SOL-656-15-000003_Amendment_001.pdf

Attachment 001

SOL-656-15-000003

Mozambique Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism and Services (MMEMS)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Can you tell me if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing work for this requirement? If so, could you please provide their company name and contract number?

Response: No incumbent currently performs this work.

2. Section C.3-1, p. 18 of the RFP states “Key Personnel: One Deputy Chief of Party must be permanently located in either the Quelimane or another city, and be expected to make regular oversight and technical assistance visits to the other field office.” Could you please confirm that there is only one Deputy Chief of Party required for this proposal.

Response: Confirmed. Only one DCOP is required for this proposal.

3. Can a company which participated in the SAFRA bid as a sub-contractor to do the surveys, be part of a consortium.

Response: Yes. Please note Section L.7 (p 91) of RFP identifies the inclusion of

Annex I to address any potential Organizational Conflict of Interests as follows:

Annex I – Organizational Conflict of Interest (If applicable, all Contractors must identify any organizational conflict of interest and provide a separate annex that identifies that conflict and articulates a proposed mitigation plan. The Contracting Officer will review all mitigation plans prior to award and respond as appropriate under per FAR 9.504.)

4. Can a company which has done previous performance and impact evaluation work for USAID Mozambique current projects, tender for his assignment?

Response: Please see response to question #3 above

5. Will the Mission share its FSN salary table so Offerors can more accurately budget for key and non-key CCN personnel?

Response: Please see following table, which provides the Local Compensation Plan ranges:

American Embassy Maputo, Mozambique

Local Employee Compensation Ranges

Grade: Range*:

from - to -

1 $8,600 $12,000

2 $9,400 $13,200

3 $10,700 $15,000

4 $12,500 $17,400

5 $14,000 $19,700

6 $17,800 $24,900

7 $22,900 $32,000

8 $26,100 $36,500

9 $33,200 $46,500

10 $40,300 $56,400

11 $49,500 $69,300

12 $65,000 $91,000

* rounded to 100s

6. Could the Mission please provide a Local Compensation Plan?

Response: Please see response to Question #5.

7. Can the Mission clarify the anticipated frequency and size of Mission staff and IP trainings over the life of the project so Offerors may more accurately budget for these services? Does the Mission anticipate that these trainings will be held onsite at USAID/Mozambique, at the Offeror’s meeting space in Maputo or at an IP’s office space?

Response: p 20 of RFP specifies, “Train Mission staff on a quarterly basis, at a minimum, on M&E techniques and methodologies.” This frequency should apply to

IPs as well, and can assume a size of 25-50 participants at each training. The Mission anticipates holding these events at the most affordable and logistically convenient location, whether in USAID/Mozambique space, Offeror’s space, or at an IP’s current office space. This amounts to about 20 days of training per year.

8. Based on the limited number of local firms will USAID consider prohibiting exclusive agreements with local firms, universities and NGOs to allow Offerors to present the best services available to the Mission?

Response: It is up to the offerors and potential subs to develop their business arrangements. USAID will not prohibit nor support exclusivity.

9. Can the Mission provide greater detail on the intended frequency of project site visits and field DQAs to be completed by the Offeror across the five-year project?

Response: p 22 of RFP specifies:

accompany and assist Mission staff with conducting site monitoring visits on an as needed basis, to include but not be limited to: routine M&E monitoring, environmental compliance monitoring in order to facilitate use of best practices.

[p]rovide all logistical support, including scheduling site visits, on an as-needed basis for USAID staff and VIPs.

While the level of support for each site visit will vary, offerors can assume a maximum of 200 site visits and field DQAs per year.

10. Does the Mission have a vehicle exemption or waiver in place to procure non-American made vehicles?

Response: Guidance on the eligibility of specific goods or services may be obtained from the Contract Officer. USAID policies and definitions on source and nationality are contained in 22 CFR Part 228, Rules on Procurement of Commodities and Services

Financed by USAID Federal Program Funds which is incorporated into this Award in its entirety. 22 CFR 228 is supplemented by the policies and procedures in ADS

Chapters 310 and 312.

(3) Restricted Goods. The recipient must obtain prior written approval of the

Agreement Officer or comply with required procedures under an applicable waiver as provided by the Agreement Officer when procuring any of the following goods or services:

(i) Agricultural commodities,

(ii) Motor vehicles,

(iii) Pharmaceuticals,

(iv) Pesticides,

(v) Used equipment,

(vi) U.S. Government-owned excess property, or

(vii) Fertilizer.

b. Source and Nationality:

The eligibility rules for goods and services based on source and nationality are divided into two categories: One applies when the total procurement element during the life of the award is $250,000 or less, and the other applies when the total procurement element during the life of the award is over $250,000. The total procurement element includes procurement of all goods (for example, equipment, materials, supplies) and services. Guidance on the eligibility of specific goods or services may be obtained from the Agreement Officer.

1) When the total procurement element during the life of this award is valued at

$250,000 or less, the authorized source for procurement of all goods and services to be reimbursed under the award is USAID Geographic Code 935, "Special Free World."

Such goods and services must meet the source and nationality requirements set forth in 22 CFR 228.

