Q A Amendment 01 Attachment 01.docx

SOL 656-12-000001, Amendment 01 Attachment 01: Questions and Answers

Q1: Early Grade Reading Assessment Plus Quality Instruction and Management RFP Please tell me, is the reading programs taught in the English Language or Portuguese?

A1: Portuguese. Please refer to p. 20, Main Activities, (b), “Develop, pilot and implement an early grade reading and school management assessment (EGRA) instrument in Portuguese tailored to the needs of Mozambican public primary schools for specific use in grades 2-3.”

Q2: XXXX is a company based in XXX. We are interested in participating in the tender mentioned above hence want to get more information about the same.

Considering the geographical constraint of personally reviewing the document, I request you to provide us the following details before we buy the document:

1) List of Items, Schedule of Requirements, Scope of Work, Terms of Reference, Bill of Materials required.

2) Soft Copy of the Tender Document through email.

3) Names of countries that will be eligible to participate in this tender.

4) Information about the Tendering Procedure and Guidelines

5) Estimated Budget for this Purchase

6) Any Extension of Bidding Deadline?

7) Any Addendum or Pre Bid meeting Minutes?

A2: All of the requested information is available free of charge at www. Fbo.gov. It is highly recommended that an interested party visit this website from time to time in order to review updates posted.

Q3: The 2011 USAID Education Strategy recognizes the importance of educating children in their native languages where possible in the earliest grades (which can range from the first four to eight years of schooling) to allow for earlier comprehension and a smoother transition into other languages in subsequent years.[footnoteRef:1] Furthermore, the MINED Sector Strategic Plan for Education, 2012-2016,[footnoteRef:2] recommends the expansion of bilingual education in early grades. However, the RFP makes mention only of Portuguese, with no mention of mother tongue. What is USAID’s intention regarding the role EGRA-QIM will play in supporting mother tongue instruction? [1: 2011 USAID Education Strategy, pg. 9.] [2: Version 3 (Draft), October 17, 2011 ]

A3: EGRA+QIM is not a “mother tongue” curriculum and materials development project; however, USAID Mozambique encourages innovative approaches that will enhance the quality and increase the quantity of instruction to improve early grade reading outcomes in grades 2-3. Additionally, please refer to sections C.1 and C.3 of the RFP which contain the “Purpose and Objectives” (C.1), IR1 and IR2 (C.1), and “Rationale” (C.3) of the project. Additionally, p.20, C.5, Main Activities, (b), states, “Develop, pilot and implement an early grade reading and school management assessment (EGRA) instrument in Portuguese tailored to the needs of Mozambican public primary schools for specific use in grades 2-3.”

Q4: The RFP requires that EGRA testing be conducted in Grades 2 and 3. Please confirm that USAID does not want the offeror to work in Grade 1 or with Grade 1 teachers. We would also appreciate if USAID would provide its rationale for the involvement or non-involvement of Grade 1 in EGRA+QIM so that we may better understand the context and expectations.

A4: Grade 2 and 3. Please refer to section C.5 p.20, Main Activities, (b), “Develop, pilot and implement an early grade reading and school management assessment (EGRA) instrument in Portuguese tailored to the needs of Mozambican public primary schools for specific use in grades 2-3.” And C.5, p. 21, (c), “The objective of the model is to cause significant improvement in reading outcomes in grade 2-3 students in target schools.” For rationale, please refer to section C.3, p. 12-14, “Rationale.”

Q5: The RFA makes frequent reference to the EGRA Plus Liberia Program. In that program, there was no distinction in lesson plans/materials for Grades 2 and 3; teachers of each grade all used the same scope and sequence. Is that the intention for EGRA+QIM as well? This has significant budget implications.

A5: USAID encourages innovative and cost effective approaches. Please refer to section C.5, p. 22, Main Activities, (a), “to develop and test tightly scripted key lesson plans closely tied to the official reading curriculum and textbooks that will, if implemented with fidelity and accompanied by coaching and support, be able to produce significant progress in reading outcomes at the end of one school year in grade 2-3.” In addition, section C.8, Guiding Principles, Cost Effectiveness and Leveraging Local Talent, p. 28-29, states, “the Contractor will seek ways to design cost-effective activities appropriate for the local economic and social context.”

Q6: Pg. 17 outlines obligations of MINED in supporting and eventually implementing EGRA+QIM. Has MINED already agreed to these activities or will the Contractor be expected to work with MINED to encourage their participation in the manner outlined?

A6: ED – USAID/Mozambique has worked in close consultation with MINED on the design of the EGRA+QIM project. Furthermore, please refer to section C.6, p. 27, “The Contractor will ensure that this project advances in close coordination with MINED. Activities will be carried out in close coordination and integration with appropriate education personnel from MINED and at the local education institution level. This approach is essential to ensure the sustainability of project activities and MINED support. Agreements with various MINED counterparts must reflect ownership of MINED (including the use of MINED identity).”

Q7: Pg. 17 states that the Contractor will have oversight responsibility for fiscal and managerial activities carried about by MINED in 2014 and 2015. However, if USAID is providing direct funding to MINED, what leverage points, if any, will the Contractor have to hold MINED accountable for results?

