LARA_P IE_Mod_2.pdf

USAID/Uganda Solicitation # SOL-617-15-000011 Amendment No.2

CONTINUATION PAGE

Amendments to the solicitation

In accordance with FAR 15.206– USAID/Uganda hereby amends the solicitation as follows:

1. Section B.3: Add the following table under B.3.C

Contract Line Item Price

1. Evaluation Design and overall activity work plan

2. Data Collection Tools Report

3. Baseline Enumerator Training and Reporting

4. Baseline Impact and Performance Data Collection

5. Baseline impact and performance data collection and report

6. Mid-term impact and performance data collection and evaluation.

7. End line enumerator training and reporting.

8. End line impact and data collection and report.

9. Final impact and performance evaluation.

10. Learning workshops for evaluation findings with a

CLA focus.

Total Price

Each contract line item price is all- inclusive for the work required to complete the deliverables defined in section D, including all reporting and contractual requirements.

2. Section E.1 FAR 52.646-5 Inspection of Services – Cost Reimbursement AUG 1996 is hereby replaced with the following:

52.246-4 Inspection Of Services - Fixed-Price (Aug 1996)

3. The following duplicate clauses are hereby deleted:

Under Section I: Part II Entitled Contract Clauses:

FAR 52.203-17 entitled “Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights and Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights. (Apr 2014)” I.17- entitled “752.7027 Personnel (Dec 1990)” I.20 entitled “Emergency Locator Information (Jul 1997)”

4. Section G.1 752-7003 Documentation for Payment (Nov 1998) is hereby replaced with the following:

52.232-1 Payments (APR 1984)

The Government shall pay the Contractor, upon the submission of proper invoices or vouchers, the prices stipulated in this contract for supplies delivered and accepted or services rendered and accepted, less any deductions provided in this contract. Unless otherwise specified in this contract, payment shall be made on partial deliveries accepted by the Government if -

(a) The amount due on the deliveries warrants it; or

(b) The Contractor requests it and the amount due on the deliveries is at least $1,000 or 50 percent of the total contract price.

5. Section L.4.1 entitled “Specific Instructions Regarding Preparation of Technical Proposal” is hereby replaced with the following:

The technical proposal in response to this solicitation will be specific, clear, and complete, and will respond to the instructions set forth in this Section. Proposals shall be written in English and typed on standard 8 ½” x 11” paper, or A4 (216mm by 297mm paper), single-spaced, using Times New Roman 11 font with each page numbered sequentially. The technical proposal must not exceed 25 pages in length, exclusive of documents explicitly authorized to be included in the annex as set forth below. Items such as cover pages, dividers, table of contents, and attachments (i.e. key personnel resumes, tables summarizing qualifications of proposed personnel, personnel statements of availability, past performance summary table and or past performance report forms) are not included in the 25-page limitation. All these should be included as annexes to the technical proposal.

The Technical Proposal in response to this solicitation must be organized in the following manner:

1. Technical Approach

2. Personnel

3. Past Performance

4. Institutional Capacity

5. Price Proposal

All critical information from annexes or appendices should be summarized in the technical proposal. Annexes shall be presented in the following order:

Annex A: Proposed personnel resumes (limit of 4 pages per person) and letters of commitment Annex B: Draft Workplan for entire activity (maximum 3 pages) Annex C: Draft Branding and Marking Plan (maximum 2 pages) Annex D: Offeror past performance matrix/ past performance evaluation reports (maximum 3 pages)

6. Section L.5.2 entitled “Price Proposal Instructions” is hereby replaced with the following:

Offers must provide the total price for this project in line with the deliverables described in Section B.3.

Offers must propose a price that is realistic and reasonable for the work called for under this requirement as described in Section C of the RFP.

A proposed payment scheduled should be included with the price proposal.

Subcontracting plan should be attached to the price proposal.

7. Section L.5.3 entitled “Content Details” is hereby replaced with the following:

1. Offerors must submit detailed budget based on line item.

2. Narrative. For each line item, Offerors must submit a narrative explaining how prices were derived and justifying the necessity of such cost in the successful performance of the contract.

3. The Offeror must prepare and submit a chart of LOE estimates for each proposed, expressed in days and detailing exactly how many actual work days out of each year each individual will devote to the P & I E .

4. This is a FIXED PRICE Contract. Proposal must represent your total proposed fixed price for the performance of the work, inclusive of VAT.

8. Questions received from offerors and responses from USAID/Uganda.

Question 1:

We would like to request to consider a different contract type given the length of the period of the award and the high level of uncertainty regarding the design due to the need to coordinate with the implementing partner (IP) on design which highly extends the risk level. We would like to refer to Section C.2.4 “Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity, which clearly demonstrates the uncertainty level mentioned above:

Because LARA is results based, the P&IE Contractor will not have full knowledge of planned interventions and sample size until after the P&IE award is issued. Upon award of the two instruments, the two partners, together with USAID and MoESTS, must work collaboratively to create and agree upon a rigorous evaluation design for LARA Results 1 and 2, including the definition of carefully selected indicators that provide meaningful measures of performance and impact that support both the overall evaluation goals of USAID’s international policies and guidelines, and USAID/Uganda in particular.

Response: The contract type will not be changed. The posted responses to questions add significant and adequate detail and specificity to the RFP.