2) When the total procurement element exceeds $250,000, the following applies:

Except as may be specifically approved or directed in advance by the Agreement

Officer, all goods and services financed with U.S. dollars which will be reimbursed under this award must meet the source and nationality requirements set forth in 22

CFR 228 for the authorized geographic code specified in the schedule of this award. If none is specified, the authorized source is Code 937.

c. If USAID determines that the recipient has procured any of these goods or services under this award contrary to the requirements of this provision, and has received payment for such purposes, the Agreement Officer may require the recipient to refund the entire amount of the purchase.

This provision must be included in all subagreements which include procurement of goods or services.

11. RFP page 12 notes, “USAID/Mozambique intends to award a five year contract for M&E

Services, beginning on or around TBD.” Will the Mission provide an approximate anticipated project start date?

Response: The approximate project start date is March 2016

12. RFP page 13 notes that a number of ongoing M&E activities, such as the ApAL impact evaluation, will not be part of MMEMS. Could USAID/Mozambique clarify that the FTF baseline, midline and end line conducted by Feedback, as described on page 17, will not be part of MMEMS?

Response: Current Feedback activities will not be part of MMEMS.

13. RFP page 14 refers to a “Group of Eight and Group of Nineteen development partners.”

Can the Mission clarify? RFP No. SOL-656-15-000003 USAID/Mozambique

Response: The Group of Nineteen development partners refers to the main donor coordination mechanism in Mozambique. It includes the World Bank, ADB, the EU, DFID, etc. with whom USAID works to coordinate activities while aligning it’s objectives with the Government of the Republic of Mozambique (GRM). Please disregard reference to “Group of Eight.”

14. RFP page 15 states, “…such as the implementation of the Site Improvement through

Monitoring Systems strategy may be provided under this contract.” Will USAID/Mozambique share this strategy with Offerors?

Response: This refers to PEPFAR’s Site Improvement through Monitoring Systems (SIMS) activities, which is a rigorous and acitive monitoring effort of PEPFAR sites.

When award is finalized, appropriate guidance will be provided.

15. Will the Mission clarify what are the expected contents of the staffing plan referred to on RFP page 91 under Section L.7? Does this include a full organizational chart?

Response: Yes. p 92 of RFP specifies the following details of a staffing plan:

Staffing Plan/Key Personnel: The technical staff and Key Personnel proposed must reflect significant experience and success in dealing with the activity areas identified by this contract such as management of field monitoring, evaluation design, empirical and statistical analysis, environmental compliance, management information systems, information management design and training, and program management. Innovative mixes and combinations of technical and management specialties and expertise are encouraged. The proposed personnel must be able to work comfortably with many types of people, from USAID representatives and GRM officials to NGO representatives, down to the beneficiary level. The Offeror will utilize an effective team whose combined skills and background must include technical expertise pertinent to

USAID/Mozambique’s Program Areas as described above, experience in capacity building and transfer of skills, and international development experience.

Improved USAID staff and Mozambican capacity in monitoring, evaluation and performance management is an important outcome of this activity.

Proposals must specify the composition and organizational structure of the implementation team that show quantitatively the planned levels of home office support if relevant, long-term and short-term staff, for both local and international experts, including those considered to be Key Personnel for all activity years;

describe each staff member’s role, technical qualifications/expertise and estimated level of effort each will devote to the activity. It must also indicate the names, positions, titles and provide resumes of important managerial and technical personnel who will be involved in the activity. Biographical Data Sheets are required for all key personnel being proposed (a hard copy of the form is attached to this solicitation and may be obtained at http://www.usaid.gov/forms/).

Biographical Data Sheets will be submitted as an attachment to the cost proposal. The plan will clearly and logically address how short-term consultants will be used to complement full-time project staff. The plan will integrate good gender practices and provide for recruitment of well-qualified local staff.

Offerors must submit three (3) references for each Key Personnel with contact information. Each resume must be limited to 3 pages. Resumes must be included in an annex to the technical portion of the proposal, which will not be counted against the page limit. Offerors must include as part of their proposals a statement signed by each person 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.

Moreover, please note on p 92:

The Technical Proposal is limited to 20 pages… All critical information from annexes must be summarized in the technical proposal.”

And “…At a minimum, offerors will demonstrate and describe the following within the management approach section of their [20-page] technical proposal: the proposed management structure which supports the technical approach and demonstrates the ability to achieve the results in the SOW.”

Therefore, the Technical Proposal section should have a summary of the staffing plan provided in Annex D.

16. RFP page 97 states, “The offeror and each proposed subcontractor must complete

Section K…” Will USAID/Mozambique confirm if this is a requirement of major subcontractors or all subcontractors? Given that Section K is intended to apply specifically to US-based firms, does this requirement extend to local subcontractors?

Response: Section K applies to all prime offerors only.

17. Can the Mission clarify the requirement on RFP page 99, “Each Offeror must provide an overall summary budget for the contract period per line item listed in Section B.4.” Does this refer to major subcontractors only?

Response: This applies to prime offerors. It will be helpful in evaluating the proposed budgets if all subcontractor budgets are also provided.

18. Will the Mission confirm if the seven past performance references described on RFP page 94-95 refer to the Offeror and all major subcontractors combined or seven per the Offeror and each subcontractor respectively?

