Attachment_J.29_Questions_and_Answers.docx

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # SOL-660-14-000004

EQUITABLE ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND LEARNING PROJECT IN THE DRC

SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Questions Submitted by E-mail before the Deadline:

Questions 1 – 90 were submitted by e-mail to USAID before the deadline stipulated in the RFP.

1. On P. 8, Section B.3 Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee and Obligated Amount, the RFP presents a budget summary that includes a dollar amount of $2,450,000 for Grants under Contract for each year. The same figures appear in the budget format on P. 126. Would USAID clarify if the Offeror may budget more or less than $12,250,000 for Grants under Contract?

Answer: This is a plug figure and the Offeror should not budget more or less than $12,250,000.

2. On P. 14, in Section C.4. – Country Background, there is reference to DRC’s long history of teacher reading and other subjects in national languages with a full transition of French instruction at the beginning of Niveau 3 (Grade 5). In the same paragraph, there is mention of the MEPSP’s desire to use national languages in early grade reading acquisition to enable children to acquire national language reading abilities and to transition to French by the end of grade 4. On P. 20 under “Result Two: Improved education quality” there is also reference to USAID’s investment that must support an effective transition from national language reading acquisition to French language reading acquisition by the end of fourth grade. According to the MEPSP primary school curriculum (version 2011), the language of instruction shifts to French in grade 3 and not grade 4. Can USAID provide clarification on their expectations around language of instruction transition as well as how it aligns with the current curriculum?

Answer: Grades 1 and 2 should promote reading in the National Language, French should be included as a subject to build French reading readiness skills. Grades 3 and 4 is a transition from local language to French with the expectation that the child is able to gain fluency by the end of grade 4. The successful Offeror will work with the MEPSP to align reading program with the education reform efforts currently being undertaken by the MEPSP.

3. On P. 19, in Section C.7 Program Results, the RFP states “The overarching objective of this Contract is to improve education outcomes for girls and boys in select sub-provinces within target educational provinces of the DRC. A list of Education provinces and sub-provinces per target Province is located in Section J.” The RFP then goes on to say that the Contractor must have improved specific educational outcomes “in at least 25 sub-provinces in targeted educational provinces within the target provinces…”

The list in Section J covers Equateur, Kasai Oriental, Kasai Occidental, and Katanga. Would USAID provide a similar list for North and South Kivu?

Answer: This has been provided in the Attachment.

4. Would USAID confirm that the Contractor should implement only ALP activities in North and South Kivu?

Answer: ALPs can be implemented in areas outside of North and South Kivu. The RFP indicates on Pg. 20, states: “in conflict-affected areas, including Katanga, South Kivu, and North Kivu these programs must enable conflict affected youth to reintegrate into society through both employable skills and education.

5. On P. 20, under IR 1.2 Access to alternative/accelerated learning programs that address out-of school children and youth needs increased, the RFP states that “in conflict-affected areas, including Katanga, South Kivu, and North Kivu these programs must enable conflict affected youth to reintegrate into society through both employable skills and education.” Would USAID clarify if the Offeror should provide vocational education opportunities?

Answer: Programs that target Accelerated Learning Programs that provide vocational or workforce readiness skills can be included in an Offerors proposed approach.

6. On P. 20, under Result 2, the RFP states that “The Contractor must begin work in Katanga and must phase in activities at the sub-province level over the life of the contract.” On P. 26, in Section C.10 Timeline, the RFP states that “The Contractor must implement the activities in a phase in approach over the life of the activity with implementation that must start in Katanga.” Would USAID clarify if only Result 2 activities must start in Katanga?

Answer: The results should be seen as a comprehensive and integrated package that start in Katanga. ALPs may be initiated in North and South Kivu in year one in addition to Katanga.

7. On P. 22 under IR 2.2 – Teaching and learning materials used in classrooms effectively, the final paragraph mentions the need for the contractor to develop print, distribute, and support the use of relevant mathematics materials in the pilot sub-province classrooms receiving the pilot mathematics intervention. Can USAID confirm that these materials will be created for grades 1 & 2?