Question 2:

In C.4, it is stated that all treatment schools will receive both Results 1 and 2 activities, and the method of selecting control schools will be determined by USAID and the LARA IP in consultations with the P&IE Contractor and MoESTS. Are the activities related to Result 1 and Result 2 expected to happen as a whole package at the same time in all target schools, or can they be introduced in two phases in target schools, or be applied as two separate packages in target schools in that some target schools get activities related to results 1 and some get activities related to Results 2 and some schools get both and some gets none?

Response: Please note that the LARA work-plan has not been finalized.

School Year 0 (Apr–Dec 2015)

School Year 1 (Feb–Dec 2016)

School Year 2 (Feb–Dec 2017)

School Year 3 (Feb–Dec 2018)

School Year 4 (Feb–Dec 2019)

Cluster 1

13 Districts Preparations for Cluster 1

1,730 schools 1,730 schools 1,730 schools 1,730 schools

P1–P2 P1–P3 P1–P4 P1–P4

Cluster 2

15 districts Preparations for

Cluster 2

1,730 schools 1,730 schools 1,730 schools

P1-P2 P1-P3 P1-P4

At the outset of LARA, schools in each Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 district will be assigned using a systematic randomized process to one of two Treatment groups or to the Comparison group, as follows:

Treatment 1: Result 1 (reading) interventions only.

Schools in this treatment group will participate in all planned Result 1 interventions, including:

• CCTs training in EGR methodology and on-going support supervision of teachers as they apply the instructional reforms in their classrooms;

• P1–P4 teacher training and on-going refresher courses in improved reading instruction methodology as well as supervision and support;

• Local language and English pupil primers (one primer per child) and teacher guides to all schools;

• Head teachers training in improved reading instruction methodology and effective teacher supervision and support practices.

• Parents and caregivers coaching on strategies for after school reading practice.

Treatment 2: Both Result 1 (reading) and Result 2 (retention and SRGBV) interventions.

Treatment 2 schools will receive all of above reading instruction and support interventions and all of the following retention and SRGBV interventions:

• Teachers, head teachers, school staff, pupils, parents, national and sub-national school officials, and community members training in prevention of and response to SRGBV.

• District education officials, teachers and other school staff, pupils, parents and other community members support in the improvement of existing or development of new strategies for prevention and response to SRGBV, including but not limited to improved reporting mechanisms, school codes of conduct, and child protection standards.

• Pupils, teachers and other school staff, parents and communities participation in an ongoing dialogue related to SRGBV, which will include self-reflection related to the status, sources and opportunities to prevent and respond to SRGBV. LARA supports communities in developing and implementing collective actions for creating a safe and supportive school community environment leading to retention in school and the elimination of SRGBV.

• Technical assistance to education stakeholders and all education actors at national and sub-national level in establishing and sustaining safe and supportive school community environments.

Comparison:

Question 3:

C.2.5, Results 1: The LARA IP must collect and analyze information on key factors contributing to a successful transition from the use of the local language to English as the main means of gaining academic information and skills. When will this information be available for P&IE contractor at base and mid line?

Response: Because this is done at the transition year (P4), there will be a, EGRA baseline at November, 2017 and an endline at November, 2019. There will be no midline for transition to English. Please note that the work-plan has not been finalized.

Question 4:

On page 20, Section C.6.5 requires the contractor to “ensure that students with special needs or learning disabilities will be able to access assessment materials developed under this contract.” Does this mean that student assessment tools used in the impact and performance evaluations need to be in formats accessible to students with disabilities, and/or administered in a manner that is accessible to students with disabilities? Additionally, will the IP be administering EGRA in a way that is accessible to students with disabilities, and disaggregating data accordingly?

Response: C.6.5 applies to instruments developed “under this contract.” EGRA data will not be collected or disaggregated according to disabilities.

Question 5: On page 28, under the qualifications for the Evaluation Team Leader, it states that “significant experience managing and mitigating fraud and corruption issues preferred.” Is this related to financial corruption, or corrupt practices associated with research and data collection?

Response: The intent is financial; issues with research and data collection are covered by the experience and education requirements.

Question 6:

On page 28, the Evaluation Team Leader is required to spend at least 30% of LOE in Uganda split between at least two trips a year. Is that 30% of the required minimum 60% time commitment, or 30% equivalent of a full time employee?

Response: The time commitment is “at least 60%,” and the 30% is based on the 60%.

Question 7:

Several sections of the RFP use the term “Chief of Party.” For this RFP, can USAID please confirm that “Chief of Party” is the equivalent of the “Evaluation Team Leader”?

Response: “Chief of Party” is the equivalent of the “Evaluation Team Leader”

Question 8:

On pages 28 and 29, for the three key positions, would USAID consider lowering the required years of experience if candidates have a PhD in a relevant content area?

Response: Yes, the required number of years can be lowered by one (1) year for the three positions if the candidate has a clearly relevant PhD.

Question 9:

Could the Mission state what the three local languages under consideration are?

Response: Luganda, Runyoro/Rutooro, and Runyankore/Rukiga

Question 10:

C.5, under evaluation products, Baseline and Endline Impact and Performance Data Collections are suggested for Year 1 and 5, respectively. But, Mid-term Impact and Performance Data Collection is suggested for Year 2-3. It is important that IE timelines for base, mid and endline are similar. Could the contractor suggest an appropriate timeline for midline to be in line with base and endline?