A7: Please refer to section C.5, p. 17-18, MINED Role in EGRA+QIM states, “2015 – Full Handover of Implementation of Activities to MINED” and bulleted, “USAID contractor pulls back to advisory role.” And, “Successful handover of EGRA+QIM activities to direct local control and the path to direct funding to provinces and districts to deliver such services will depend to a large extent on local education institutions‘ ability to perform in a manner that engenders confidence as measured by progress in reading outcomes. Following the development of the key knowledge and skills required to deliver and manage EGRA+QIM type activities, and successfully implemented and locally managed EGRA tests in 2014, 2015 and 2016, local education institutions and the local market of education professionals will have proven whether or not they have sufficiently gained the basic know-how to implement and scale-up early grade reading assessment and instruction type activities. Should host country personnel and institutions be unable to demonstrate the capacity to manage an EGRA test on their own during 2014 and 2015, further technical assistance could be continued, and handover and direct funding delayed.”

Additionally, refer to section C.5, p. 25, Main Activities, (a) “Conduct Institutional Gap Analysis – The Contractor will conduct a gap analysis of key education institutions and personnel (DPEC, Districts, IFPs, and ZIPs) to identify technical, procurement, financial management, and organizational development gaps that will need to be addressed to enable fuller local control, management and delivery of early grade reading assessment and instruction activities. The Contractor will develop a work plan for developing capacity of key personnel to bridge gaps over the course of the project so that MINED personnel are able to implement and manage EGRA+QIM activities including technical and financial management aspects.”

Amend p. 25 Main Activities (a) to include, “The work plan for developing local capacity will include an element for evaluating the level of skills of local education institution personnel who have undergone training to implement and manage EGRA+QIM activities including technical and financial aspects.”

Q8: The chart on page 22 seems to indicate that there are four teachers per school to be trained and coached. Please confirm or correct this interpretation.

A8: Please refer to C.5, p. 22, Illustrative Indicator & Targets table. The targets displayed in this table represent provincial averages per school and minimum target values. Additionally, as stated in section C.6, p. 28-29, “Given limited USAID education resources, the Contractor will seek ways to design cost-effective activities appropriate for the local economic and social context. Project interventions must be cost-effective and tailored to the local economy to ensure that activities developed (e.g., teacher training and capacity building) are within the budget realities of the host country government, and can be scaled up and continued once USAID assistance is completed.”

Q9: Section L.8. (pg. 96) states that the technical proposal should follow the order of the technical evaluation criteria listed under Section M and also states which attachments are not included in the 30-page limit. Please confirm or clarify that the only section listed under technical evaluation criteria to be included in the 30-page limit is the “Technical Approach” (the first bullet under 1. Technical Proposal) and that all other sections correspond to the attachments listed on pg. 96.

A9: Please refer to section L.8, p. 97-103, which lists the minimal elements of the technical proposal including: A. Technical Approach, Gender, and inclusion of persons with disabilities and minorities, B. Personnel, Chief of Party, Senior Reading Expert, Senior School Management Expert, Financial Management Specialist, Local Education Institution Capacity Building Specialist, C. Management and Organizational Capability, Quality of Subcontractors, D. Contractor Past Performance.

Q10: On pg. 97, USAID states, “Contractors are NOT encouraged to pursue letters of commitment for local subcontractors for technical assistance work at this point in time. Local partners will be determined at the start of the project, and the Performance and Local Capacity Building Plan described in Section L.9 should include the approach and methodology for including local partners in implementation.” However, on pg. 112, it reads, “The proposal shall also describe the role of other partners beyond the core team (for example: education sector donors and cooperating partners, civil society, associations, private sector, and so forth) and their participation in achieving activities” and “The Offeror shall describe the key local partners and subcontractors (local indigenous NGO(s), Mozambican university(s) or private sector company(s)) that it will partner with to recruit, train, and manage local staff.” Please clarify to what extent offerors are expected to identify and come to agreement with local subcontractors on scopes of work for the proposal.

A10: Please refer to section L.8, C. Management and Organizational Capability. On p. 101 it states that, “The Offeror shall describe the key local partners and subcontractors (local indigenous NGO(s), Mozambican university(s) or private sector company(s) that it will partner with to recruit, train, and manage local staff,” and, on p. 97 it states that “Contractors are NOT encouraged to pursue letters of commitment for local subcontractors for technical assistance work at this point in time.”

Q11: Re: Question 8, please also provide direction on whether local subcontractor budgets and associated documents should be included in the cost proposal.

A11: Yes, the budgets for local subcontractors need to be included in the cost proposal and associated documents should be included in the cost proposal.

Q12: There are many variables that could produce a wide range of responses both technically and in terms of costs. Would USAID provide a budget range or ceiling anticipated for this project to assist offerors in being more responsive?

A12: The estimated cost to implement this program is from $14,500,000 to $16,500,000 for the life of the program.

Q13: On pg. 9, B.6., USAID states that “fee shall be in accordance with FAR 52.216-8. The Contractor shall be paid fee based on the vouchered costs. The amount of fixed fee paid will be based on a percentage of costs vouchered in the same ratio as total fixed fee is to total direct costs.” Does this mean the contractor cannot charge a fee on G&A and sub management?