Answer: The mathematics pilot should at a minimum cover grades 1 and 2. Grades 3 and 4 may be proposed depending on the implementation plan of the proposed pilot in accordance with the Offerors proposed approach and implementation plan.

8. On P. 25, under III. Learning, the RFP states “Baseline data collection can be collected by either and/or both the implementer of this Contract and the third-party independent evaluation implementer.” For budgeting purposes, would USAID confirm that the Offeror should budget for the estimated costs of collecting all anticipated baseline data?

Answer: The Offeror should not budget for collection of a full baseline EGRA, EGMA, or SSME as this has been contracted to a third party implementer to be conducted in May 2015. The Offeror should budget for the estimated costs of collecting any additional anticipated baseline data to complement the EGRA, EGMA, and SSME data.

9. On P. 67, Section H.12 Additional Requirements for Personnel Compensation, (b)(2), the RFP states that “For this contract, labor costs for TCNs and CCNs above the Mission Local Compensation Plan (LCP) threshold requires the advance written approval of the USAID/DRC Mission Director.” Would USAID please provide the LCP?

Answer: DRC LCP is included as an attachment to this RFP.

10. On P. 68, under (f) Annual Salary Increases, USAID differentiate between U.S. Staff and Contractor Employees. For Contractor Employees, “annual increases in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices are allowable,” while for U.S. Staff, “one salary increase of not more than 3% … may be granted.” Would USAID clarify the difference between U.S. Staff and Contractor Employees who are USNs?

Answer: US Staff are those hired by the Offeror to serve long term on the project, while Contractor Employees who are USNs are those that are hired on a consultancy basis for short periods of time.

11. On P. 79, Section H. 29 Contractor’s Use of Project Vehicles …” the RFP states that “Home to office to home use of project vehicles is not considered official businesses and is not allowed under the terms of this contract.” In the DRC, our long-standing, country-specific organizational security policy requires expatriate staff to travel in organizational vehicles at all times. Would USAID consider allowing use of project vehicles for home/office transportation in light of the security situation in the DRC?

Answer: Contractors may use project vehicles for home/office transportation; however, the project must be reimbursed for such usage. The amount to be reimbursed must be calculated by the Contractor.

12. On P. 114, Section L.6.2 Delivery Instructions, the RFP states that “Each email must not exceed 5mb in size …” and also “Each email has a limit of up to 10 attachments (10MB limit per email). Would USAID please clarify the MB limit per email for submission?

Answer: This has been clarified in the RFP. Each e-mail should be a maximum of 10MB.

13. On P. 121, in the second bullet point at the top of the page, the RFP requires that the Offeror include a “Staffing Plan … with accompanying salary structure proposed for each office.” Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should not include salary information in the technical application?

Answer: This has been revised in the RFP. No salary information should be included in the technical proposal.

14. On. P. 123, in the bullet point at the top of the page, the RFP requires that the Offeror include a Draft First Year Work Plan that may include “…(d) projected expenditure by month.” Would USAID please confirm that Offerors should not include expenditure information in the technical application?

Answer: This has been revised in the RFP. No expenditure information should be included in the technical proposal.

15. On P. 124, point 1, the Past Performance instructions state that the Offeror and major subcontractors should “list in an annex to the technical proposal up to five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal.” Would USAID consider allowing Offerors and their major subcontractors to present information about relevant cooperative agreements/grants as well? This would allow Offerors and their subcontractors to provide past performance information about the full range of their relevant experience, regardless of the implementation instrument.

Answer: For past performance, contracts are the only type of award that will be reviewed. Cooperative Agreements and Grants can be used to demonstrate organizational capability but not past performance.

16. On Page 139 – Attachment J.2 – Education Province & Sub-Provinces in Target Provinces, the RFP provides “TENAFEP Pass Rate.” Could USAID please indicate if these rates reflect the “before deliberation” or “after deliberation” pass rates? If they are “after deliberation” pass rates, could USAID please provide the “before deliberation” rates which reflect the “actual” learning scores of students before being modified by the TENAFEP scoring committee?

Answer: Attachment has been updated and TENAFEP Pass Rates in the file refer to before deliberation pass rates.