Response: No. Past performance references are required only for the Prime contractor. However, if a Sub-contractor’s involvement will be significant (25% or more of cost of offer), then past performance reference data should also be provided.

19. On page 91 it is stated that the Staffing Plan is Annex D, but on page 92 the staffing plan is listed as part of the Management Approach. Could the Mission confirm that the staffing plan it to be included in two places?

Response: See response to question 15 above. The 20-page Technical Proposal will include a summary of the Staffing Plan provided in Annex D.

20. The cost proposal guidelines call for the manufacturer and expected geographic source to be included in the budget/cost proposal for “Equipment and Supplies,” but not for “Materials and Supplies.” Can USAID specify if these requirements are also necessary of Materials and Supplies?

Response: USAID is requesting details for “Equipment and Supplies” only. Also, please refer to response to Question #10.

21. Page 47 of the solicitation classifies motor vehicles as “restricted goods.” Will the Mission allow Offerors to budget for the vehicles necessary to carry out our technical/project goals, on the assumption that an applicable waiver will be provided post award?

Response: Offerors are encouraged to propose what they believe is the requisite number and type of motor vehicles required to achieve project goals. Also please refer to response to Question #10.

22. Section H9, part 2, on page 56, states that “A Categorical Exclusion applies to the proposed MMEMS activities.” However, part 7d on page 58 notes that “the respondent’s illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities. For the purposes of this solicitation, contractors should reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal.” Could the Mission clarify whether a categorical exclusion applies, and the implications on budgeting and other requirements for Offerors?

Response: H.29 part 2 (p 56) correctly identifies that a Categorical Exclusion applies to implementing MMEMS; however, MMEMS’ Objective 1 (“Improved Activity

Management and Learning Capacity and Support” outlined in C.3-2.a, p 19-20) and

Objective 2 (“Improved Monitoring of Performance Data and M&E Implementation

Practices” outlined in C.3-2.b, p 21-22) both have monitoring support of Reg 216

Environmental Compliance components related to capacity building and site monitoring of USAID/Mozambique development projects and activities which MMEMS will be supporting. H.29 7a-7d (p 57-58) refer to the environmental compliance functions of Objectives 1 and 2 focused on USAID/Mozambique development projects and activities.

23. Should the proposed budget account for VAT, or assume a VAT exemption?

Response: The U.S. Government and the Government of Mozambique are currently engaged in negotiations for a Bilateral Agreement with provision for tax reimbursement. Nonetheless, all implementing partners are directed to request an exemption of tax directly to the Mozambican Ministry of Finance. If the exemption is not granted, USAID will reimburse the implementing partner for the amount of tax paid, including VAT.

24. Is a bilateral tax treaty in place between the U.S. government and the government of Mozambique such that the contractor would have tax exempt status?

Response: Please refer to response to Question #23.

25. P17, C.2-4 Agriculture, Environment, and Business Office: Would USAID please confirm if there is an intention to integrate Feed-the-Future (FTF) household survey data into the DevResults system?

Response: It is intended that DevResults will aggregate and report on data from IPs for standard, custom, contextual and other required indicators. To the extent that household survey data is aggregated into these indicators, DevResults is intended to serve as the reporting platform.

26. P19-25, C3-2 Provision of Services/Tasks/Expected Results and Deliverables and P103-

106, M.4 Technical Evaluation Criteria: How does USAID envision the evaluation criteria in Section M.4 corresponding to the listed MMEMS project objectives on Pages 19-25?

Response: C.3-2 (p 19-25) provides a list of services and tasks anticipated to achieve the expected results contributing to the three MMEMS Objectives. L.7 (2) (p 93) specifies instructions for preparing the technical approach section of the Technical

Proposal which is where Offerors “…will develop an approach toward achieving the stated objectives…” Section M.4 (2) (p 104) identifies the Technical Evaluation

Criteria that will be applied to the Technical Approach.

27. P20, C.3-2a Objective 1: Improved Activity Management and Learning Capacity, Staff

Training/Mentoring/Technical Assistance (TA) to Mission and IP Staff states “at least two of these training sessions per year must be certified through the USAID Faitas contractor officer representation certification system…”

Question: Would USAID kindly provide a process explanation for meeting this requirement of certifying trainings through the USAID Faitas system?

Response: USAID/Mozambique Program Office will coordinate Mission approval and submission to FAITAS for certification of all MMEMS training provided to USAID

COR/AORs. Please note this only applies to training provided to USAID staff and not applicable to training for IP staff.

28. P21, C.3-2a Objective 1: Improved Activity Management and Learning Capacity, Participant Training states that Offerors must “provide participant training services inside Mozambique to staff from the Mission, IPs, and other stakeholders…”

Question: Would USAID please clarify any significant differences between the Staff Training/Technical Assistance (TA) to Mission and IP staff on Page 20 and the Participant Training called for on Page 21?

Response: No significant differences. While the Mission envisions more classroom and informal training sessions, the ADS 253 specifies Participant Training as:

• A learning activity involving Participants taking place in the U.S., a third country, or in-country, in a setting predominantly intended for teaching or imparting knowledge or skills, with formally designated instructors or lead persons, learning objectives, and outcomes, conducted fulltime or intermittently.

