SOL-620-14-000012.Q A.Amendment__000002.pdf

SOL-620-14-000012

The Northern Nigeria Education Initiative Plus (NEI+) Activity: Questions & Answers

Questions and Answers

GENERAL

1. The RFP cover letter states that September 10, 2014 is the closing date for proposals. Can

USAID please confirm this date as it allows the offerors less than 30 days to respond from the issuance date of August 15, 2014, and only 15 days from the date that questions are to be submitted?

Answer: The closing date has been extended to September 22, 2014 at 16:00 Hours Local Nigeria Time (GMT +1). Please see Amendment No. 000001 to this solicitation on fedbizopps for further details.

2. Would USAID please clarify the CFDA number for this program?

Answer: This procurement action does not require a CFDA (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) number.

3. Corrections to the RFP:

• This procurement is now to be referred to as The Northern Nigeria Education Initiative

Plus (NEI+) Activity.

• The Small Business Size Standards for NAICS Code 541990 – All other professional, Scientific and Technical Services is $15 million.

• The acronym “LEAD” as presented on page 4 (list of acronyms) and page 17 (last bullet) stands for “Leadership, Empowerment, Advocacy, and Development” project.

SECTION C

4. SOL Section C.2.7, Paragraph 2, Page 28. “Institute the use of the Education Risk

Reduction Index (ERRI) as a monitoring tool in all public, IQTE, and NFLC schools in the NEI+ activity.” Can USAID provide more specific documentation on the Education Risk Reduction Index?

Answer: No. The RFP states that an illustrative activity is to “Develop and validate School Safety Benchmarks or Education Risk Reduction Index (ERRI) for use by LGEAs and communities in determining the prevalence of factors inhibiting school access and ensure a balance between increasing access to education options while at the same time reducing risks associated with learning and creating a protective environment for children to learn.”

5. SOL Section C.1.3, Paragraph 4, Page(s) 16-17. Could USAID please confirm that EGRAs were conducted under NEI and not EdData.

Answer: Yes, confirmed. Results are available at: https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubDetail&ID=514.

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 1

6. SOL Section C.2.4, Paragraph 1, Page 19. The RFP states that “USAID/Nigeria expects the NEI+ activity to operate in approximately four northern states” however in all other places in the RFP USAID refers to three states or approximately three states. In order to prepare a costing inputs, could USAID clarify whether prospective contractors should prepare a technical and cost response to three or four states?

Answer: Three states. Two are identified (Bauchi and Sokoto), with the Offeror to present criteria for the selection of the potential third state.

7. SOL Section C.1.2, Pages 14 and 19. Please provide a clear definition and delineations of Islamiyaa, Qu’ranic, Tsangaya and non-formal schools.

a. Please specify how USAID defines the difference between formal and non-formal (or informal, page 19) schools.

b. How and when are IQTE schools different than non-formal schools and NFLC?

c. Cannot NFLC be included in IQTE? Or are NFLCs uniquely non-secular?

d. Are non-formal schools and NFLC the same?

e. Are integrated (i.e. teaching the core curriculum) Islamiyaa schools considered non-formal?

f. How is an “unintegrated” Islamiyaa school, which lacks the core academic curriculum, different from a Qu’ranic school?

g. When USAID refers to IQTE schools, is it referring to schools that lack the “core”, i.e.

academic, curriculum?

Answer: Non-formal learning centers (NFLCs) may or may not be located in Islamic schools; they are part of IQTEs;

For a more extensive discussion of school types, please review the “Review of the IQE in Bauchi and Sokoto States Activity Report” from the Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity available at:

https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubDetail&ID=651

Religious School Types (NEDS 2010 definitions from report, “Religious School in Nigeria,” available at www.eddataglobal.org)

Qur’anic

• The curriculum for Qur’anic schools focuses on teaching students the recitation and memorization of the Qur’an.

Islamiyya

• Islamiyya schools provide more advanced religious study, including instruction in

Qur’anic scriptural and legal/jurisprudence subjects. Some now offer a Government approved academic curriculum as well, including English, mathematics, social studies, and science. Islamiyya schools are diverse; some are fully supported Government institutions, whereas others are informally supported extensions of Qur’anic schools.