17. On pg. 19, the RFP states that the “Contractor must demonstrate measurable and quantifiable changes in enrollments, improved gender parity, and learning outcomes for grade 2 and grade 4 girl and boy students.” Please confirm that the contractor should be focusing its training only on grades 1-4 teachers?

Answer: Deliverables will be based on improvements in Grade 2 and 4 students, however, the Offerors approach should define which teachers will be targeted and whether training will be restricted to any subset of teachers based on evidence, best practice, and the Offeror’s approach to achieve the results and key deliverables.

18. Would USAID be able to provide any further clarification on the split of responsibilities between IR 3.1 and IR 3.4 and 3.5?

Answer: IR 3.1 are national and sub-national policy related to access and education quality. IR 3.4 and 3.5 are national and sub-national policies, systems, and structures that fall outside of access and quality and focus primarily on governance, transparency, resource management within the sector. The successful Offeror will be required to coordinate with the other implementing partner though quarterly coordination meetings and annual meetings.

19. Would USAID provide additional clarification on the definition of “Additional Learners,” in Section F.5. Reports and Deliverables, pg. 42.

Answer: Narrative in F.5 has been updated to clarify this deliverable.

20. In section F.5. Reports and Deliverables, pg. 42, the solicitation defines the deliverable for 2nd grade students, as “Number of grade 2 students (who after two years of schooling or its equivalent Niveau 1in an ALP) are able to read and comprehend grade level text in the appropriate Congolese or French language.” In section C.8. II. Evaluation, pg. 25, the solicitation talks about “using the ‘multiple threshold’ approach” to measuring improved readers. Can USAID please confirm that it intends for contractors to use this method to account for achieving the deliverables?

Answer: Narrative in F.5 has been updated to clarify this deliverable.

21. In Section C.12. Local Capacity Building, the solicitation indicates that partners must “identify local organizations that will be key partners that will work with the prime over the life of the award.” Does USAID intend only the prime would provide funding for these partners through Grants under Contracts or other mechanisms?

Answer: No, the Offeror is free to propose other mechanisms to build local capacity building in accordance with C.12.

22. On page 114, RFP states: “The electronic version of proposals must be sent by e-mail, with attachments compatible with Adobe Acrobat (PDF) and Excel MS Office 2010 in an MS Windows environment to the following addresses: JSimpson@usaid.gov and KSood@usaid.gov. Each email must not exceed 5mb in size and all files are to be in PDF except for cost spreadsheets, which are to be provided as Excel files with cell formulas intact.” However, on page 126, the budget narrative is requested in Word. Please clarify.

Answer: This has been clarified in the RFP. Please provide both Word and PDF versions of the budget narrative.

23. Per pages 125-131 – please confirm that the following is correct:

Required from Offeror and Major Subcontractors only (cost exceeds 20% of the Offeror’s total proposed cost):

Evidence of Responsibility Policies and Procedures Information Concerning Work-Day, Work-Week, and Paid Absences

Required from Offeror and all partners:

Budget Budget Narrative Biographical Data Sheets

NICRA

Representations and Certifications

Required from Offeror only

SF-33

Subcontracting Plan Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors) Ceilings on Indirect Cost Rates

Answer: We confirm this is correct.

24. Section L.8(7) - Page 130 of the RFP—states: “Part 7 – Policies and Procedures: If the Offeror or a major subcontractor does not have approved personnel policies, please submit a copy of personnel policies, especially regarding salary and wage scales, fringe benefits, merit increases, promotions, leave, differentials, travel and per diem regulations, etc.” Please clarify by whom the personnel policies should be approved. Please clarify if USAID is requesting US or local pay scales.

Answer: We have removed this section from the RFP

25. In the list of annexes on pg. 118, the RFP requests a past performance summary table and past performance report forms in the Past Performance Annex. In the instructions for the E. Past Performance section on pg. 123, the summary table is not mentioned. Would USAID please confirm that both summary table and report forms are required?

Answer: Yes, we confirm that both a summary table and report forms are required.