• The transfer of knowledge, skills, or attitudes (KSAs), as well as ideas and sector context, through structured learning and follow-up activities to solve job performance problems or fill identified performance gaps. Participant Training can consist of long-term academic degree programs, short or long-term nondegree technical courses in academic or in other settings, seminars, workshops, conferences, on-the-job learning experiences, observational study tours, and the use of technology such as distance or e-learning, and online courses.

MMEMS training may include one or more of these elements.

29. P23, C.3.2.b Objective 2: Evaluation/Studies/Assessments Planning and Design indicates that Offerors will “…work with USAID and stakeholders to design and conduct any other special studies/surveys geared towards generating evidence in the health, agriculture, education, democracy and governance, and integrated (baselines, sector-and population-based) programs Question: Would USAID kindly share an anticipated sample size for the surveys mentioned to ensure accurate budgeting?

Response: Such surveys and studies are TBD, which precludes estimating anticipated sample sizes.

30. P23, C.3-2.c, Evaluations/Studies/Assessments Planning, and Design: USAID mentions that Offerors will “work with the Program and technical offices to create a schedule of mission evaluations (Evaluation Plan) on an annual basis…”

Question: Would USAID kindly share the most recent version of the Evaluation Plan (even in draft form) to allow bidders to budget and allocate LOE appropriately?

Response: p 23 (OBJECTIVE 3. High-Quality and Efficient Evaluations and other assessments/studies) identifies the following schedule: “Approximately 5 high-quality performance evaluations conducted annually and at least one impact evaluation conducted [over life of project]”

31. P43, G.7 Payment Method and Invoices: For cash flow and financial risk mitigation purposes, would USAID please consider reimbursement of expenditures on a monthly basis?

Response: The successful offeror must comply with USAID voucher submission requirements and USAID will reimburse within the time lines required by the Prompt

Payment Act. USAID/Mozambique prefers administrative approval of expenditures take place on a quarterly basis; however, appropriate consideration will be taken.

32. P53, H.21 Reporting of Foreign Taxes: Would USAID please clarify if contractors are

VAT exempt in Mozambique or eligible for VAT reimbursement? If contractors are eligible for VAT reimbursement, would USAID please outline the process for seeking said VAT reimbursements?

Response: Please refer to response to Question #23. In addition, the process will be explained to the successful offeror at the time of award kick-off meeting.

33. P91, L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal: Would USAID please clarify if bidders can include an executive summary in their proposal submission? If an executive summary is permitted, would USAID please confirm that the Executive Summary is excluded from the 20-page limit?

Response: An Executive Summary should be no more than a few paragraphs, and it will be counted in the 20-page limit.

34. P91-92, L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, (a): Will USAID please confirm that the requested Staffing Pattern may be included as an annex to the Technical Proposal? Would USAID also confirm that it is acceptable to include a matrix of short-term consultants as an additional annex?

Response: See response to question 15 above, and note “…The plan will clearly and logically address how short-term consultants will be used to complement full-time project staff.”.

35. P92, L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, (b): Would USAID kindly confirm if Offerors are allowed to use font smaller than 12pt Times New Roman for tables and charts?

Response: No. All fonts and size must comply with instructions in Section L.

36. P96, L.8 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal: Would USAID please confirm that there is no page limit for the Cost/Business Proposal?

Response: Yes. There are no page limits. However budget narratives must be clear and concise inorder to explain the rationale behind the proposed costs.

37. P96, L.8 (b)2 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal: Would USAID please clarify if 1420-17 Employee Biographical Data Sheets for local candidates should be submitted in Mozambique Metical (MZN)?

Response: No. Please submit in US Dollars.

38. P.96, L.8.A.(b)2 Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal states that Employee Biographical Data Sheets (EBDS) are required for Key Personnel. P.100 L.8.B.1. requires biographical data information to support salaries and wages, and makes no distinction between Key and non-Key personnel.

Question: Can USAID kindly confirm if the 1420-17 Employee Biographical Data Sheets are required for Key Personnel only?

Response: Yes. Employee Biographical Data Sheets are required for Key Personnel only.

39. P.97. L.8.(b)3.(ii) Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal provides the information required if an Offeror does not have a cognizant Government Audit Agency.

Question: Can USAID kindly confirm that each of the elements listed here are needed only in the absence of a cognizant agency, as some seem as if they may be separate requirements (such as rationale on the optimal mix of personnel, or information regarding technical assistance trips)?

Response: Yes. To clarify, USAID believes the question is regarding Section

L.8(A)(b)(3)(ii). As such, the information requested in L.8 (A)(b)(3)(ii)(1)-(8) is required if the offeror proposes indirect costs and does not have a Negotiated Indirect Cost

Rate Agreement (NICRA). If the offeror has a NICRA and is proposing to charge indirect costs, then the offeror must comply with L.8 (A)(b)(3)(i).

40. P99, L.8. Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal: Would USAID Mozambique please confirm if there the Mission has a fixed exchange rate between the USD and Mozambique Metical (MZN)? If so, would USAID kindly provide the fixed exchange rate information?