Tsangaya

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 2 http://www.eddataglobal.org/

• Tsangaya is a Hausa word that literally means “learning center.” Tsangaya is associated with itinerant or boarding institutions. Only males attend Tsangaya schools; and in some states in northern Nigeria, no distinction is made between Tsangaya and Qur’anic schools.

8. SOL Section C.1.3, Pages 17 and 40. We understand that in 2013/14, another NEDS has been performed. Please provide the analysis (even if preliminary). On page 40, the RFP cite a 2015 NEDS.

Answer: The 2013-2014 NEDS was an addition to the NEDS 2010, in which data collected in the 2010 Nigerian Education Data Survey is further analyzed to contextualize state-specific information and recommendations, known as NEDS 2010 Plus. State-specific reports resulting from this data can be found at the following site: https://www.eddataglobal.org. NEDS 2015 is still in the planning process.

9. SOL Section C.1.3, Page 17. The work done under RARA is particularly important to responding to the NEI+ RFP as it has dealt with analyses and interventions, “contextualizing efforts to improve access and reading outcomes” in northern Nigeria. We have followed the link provided in the RFP, but have found only one document dealing with English-language instruction. We ask that USAID provide bidders with full documentation, including:

a. All studies, research and analyses conducted under RARA, such as “investigations of barriers to school access, perceptions of school quality, and context and functioning of Almajiri schools” and Review of (DfID-funded) Education Sector Support Program in Nigeria’s (ESSPIN) Teacher Capacity Development and Support Strategy (sic);

b. The complete reading package (analysis, linguistic maps, description, scope and sequence, lesson plans, teacher and student materials, supplementary materials, coaching materials and delivery program, and other products) developed for Hausa and English;

c. Results (even preliminary), analysis, and research design and instruments for the RCT of the reading package; and

d. All other work products, intervention descriptions and related materials associated with the activity.

Answer: Access to these reports are available through multiple channels including the Nigeria mission website at: http://www.usaid.gov/nigeria/newsroom/key-documents. They are also available via the EdData website at https://www.eddataglobal.org/, specifically listed at: https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdir&pubcountry=NG &statusID=3&showtypes=0

10. SOL Section C.1.3, Page 17. As the RARA materials have not been available for the duration of the RFP preparation period, would USAID consider extending the submission date to allow for study and assimilation of these materials?

Answer: See answers to Question #1 above, and amendment No. 000001 to the solicitation for the extended submission date.

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 3 https://www.eddataglobal/ http://www.usaid.gov/nigeria/newsroom/key-documents https://www.eddataglobal.org/ https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdir&pubcountry=NG&statusID=3&showtypes=0 https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdir&pubcountry=NG&statusID=3&showtypes=0

11. SOL Section C.2.2, Page 18. The RFP states: “USAID/Nigeria intends to focus support to education systems strengthening at the state and local government levels in two key areas, improved quality of early primary education and increased access to basic education for vulnerable populations.” Please specify the grades (or grade-level skills) that USAID considers “basic education.”

Answer: For the purpose of this contract, reading activities will be targeted only in primary schools, while increasing access may be done in NFLCs, which may include older youth.

12. SOL Section C.2.2, Pages 18-19. The RFP indicates that NEI+ will improve reading outcomes for “primary grade learners”, “improve quality of early primary education,” and “improved reading skills in primary grades.” Please specify the grades that USAID wishes to address.

Answer: This contract is intended to focus on Primary 2-4.

13. SOL Section C.2.2, Page 19. The RFP states: “Due to the difference in interventions required to achieve the results, the predominance of funding will support improved reading skills.” Does “predominance of funding” for reading mean more than 50 percent of project resources?

Answer: Yes.

14. SOL Section C.2.3, Page 19. Does USAID consider students retained in school through project interventions as part of the count toward increased access?

Answer: No; increased access refers to new entrants, not continuing participants.

15. SOL Section C.2.4, Pages 20 and 23. The RFP states that NEI+ should work in target

LGEAs. In addition, there are references throughout that RFP that mention working with “target communities” (Page 40). Does USAID expect the project to work with every school-community in the target LGEA or selected school-communities within the target LGEA?

Answer: Offerors are expected to establish criteria for the selection of target communities/LGEAs.