26. What is the CFDA number for this program?

Answer: The CFDA number for this program is 98.001.

27. What is the anticipated start date of the contract?

Answer: The anticipated start date of the contract is May 1, 2015

28. Would USAID advise if an IEE has been completed for this activity and, if so, share a copy of the IEE?

Answer: USAID does have an IEE for this activity; however, the IEE will be shared with the successful offeror.

29. Sections F.5 and M.4: Please clarify the “% of fixed fee” amounts listed in Section F.5. The total amounts of the percentages vary year by year and range from 1.55% to 2.7%. Is USAID expecting Offerors to propose how to distribute the remaining amount of the fixed fee?

Answer: The solicitation has been revised, the Offeror should propose the total fixed fee amount. Table F.5 has been revised to link deliverables to 100% of the Offeror’s proposed fixed fee.

30. Section H.12(c), page 68 of the RFP, states that “The initial starting salaries for all U.S., third country national (TCN) and cooperating country national (CCN) employees or consultants whose salaries will be charged as a direct cost to this contract must be approved in advance and in writing by the contracting officer.” Given the size of the program, and therefore the number of staff required, would USAID consider limiting the positions that require approval of initial salaries to the key personnel positions?

Answer: Individual salary approvals are limited to key personnel; however, USAID will evaluate reasonableness of all budgeted salaries in the Offeror’s cost proposal.

31. Section L.8(9), page 130 of the RFP, references FAR 52.202-2. This FAR does not appear on https://acquisition.gov/far/. Is this section intending to reference FAR 52.244-2?

Answer: We find no reference to FAR 52.202-2 on page 130 of the RFP. The only FAR reference that is on that page is FAR 44.202-2.

32. Section L.8(9), page 130 of the RFP, requests the proposed subcontracting plan on form SF-294. As the SF-294 is a form to report on progress on an approved plan, please clarify the format for Offerors to use in submitting the subcontracting plan.

Answer: Offerors must use the format available at this website: http://www.usaid.gov/partnership-opportunities/small-business/subcontracting-template. This has been included as Attachment J.32.

33. We understand that the focus of teacher training must be in-service. However, given the importance of pre-service teacher training for developing the education system long-term and improving educational outcomes for children in the DRC, would USAID consider a pre-service pilot as part of a larger project?

Answer: The RFP does not restricted or prohibited Offerors from proposing pre-service activities as part of their proposed approach. Offers are free to propose activities that they feel will give the program the greatest likelihood to achieve the desired results and key deliverables based on evidence with a clear justification. USAID encourages Offerors to propose their best package of activities that the offeror reasonably believes will have the greatest likelihood to achieve the results and the deliverables of the Contract.

34. P. 27 of the RFP states, “The Contractor must support the building of the capacity of accelerated learning programs over the life of the Contract. The Contractor must identify local organizations that will be key sub-partners that will work with the prime over the life of the award.” We are a local Congolese organization and also a partner on a consortium. Are we allowed to run ALPs?

Answer: Yes, there is no prohibition of sub-partners in a consortium running ALPs.

35. We understand from the RFP that building rehabilitation and construction will be allowable under this contract. Does USAID have any ceiling for construction or rehabilitation costs?

Answer: Offerors are free to propose rehabilitation or construction activities as part of their proposed approach to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract. Offers can propose activities that they feel will achieve the desired results based on evidence with a clear justification. USAID has not identified a plug figure for rehabilitation of construction activities. USAID encourages Offerors to propose their best package of activities with the corresponding budget that the Offeror reasonably believes will have the greatest likelihood to achieve the results and the deliverables of the Contract. If construction and rehabilitation activities are included, environmental management and mitigation plan (EMMP) reporting must be completed annually.

36. Page 11: USAID lists several factors that the selection of the education sub-provinces must take into account. Included in the list is: Support education where there is the greatest need. Generally these are areas that are the hard to reach, violent, and rural areas which have not been reached, in part, because of logistic reasons. This factor appears to be inconsistent, with “Develop a critical mass of sub-provinces in order to better demonstrate effective support of the education system rather than a scattered or diluted approach”. Given the target numbers desired (see Deliverables table, pp. 42-43), would USAID please clarify which criterion should be prioritized in selecting sub-provinces?