Response: Here are the planned Result 1 data collections dates: Baseline: February, 2016; Midline:

November, 2017; Endline: November, 2019. The RFP states: “all data collection timelines will be coordinated among stakeholders, with timelines adjusted to meet implementation constraints such as school terms and MoESTS standardized testing.” The timelines for deliverables and reports can be adjusted accordingly in coordination with the COR. Please note that the LARA work-plan has not been finalized.

Question 11:

Pg. 16 of the RFP, Section C. 5.1. E, it states that “Data collection on SRGBV needs to be coordinated with data collection on learning outcomes to ensure that both data collections are coordinated between LARA and the LARA P&IE, if possible, and executed by the same enumerators for the purpose of efficiency.” Does this mean that the P&IE contractor must use the same local data collection firm as the LARA implementer?

Response: No

Question 12:

C.5.1.E. states that baseline, midline and endline data quality assessments (DQAs) will be done for all LARA indicators by the P&IE Contractor in consultation with USAID and the LARA IP and reported in the quarterly and annual reports. Do these DQA teams include USAID mission staff? How many indicators are included for LARA? Could the P&IE offeror select LARA indicators based on consultation with USAID? What is the timeline expected for the activity?

Response: DQAs are the responsibility of the P&IE contractor. USAID has a monitoring contract that assists with DQAs with a rep assigned to education programs. LARA indicators are under development.

We expect the P&IE contractor to have significant input to the indicator development process. The indicators will be finalized soon after the award of the P&IE contract, but can be re-evaluated if needed later in the program.

Question 13:

Pg. 16-17 of the RFP states, in Section C.5.1.E, that “Data collection on school enrollment, attendance, retention and completion and learning outcomes will include EGRA assessments in line with the Education Strategy Implementation Guidance and Technical Notes.” Does this mean that collection of data on school enrollment, attendance, retention and completion will be the responsibility of the LARA implementer?

Response: EGRA data will be collected by the LARA IP. The LARA IP will be collecting, to varying degrees, information on attendance, enrollment and completion, but the IP M&E methods for Result 2 have not been finalized. In addition to Result 1, the P&IE contractor must execute an impact evaluation on Result 2 that may require separate data collection. Please note that the LARA work-plan has not been finalized.

Question 14:

On pg. 17 of the RFP, Section C.5.2, it states that “Assessment tools are required for baseline and endline data collections.” However, Section C.5.7 on pg. 18 refers to a Mid-Term Impact and Performance Evaluation Report (Deliverable 7), and says that the “P&IE Contractor will execute a mid-term performance evaluation employing qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection as described above in C.4.” Please confirm that the midterm evaluation will only consist of a performance evaluation and not an impact evaluation, and that EGRA and other quantitative data required for the impact evaluation will only be collected at two points in time, i.e. baseline and endline.

Response: The mid-term evaluation is both an impact and performance evaluation. Quantitative data will be collected at baseline, midline, and endline.

Question 15:

C.5.3. says using LARA and other previously-trained enumerators will be considered. Does this mean previously trained enumerators by LARA or can it include any survey firm that conducted similar studies?

Are MoEST staff required to be used as enumerators?

Response: Previously trained enumerators are preferred because of efficiency, but not required. MoEST staff are not required.

Question 16:

Section C.5.3, pg. 17, states that “The P&IE Contractor shall develop a plan for recruiting and training of enumerators in a timely fashion, so that training is completed prior to data collection.” Will the P&IE contractor be responsible for recruitment and training of enumerators for all data collection, including the EGRA, which the LARA implementer will be collecting, or does this statement refer only to non-EGRA data collection? In general, please clarify respective responsibilities for data collection and training.

Response: This refers to any non-EGRA data collection that may be done by the P&IE contractor.

Question 17:

C.5.4 says the P&IE Contractor will identify and collect baseline data to support the performance and impact evaluation of Results 1 and 2 and EGRA data will be collected by the LARA IP. Does this mean the LARA IP will conduct learning assessments that may be required for the impact evaluation at base, mid and end line and the LARA P&IE analyze this data? In that case, will the LARA IP follow the P&IE contractor’s sampling frame, survey protocols, and tools? Who is required to train the LARA IP’s enumerators and supervise them? Using LARA IP to collect EGRA data may affect objectivity of the IE since the IP implements activities related to both Results 1 and 2. Or is this a separate activity by LARA IP for their M&E from project schools that the P&IE contractor can have access to and may choose to use it?

Response: The P&IE contractor will have complete visibility on, and can influence, provide input, and report on any aspect of the data collection process. EGRA data will be collected by the LARA IP at base, mid, and endline, and used by the LARA P&IE contractor for impact evaluation. LARA will train EGRA enumerators and supervise them with P&IE visibility and input. USAID recognizes the objectivity questions but believes this is mitigated by complete visibility of the P&IE contractor over the process.

Question 18:

C.5.5 Baseline Impact and Performance Data Report states that Deliverable 5 should be submitted within three months after the baseline data collection. In C.5.10, End line Impact and Performance Data Report (deliverable 10) is due within two months after the endline data collection. Given the complexity, breadth and depth of details to present in the endline data report, would the mission agree if the P&IE contractor follows the Mission suggested schedule for baseline report and submit endline report within 3 months and not 2 months after the endline data collection?