Response: USAID/Mozambique does not have a fixed exchange rate between the

USD and Mozambique Metical. Implementing partners are encouraged to use the exchange rates provided by the Mozambican Central Bank on the dates the proposal is prepared. All proposed costs must be in U.S. Dollars. Upon award, the successful offeror will be provided the information needed in compliance with AIDAR 752.7010

41. P100, L.8. Instructions for the Preparation of the Cost/Business Proposal, B1 Salaries and Wages: Would USAID kindly provide the most recent Local Compensation Plan? It does not appear to have been attached to the solicitation.

Response: Please see response to Question #6.

42. P105, M.4.3 Past Performance states that “Customer satisfaction with performance, focusing on relative percentage of program delivered as income/wages directly to beneficiaries. In evaluating this Sub-factor, the assessment will concentrate on evaluating the offeror’s plan to ensure that the maximum amount of program activity budgets reach targeted districts and their communities as either income or wages (RFP, 105).”

Question: Would USAID please clarify what is meant by customer satisfaction? By “customer,” to whom is USAID referring?

Response: Please see Section L.7(c)(3). .

43. P. 20, C.3-2.a Objective 1: Improved Activity Management and Learning Capacity, Staff

Training/Mentoring/Technical Assistance (TA) to Mission and IP Staff: Please clarify references to “C.4-1b” and “C.4-1c,” which do not exist in the RFP.

Response: p 20 references to C.4-1b and C.4-1c should both be referring to C.3-2b.

Also, reference to C.4-1b on p 22 also refers to C.3-2b.

44. P 21, C.3-2.a Objective 1: Improved Activity Management and Learning Capacity, Participant Training: For budgeting purposes, would the Mission provide an annual number and type of participant trainings that will be offered?

Response: Please see response to Question 7 above.

45. On page 22, Systems Use and Utility Analysis, Design and/or Improved Use of Systems, the RFP states that the offeror should “lead and facilitate the transitioning and merging of any expiring M&E system contracts (PEPFAR and FTF).” What are these expiring M&E system contracts? What are the scope and brief descriptions of these contracts?

When do they expire? Who are the current implementers of these contracts?

Response: There is presently expiring M&E system. Currently DevResults is the

PEPFAR M&E platform and is renewable on an annual basis, and the FTF

Management Information System (FTF MIS) is actively utilized.

46. On page 43, G.7 Payment Method and Invoices, the RFP states: “The payment method for this award is on a quarterly reimbursement basis.” Since this is a CPFF agreement for between $27.5M and $31.6M, many small and local businesses may find it challenging to maintain a cash flow to operate/participate in the project based on quarterly payments. Can the payment method for this award be monthly versus quarterly?

Response: Yes the successful offeror may submit vouchers on monthly basis and

USAID will comply with the Prompt Payment Act. See response to question 31 above.

47. In section L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, page 91, the

Staffing Plan is listed as Annex D, which is excluded from the 20-page limit. On page 92, the Management Approach Section, point ii, the RFP describes the requirements for the staffing plan as part of the Management Approach, which is included in the 20-page limit for the technical proposal. Is the required Staffing Plan to be included in Annex D and thereby excluded from the 20-page limit?

Response: Please see response to Question 15.

48. L.7 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal, b), page 92: can offerors use a 10 point san serif (e.g., Arial) font for text in graphics and tables?

Response: No. Please see response to question #35.

49. On p. 98, Section L.8 Part 5 – Subcontracting Plan, the RFP states that the

Subcontracting Plan must address the goals and the various types of small business specified in the small business subcontracting plan template (Attachment J.5). The plan will include small-disadvantaged, women-owned, HUBZone, and service-disabled veterans-owned businesses or the SB subcontracting goal may cause for either a delay in acceptance or the rejection of a bid or offer where the clause is applicable.” The goals contained in the plan template are:

Small Business (SB) 19.0 %

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3.00 %

Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB, includes Section 8(a) firms) 5.00 %

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.00 %

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone) 3.00 %

We respectfully request the USAID mission consider FAR 19.702 (b)(3), which states that Subcontracting plans are not required “for contracts or contract modifications that will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas.” Typically, these types of contracts require maximum use of local subcontractors to provide data gathering and other services uniquely suited to local organizations at a significantly lower cost than performing those same services using U.S. local subs. We are concerned that this would have the effect of increasing costs and diminishing opportunities for subcontracting with local organizations.

Would the Mission therefore consider one of the following alternate scenarios?

a) eliminating the requirement for a subcontracting plan—and the evaluation criterion— pursuant to FAR 19.702 (b)(3); or

b) eliminating the minimum requirement for subcontracting with U.S. small businesses altogether to allow Offerors to propose subcontracting in accordance with their Technical Approach.

Response: No. Section L.8(5) and Section M.4(5) remain in effect

50. What are the Mission’s processes for Mozambique tax (including VAT) exemption and reimbursement?

Response: Please see response to question 23, 24 and 32.