Answer: USAID does not see an inherent conflict between these two criteria. There are numerous areas within the target provinces that can be classified as greatest need and developing a critical mass. USAID does not foresee the successful Offeror identifying education sub-provinces in conflict and security insecure regions as part of the total education intervention package due to limited accessibility and security constraints.

37. Page 11: The RFP states that the selection of education sub-provinces must take into account the need to prioritize sub provinces where there is little or no support from external agencies. Page 16: the RFP notes that the GPE PROSEB program is working in all primary schools in Kasai Occidental and Equateur, two of the target provinces for this project. Please clarify how Offerors should address the selection criteria where other partners are working throughout a province.

Answer: The GPE PROSEB program will end at the end of the 2015-2016 school year, or after year one of this Contract. It is anticipated that GPE will provide in-service teacher training on teaching pedagogic skills and that this Contract will be able to build upon/complement the GPE PROSEB work by focusing on early grade reading pedagogic skills. Coordination with and complementing other donor activities should not result in areas being excluded from inclusion in this Contract.

38. Page 11: The RFP identifies four target provinces – then specifies targeting all schools in 25 geographic sub-provinces within the education provinces. On the same page the RFP identifies 2 more provinces (South and North Kivu) that are to be targeted for accelerated learning programs. Would USAID please confirm that the 25 sub-provinces are to be located only in the four target provinces.

Answer: The 25 sub-provinces are to be located in the four target provinces: Katanga, Kasaï Occidental, Kasaï Oriental, and Equateur.

39. Page 11: The RFP states that “Activities under this Contract must target all schools within at least 25 geographic education sub-provinces within education provinces.” In order to avoid overlap and have more efficient use of funding, please clarify if schools already being reached via other projects in a given sub-province, such as EAGLE, Vas-y-Fille and GPE, can be excluded in targeted sub-provinces.

Answer: Currently OPEEQ, EAGLE and Vas-y-Fille do not target all schools within an Education sub-province. Education sub-provinces that include schools that have been targeted by EAGLE, OPEQ, or Vas-y-Fille may be included. The Vas-y-fille and GPE PROSEB programs will end after year one of this Contract. Education sub-provinces that were targeted under PROSEB, Vas y fille or OPEQ in Equator, Kasaï Occidental, or Katanga can be targeted during the phase in/scale up of the activity over the five year life of the contract.

40. Page 20: Result Two mentions a “phased in approach” at the sub-province level for this result, but no phasing is explicitly mentioned for Result One or Result Three. However, on page 26, section C.10 under Timeline, the RFP suggests that all activities will be phased in, starting with interventions in Katanga. Please confirm that this means that all components and results are subject to phasing.

Answer: The Contract is seen as an integrated program where the three results reinforce and are needed to achieve the key deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror is free to propose the phase-in and scaling up of all activities to achieve the results and deliverables of the RFP. The Offeror should propose the approach and the introduction and timing of activities that best enables the Offeror to implement a large and complex program in a way that enables the approach to achieve the desired results and deliverables of the Contract. ALP activities may be introduced in year one in North and South Kivu as well.

41. Page 20: The RFP notes that contractor must support equitable access to employable skills and education to enable youth to reintegrate into society in the conflict affected areas, including Katanga, South Kivu and North Kivu. Please clarify if this offering of alternative and accelerated learning should be made available across all provinces.

Answer: ALPs can be supported in areas outside of the Kivus. The Offeror is free to propose where and when ALPs will be used as part of the Offerors approach to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror should propose the approach and the introduction and timing of activities that best enables the Offeror to implement a large and complex program in a way that enables the approach to achieve the desired results and deliverables of the RFP.

42. Page 21: Would USAID please clarify how development of new reading materials aligns with GPE provision of textbooks country-wide as noted on page 16.

Answer: GPE has printed and distributed select textbooks nationwide. The MEPSP has not finalized all of the aspects of the approved reading curriculum and as such early grade reading materials, particularly national language materials have not and will not be printed and distributed under PROSEB.