16. SOL Section C.2.4, Pages 20-21. The RFP states: “The approach of embedding access and reading specialists within the LGEAs is intended to support these systems strengthening outcomes.” Does USAID require that project-funded access and reading specialists be embedded in every LGEA?

Answer: No, but Offerors are required to provide justification and rationale for the decision of how many specialists will be embedded within the LGEA, and where.

17. SOL Section C.2.5, Page 24. Under community mobilization for government accountability, the RFP states that the project should “catalyze learning for OOSC and youth.” What grades, September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 4 skill level and age are to be addressed in project efforts to “catalyze learning for OOSC and youth?”

Answer: Since this relates to our Goal 3 initiative with reference to Access, you are not restricted to a specific grade or age level.

18. SOL Section C.2.5, Page 24. Under systems strengthening, the RFP states: “LGEAs will have increased capacity to procure and distribute… learning materials for basic numeracy and life skills.” Please confirm that math and life skills materials will be limited to NFLC learning environments?

Answer: Yes, confirmed. However, the main focus at primary, formal schools is reading materials.

19. SOL Section C.2.5, Page 24. The RFP references several school types and learning environments. Would USAID please clarify the difference between NFLCs and IQTEs?

Answer: Non-formal Learning Centers may be established within a traditional Qur’anic school, or within formal schools during non-school hours. For NEDS 2010 definition of Qur’anic, Islamiyya, and Tsangaya schools, please refer to Question #7 above.

20. SOL Section C.2.5, Page 25. The RFP states that benchmarks be developed for early grade reading performance. Does this mean that standards have already been developed?

Nationally? In targeted states?

Answer: No; establishment of these benchmarks are for the purpose of this project, and thus is the responsibility of the Offeror.

21. SOL Section C.2.5, Page 25. The RFP instructs bidders that materials developed by NEI+ for Hausa and English should “be based on those developed under the USAID-funded RARA activity” and, later on page 30, suggests that the RARA materials for P1 Hausa be updated and validated.

a. This contradicts the direction on page 17, which states that “Results and products from

RARA may be used to inform NEI+ interventions, but Offerors are NOT required to use them.” Please clarify USAID’s expectation.

b. Please provide a link or access to the RARA products, materials and results. As of this writing, these are not available on the website provided in the RFP. Bidders cannot know what has been developed or the validity of its content.

Answer: Results and products from RARA (as well as other relevant sources) may be used to inform NEI+ interventions, but Offerors are not required to use them. The link to RARA-developed products and materials is:

“https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdir&pubcountry=NG&s tatusID=3&showtypes=0”.

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 5

22. SOL Section C.2.5, Page 25. The RFP states: “Materials reprinted in the last year of the activity will ensure adequate supply for year 5 and beyond.”

a. The percentages in the financial transfer of responsibility to the state and local government (page 36, Table 3) indicates that the cost burden will be borne by the states and LGEAs. In light of this, please clarify what is meant by this and expected in terms of financial outlay of project resources.

b. Please specify what is meant by “beyond” year 5. How many years are required and what is expected in terms of financial outlay of project resources?

Answer: The period of performance is five years. Financial outlays of USAID project resources should conform to the period of performance.

The instructions in L.7.3 state that “USAID/Nigeria expects that the NEI+ LGEAs and, by extension, states, will take ownership of the project’s interventions in both access and reading from the outset of the activity, starting with conceptual ownership beginning in activity Year 1, and building up to the financing for activities being primarily provided by the monies available to the NEI+ states under the UBEC allocations by year five. This gradual release of responsibility for planning, budgeting, and implementing activities from the NEI+ activity to the target LGEAs and states should be reflected in Offeror’s work-plans and implementation plans.”

23. SOL Section C.2.5, Page 25. The RFP states: “LGEAs will collaborate with partner

CSOs…” Have specific “partner CSOs” been pre-identified by USAID to provide training in all school contexts? If so, please provide their names and contact information.

Answer: No; prospective partner CSOs have not been identified.

24. Section C.2.4. (page 19-20) states, “USAID/Nigeria expects the NEI+ activity to operate in approximately four northern states” and “Although USAID expects the contractor to begin introductory dialogue and analyses with the third NEI+ state in the course of the second year of the contract, actual interventions to improve access and reading are not anticipated to begin in that third state until activity year three…” Can USAID please confirm when dialogue, analyses, and implementation of the fourth state would be expected?