A13: This statement should read, “The amount of fixed fee paid will be based on a percentage of costs vouchered in the same ratio as total fixed fee is to total ESTIMATED cost.” Therefore, the contractor can charge a fee on G&A and sub management.

Q14: On pg. 17, USAID states, "the Contractor shall recruit and embed in year 1, an EGRA Liaison Officer in each DPEC in the target provinces." Should the Contractor include the salaries and other costs associated with these individuals in their cost proposal or will these roles be absorbed into the DPECs' budgets? If the former, will the position (and salaries et al) be transferred to DPEC? If so, at what point?

A14: Salaries and other costs associated with the EGRA Liaison Officers for the target provinces shall be included in the cost proposal.

Q15: On pg. 21 USAID states, “At the end of the first academic year of project interventions, under the oversight of the IE Contractor, the EGRA+QIM Contractor shall use the EGRA assessment to evaluate reading progress across the control, medium and full treatment groups” and pg. 136 states, “IE Contractor in oversight role and in close collaboration with EGRA+QIM Contractor conducts baseline survey.” Please clarify which contractor will be responsible for the cost of the EGRA baseline and the follow-up assessments, including recruiting and training enumerators. If the EGRA+QIM contractor is responsible for the baseline EGRA, will they be conducted for each cohort and should control schools be included in each round of assessments

A15: Amend section C.5, p. 20-21, Main Activities, (b) to include, “The EGRA+QIM Contractor shall be responsible for hiring all EGRA assessment field staff (enumerators and field managers). Ten (10) teams shall be hired with each team consisting of three (3) enumerators: Two (2) enumerators to conduct the EGRA reading portion of the assessment, and a separate enumerator to conduct data collection on school management. The EGRA+QIM Contractor shall provide training to the enumerator teams, along with local education institution counterparts. Deployment and Data Collection: All EGRA assessment teams shall deploy simultaneously and work over a period of one month (21 work days) in the field conducting assessments in 180 schools (one work day per school).”

Q16: On pg. 103, USAID states, “Prime offerors must propose ceiling indirect cost rates. These ceiling indirect cost rates shall be utilized in the Cost Evaluation Matrix and will be incorporated into the contract.” Does this mean offerors should calculate their indirect costs based on the proposed ceiling indirect rates and not based on the current provisional NICRA rates?

A16: Offerors should calculate their indirect rates based on their current provisional NIRCA rates.

Q17: On pg.104, section L9b(e), the RFP indicates that non-small businesses must submit a subcontracting plan. Furthermore, the RFP states that the plan must contain "non-zero goals" for "each of the following: veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business." This raises the following questions:

a. The current wording seems to state that non-small business bidders must subcontract tasks to all five of these categories of small businesses. Please confirm or clarify whether that is the intent?

b. Given the RFP requires bidders to work closely with local partners, including local subcontractors, the 15% subcontracting requirement to US-registered small or disadvantaged businesses seems high. Would USAID consider reducing this requirement?

A17: (a) Small businesses should have the maximum opportunity to participate, but there is not a requirement to include all five categories of small business types.

(b) Yes, however there should be a subcontracting plan that is no less than 3% to 5%.

Q18: On pg. 107, under “Equipment,” USAID states, “specify all equipment to be purchased, including the type of equipment, the manufacturer, the unit cost, the number of units to be purchased and the expected geographic source. Goods and services provided by the Contractor under this USAID-financed award are expected to be subject to the 935 Geographic Code (United States).” Please clarify whether the offeror is expected to know and state the manufacturer of proposed equipment in the cost proposal or whether this will occur after award.

A18: The offeror is not expected to provide information on the origin, just the source and nationality per the new Source and Nationality Guidelines (February 6, 2012).

Q19: Pg. 15 states that “project shall focus on the 1,000 urban and rural schools within full school clusters…” However, the information provided on Pg. 19 indicates that the study should be conducted with 1,080 schools. Which number is correct?

A19: 1,080 is correct. Please refer to section C.5, p. 19. “Based on the results of the first year IE, the EGRA+QIM Contractor shall scale up the most cost-effective interventions to 480 additional schools in the 2014 academic year, and, in 2015, the project will scale up to an additional 480 schools to test the capacity of the MINED to fully manage EGRA+QIM type activities. Thus by the end of the 2015 school year, the EGRA+QIM project will have been rolled out to 1080 of the largest schools (120+480+480) in the provinces of Zambezia and Nampula.”

Q20: Pg. 105. There is no Part 8. Is the numbering incorrect or is Part 8 missing?

A20: The numbering is incorrect. Please also see responses to Q21, below.

Q21: Pg. 108. There is no (a) or (b) prior to (c). These seem to have been omitted. Please provide, or advise on the proper sequence of items. Also, Items (c) through (m) on p. 108 are under the heading of 11 Indirect Costs on pg. 107, yet they don’t relate specifically to Indirect Costs. Please clarify.

A21: This was an error in formatting. See Attachment 2 for revised section L.9.