43. Page 21: Would USAID please clarify the meaning of the statement “The Contractor must build on current in-service teacher training programs and national language materials.” Does USAID intend for the contractor to underwrite the costs for delivery of training to teachers in 25 sub-provinces? Or will this be handled by MOE with the contractor covering only training to Master trainers?

Answer: The Offeror should propose a teacher training approach that will enable the Contractor to meet the results and key deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror should describe the proposed teacher training approach and the cost proposal should include the corresponding costs associated to implement the proposed approach.

44. Page 23: Please clarify if the costs for collecting baseline information for both intervention and control sites will be included in the budget for the third party implementing partner.

Answer: The Contractor should budget for baseline data collection in both intervention and control sites.

45. Page 26: Under the Environment Review Requirements, USAID mentions both school rehabilitation and construction. This is also mentioned in paragraph “t” on p.54. Does USAID foresee school construction and school rehabilitation as activities supported by this project?

Answer: USAID has conducted an IEE which enables an Offeror to propose school rehabilitation and construction as part of the approach if the Offeror believes that these activities are essential elements that are needed to give the proposed approach the greatest likelihood to achieve the results and key deliverables of the Contract. USAID does not have a preference for the inclusion of rehabilitation or construction, and this section has been included to allow flexibility to the Offeror to include or not, depending on the Offerors proposed approach.

46. Page 41: Section 5 outlines that the operations research can be done in English, French, Swahili, Ciluba or Lingala and must be updated yearly, to inform the ongoing project. The operational research is further described on p. 48 to focus on interventions, program components and tools to improve the ongoing project. Given that the choice of researchers can influence the quality of the research outcomes, does USAID have a preference as to whether these researchers are internal or external to the project?

Answer: The research can be either internal or external to the project. Final decisions on which components will be conducted by the Contractor and the third-party evaluation implementer will be done through discussions and negotiations with the successful Offeror upon award. The Offeror should propose which aspects of the research would be conducted internally in accordance with the proposed approach.

47. Page 42 and 43: Please confirm if the specific deliverable targets for students presented in the table are cumulative. For example, in the excerpt below, the target of 350,000 grade 2 students would be cumulative over the life of the project and not specifically for Year 5.

Answer: Numbers are annual and not cumulative. This table has been updated in the RFP.

48. Pages 42 and 43: The section on Reports and Deliverables identifies the number of students to be reached by year over the five year life of project – some targets are specified as “from baseline” or “over baseline”, others are identified as targets per year. Please clarify if these target numbers for students are cumulative or additive.

Answer: Table has been revised. These numbers are annual and not cumulative or additive.

49. Page 42 and 43: The Reports and Deliverables table lists “Number of additional learners enrolled in primary schools or equivalent non-school based settings with USG and DFID support” and “Number of new entrants enrolled in primary schools or equivalent non-school based settings with USG and DFID support.”

a. How should “additional learners” and “new entrants” be differentiated? In the case of primary school enrollment, are the latter children entering the 1st grade of primary school, while the former out-of-school children entering in grades 2-6?

Answer: See narrative under F.5.

b. How should children targeted via ALP be recorded – as new entrants or additional learners?

Answer: ALP can students can be classified as new entrants or additional learners depending on their status at the time of support from the Contract. The definition of new entrants and additional learners would apply to ALP students. All new enrollees into the ALP in year one and subsequent years would be considered as new entrants while students already enrolled would be considered additional learners depending based on the criteria specified in section F.5.

50. Would USAID please confirm if:

a. Accelerated/alternative Learning Program (ALP) activities included under IR 1.2 should also be carried out in all four primary program provinces (Katanga, Kasaï Occidental, Kasaï Oriental and Equateur) as well as North Kivu and South Kivu.

Answer: ALPs can be supported in areas outside of the Kivus. The Offeror is free to propose where and when ALPs will be used as part of the Offeror’s approach to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror should propose the approach and the introduction and timing of activities that best enables the Offeror to implement a large and complex program in a way that enables the approach to achieve the desired results and deliverables of the RFP.

b. ALP activities in Katanga, North Kivu and South Kivu should directly target only conflict-affected youth and should incorporate activities for ‘employable skills’.