Answer: The initial identification is for 2 states, with the option to add an additional state in Year 2. The reference to a fourth state is erroneous.

25. SOL Section C.2.5, Page 25. Are partner CSOs required to provide teacher training in government schools? What about state and LGEA trainers? The CSO requirement appears to be contradicted on page 26, where USAID anticipates that formal and non-formal school-level teachers will be trained by COE instructors. Please clarify.

Answer: Offeror needs to determine particular modalities for teacher training, with the expectation that lecturers from the COEs (trained through the project) will provide that training.

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 6

26. SOL Section C.2.6, Page 26. Pre-service education does not appear in the Results Framework and is only briefly mentioned on pages 26 and 31. Please specify whether it is a requirement that NEI+ work with the NCCE and COEs, with the result that the pre-service reading curriculum and components are revised.

Answer: One of the essential milestones listed in the table on page 36 is that “Colleges of Education in all states in possession of the materials needed to integrate reading coursework into pre-service teacher preparation.”

27. SOL Section C.2.6, Page 26. The RFP states: “Teachers will be supported through bi-weekly classroom-level visits structured through observation and feedback forms.” Are “bi-weekly classroom-level visits” for observation and feedback required or is this frequency illustrative? Does USAID intend for this effort to be managed by the contractor or is this meant to be the responsibility of the GON?

Answer: This is strongly recommended, as this activity will be used to measure achievement of benchmarks. If these observations are not done, there must be a strong rationale for not doing so. Initial interventions shall be managed by the contractor, with gradual transfer of responsibility to the GON.

28. SOL Section C.2.7, Page 28. Under Sub IR 1.1, the RFP states that NEI+ should develop and validate School Safety Benchmarks and Education Risk Reduction Index (ERRI), in addition to developing and implementing institutional performance scorecard. Would USAID please clarify if these tools need to be developed, or if they already exist and need to be adapted? If the tools exist, would USAID please provide copies?

Answer: These tools need to be developed.

29. SOL Section C.2.7, Pages 28 and 34. Under Sub IR 1.1., the RFP states that NEI+ should:

“Work with appropriate government structures to provide teaching and learning materials to IQTEs, and to NFLCs… In the case of IQTEs, they will include the core curriculum…” Please clarify if the bidder is to address strengthening academic subjects included in the core curriculum other than reading for IQTEs (and math for NFLCs)?

Answer: The Offeror is free to develop materials other than reading (and, in the case of NFLCs, Math), but it is not required.

30. SOL Section C.2.7, Page 29. Sub IR 1.4 for NEI+ is: “Core curriculum is adopted in non-formal schools (specifically IQTE schools).” Please clarify the difference between IQTE and non-formal schools.

a. Islamiyaa schools integrate the core curriculum. Are these considered non-formal schools?

b. What is the difference between NFLCs and non-formal IQTE schools?

Answer: See response to Question #7, above.

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 7

31. SOL Section C.2.7, Page 30. Sub IR 2.1 includes the following illustrative activity: “Use evidence gathered in classrooms in the NEI+ activity to assess with state and LGEA authorities whether P3 is the appropriate transition point to English reading for students in the target communities.” Please clarify what is meant by “target communities” in this activity. Does this refer to the 10 target LGEAs per state?

Answer: Yes. This also recognizes potential heterogeneity in the characteristics of communities within an LGA.

32. SOL Section C.2.7, Page 30. Under Sub IR 2.2, USAID requires that RARA materials be updated and validated. Please provide the links to the full set of reading materials produced or under development by RARA.

Answer: The link to RARA-developed products and materials is:

“https://www.eddataglobal.org/countries/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdir&pubcountry=NG&s tatusID=3&showtypes=0”.

33. SOL Section C.2.8, Page 32. Please specify the number of states with which NEI+ is expected to work? Three and four have been cited at different points.

Answer: NEI+ is expected to operate in approximately three states.

34. SOL Section C.2.8, Page 36. Does the phasing of cost distribution by year (Table 3) include total funding allocation for all three states or is it intended to show the funding allocation for Bauchi and Sokoto over the 5-year life of the project, with a different allocation for the third state? If so, please provide the funding allocation sequence for the third state.

Answer: The phasing of cost distribution is meant to show the funding allocation for the total NEI+ project.