Response: Yes.

Question 19:

Under Section C.5.6, the Midterm Impact and Performance Data Collection, the description refers to identification and collection of baseline data, stating that “EGRA data will be collected by the LARA IP.”

Please confirm that this is an error and no EGRA data will be collected at midline.

Response: EGRA data will be collected for at midline, February, 2017.

Question 20:

C.5.6 Mid-Term Impact and Performance Data Collection states that the LARA P&IE Contractor will identify and collect baseline data to support the performance and impact evaluation of Results 1 and 2 and that the deliverable 6, the baseline impact and performance data collection, will be completed one month before the midline date. Is there a typo?

Response: C.5.6 refers entirely to midline data collection. “Baseline” should be “midline.”

Question 21:

C.5.9 states endline impact and performance data will be collected within the first six months of Year 5.

Would the Mission allow the contractor to suggest an alternate timeline for final data collection?

Response: Yes, if needed. The LARA IP plans to do the EGRA endline in November, 2019. Please note that the LARA work plan is not finalized.

Question 22:

C.5.12 states that endline learning Workshops for Evaluation Findings is due at least 3 months before the end of the award and policy brief is also due at least 3 months before the end of the award. Since both are due at the same time, should we assume that policy brief will not be part of learning workshop discussion?

Response: Yes, the audience for the policy brief is USAID.

Question 23:

F.4.4 Final Report – States that the final Report is distinct from the Final Impact and Performance Evaluation and should be submitted 90 days prior to the completion date of this project. One of the suggested contents of the report focus on discussing how the program will be sustained after termination of USAID funding. Could the Mission clarify whose program sustainability should be discussed in this final report (LARA IP? LARA Program?) and how this discussion will differ from final P&IE evaluation report that may cover program sustainability as part of PE?

Response: The Final Report is P&IE contractor focused. No discussion on sustainability is required. Also eliminate discussion on achievement of results, sub-results and targets for all indicators that are applicable to LARA as these will be in the Final Performance and Impact Evaluation.

Question 24:

Could you confirm that electronic version would suffice for all deliverables except the Final Report? Only under F.4.4, it is stated that the report shall be submitted as two hard copies, two copies on CDs (Word and PDF versions), and one as an attachment to an email to the COR, and a CD-ROM depository will be submitted, containing all written documents, reports and presentations. Clarity on mode of submission for all deliverables will help in budgeting for printing, binding and mailing of hard copies.

Response: Please submit the CD-ROM depository of all reports with the Final Report as required.

Electronic submission of all other reports is acceptable. Request confirmation from the requisite USAID officer that electronic submissions have been received.

Question 25:

F.5. – Overall activity Work Plan within three months of program from date of award, and Annual Work Plan no later than 30 days prior to each fiscal year. For year 1, can overall activity work plan and Year 1 annual work plan be combined since the timelines for both may co-inside for Year 1?

Response: Yes. Include a start-up section in the combined plan that includes progress on personnel, operations, reports, and deliverables.

Question 26:

Section F.5, pg. 27: Baseline enumerator training and reporting plan – Is the P&IE contractor responsible for these plans for all data collections, including those being conducted by the LARA implementer?

Response: No, only for those plans that may be done by the P&IE contractor.

Question 27:

In Section F.6 the RFP begins by stating that “the Offeror is expected to propose a level of effort best suited to the needs of carrying out the Performance and Impact Evaluation.” However, it later goes on to provide specific parameters for LOE and trips for the Evaluation Team Leader. Given our experience conducting similar evaluations in Uganda and other countries, and our proven knowledge about the LOE and in-country presence required to conduct an evaluation project of this nature, we respectfully request that USAID give the offerers the flexibility to propose a distribution of LOE across key and non-key personnel that is consistent with the technical requirements of the SOW.

Response: The minimum parameters for the Evaluation Team Leader are the only ones stated.

Otherwise, offeres have flexibility as requested.

Question 28:

Policy brief – Please confirm that one brief would suffice. This will help to budget accordingly for LOE.

When and who will select the topic and outline for the brief?

Response: This is confirmed. The COR will guide the selection of the topic and outline at least six months before the due date.

Question 29:

Could you confirm our understanding that the contractor should, each year, submit 3 quarterly reports (Due every January 31, April 30, July 31) and one annual report due on October 31 that combines progress reported in the 3 quarterly reports and the last quarter?

Response: This is confirmed.

Question #30:

Is the LARA P&IE contractor expected to propose/develop pedagogical materials to support early grade readers outcomes (Section C.6.2)?

Response: No

Question 31:

Will the LARA P&IE contractor be responsible for developing datasets and codebooks (Section C.6.2.)?

Response: The Awardee is required to provide datasets and codebooks that include data on student learning outcomes and information needed to estimate the number of unique pupils benefiting from program activities over the life of the program. Implementing partners may be responsible, in collaboration with USAID, for obtaining country level memoranda of understanding that allow for the sharing of the datasets and other data with USAID, as well as public access to the data through the partner organization, where possible. This will be coordinated with the LARA IP so that dual reporting will not occur.

Question 32:

Please provide additional information about LARA's geographic coverage relating to the 28 targeted districts?