Answer: ALPs do not need to be limited to only targeting conflict-affected youth in these three provinces. The Offeror is free to propose where, target beneficiaries, and when ALPs will be used as part of the Offeror’s approach to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror should propose the approach and the introduction and timing of activities that best enables the Offeror to implement a large and complex program in a way that enables the approach to achieve the desired results and deliverables of the RFP.

c. Page 27 states, “The Contractor must support the building of the capacity of accelerated learning programs over the life of the Contract. Does this apply to ALPs in all six provinces?

Answer: The Offeror is free to propose where, target beneficiaries, and when ALPs will be used as part of the Offeror’s approach to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror should include capacity building of ALPs as part of their approach even if the Offeror proposes to include ALPs in all six provinces as part of the introduction and timing of activities that best enables the Offeror to implement a large and complex program in a way that enables the approach to achieve the desired results and deliverables of the RFP.

51. Would USAID please clarify if the amount for Grants under Contract can be increased to allow funding for local partners who might play a significant implementation role?

Answer: The Grants under Contract line item may not be changed. Local partners that will be considered as consortium members or sub-awards to implement the activity should be described through a different line item and do not fall under the Grants under Contract line item for the purpose of the proposal.

52. Please provide a copy of final evaluation of PAQED project to all potential applicants. If the evaluation report is not yet available please clarify when it will be released.

Answer: The final evaluation/Lessons Learned Report from PAQUED is included in Attachment J-28. J-27 has been updated to include PAQUED Lingala language material. The October 2014 EGRA, EGMA end line has been included as an attachment.

53. Given latest EGRA results and conflict affected areas, does USAID expect all children in target schools in Grade 1-4 to be reading at grade level by end of project? Or does USAID envision a certain degree of flexibility in that target percentage?

Answer: USAID does not anticipate that 100% of all Grade 1-4 students in target schools will be reading at grade level based on experience within the country, region, and international experience. USAID does anticipate a distribution of improvement of reading gains among targeted students.

54. Page 114: Section L.6.2 of the RFP is unclear on the maximum MB allowed for each submission email – 5 MB and 10 MB are both mentioned. Please confirm the maximum MB size permitted for each individual submission email.

Answer: Please see response to Question 12. Each e-mail should be a maximum of 10MB.

55. Page 114. The RFP states that proposal must be sent by e-mail with attachments compatible with PDF and Excel. On page 126, the RFP asks for the detailed narrative for the cost proposal in Microsoft Word. Please clarify if the budget narrative can be submitted in the PDF format.

Answer: See response to Question 22. Please provide both Word and PDF versions of the budget narrative.

56. Page 115: Section L.6.3 and page 117, Section L.7 of the RFP note that the technical proposal is limited to 35 pages whereas page 123 mentions a 40 page limit. Please clarify the maximum page limit for the technical proposal.

Answer: It is 35 pages, pg. 123 has been amended.

57. Page 117: The RFP states that all page numbers must be consecutively numbered. Does this mean including dividers, within each section, or throughout the proposal?

Answer: Dividers do not need to be numbered and do not count against the 35 page limit.

58. Page 124: The RFP states that up five of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts similar to the work can be provided as past performance. Please clarify if this is a total of five past performance contracts total in the proposal or five contracts each for the Prime and for the major sub-contractor.

Answer: The Offeror may present up to 5 of the most recent and relevant contracts for efforts for both the prime and any major sub-contractors who are proposed.

59. Page 124: Please clarify if offerors can use cooperative agreements instead of contracts for past performance references.

Answer: See response to Question 15. For past performance, contracts are the only type of award that will be reviewed. Cooperative Agreements and Grants can be used to demonstrate organizational capability but not past performance.

60. Page 125: Section L.7 Instruction for Preparing the Technical Proposal, Section F states that subcontractor LOCs should be included in the cost application. However, instructions for the Cost Proposal begin in Section L.8 immediately following this statement. Please clarify if the LOC should be included in the Cost Proposal or the Technical Proposal.