35. SOL Section C.2.8, Page 36. The RFP charts the expected phasing of cost distribution for training and materials that demonstrates increasing GON financial responsibility. What formal mechanisms does USAID envision to be used to ensure this transfer of costs over time? Would USAID jointly sign an MOU with the national and state representatives and the prime contractor? Or would the prime contractor solely be responsible for enforcement of an agreed schedule? Finally, is this financial commitment with the State and Central governments a precondition to inclusion in the program?

Answer: The approach and implementation for this phasing of cost distribution is expected to be part of Offeror’s proposals: “the gradual release of responsibility for planning, budgeting, and implementing activities from the NEI+ activity to the target LGEAs and states should be reflected in Offeror’s work-plans and implementation plans.”

SECTION H

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 8

36. SOL Section H.11 (g)(3), Paragraph 1, Page 74. “A six day work week is not authorized.” Would USAID allow a six day work week for overseas employees?

Answer: No. Also, see answer to question #37 below.

37. Section H.11. (g) (3) (page 74) states, “A six day work week is not authorized.” Can USAID confirm if this is applicable to short-term technical assistance? May short-term technical assistance work a six-day week?

Answer: Short-term technical assistance (STTA) may provide a six-day work week in-country.

38. Section H.11 (f), Page 74, states USAID is requesting Offerors to “submit a salary scale which reflects its proposed staffing plan covering all planned non-US (CCC/TCN) positions together with Contractor’s compensation policies.” Since TCNs will be authorized packages similar to US Nationals consistent with Contractor approved policies and procedures, can USAID please confirm that only one salary scale for CCNs is required?

Answer: Salary scale for planned non-US (TCN/CCN) employees is required, except for offerors whose approved personnel policies and procedures allows or authorizes TCN compensation similar to US nationals.

39. SOL Section H.11(i), Paragraph 1, Page 75: USAID states the Local Employee Salary

Scale for USAID/Nigeria is provided in attachment J4. However, this attachment is not found. Could USAID provide the Local Employee Salary Scale?

Answer: The salary scale for the Local Compensation Plan (LCP) is hereby attached as Attachment A to this amendment No. 000002.

40. SOL Section H.15, Paragraph 1, Page 77. Geocode – Due to the large procurement aspect put forth in the scope of work, would USAID allow Geo code 935 for the procurement of goods and services in support of this effort?

Answer: This procurement action utilizes code 937, the authorized USAID Principal Geographic Code for the procurement of commodities and services. However, one-time transactional waivers may be approved during activity implementation based on need.

SECTION L

41. SOL Section L.5, Paragraph (g), Page 113. The RFP states: “Offerors are required to extend the period for acceptance to 120 calendar days from the solicitation closing date.”

However, on page 124, the RFP states “Offerors’ proposals will be valid for 180 days.”

Would USAID please clarify whether Offerors are requested to extend the period of validity for 120 calendar days or 180 calendar days?

Answer: Offerors proposals will be valid for 180 days from the date of receipt of proposal.

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 9

42. SOL Section L.7.7, Paragraph 3, Page 119. “List in an attachment to the technical proposal up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. The past performance reports (PPRs) will be 5 for the Prime, and 5 additional PPRs for each major subcontractor as defined in the paragraph above. “Would USAID accept recent and relevant cooperative agreements of similar scope, size (dollar value) and/or complexity from offerors?

Answer: Yes, as long as the Cooperative Agreement information is similar in terms of size, scope, complexity and budget.

43. SOL Section L.7.7.4 (ii), Paragraph 2, Page 120. “Provide with your summary a copy of the 10 most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” against which you were required to report for the past 3 years.” As the SF 294 is obsolete, will USAID accept a list of the contract numbers for the 10 most recent reports that were submitted via the Government electronic reporting system? Could USAID also confirm this applies to the prime contractor only?

Answer: Yes, USAID will accept a list of the contract numbers for the 10 most recent reports that were submitted through the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), and this applies to prime contractors only.

44. SOL Section L.7.4, Paragraph 3, Page 118. This section instructs offerors to include in the technical proposal a list of all other (i.e. non-key personnel) professional personnel positions and provide a brief explanation of why that position is necessary to reach the activity objectives. Given the limitation of 5 pages for the personnel section, will it be acceptable to provide this list and description of positions as an appendix?