51. Section L.7, pages 91-92 of the RFP include an outline of the proposal and discusses which sections are excluded from the 20 page limit. Please confirm that the following are excluded from the 20 page limit:

Cover Page Cover Letter Acronym List Table of Contents Executive Summary Annex A – Draft Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Annex B – Resumes Annex C – Letters of Commitment Annex D – Staffing Plan Annex E – SF-294 Annex F – Branding and Marking Plan Annex G – Draft work Plan Annex H – Past Performance Information Annex I – Organizational Conflict of Interest

Response: As Question #33 above addresses, If any Executive Summary is included, it will be counted in the 20-pages. Cover Page, Cover Letter, Acronym List, Table of

Contents and Annexes will not be counted toward 20-page limit.

52. In Section L.7, on page 92 the RFP states “Offerors must use only . . . fonts 12 and Times New Roman.” May tables and graphs use fonts smaller than 12pt, Times New Roman?

Response: Please see Question #35.

53. In Section L.7, on pages 91-92, the RFP includes an outline for the proposal that does not include the “Use of Small Business” Section described on page 96. Can this be included as an Annex to the proposal that does not count against the page limit?

Response: No. The “Use of Small Business” Section will count towards the 20-page limit.

54. Pages 33-37, in Section F.7 of the RFP, reference the required qualifications of the Key

Personnel. We have the following related questions:

a. The COP requires a Masters plus a minimum of 10 years’ experience. Given the emphasis on management expertise, we respectfully request that USAID allow additional years of work experience (3-4 for example) to count in lieu of an advanced degree.

Response: A Master’s (or higher) degree is required for COP and years of experience in lieu of a Master’s degree is not permitted.

b. The Senior Evaluation Officer requires a masters and a minimum of 8 years’ experience. Given the expertise that comes with field experience, we respectfully request that USAID allow additional years of work experience to count in lieu of an advanced degree.

Response: A Master’s (or higher) degree is required for Senior Evaluation Officer and years of experience in lieu of a Master’s degree is not permitted..

c. The Senior Monitoring Officer requires a master’s degree plus a minimum of 8 years’ experience. Given the expertise that comes with field experience, we respectfully request that USAID allow additional years of work experience to count in lieu of an advanced degree.

Response: A Master’s (or higher) degree is required for Senior Monitoring Officer and years of experience in lieu of a Master’s degree is not permitted..

d. Would the Mission consider adding a working knowledge of French and/or Italian

(in addition to Spanish) to the COP qualifications?

Response: No.

55. Can non key personnel discussed in section C.3-1, pages 18-19, of the RFP be approved after award?

Response: Yes

56. Will there need to be any special security clearances for aid persons using MMEMS

Offices discussed in section C.3-2.b, pages 21-22 of the RFP?

Response: No

57. Should offerors propose and cost guesthouse facilities for visiting USAID personnel at the field offices discussed in section C.3-2.b, pages 21-22 of the RFP?

Response: No. USAID personnel will utilize local hotel facilities.

58. If the answer to the proceeding question is “yes,” can the Mission provide information regarding required security requirements for USG staff, confirm that the field office lodgings will be inspected and approved by the Embassy RSO, and estimate how long such a process should take?

Response: N/A

59. Could the Mission confirm if the “participant training” mentioned in the RFP (pg. 21) is or is not the formal “participant training covered by ADS 253, with its more formal requirements, procedures and costs?

Response: Please see response to Question #28 above.

60. Will the MMEMS contract cover the cost of any possible DevResults expansion as noted in the RFP (pg 22)? If so, can the Mission provide plug numbers for DevResults’ contract?

Response: The current DevResults software contract is scalable and will not have costs for MMEMS as currently anticipated.

61. Can the Mission confirm if there is a Mission Order covering site visits that are done by

CORs or AORs, and if so can that be shared with offerors?

Response: Attachment 1 of the RFP (USAID Mozambique Performance Management Mission Order) covers Site Visits.

62. The recently revised CDCS prominently referenced throughout the RFP mentions that the “learning/M&E contractor” will assist the Mission “promote a learning culture” and “fill knowledge gaps through implementation of the robust Learning Action Plan,” attached to the CDCS as Annex VI. Yet the RFP makes no mention of this Plan, although it does state “Furthermore, the Mission is also interested in adopting and integrating the Collaboration, Learning and Adaptation (CLA) model of organizational learning across its programs and practices.” Can the Mission clarify what the status is of the Learning Action Plan and how it wishes, if at all, the contractor to assist the Mission and its Program Office staff implement the Plan in light of its express interest in CLA and the aforementioned CDCS assertions?

Response: The Learning Action Plan is still in development and the Learning/M&E

Contractor will provide guidance upon issuance of award.

63. The CDCS (pg. 46) states that the Mission will track critical assumptions…through a variety of methods, and in the Learning Action Plan refers to monitoring of the extractive industries. Can the Mission confirm of any of this effort falls with the SOW of MMEMS?

Response: Please see Response to Question #62

64. The MMEMS objectives presented in section C.2, on page 13 of the RFP differ slightly from those contained in Table 1, section C.3-2, page 19. Could USAID please confirm that offerors should consider both sets essentially the same?

Response: Yes, while p 19 provides more detail.

65. Given the cost implications, can the Mission provide further information on the number, type (sector) and complexity of the required impact evaluation(s) discussed in Section C.3-2.c on page 24? If not, can the Mission provide a plug figure for impact evaluations?