Response: The districts are: Mukono, Rakai, Mpigi, Luwero, Nakaseke, Sembabbule, Kalungu, Kayunga, Buvuma, Bukomasimbi, Kiboga, Lwengo, Butumbala, Lyantonde, Kalangala, Mityana, Masaka Runkungiri, Sheema, Mbarara, Buhweju, Rubirizi, Kanungu, Ntungamo, Isingiro, Mitooma, Hoima, Kyegegwa

Question #33:

Is it correct to assume that the treatment schools referenced on page 14 are the schools that have both safe school interventions and EGR methodology, and that the control schools have only the EGR methodology?

Response: At the outset of LARA, schools in each Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 district will be assigned using a systematic randomized process to one of two Treatment groups or to the Comparison group, as follows:

Treatment 1: Result 1 (reading) interventions only.

Schools in this treatment group will participate in all planned Result 1 interventions, including:

• CCTs training in EGR methodology and on-going support supervision of teachers as they apply the instructional reforms in their classrooms;

• P1–P4 teacher training and on-going refresher courses in improved reading instruction methodology as well as supervision and support;

• Local language and English pupil primers (one primer per child) and teacher guides to all schools;

• Head teachers training in improved reading instruction methodology and effective teacher supervision and support practices.

• Parents and caregivers coaching on strategies for after school reading practice.

Treatment 2: Both Result 1 (reading) and Result 2 (retention and SRGBV) interventions.

Treatment 2 schools will receive all of above reading instruction and support interventions and all of the following retention and SRGBV interventions:

• Teachers, head teachers, school staff, pupils, parents, national and sub-national school officials, and community members training in prevention of and response to SRGBV.

• District education officials, teachers and other school staff, pupils, parents and other community members support in the improvement of existing or development of new strategies for prevention and response to SRGBV, including but not limited to improved reporting mechanisms, school codes of conduct, and child protection standards.

• Pupils, teachers and other school staff, parents and communities participation in an ongoing dialogue related to SRGBV, which will include self-reflection related to the status, sources and opportunities to prevent and respond to SRGBV. LARA supports communities in developing and implementing collective actions for creating a safe and supportive school community environment leading to retention in school and the elimination of SRGBV.

• Technical assistance to education stakeholders and all education actors at national and sub-national level in establishing and sustaining safe and supportive school community environments.

Comparison: Please note that the LARA work plan is not finalized.

Question 34:

On page 21, the RFP states, "Links to more detailed guidelines for child protection in research as well as research, monitoring and evaluation around gender-based violence can be found in Annex A." Annex A does not appear to be attached to the RFP announcement. Can USAID please share this document?

Response: Please see: https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1865/doorways-training-manual-school-related-gender-based-violence-prevention-and-response

Question 35:

A recurrent process and significant delay each time is often expected when obtaining IRB for research and evaluation in schools in Uganda. How would USAID consider a possible delay caused by IRB's approval process, which results in all evaluation-related activities in the chain getting delayed?

Response: USAID is well-aware of delays with IRB. The P&IE contractor must address these relationships and procedures early in the program in consultations with the COR and the LARA IP.

Question 36:

Can USAID share the LARA program plan (multiple years) since this has significant implications on the design of the impact evaluation (sample selection, sample size, control group and so on for multiple years)?

Response: The overall LARA work plan is not final. The below data collection plan is not finalized but no changes are expected except possibly a doubling in the number of students sampled.

https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1865/doorways-training-manual-school-related-gender-based-violence-prevention-and-response https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1865/doorways-training-manual-school-related-gender-based-violence-prevention-and-response

Timeframe/Description Feb 2016 Baseline (P3 for P2)1

Nov 2017 Midline P2;

Baseline P4

Nov 2019 Endline P2 Endline P4

Basic Sampling Parameters Languages 3 3 3

Grade levels to be assessed P3 (proxy for P2) P2,P4 P2,P4

Pupils per school and grade level

10 P3 (proxy for P2) 10 P2

10 P4 10 P2 10 P4

LARA Treatment 1 Intervention Sample

Schools

Luganda Mother Tongue (MT) 21 21 21

RunRuk MT 21 21 21

RunRut MT 21 21 21

TOTAL 63 63 63

Pupils

Luganda MT 210 420 420

RunRuk MT 210 420 420

RunRut MT 210 420 420

TOTAL 630 1,260 1,260

LARA Treatment 2 Intervention Sample

Schools

Luganda Mother Tongue (MT)

21 21 21

RunRuk MT 21 21 21

RunRut MT 21 21 21

TOTAL 63 63 63

Pupils

Luganda MT 210 420 420

RunRuk MT 210 420 420

RunRut MT 210 420 420

TOTAL 630 1,260 1,260

Comparison Sample

Schools

Luganda MT 21 21 21

RunRuk MT 21 21 21

RunRut MT 21 21 21

TOTAL 63 63 63

Pupils

Luganda MT 210 420 420

RunRuk MT 210 420 420

RunRut MT 210 420 420

TOTAL 630 1,260 1,260

1 Primary 3 tested in February 2016 serves as a proxy for baseline assessment at end P2.

Question 37:

The RFP states, on pg. 14, Section C.4. that “all treatment schools will receive both Results 1 and 2 activities.” Will this occur right from the start of the project, or would USAID and the LARA implementer consider an approach where some schools receive Result 2 interventions at a later stage?

Response: See questions 2 and 36.

Question 38:

Can USAID confirm that the LARA implementer will not select intervention schools before the P&IE Contractor is on board?