Answer: No; please include within the page limitations for the personnel section. Brief descriptions should not need more space than what is provided in 5 pages.

45. SOL Section L.7.4, Paragraph 2, Page 118. This section instructs offerors to submit 2 page

CVs for key personnel. Would USAID consider increasing the page limit for CVs to 3 pages?

Answer: No; same as above. Offerors should present succinct highlights in the CVs.

46. SOL Section L.11. B. 8. (iii), Paragraph 2, Page 118. In the Cost Proposal Instructions, this section requests a signed letter of commitment from each long-term individual whereas the technical instructions on page 118 in section L.7.4 request letters of commitment for key personnel only. Would USAID consider revising the cost proposal instructions to match the technical proposal instructions, requiring letters of commitment from key personnel only?

Answer: Letters of commitment are required from key personnel only.

47. SOL Section L.11.9 (d), Paragraph 1, Page 131. “If the Offeror is other than US small business, it must submit a Subcontracting Plan (see Attachment J3).” No subcontracting plan

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 10 is found in attachment J3. Can USAID confirm that it is requiring a small business subcontracting plan for this solicitation? If so, can USAID please provide the Attachment J3 Subcontracting Plan?

Answer: Please see answer to question #48 below.

48. SOL Sections L11, paragraph (d) on page 130-131 and Section I.1, Contract Clause 52.219-14, page 85. Question: In reference to PEB #2014-05 (attached), does the Contracting Officer reasonably anticipate that significant direct charges are likely to be incurred outside the United States and, if so, is the Contracting Officer not requiring a Small Business [subcontracting] Plan for the subject solicitation?

Answer: The Contracting Officer has made a determination that a Subcontracting Plan is not required for this procurement action (see FAR 19.702(b)(3)).

49. SOL Section L.5, Page 113. The RFP states: “All prospective contractors must completed the annual representations and certifications electronically via ORCA.” However, Section K

– Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors is provided on page 95 of the RFP. Would USAID please clarify whether Offerors should complete the Section K provided in the RFP? If so, would USAID also indicate where it should be included in the cost proposal?

Answer: Offerors must complete Section K and submit it as part of cost proposal.

50. SOL Section L.6, Paragraph (h), Page 115. The RFP states: “Annexes (i.e., key personnel resumes; letters of commitment; organizational charts) do not count against the 35-page limitation. Please note that additional documentation beyond the 35-page limit and annex will not be read or evaluated by USAID.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors to include letters of support from local partners as an additional annex to the technical proposal?

51. SOL Section L.7, Page 116. The RFP requires letters of commitment from implementing partners/subcontractors as part of the technical proposal. However, on page 132, letters of commitment from subcontractors are required for the cost proposal. Would USAID please confirm that letters of commitment for both implementing partners and subcontractors should be included as part of the technical proposal only?

Answer: Yes, letters of commitment for both implementing partners and subcontractors should be included as part of the technical proposal only.

52. SOL Section L.7.4, Page 118. Does USAID wish us to include references for key staff? If so, how many references?

Answer: You are free to do so, although it is not required.

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 11

53. SOL Section L.7.3, Page 118. The RFP requires a 5-year Implementation and Milestone Plan. Would USAID please confirm if Offerors may submit an Implementation and Milestone Plan that is detailed for Year 1 (monthly) and illustrative for Years 2-5 (quarterly)?

Answer: Yes. Note that the proposal must include a “five year implementation plan indicating how the proposed activities in reading and access will unfold, and clearly delineating the moments at which the main contract deliverables will be rendered, including the major deliverables listed in Section F.”

54. SOL Section L.7.7, Page 119. The RFP states that Offerors and major subcontractors should submit “up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Would USAID consider accepting past performance information on assistance awards as well as contracts?

Answer: Please see response to Question #42 above.

55. SOL Section L.7.9, Page 121. The RFP lists the Order of Presentation for proposal sections.

However, the Implementation and Milestone Plan, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, and Past Performance all seem to be Annexes. Should these be excluded from the main Technical Proposal and represented only in the Annexes? If so, should the order of presentation be:

Technical Approach, Management Plan, Personnel, Institutional Capacity, and Annexes?