Response: Please see Question #30

66. The inclusion of Mission implementing partner staff in training on in section C.3-2.a, on page 20, has cost implications. We recommend inclusion of IP staff in most if not all trainings. Can the Mission provide further parameters to assist LOE and cost estimation?

Response: Please see Response to Question #7 and note that approximately half will be for IPs.

67. Possible expansion of DevResults discussed in section C.3-2.b, on page 22 has significant staffing, LOE and cost implications. The CDCS (pg. 48) states that DevResults will be the “Mission’s main source for all partner indicator-related reporting.”

Can the Mission confirm that the expansion of DevResults will be part of the MMEMS contract SOW and thus be reflected in the technical and cost proposals of offerors?

Response: Yes. While DevResults will continue to be managed by the Mission, upon award, MMEMS will provide capacity building for USAID and IP staff to suppor the roll-out of DevResults from its current coverage of PEPFAR related activities to the full portfolio. Please refer to response to question #60.

68. Does the Mission anticipate any performance evaluations involving its G2G programming?

Response: Yes.

69. In discussing gender, in section C.4, on page 25, the RFP requires that “at least two Key Personnel must have demonstrable experience using gender analysis frameworks…” Can the Mission clarify what is meant by such frameworks? Should offerors assume that this experience is covered by application of the 2012 Agency Gender Policy, or are there more specific analytic techniques the Mission has in mind?

Response: Offerors should ensure compliance with ADS Chapter 205.

70. In section C.2-2, page 15, the RFP states that “Site Improvement through monitoring systems through Monitoring Systems strategy may be provided under this contract.” Can the Mission provide any further information on the “Site Improvement through Monitoring Systems” strategy?

Response: Please see response to Question #14

71. In C.2-4, page 17, the RFP states, “Additional performance or impact evaluation, including studies or operational research, may be conducted using the MMEMS mechanism” Can you please confirm that this statement is referring in this instance to only the Feed the Future portfolio?

Response: No, this could apply to any activities in the Agriculture, Environment and

Business (AEB) portfolio as well other technical offices.

72. In section C.3-2.a, pages 21-22, the RFP refers to opening a field office in an “another agreed upon province.” Will the additional location of an up-country field office proposed by an offeror be scored or reflected in any way per Section M, as under the Management Approach? Since the proposed location has implications for the cost proposal, how and when will the site be selected by the Mission, and are budget adjustments possible given the final selection?

Response: To clarify, this issue is in Section C.4-1, not C.3-2. Offerors are encouraged to propose a field office in addition to Quelimane City and Maputo City as they deem best in response to this RFP both in technical and cost terms. The three locations will be evaluated per the technical and cost evaluation factors.

73. Section C.4, page 25, of the RFP states: “Throughout the life of MMEMS, at least two evaluations or assessments will likely be commissioned through MMEMS to conduct in-depth data collection and analysis on various gender-related issues. Therefore, it is suggested that an on-call Gender Advisor with a strong M&E background be available for such deliverables.” Would you please clarify if the Mission has a gender advisor, or if this “on-call gender advisor” would be expected to serve as a gender advisor to the Mission?

Response: The Mission has a Gender Advisor, this on-call Gender Advisor will be supplementary.

74. In Section L.7, on page 91, the staffing plan is listed as annex D, however on page 92 it is listed as section ii under the management approach. Could USAID please confirm that the staffing plan should be included as a separate attachment?

Response: Please see response to question #15 above. The 20-page Technical

Proposal will include a summary of the Staffing Plan provided in Annex D.

75. Would USAID kindly provide the most recent Local Compensation Plan for

Mozambique?

Response: Please see Question #6 above.

76. On page 97, section L.8 A. (b) 3. (ii) instructs what items are to be included if an Offeror does not have a NICRA. However, while subsections (1) and (2) of that section indeed discuss alternative backup for indirect costs, subsections (3) through (8) list seemingly unrelated items, including management structure, budget narrative, office arrangements, mix of personnel and rates, reporting and audit requirements, and technical assistance trips. Would USAID please confirm that these items need to be listed as separate instruction sections and not under the NICRA section, and further confirm which of these items are indeed required from Offerors?

Response: Please refer to response to Question #39, and note that FAR 31.203 provides that an indirect cost is any cost not directly identified with a single, final cost objective, but identified with two or more final cost objectives or an intermediate cost objective. It is not subject to treatment as a direct cost. The FAR 31.203 and FAR

42.700 provide for those remaining costs (indirect) that are to be allocated to intermediate or two or more final cost objectives. For example, the indirect costs and bases as provided for in an Offeror’s indirect cost rate agreement with the

Government, or if approved rates have not been previously established with the

Government, a breakdown of bases, pools, method of determining the rates and description of costs.

77. On page 96, section L.8 A.(b) 2. states: “The proposal must include an Offeror’s Employee Biographical Data Sheet (Attachment J.6) for each of the Key Personnel identified in Section F and L.” Please confirm that this instruction should refer to Attachment J.9, and not J.6.

Response: Confirmed. Please refer to instruction on p 96 refers to J.9.