Response: All schools are treatment (intervention) schools with very few exceptions. Control (comparison) schools will be selected randomly, almost certainly after the award of the P&IE in consultation with the P&IE and MoESTS. Please note that the LARA work plan is not finalized.

Question 39:

Please could you explain the distinction between Deliverables 10, the Endline Impact and Performance Evaluation and Deliverable 11, the Final Impact and Performance Evaluation? Per the RFP, Deliverable 10 must contain “an executive summary, analysis of impact evaluation findings and implications for USAID and the MoESTS,” while Deliverable 11 is the report of the “final impact evaluation employing qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection.” (pp. 18-19) Please clarify the difference between the two deliverables.

Response: Deliverable 10 is a “Data Report,” (the “Endline Impact and Performance Data Report”), with an emphasis on endline data which is compared to previous data. The analysis of impact in Deliverable 10 is largely confined to data. Deliverable 11 is the comprehensive “Final Impact and Performance Evaluation.”

Question 40:

Section 6.2 on pg. 19 has the following text that seems more relevant to the LARA implementer than the P&IE contractor: “Pedagogical Materials and Technical Inputs: The Awardee is required to provide pedagogical materials and other technical inputs developed to support early grade reading outcomes and other Award objectives. Examples of technical inputs to be provided to USAID include scripted lesson plans, supplementary readers, assessment instruments, observation tools, training guides, workshop reports, radio programs, assessment tools, sampling frames, photographs, videos, and other recordings.

The Awardee will transmit technical materials to the relevant COR (if applicable), and submit them to the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (https://dec.usaid.gov/).” Is this intended to apply to the P&IE contractor?

Response: See questions 30 and 31.

Question 41:

Please confirm that SOL-617-15-000011 is seeking an organization to conduct the impact evaluation for LARA only, and that the organization will not be responsible for implementing the literacy achievement and retention activities in Uganda. If this is correct, when is it expected that the implementing partner for the literacy achievement and retention activities will be selected?

Response: The Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity was awarded effective April 1, 2015.

Question 42:

On page 73, do the instructions for the technical proposal refer only to issues related to SRGBV? Can USAID provide any guidance or instruction to Offerors on other issues to be addressed under performance or impact evaluations?

https://dec.usaid.gov/)

Response: SRGBV is one aspect of Result 2. The Offeror is expected to propose ways to evaluate the other aspects under C.2.5.

Question 43:

Section L.4.2.2, Past Performance section, states “Therefore, evaluation reports that detail the results of comparable performance and impact evaluations are desirable.” Does the Mission want offerors to submit evaluation reports in addition to CPARs and/or PPRs?

Response: Yes, these are “desirable.”

Question 44:

Along similar vein as question 1, we also assume that the requirements to submit annual financial as well as final reports specified in sections F.4.3 and F.4.4 (page 26) are not applicable for this procurement. Is this correct?

Response: It’s unclear what annual financial reports you are referring to. The reports in F.4.3 and F.4.4 are required.

Question 45:

Page 10 (and elsewhere) of the RFP indicates that “The LARA P&IE Contractor will identify, collect and analyze data to support the impact evaluation of Results 1 and 2. (EGRA data will be collected by the LARA IP).” Will the LARA IP collect EGRA data from control schools or just among those receiving the program? If the latter, should the P&IE Contractor anticipate EGRA data collection among control schools?

Response: Yes, the LARA IP will collect EGRA data from control (comparison) schools.

Question 46:

Section C.4 Evaluation Design and Methodology indicates that the LARA activities will be conducted in 28 districts. The School Health and Reading Program intervention is taking place in 30 districts. Is there any overlap in the treatment schools or districts for the SHRP and the LARA? Is there a potential overlap of the control schools or districts selected for the Impact Evaluation of the SHRP and potential control schools or districts for the LARA P&IE?

Response: There is no overlap or potential overlap.

Question 47:

Section A.2.2 USAID Engagement in Uganda’s Education Sector, bullet point 2 indicates, “Follow-up EGRA assessments in the cohort 1 intervention schools demonstrate very positive results in reading improvement as compared to control schools.” Could the report on these results be made available to bidders?

Response: Yes, as a separate attachment.

Question 48:

For the technical proposal is the offeror required to present key personnel resumes as part of the technical narrative that counts towards the 25 page limit or can it be submitted as an annex?

Response: Please refer to question 12 above.

Question 50:

The solicitation indicates a P&IE- is control data available for EGRA?

Response: The LARA IP will collect baseline and control EGRA data.

Question 51:

Is SBGV to be evaluated by an experimental design too?

Response: The Offeror will propose design methods using quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both methodologies.

Question 52:

Page 10, Section C.2.5 LARA Results Framework: This section states that the LARA IP will collect EGRA data. Would USAID kindly clarify if the LARA Implementing Partner will collect any other data?

Response: The below data collections are not finalized.

Study Purpose Data

Collection Methods

Sampling Data Collection Schedule

Study 1.

Assessment of the impact of

LARA

interventions on Primary 2 reading

Provides data for PIE impact evaluation of

LARA

interventions on P2 reading outcomes.

EGRA data and data from student, teacher, head teacher surveys and classroom observations.

(1) Treatment 1 (Result 1 or Reading Only) (2) Treatment 2 (Combined Result1 and Result 2 interventions, (3) Comparison.