56. SOL Section L.10.2, Page 124. Please provide detailed instructions for the methodology bidders are to follow for calculating unit costs. This includes:

a) Purpose for the unit cost breakdown;

b) Elements which should be included in the unit cost (e.g. recurrent only);

c) Denominator to be used (e.g. students, teachers, schools); and

d) Number(s) of beneficiaries given the LGEAs will not be selected until after the program starts.

Answer: For the submission of the budget, the calculations for the unit costs are up to the Offeror.

57. SOL Section L.11, Paragraph (7), Page 127. The RFP states: “Salary scale for USAID/Nigeria local personnel is provided in Attachment J4 for your information.” Would USAID please provide this attachment?

Answer: Yes. Please see response to Question #39 above.

58. SOL Section L.11, Paragraph (b)(8), Pages 129-130. The RFP states that “a SIGNED letter of commitment is required from each long-term individual...” However, on page 118, section L.7.5. Personnel, under directions for the technical proposal, the RFP requests a “statement signed by all individuals proposed as key personnel…” Would USAID please confirm that

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 12 letters of commitment should be included as part of the technical proposal only? Would USAID also consider restricting the letters of commitment to only key personnel?

Answer: Yes, letters of commitment should be included as part of the technical proposal only. Also, please see response to Questions #46 above and #61 below.

59. Section L.5 (g) (page 113) calls for 120 calendar days for validity of offers whereas the RFP cover letter, Block 12 of SF 33 and section L.10.4 (page 124), calls for 180 days. Can USAID please confirm the length of validity requested?

Answer: see response to Question #41 above.

60. Section L.6 (b) (page 114) states, “Electronic copies must be submitted in MS Word and Adobe Acrobat PDF.” To limit excessive e-mail attachments of the large number of Word files in our electronic submission, will USAID waive the requirement for MS Word documents and accept the electronic submission in Adobe Acrobat PDF with the addition of budget tables submitted in Excel?

Answer: Please be sure to submit technical proposal in MS word document.

61. Section L.7.4., (page 118) requires CVs and Letters of Commitment from Key personnel.

Section L.11 (b)(8)(ii) & (iii) (page 130) requires biodatas and Letters of Commitment from every long-term individual named in the cost. May Offerors provide CVs, biodatas and Letters of Commitment for only Key personnel?

62. Section L.11, page 130, Part 3 is missing. Could USAID please provide this information?

Answer: Please see the missing Part 3 below:

“Part 3 – System for Award Management (SAM) SAM means the primary Government repository for prospective Federal awardee and Federal awardee information and the centralized Government system for certain contracting, grants, and other assistance-related processes. It includes—

(1) Data collected from prospective Federal awardees required for the conduct of business with the Government;

(2) Prospective contractor-submitted annual representations and certifications in accordance with FAR Subpart 4.14; and

(3) Identification of those parties excluded from receiving Federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain types of Federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits.

The Contractor is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the data within the SAM database, and for any liability resulting from the Government’s reliance on inaccurate or incomplete data. To remain registered in the SAM database after the initial registration, the

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 13 https://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%204_14.html%23wp1075239

Contractor is required to review and update on an annual basis, from the date of initial registration or subsequent updates, its information in the SAM database to ensure it is current, accurate and complete. Updating information in the SAM does not alter the terms and conditions of this contract and is not a substitute for a properly executed contractual document.”

Note that with this addition, the last sentence of paragraph 1 and the second (last) paragraph of Section L.11(b)(9) on page 130 is deleted in its entirety.

63. Section L.11 (d), page 131 Attachment J.3 is noted to include a subcontracting plan format, but J.3 has the Strengthening State systems, Increasing Access: Nigeria Northern Education Initiative Activity Report included as an attachment. Can USAID provide the subcontracting plan format required?

Answer: Please see response to Question #48 above.

64. Section L.7.4, paragraph 2, states “The Offeror must include as part of its proposal a statement signed by all individuals proposed as key personnel, confirming their present intention to serve in the stated position and their present availability to serve for the term of the proposed contract.” Can USAID please confirm that proposed key personnel who are cooperating country nationals must not be required to sign an exclusive letter of commitment with the offeror?

Answer: Letters of commitments are required from all key personnel irrespective of their nationalities.

September, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 000002 Page 14