78. On page 100, section L.8.B. lists the following two cost categories: “4. Equipment and

Supplies”, and “5. Materials and Supplies”. Can you please confirm that category 4 should contain only non-expendable equipment (over $5,000/unit), and category 5 should contain supplies and expendable equipment (under $5,000/unit)?

Response: Yes. Confirmed.

79. USAID requires that the DCOP be a Mozambique national. Please confirm if USAID would consider waiving this requirement if the offeror proposes a qualified COP who is also a Mozambique National?

Response: No, USAID prefers that the Deputy Chief of Party is a Cooperating Country

National.

80. On page 23 Table 2- there are 5 Illustrative Evaluations. Is it possible that USAID can provide the locations for these programs, funding value and confirm the sectors?

Response: These examples in the Democracy, Rights and Governance (DRG);

Agriculture, Environment and Business (AEB); Education and Integrated Health (IHO) sectors are provided for illustrative purposes. Specific location and funding details of activities for proposed evaluations will be provided upon issuing award and identifying specific evaluations.

81. Are there specific PEPFAR considerations that must be included in the Branding

Marketing Plan?

Response: MMEMS Branding Policy must comply with the requirements of the policy directives and required procedures outlined in USAID ADS 320.3.2 “Branding and

Marking in USAID Direct Contracting” (version from January 2, 2015) at http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/320.pdf

82. When does USAID expect to make an award for MMEMS?

Response: Anticipated award is in March 2016

83. Could USAID provide the Local Compensation Plan?

Response: Please seeresponse to Question #6.

84. Section C.2-1, last paragraph (p 15), "DRG portfolio is anticipated to have two performance evaluations that may be conducted in FY 2015 or FY 2016." Are these evaluations expected to be carried out under MMEMS?

Response: While the two DRG Performance Evaluations referred to on p 15 may not be carried out under MMEMS, other DRG Performance Evaluations in later years may be.

85. Section C.3-2.a. Help Desk, does any individual who may have "office hours" within the Mission require any special clearance? Are there are any restrictions on who this person may be, nationality-wise?

Response: Yes, there are security clearances for accessing Mission office space.

USAID/Mozambique will coordinate appropriate clearances for access.

86. Section 3-2.b, Offices, refers to Section C.4-1b below, however this section does not exist. Please clarify.

Response: Please see response to Question 43 above. This is a drafting error and should refer to C.3-2b.

87. Section L.7 (3) Past Performance (i.) states "The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts valued at $15 million or more." While we understand this is a large contract in dollars, similar complex multi-component M&E services contracts that are in high risk environments (e.g. Somalia, Yemen) that are $10 - $15 million can be equally or more challenging in nature. We request that USAID revise this statement to read, "The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts valued at $10 million or more."

Response: Agreed. The sentence will read “The most relevant indicators of performance are contracts valued at $10 million or more.”

88. Page 22. One of the mentioned tasks is to “work with IPs and CORs/AORs/AMs (across all DOs) to ensure that all indicator data, including baseline and target information is complete and in line with activity level M&E”. Are the IPs themselves responsible for collecting the baseline and target information? What specific tasks, responsibility, mandate and authority will the Offeror have in the event that gaps or deficiencies are detected in the degree of completeness of the baseline and target information or in the degree of alignment with activity level M&E plans?

Response: As implementing OBJECTIVE 2 (Improved Monitoring and Performance

Data), the MMEMS contractor will be positioned to identify such gaps or deficiencies and be responsible to work alongside IPs and CORs/AORs/AMs in order to make recommendations and resolve such discrepancies. While COR/AORs have the administrative responsibility to ensure indicator accuracy, the MMEMS contractor will serve a critical role in identifying issues and making recommendations.

89. Page 22. One of the mentioned tasks is “…uploading MEP information into

DevResults”. Are the IPs themselves responsible for uploading the information from their MEPs directly in to DevResults, or rather, is the uploading of MEP information the responsibility of the Offeror?

Response: IPs will be responsible to upload MEP information to DevResults.

MMEMS will provide capacity building and quality assurance for DevResults indicator data.

90. Page 22: Site monitoring practices: Is it possible to have an estimate of the quantity of routine M&E monitoring and environmental compliance monitoring visits that the Offeror would need to accompany and assist Mission staff on?

Response: Please see response to Question #9 above, which suggests offerors can assume a maximum of 200 site visits and field DQAs per year.

91. Page 23: The results of Objective 3 include: “Approximately 5 high-quality performance evaluations conducted annually and at least one impact evaluation conducted”. For clarification, is it expected that there will be at least one impact evaluation per year or rather will there be at least one impact evaluation conducted during the life of the contract?

Response: One Impact Evaluation conducted during the life of the contract, per response to Question #30.

92. Page 23: The results of Objective 3 include: “a cadre of local and regional institutions identified to conduct evaluations and assessments for USAID”. For clarification, is the expected result limited to merely identifying a cadre of local and regional institutions, or rather is the expected result that there be a cadre of local and regional institutions that have been oriented and trained in USAID evaluation and assessment methodology? And will the Offeror be expected to undertake assessments and provide training, perhaps to local or regional institutions, to ensure that they have the capacity required to conduct evaluations and assessments?

Response: The Expected Result described here is to identify a cadre of local and…