See Table 3 for Description of Sample

Baseline Feb 2016; Mid-line Nov 2017; End-line Nov 2019

Study 2.

Assessment of the impact of

LARA

Interventions on Primary 4 reading

Provides data for PIE impact evaluation of

LARA

interventions on P4 reading outcomes.

As above (1) Treatment 1 (Result1 or Reading Only)

(2) Treatment 2 (Combined Result 1 and Result 2 interventions,

(3) Comparison.

See Table 3 for Description of Sample

Baseline Nov 2017; End-line Nov 2019

Study 3.

Primary 2 annual reading performance assessment

Tracks student learning outcomes annually along with fidelity implementation fidelity measures, provide informed support to teachers

As above Treatment 1 (Reading Only) schools. A total of 114 schools (38 per language) and 2,508 P2 pupils, 10 per school (836 per language)

Annual assessments of P2 EGRA data in schools as follows:

Feb 2016 (P3 as P2 proxy), Nov 2016 – 2019.2

2 Study 1 assessments in Treatment 1 schools will also serve as February 2016, November 2017, and November 2019 assessments for Study 3.

Study Purpose Data Collection Methods

Sampling Data Collection Schedule

Study 4. Quasi- Longitudinal study of P1 to P4 reading skills

Tracks individual reading skills outcomes in conjunction with implementation fidelity data for a single cohort of pupils from P1 through P4

As above Treatment 1 (Reading Only) schools. 38 schools, 836 pupils each year per language for a total of 114 schools, 2,508 pupils following grade-level progression from P1 to P4

Assessments starting Feb 2016 (start of P1); Nov 2016 (end P1);

Nov 2017 (end P2); Nov 2018 (end P3) Nov 2019 (end P4)3

Study 5. Rapid Formative

SRGBV

Assessment

Informs the program design for Result 2

PLA process, focus groups, and other qualitative methods

Six purposively sampled schools, two schools selected from each of three targeted districts. Each school assessment will engage several teachers and other school staff, 24 pupils in each grade P1 to P4, and community members.

Sep 2015

Study 6:

School Safety and SRGBV impact assessment

Provides data for PIE impact evaluation of

LARA

interventions on school safety, student perseverance in school, and pupils’ reading skills.

Safe & supportive school surveys examining experiences, attitudes, and perceptions of school climate relating to

SRGBV

Treatment 1, Treatment 2 and Comparison schools. 38 schools per language and treatment group for a total of 228 Treatment schools and 114 Comparison schools.

Baseline Feb 2016; Midline Oct- Nov 2017; End-line Oct-Nov 2019 (Will be carried out with P2 / P4 impact assessments)

Study 7:

Qualitative longitudinal study of SRGBV and safe schools

Deepen knowledge and understanding of nature and consequences of SRGBV, its prevention and mitigation

PLA process, focus groups, and other qualitative methods.

10 randomly selected Treatment 2 schools and 15 pupils in each school who are in P1- P4 at 2016 school year (150 pupils total), to be followed forward through to 2019. The attrition rate is estimated to be 35% leaving an expected end-line sample of 100 learners in 2019.

Periodic visits throughout the period 2016 –

3 November 2017 P2 and November 2019 P4 assessments with Treatment 1 schools conducted for P2 and P4 impact evaluations, respectively, will serve as the P2 and P4 assessments for the quasi-longitudinal study also.

Question 53 Section 6.2 on pg. 19 has the following text: “The Awardee is required to provide datasets and codebooks that include data on student learning outcomes and information needed to estimate the number of unique pupils benefiting from program activities over the life of the program.” A list of transmittal specifications is then listed on pg. 20. Please clarify whether the P&IE Contractor required doing all this, even though this particular data is being collected and processed by the LARA implementer?

Response: The Awardee is required to provide datasets and codebooks that include data on student learning outcomes and information needed to estimate the number of unique pupils benefiting from program activities over the life of the program. Implementing partners may be responsible, in collaboration with USAID, for obtaining country level memoranda of understanding that allow for the sharing of the datasets and other data with USAID, as well as public access to the data through the partner organization, where possible. This will be coordinated with the LARA IP so that dual reporting will not occur.

Question 55

The RFP states that, "Because LARA is results based, the P&IE Contractor will not have full knowledge of planned interventions and sample size until after the P&IE award is issued." However, can you advise of an estimate of the maximum number of discrete interventions overall and of the maximum number of discrete interventions per school that LARA is considering implementing? This information would be useful both for developing our technical approach and for developing our costing.

Response: See questions 52, 36, and 2.

Question 56 The LARA solicitation was awarded in April. When does LARA anticipate beginning its interventions in schools? And has LARA already identified treatment and control schools? When does USAID estimate that the LARA P&IE award will be made?

Response: Implementation is anticipated to begin February, 2016. See questions 36 and 38. The proposal due date is posted, and the award will take place thereafter. Please note that the LARA work plan is not finalized.

Question 57 Annex A was not attached to the RFP.

Response: See question 34.

Question 58:

In section F.4.2.a and F.a.2.e (page 26), the RFP specifies that the contractor should provide a “summary of financial status, including opening balance, expenditures during the quarter, balance at the end of the quarter, and planned expenditures for the next quarter; ” and that they should also provide an “analysis of cost overruns or high unit costs…”

Response: It is not clear what the question is. The language in the RFP stands.