Q22: Pg.108. The first paragraph refers to a “… an aggregate budget, again by the line items (including the ‘plug’ figure for ‘Grants’ line item) as shown below”. No such plug figure is provided, and it is unclear to which line items are being referred. Please advise.

A22: See A21.

Q23: Two attachments (J.3 and J.4) are included in the RFP but no reference is made to them in the directions for either the technical or the cost proposal. Should these be included in the submission, and if so, where?

A23: Disregard sections J.3 and J.4. They do not need to be part of the proposal.

Q24: Do CCN salaries need to comply with USAID’s FSN schedule? If so, please provide.

A24: Salaries for CCN MUST comply with the USAID FSN schedule.

Q25: Please confirm that the contractor will not be directly responsible for recruiting, training and managing staff to debut and scale up EGRA + QIM activities, but will be responsible only for identifying and training local partner(s) to do so?

A25: Amend section C.5, p. 20-21, Main Activities, (b) to include, “The EGRA+QIM Contractor shall be responsible for hiring all EGRA assessment field staff (enumerators and field managers). Ten (10) teams shall be hired with each team consisting of three (3) enumerators: Two (2) enumerators to conduct the EGRA reading portion of the assessment, and a separate enumerator to conduct data collection on school management. The EGRA+QIM Contractor shall provide training to the enumerator teams, along with local education institution counterparts. Deployment and Data Collection: All EGRA assessment teams shall deploy simultaneously and work over a period of one month (21 work days) in the field conducting assessments in 180 schools (one work day per school).”

In addition on p. 97, “to the extent feasible, the contractor will be encouraged to subcontract for technical expertise, especially with local organizations. In general, use of local institutions and organizations is a best practice and is encouraged. It is expected that these subcontracts will be a cost effective means of achieving results, and will avoid unnecessary administrative costs.” Furthermore, on p. 101, “the Offeror shall describe the key local partners and subcontractors (local indigenous NGO(s), Mozambican university(s) or private sector company(s) that it will partner with to recruit, train, and manage local staff.”

Q26: Is the EGRA Liaison Officer to be embedded in each DPEC expected to be a selected MINED staff? The section reads that the officer will be recruited by the contractor, but also suggests that this individual is to be selected from the pool of government personnel. Will this individual be remunerated by the ministry or by the project?

A26: Salaries and other costs associated with the EGRA Liaison Officers for the target provinces shall be included in the cost proposal.

Q27: The RFP indicates that “Handover of EGRA+QIM activities to the full control and management of MINED local education institutions shall be flexibly conducted according to the following timeline (see Attachment J.8 for a chart that outlines how this process is envisioned to unfold).” Please confirm that expectations of “flexibility” refer only to timeline and not activities, as outlined in Attachment J.8.

A27: Timeline is flexible given developing capacity built and demonstrated. Please refer to section C.5, p. 17-18, MINED Role in EGRA+QIM states, “2015 – Full Handover of Implementation of Activities to MINED” and bulleted, “USAID contractor pulls back to advisory role.” And, “Successful handover of EGRA+QIM activities to direct local control and the path to direct funding to provinces and districts to deliver such services will depend to a large extent on local education institutions‘ ability to perform in a manner that engenders confidence as measured by progress in reading outcomes. Following the development of the key knowledge and skills required to deliver and manage EGRA+QIM type activities, and successfully implemented and locally managed EGRA tests in 2014, 2015 and 2016, local education institutions and the local market of education professionals will have proven whether or not they have sufficiently gained the basic know-how to implement and scale-up early grade reading assessment and instruction type activities. Should host country personnel and institutions be unable to demonstrate the capacity to manage an EGRA test on their own during 2014 and 2015, further technical assistance could be continued, and handover and direct funding delayed.”

Additionally, refer to section C.5, p. 25, Main Activities, (a) “Conduct Institutional Gap Analysis – The Contractor will conduct a gap analysis of key education institutions and personnel (DPEC, Districts, IFPs, and ZIPs) to identify technical, procurement, financial management, and organizational development gaps that will need to be addressed to enable fuller local control, management and delivery of early grade reading assessment and instruction activities. The Contractor will develop a work plan for developing capacity of key personnel to bridge gaps over the course of the project so that MINED personnel are able to implement and manage EGRA+QIM activities including technical and financial management aspects.”

Amend p. 25, Main Activities (a) to include, “The work plan for developing local capacity will include an element for evaluating the level of skills of local education institution personnel who have undergone training to implement and manage EGRA+QIM activities including technical and financial aspects.”

Q28: On page 106 there is a Paragraph B in the middle of the page. There is no Paragraph A. Please clarify whether there is something missing.

A28: See A21.

Q29: On page 107, Paragraph 4, Equipment, the second sentence states, “Goods and services provided by the Contractor under this USAID‐financed award are expected to be subject to the 935 Geographic Code (United States).” Since geographic code 935 authorizes the purchase of goods and services from any country, except the foreign policy restricted countries listed in geographic code 899, please clarify the meaning of the parenthetical (United States).

A29: Please disregard the parenthetical (United States) of this section. See A21.

