIT Activity is precluded from bidding on the YESA Activity.

64. Can an individual who consulted for USAID on the MERIT contract serve as key staff on the YESA bid?

USAID Response: The question does not provide USAID enough information or context to determine whether such an individual would be eligible to serve as key staff on the YESA bid.

65. Will any property, such as furniture, equipment or vehicles be made available from another project?

USAID Response: It is expected that two vehicles will be available to the Contractor for use in the implementation of YESA.

66. Reference to "third party evaluations for YESA." Is the Offeror therefore conflicted out from these evaluations?

USAID Response: The successful offerror will be precluded from evaluating YESA. Please read USAID Evaluation Policy (http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/usaid_guidelines.pdf).

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AND REFERENCED BY LINK

67. Can USAID please share the most recent MERIT progress report to ensure close collaboration and to avoid redundancy in technical implementation.

USAID Response: MERIT Annual Progress Report was attached to the solicitation as Attachment J.2.

68. Will we have access to current student/teacher performance data in advance of the February 21st deadline for reference in our proposal and to help shape mechanisms for delivery?

USAID Response: Currently available data at National scale is the 2016 National Reading Assessment as was attached in the RFP and is accessible at pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MGB7.pdf

69. The Budget Template in J.4 includes a line item for “Program Activities.” Could USAID describe what types of costs would be covered in that line item?

USAID Response: All program related activities proposed, such as subawardees cost, trainings, workshops, material development, GUCs, windows of opportunity, etc. should be included in the budget line item “Program Activities”.

70. Is the USAID Study on Community Perceptions of Students’ Reading Abilities available to bidders?

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MGB7.pdf

USAID Response: Yes. Please see Attachment J.9.

71. (General) Would USAID please provide a copy of the local compensation plan to ensure our proposed salaries are in line with USAID’s expectations

USAID Response: Attached as requested in J.11.

72. Should the cost for Windows of Opportunity be addressed by adding it as a cost line item in the budget template in J.4?

USAID Response: Yes. The budget template is revised. Please see Part A.5 of this Amendment and revised J.4.

73. The “Malawi Ed Data II” document does not seem to be working. It provides error message “Page not found” when clicking on:

https://eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdir&pubcountry=MW&statusID =3Could USAID kindly check and confirm the link and/or provide the document, please?

USAID Response: Please check the following site:

https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_public ation_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89

SECTION L: INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

74. Would USAID consider increasing the technical proposal page limit to 30 pages instead of 25?

USAID Response: USAID believes that 25 pages is sufficient.

75. Can offeror add cost line items to the Budget Template provided as Attachment J.4?

USAID Response: Please follow the revised Budget Template attached to this Amendment in J.4.

76. Section L.7 mentions "windows of opportunity". Can USAID provide cost parameters for this item?

USAID Response: $300,000 is the minimum cost for “windows of opportunity”.

77. Page 96 (Technical Proposal): Please confirm that the 25 page limit includes only the technical approach and excludes subsections 5) Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP), 6) Management Plan and Personnel and 7) Institutional Capacity.

USAID Response: 25 page limit of the technical proposal includes Technical Approach, Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan (AMELP) (discussion part), Management Plan and Personnel and Institutional Capacity.

https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89 https://eddataglobal.org/EdData?field_eddata_topic_value%5B%5D=Reading&field_eddata_publication_type_value%5B%5D=Activity+Reports&term_node_tid_depth=All&field_country_tid=89

78. Page 100 (Resumes of Proposed Key Personnel) – Is the total page limit for all resumes 15, or can offerors propose more than 5 key staff, as long as each resume is limited to 3 pages?

USAID Response: Please see response on question #82. The resumes of each Key Person must not exceed three (3) pages.

79. Section L.6 (b) at page 97 states that the “cover page” is not included in the 25 page limit, and Section L.6 (d) states that the “cover letter” is not included in the page limit, but the description of what should be included in the “cover letter” seems to be referring to the “cover page.” We have the following related questions:

a. Can USAID please confirm that the Offeror can submit both a cover page and cover letter and that neither will count toward the 25 page limit?

USAID Response: The cover page and cover letter are not included in the page limitation.

b. Can USAID please confirm that the following items should be included in the cover page: “(1) the RFP name and number, (2) the name of the Offeror, (3) Name of any consortium members/partnerships, (4) Name,…