Question 59:

Are we correct in believing that schools in the 28 districts involved in LARA have --not-- previously been involved in the School Health and Reading Project?

Question 60:

Can you provide any information as to the distribution of the estimated 3847 schools in the 28 districts?

E.g., where are the districts? What is the estimated distribution urban-periurban-rural? This and similar information is important both for developing our technical proposal and for developing our cost proposal.

(Attachment F was not attached to the Activity Description; can this be provided?)

Response: See question 32; See separate attachment for list of SHRP, GPE, an LARA districts.

CONTRACTUAL QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

Question 61:

Page 1 Cover Page: The cover page lists the closing date as August 18, 2015, while Page 3 of the solicitation states that the closing date is August 27th. Would USAID kindly confirm the correct closing date?

Response:

Per amendment No.1 of the solicitation, the closing date for SOL-617-15-000011- Performance and Impact Evaluation is September 3, 2015.

Question 62:

On the cover page, the proposal due date is August 18, 2015 at 4pm EDT. On page 5 of the RFP and on the Federal Business Opportunities website, the due date is August 27, 2015 at 4pm EDT. Could USAID please confirm the due date?

Response: Please refer to the response in to question sixty one above.

Question 63:

In the cover letter the closing date is August 18, 2015 while on the Solicitation page it is August 27, 2015.

Which date is correct?

Response: Please refer to the response in to question sixty one above.

Question 64:

The cover letter of the RFP states that the due date is 08/18, but FBO and page five of the RFP list the closing date as 08/27. Will the Mission please confirm that the correct submission deadline is 08/27?

Response: Please refer to the response to question sixty one above.

Question 65:

What is the response date? The RFP indicates 08/15, the notice indicates 08/27.

Response: Please refer to the response to question sixty one above.

Question 66:

The cover page instructs Offerors to submit a subcontracting plan. Should this be attached to the Cost Proposal?

Response: The subcontracting plan will be submitted as an attachment to the cost proposal, as per amendment No. 2

Question 67:

Page 8, Section C.1.2 Contract Purpose: This section states that the Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity (LARA) was awarded on April 1, 2015. Would USAID kindly clarify whether implementation has begun? If not, when does USAID expect implementation of the LARA activity to begin?

Response:

As per C.1.2 of the solicitation 617-15-000011 entitled “Contract Purpose”, Literacy and Retention Activity was awarded on April 1, 2015 and is currently in the mobilization phase.

Question 68:

On page 70, Section L.2, the instructions indicate that submissions should be made in MS WORD or Excel. Can Offerors submit the Technical Proposal in PDF format? If not, could the Technical Proposal Annexes be submitted in PDF format? Separately, can Offerors submit the Cost Proposal in PDF?

Response:

The technical proposal shall be submitted both in MS WORD and PDF format. All Annexes to the technical proposal may be submitted in PDF format. The cost proposal shall be submitted in excel with optional PDF.

Question 69:

Section L.4.2.2. states that offerors “…must list at least two (2) past or current” past performance references (PPRs), which implies that more than two may be submitted. The same section later states “…the Offeror may complete Part 1 (Blocks 1 through 9) of the Contractors Performance Report-Short Form for two (2) contracts and/or subcontracts…”, which implies only two past PPRs are to be submitted.

However, Section L.6 states that performance information for up to 5 contracts may be submitted. Please confirm that the past performance information referenced in Sections L.4.2.2 and L.6 are the same and that at least two and up to five PPRs may be submitted.

Response: Between two to five references, in the past five years.

Question 70 Section H.7 specifies the authorized geographic code as 935. Section H.12 states that the authorized geographic code is “…937 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of this contract.” Please confirm that the intended geographic code is 935.

Response: The authorized geographical code is 935

Question 71 The RFP states that USAID anticipates awarding a Firm-Fixed Price Contract. Section G.1 (a) (1) includes a chart that is in accordance with expenditures under a line-item budget, and not by deliverable.

Please clarify on which basis payments will be made.

Response: Please refer to amendment No.2; payment will be based on deliverables.

Question 72:

The RFP does not explicitly list required annexes in one section. Will the Mission please give a list and order of preferred annexes to be submitted?

Response: Refer to amendment No.2 for the order of Annexes.

Question 73:

In Section L.2.4.1., the Mission requests brief biographical sketches for two consultants, saying the information should not exceed two pages each. Will the Mission please confirm that these two page bio sketches should be included in the technical proposal, in addition to four page CVs for the consultants, which will be included in an annex?

Response: This information will be provided in Annex A.

Question 74:

Will the Mission please clarify the required font size for the proposal? Section L.4.1 lists “12 characters per inch”, is that synonymous with 12 point font?

Response: Please refer to amendment No.2.

Question 75:

Section L.4.1 specified the text in the technical proposal to be “12 characters per inch.” Please confirm that 12 pt text satisfies this requirement.

Response: Please refer to question no. 74

Question 76:

Who is the LARA Implementing Partner? Who was awarded the cooperative agreement for LARA RFA 617-15-000006?

Response: The LARA implementing partner is Research Triangle International (RTI).

Question 77:

The LARA evaluation, fixed price contract, has clear deliverables with strict deadlines. But the evaluation depends on the LARA program activities which are under a cooperative agreement.