Q30: Pg. 103 paragraph (b) 1. (a) states, “Only the prime offeror’s applicable indirect costs will be utilized for evaluation purposes.” Please clarify whether the subcontractors’ indirect cost information should be submitted to support subcontractor costs as subcontractor cost structures may differ substantially from the prime offeror. Please clarify how the ceiling indirect rates in Section B will apply to the subcontractor.

A30: Yes, subcontractor costs should include all costs, including their indirect costs. For local organizations which do not have indirect costs, costs that normally are treated as indirect costs may be treated as direct costs.

Q31: May the offeror submit the 10 most recent SF 294 forms that we have submitted?

A31: Most recent 5 are sufficient.

Q32: Is there a limit on the number of attachments per email for submission?

A32: Please refer to section L.6, p. 95, “Offerors should submit proposals electronically in as many emails as necessary to avoid exceeding the size limitation. However, as stated above, the Technical and Cost Proposals must be submitted in separate emails. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE SIZE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL EMAIL AND ITS ATTACHMENTS MUST NOT EXCEED 5 MB. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure that their proposal has been received in full. Incomplete proposals will not be considered.”

Q33: Please indicate if it is also acceptable to submit past performance narratives for cooperative agreements similar in scope to the proposed project.

A33: Yes, past performance information for cooperative agreements similar in scope may be provided.

Q34: The RFP requests that we provide narrative summaries of the 5 most recent similar contracts in an annex to the technical proposal. Is the page limit for this section 5 pages for each summary or 5 pages in total for all five summaries?

A34: Narratives are not necessary. Please use short form provided in Attachment J.6 of the RFP.

Q35: Will the IE Contractor also be collecting the cost data used to make the cost effectiveness determination?

A35: A separate IE procurement will address cost effectiveness of interventions; however, the EGRA+QIM contractor shall share all EGRA assessment data and cost data with the entity conducting the IE.

Q36: On page 97, Section L 8, the RFP indicates that offerors should not pursue letters of commitment from local partners/subcontractors at this point, and that local partners will be determined at the start of the project. However, on page 112, Section M.2, the evaluation criteria indicate that quality of subcontractors is worth 10 points. This section asks the offeror to describe the key local partners and subcontractors. It is unclear how to respond to the evaluation criteria in light of the statement in L.8 under proposal instructions. Would USAID please clarify its intent with regards to local partners at the proposal stage?

A36: Please refer to section L.8, C. Management and Organizational Capability. On p. 101 it states that, “The Offeror shall describe the key local partners and subcontractors (local indigenous NGO(s), Mozambican university(s) or private sector company(s) that it will partner with to recruit, train, and manage local staff,” and, on p. 97 it states that “Contractors are NOT encouraged to pursue letters of commitment for local subcontractors for technical assistance work at this point in time.”

Q37: If the local NGO partner is to be selected after award, we request that USAID provide a plug figure for working with the local NGO.

A37: See A21.

Q38: If we are not to sign up partners during the proposal period, would we be required to conduct a solicitation after award to ensure procurement integrity?

A38: A comprehensive subcontracting plan and budget should be included in the proposal by the prime contractor. If designating a subcontractor is not possible during the proposal period, then the contractor would need to procure subcontractors and seek approval from the Contracting Officer for the subcontract after award.

Q39: How many IFPs are there per province?

A39: ED – Nampula – two (2); Zambezia – four (4)

Q40: Is the proposed start date June 1st or July 1st? Please confirm the end date of Sept 30, 2016.

A40: The period of performance is from date of award to September 30, 2016, and will be effective from date of signature of this contract. We anticipate that an award could be made in the June/July timeframe.

Q41: Should the contractor budget for the Impact Evaluation in the project budget or will the IE be funded directly by USAID?

A41: The IE/RCT shall be a separate procurement and will be directly funded by USAID.

Q42: Should the contractor include funds to directly support the MINED in the last three months of 2014 to handover the transition? In other words, should we include a subcontract line item for the MINED for 2014 or is this non-funded support?

A42: ED, please refer to C.5, p. 16. “Incrementally, more financial and management responsibilities for EGRA+QIM activities will be transferred to MINED. USAID intends on using Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreements (FARA) or other available mechanisms to provide direct funding to MINED to manage EGRA+QIM activities the last quarter of 2014, and during the 2015 and 2016 school years.”

Q43: Please confirm if the school year is January-September or January-October.

A43: The official school year runs as follows: classes are in session from mid-January to the end of October. Exam preparation and final exams are from the beginning of November until the beginning of December.

Q44: Is payment in US dollars allowed for local purchases on this contract?

A44: The method of payment for local purchases is the organization’s decision; however, USAID will record costs in U.S. dollars.

Q45: Should the proposal be submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF or both? Which version of Microsoft Word?

A45: Please refer to p. 38. “Acceptable software formats for electronic documents include WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, ASCII, and Portable Document Format (PDF). Submission in PDF is encouraged.” We encourage offers to use a Microsoft Word version no earlier than 1997-2003.

Q46: In the instructions for the preparation of the cost proposal (page 103), offerors must submit a cost evaluation matrix following the format in J.11. Should the offeror summarize all costs on the matrix or does USAID want detailed line item breakdowns in the matrix itself? Should the matrix be a cover sheet for the detailed budget?

A46: The requirements are: (1) Cost Evaluation Matrix- this is a summary budget; and (2) Detailed Budget- should be further broken down into CLINS of IR1 and IR2. Please see updated L.9, which is Attachment 2 of this amendment.

Q47: Should the Cost Evaluation Matrix be submitted for each IR or for the entire project in one table?

A47: See A46.

Q48: Please confirm which version of excel the budget should be submitted in.

A48: A version no earlier than 1997-2003.

Q49: Section B.2 and L.3 state that a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Completion Type Contract is anticipated as a result of this RFP. However, Section E.1 and E.3 include the follow FAR clauses applicable only to Fixed Price contracts:

52.246-2 INSPECTION OF SUPPLIES—FIXED PRICE AUG 1996

52.246-4 INSPECTION OF SERVICES—FIXED-PRICE AUG 1996

Please confirm that a CPFF contract would be issued and the above FAR clauses would not be included in such a contract.

A49: That’s correct. The contract will be CPFF completion type. These two clauses will not be included in the contract.

Q50: In Section D.2, can the reference to “USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) 320.3.2 ―Branding and Marking in USAID Direct Contracting (version from January 8, 2007)” be updated to reference “USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) 320.3.2 ―Branding and Marking in USAID Direct Contracting (version from May 5, 2009)”?

A50: Please use the version from May 5, 2009.

Q51: In Section I.1, will the FAR and AIDAR clauses incorporated by reference be updated to the most recent versions or will the older versions apply to a resultant contract?

A51: The most updated version of all FAR and AIDAR clauses will be incorporated either by reference or in full text into the contract.

Q52: Section I.1 includes both FAR clauses 52.237-8 and 52.237-9; these clauses seem to contradict each other. Would you please confirm that only FAR 52.237-9 will be included in the resultant contract?

A52: FAR 52.237-8 will be included. FAR 52.237-9 will be deleted.

Q53: Will Attachment J.1 be updated to reflect new geographic codes in effect as of February 6, 2012?

A53: The effective geographic code for Mozambique is 935, despite updates published on February 06, 2012.

Q54: What is the CFDA number for this program?

A54: 98.001

Q55: Please confirm that Mozambique is considered an accompanied post by USAID.

A55: Yes, Mozambique is considered an accompanied post by USAID.

Q56: Will USAID kindly share its current compensation plan for FSN staff?

A56: We generally do not share the local compensation plan for the FSN staff with the public. Proposed salaries should reflect the individual’s experience and salary history, as well as reflect what the local market supports.

Q57: Please confirm that Grants Under Contracts will be authorized as a part of a contract resulting from this RFP.

A57: Grants Under Contract is not authorized for this project.

Q58: P. 26 of the RFP identifies the number of school directors trained per year. In 2013, the table indicates that 120 school directors will be trained. However, p. 19, in the discussion of “medium interventions” and “full interventions” indicates that 60 schools will receive “full interventions”, which includes school director training. Please clarify the number of school directors to be trained in 2013.

A58: Amend Illustrative Indicators table p. 26 from 120 to 60 in-service school directors trained.

ILLUSTRATIVE INDICATORS*

1,308

minimum over baseline 25% minimum over baseline

Q59: If a proposed key personnel falls short in one of the required qualifications (e.g. if candidate has 8 years of relevant experience versus required 10 years in RFP ), will the candidate receive partial points during scoring or will the candidate be deemed unresponsive and score zero points?

A59: Unresponsive and score zero points.

Q60: P. 16 of the RFP states that “initially, the Contractor shall be required to partner with a local indigenous NGO, Mozambican university, or a private sector company…” P. 97 states that Contractors are NOT encouraged to pursue letters of commitment for local subcontractors for technical assistance work at this point in time. Local partners will be determined at the start of the project…” P. 101 states: The Offeror shall describe the key local partners and subcontractors (local indigenous NGOs, Mozambican universities, or private sector companies that it will partner with to recruit, train, and manage local staff.” Please clarify if the Mission considers subcontractors for technical assistance work to be distinct from subcontractors for recruitment, training, and management of local staff.

A60: Subcontractors for technical assistance work are not distinct from subcontractor for recruitment, training, and management of local staff.

Q61: P. 23, in chart showing illustrative indicators and targets for teachers trained to deliver scripted lessons and teachers coached in use of scripted lessons, the annual totals do not add up to the overall totals. Please clarify.

A61: Amend Total in Illustrative indicators & targets table on p. 23 from 6240 to 5472.

Q62: Can USAID provide copies of the background studies referenced in RFP?

A62: See below:

EQUIP 2 - http://www.equip123.net/docs/E2-SE_Mozambique_Case_Study.pdf

McKinsey - http://ssomckinsey.darbyfilms.com/reports/EducationBook_A4%20SINGLES_DEC%202.pdf

EGRA Plus Liberia - http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACR618.pdf

Q63: Please clarify the requirements for Past Performance information as listed Section L.8.D.4 (page 101) and Section M.2 (page 112). Should we provide up to five references for the full team or up to five references for each team member?

A63: See A31, A34 and Attachment 2. L.8 has been updated.

Q64: Section L.8.D.4 (page 102) asks for a copy of the most recent SF 294 for each contract for the past three years. Since reports are cumulative, can we provide reports for the latest reporting period or the most recent ten reports?

A64: See A31 and A34.

Q65: Should the information on performance and small business concerns be included in an annex to the technical volume or in the budget narrative?

A65: Performance and small business concern information should be provided in an annex to the technical proposal.

Q66: Please clarify the difference in the past performance information requested in items 13 and 14 on page 97 of the RFP.

A66: Please see Attachment 2. Line 14 has been edited for clarification.

Q67: On page 96 of the RFP, please clarify that the attachment 6 “Draft Performance and Local Capacity Building Work plan” means a Performance Management Plan (that includes illustrative table with proposed indicators) and a capacity building work plan as two separate sections for this annex?

A67: For additional clarification, please refer to section M.2, p. 111, “Draft Performance and Local Capacity Building Work Plan: Extent to which the Plan is clear and appropriate in identifying the main activities and project results to be achieved during the life of the project. The Plan should also clearly propose a feasible and effective strategy to train, coach and mentor local education personnel to assume full technical and financial responsibility for managing project activities by 2015.” The Draft Performance and Local Capacity Building Work Plan is not a Performance Management Plan.

Q68: Page 96 of the RFP states “organizational charts with position descriptions.” Does this refer to a traditional project org chart that includes position titles only and accountability lines, but does not go into detail about their job descriptions? Or a table that lists all positions and job descriptions for each proposed staff member?

A68: “Organizational Charts with position descriptions” refers to section L.8. Management and Organization, p. 101, “The Offeror shall also discuss its ability and plans to recruit, mobilize, retain and manage highly qualified technical staff in a developing country setting. A chart showing all proposed staff, indicating those holding key positions, is required.

Q69: Page 96 of the RFP indicates that any attachments that have not been specified as allowed would be counted towards the page limit. Would USAID consider allowing additional annexes or attachments that do not count towards the page limit but exemplify some of the tools and analysis that were completed in preparation of the proposal?

A69: Please submit only the authorized annexes as listed in L.8.

Q70: Page 96 lists attachments for the technical proposal that are not included in the 30-page limit. If one of these items is included in the technical narrative on an unnumbered page, will it be included in the 30-page limit?

A70: Yes, it will count toward the page number.

Q71: Section L.9 (d) on page 104 states that the offeror must provide a copy of their policies and procedures only if they do not have prior USAID contracting experience. In Section L.9 (g) and (h) on page 108, a copy of personnel and travel policies is requested. Given that our policy manual totals 100 pages would USAID please confirm that a copy of the policy manual is not required for offerors with prior USAID contracting experience?

A71: Rather than submit the entire policy manual, an offeror may elaborate and explain the key aspects of their policies (such as travel policy) in their budget narrative in order to justify their budget costs.

Q72: Section L.9 (f) on page 108 requests audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements from the offeror. Per Section L.9(b)(3)(i) on page 103, a current NICRA is also requested. If the offeror has a current NICRA, may this be submitted in lieu of the audited balance sheets/profit and loss statements?

A72: The current NICRA may be submitted in lieu of the audited balance sheets/profit and loss statements.

Q73: Could USAID please confirm that a six-day work week is authorized for short-term consultants?

A73: Yes, but only for short-term consultants.

Q74: Given that activities under IR 1 and IR 2 are interdependent and may not be mutually exclusive, could USAID please provide further guidance on how the general administration costs should be divided among the CLINs?

A74: USAID recommends that the contractor use their best judgment to distribute general and administration costs based on the technical approach proposed to achieve results.

Q75: On page 108 of section L.9, USAID mentions a "plug" figure for the "Grants" line item. Could USAID kindly provide offerors with additional guidance on the size of the grants fund, such as the percentage of the overall budget that should be allocated to grants or a grants "plug" figure? Additionally, a “Grants” line does not appear in Attachment J.11, Cost Evaluation Matrix. Could USAID please confirm that offerors may add the item after “Other Direct Costs” in Attachment J.11?

A75: We do not have a plug figure for grants. A Grants Under Contract program is not authorized for this project.

Q76: On page 108 of section L.9, USAID asks for additional explanations regarding proposed efficiencies in statements (j)-(m). Does USAID prefer to see these points discussed in a separate annex of the cost volume or would USAID allow offerors to include this information in the narrative section in Part 2?

A76: Please see revised section L.9 in Attachment 2. These should be in your cost proposal.

Q77: Section C.5, page 18, notes required collaboration with an “independent and external” impact evaluation contractor. Could USAID please confirm that offerors should not budget for this contractor? If offerors are required to budget for the impact evaluation contractor, could USAID kindly provide additional information for offerors to do so?

A77: The IE will be a separate procurement. The EGRA+QIM contractor shall budget for the EGRA assessments and not the Impact Evaluation.

Q78: Section C.5, page 18 and 19, states that "The IE Contractor shall have lead responsibility for developing, piloting and overseeing the RCT . . .including piloting EGRA instruments.” Pages 20 and 21 state that the EGRA+QIM contractor will be responsible for developing the EGRA assessment tools and that "The EGRA assessment instrument shall be adopted by the IE Contractor in the development of the RCT." Could USAID please confirm that the EGRA+QIM Contractor will be responsible for developing the EGRA instrument, while the IE Contractor will have responsibility for designing and overseeing the RCT?

A78: The EGRA+QIM contractor shall develop the EGRA assessment, while the IE Contractor will be responsible for designing and overseeing the RCT. The IE/RCT will be a separate procurement.

Q79: Section H.3, “Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation: H.3(a) Limitations,” page 45, states that salaries and wages may not exceed the contractor’s established policy and practice. Section H.3(d), “Annual Salary Increases,” page 45, states that “one annual salary increase…of not more than five (5) percent may be granted” annually and that any increase “annually exceeding these limitations” requires CO approval. Could USAID please confirm that offerors, in accordance their established policies and practices of rewarding performance with some salary increases that are above five percent and others below, are not held to this individual employee ceiling if offerors budget a collective pool of five percent for salary and wage increases?

A79: A collective pool is acceptable.

Q80: Could USAID please confirm that number four on page 102, “Performance in Using Small Business Concerns,” is not included in the page limitation.

A80: This is correct.

Q81: Section L.8 on page 102 instructs offerors to provide the most recent SF 294 “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts” for each contract against which they were required to report for the past three years. Given USAID’s preference for electronic submission and the fact that our SF 294s for the past three years total more than 500 pages and consist of more than 10 electronic files of at least 2 MB each, we respectfully request the option of selecting 10 relevant SF 294 forms for USAID’s review.

A81: Please submit the most recent five.

Q82: P. 24, fourth paragraph says that there are 2 Sub-IRs under IR2, but only one Sub IR is listed. Are there in fact two sub-IRs, or only one?

A82: Only one sub IR for IR2 is indicated in this procurement.

Q83: Does the Mission expect to see the IRs, Sub-IRs, and Activities reflected back precisely as they appear in the RFP, or does the Mission encourage offerors to enhance the design?

A83: IRs, Sub-IRs and Activities shall be adhered to.

Q84: Does USAID require separate budgets for all major subcontractors or should their costs be included only within the subcontract line of the prime’s budget?

A84: May be included in one line item in the summary budget, but a separate budget should be included in the detailed budget for all major subcontractors (more than 10 percent).

Q85: Can USAID please confirm that certifications and representations and the like are not required to be submitted by small local subcontractors (i.e. those whose role on the program will be finalized following contract award)?

A85: USAID only requests Certifications and Assurances from the prime contractor. L.9 has been revised.

Q86: The RFP makes no mention of local language instruction. Will local language interventions and/or transition to Portuguese be funded under this contract or should all program interventions focus on Portuguese language instruction?

A86: EGRA+QIM is not a “mother tongue” or “local language” curriculum and materials development project; however, USAID Mozambique encourages innovative approaches that will enhance the quality and increase the quantity of instruction to improve early grade reading outcomes in grades 2-3. Additionally, please refer to sections C.1 and C.3 of the RFP which contain the “Purpose and Objectives” (C.1), IR1 and IR2 (C.1), and “Rationale” (C.3) of the project. Additionally, p.20, C.5, Main Activities, (b), states, “Develop, pilot and implement an early grade reading and school management assessment (EGRA) instrument in Portuguese tailored to the needs of Mozambican public primary schools for specific use in grades 2-3.”

Q87: What is the current agreement with MINED and USAID regarding cooperation on this program? What is the envisioned role of MINED staff on the program?

A87: USAID/Mozambique has worked in close consultation with MINED on the design of the EGRA+QIM project. Furthermore, please refer to section C.6,, p. 27, Host Country Ownership and Leadership, “The Contractor will ensure that this project advances in close coordination with MINED. Activities will be carried out in close coordination and integration with appropriate education personnel from MINED and at the local education institution level. This approach is essential to ensure the sustainability of project activities and MINED support.” Additionally, please refer to p. 17, “the Contractor shall recruit and embed in year 1, an EGRA Liaison Officer in each DPEC in the target provinces to encourage effective coordination, and through a learning-by-doing approach, ensure active involvement and participation of local education personnel in EGRA+QIM training and management activities.”

Q88: P. 19 of the RFP specifies that during the pilot stage in 2013, a full treatment group of 60 schools with receive both improved reading instruction and strengthened school management interventions. On p. 26, the illustrative indicators for school management (# in-service school directors trained; # in-service school directors coached; # school directors attending improved school management meetings) have targets of 120 directors for 2013. Should school management interventions be implemented in 60 or 120 schools in 2013?

A88: Please refer to p. 19, “The second treatment group, the ―full intervention, will be a third set of 60 schools and will receive a slate of training, coaching and support activities targeting reading instruction, and an additional slate of activities to improve school management focusing on increasing instructional time devoted to…