Answer: The Letter of commitment should be included as an Annex to the Technical Proposal. The RFP has been amended.

61. Would it be possible to share information on future teams which are in the process of being formed?

Answer: USAID does not have access to this information and is unable to provide this information.

62. Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, would it be possible for you to provide the incumbent information (we need the contract number and Contractor).

Answer: This is not a follow-on award. This is a new program that has been designed from lessons learned from implementing activities in the DRC but also from international research and evidence on best practices.

63. Could USAID clarify its expectations surrounding work in the Kivus? Does USAID expect that offerors work with all ALP providers in Katanga, the Kivus, or other conflict-affected areas? With all ALP providers in a certain number of educational sub-provinces in these areas? Are we correct in assuming that the work with ALP providers is not counted towards the work in at least 25 education sub-provinces?

Answer: There is no expectation that the successful offeror will work with all ALPs in any geographic region.

64. Could USAID clarify its expectations with regard to scaling up from the Year 1 project start in Katanga? Does USAID prefer that the successful Offeror scale up to the three remaining provinces in Year 2? Or does USAID want all schools to receive a minimum number of years of support (for example, three years of support), which would allow for a more gradual scale up that incorporates learning?

Answer: Offerors are free to propose the scale up plan and any minimum number of years required to achieve the results and key deliverables of the Contract.

65. Could USAID clarify the process of selecting schools? Is this something the successful offeror should do with the government (in line with the criteria listed in the RFP)? Or has USAID and the government decided that selection will occur through a competition among provinces for project support?

Answer: Offerors are free to propose the education sub-province selection criteria to achieve the results and key deliverables of the Contract and may propose education sub-provinces that would be targeted in year 1 under the Offeror’s approach.

66. On p. 11 of the RFP, USAID lists several criteria that should be taken into account when selecting educational sub-provinces to work with, including:

· Support synergies between existing donor interventions in education, health, and water and sanitation.

· Prioritize education sub-provinces where there is little or no education support from external agencies.

Could USAID give Offerors a sense of the relative importance of these two criteria? For example, is it more important to identify and build on synergies with other donors or more important to provide assistance where few donors are working? Alternatively, is the best option to balance educational sub-provinces that meet the first criteria listed above with sub-provinces that meet the second criteria?

Answer: The Offeror is free to propose an approach to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror should propose an approach that prioritizes selection that enables the Offeror to implement a large and complex program in a way that enables the approach to achieve the desired results and deliverables of the RFP.

67. We understand that the forthcoming USAID/DRC ELIKIA project will be providing OVCs with scholarships for primary school in Katanga province. Should this project seek to work in similar areas as the ELIKIA project in order to provide children with ELIKIA scholarships with better access to quality education? Or should this project ensure it works in separate areas from the ELIKIA project in order to broaden the impact of USAID’s support for school access and ensure the impact of each project is distinct?

Answer: The ELIKIA RFP requires Offerors to propose criteria for the selection of health zones. Final decisions regarding ELIKIA target health zones will be decided in consultation with USAID. Health Zones and Education sub-provinces do not have a 1 to 1 overlap. USAID encourages synergies, coordination, and leveraging between USAID programs and between USAID activities and activities funded and implemented by other partners.

68. With respect to the work of USAID’s OPEQ project (which is operating in Katanga), are we correct in assuming that this project should work in educational sub-provinces in which OPEQ is not working?

Answer: No, currently OPEQ, EAGLE and Vas-y-Fille do not target all schools within an Education sub-province. Education sub-provinces that include schools that have been targeted by EAGLE, OPEQ, or Vas-y-Fille may be included. The Vas-y-fille and GPE PROSEB programs will end after year one of this Contract. Education sub-provinces that were targeted under PROSEB, Vas y fille or OPEQ in Equator, Kasaï Occidental, or Katanga can be targeted during the phase in/scale up of the activity over the five year life of the contract.

69. Under Result 1.2, USAID indicates that offerors should “support high quality accelerated and alternative learning programs for disadvantaged, conflict-affected, and poor children and youth who are out of school and have no or limited access to a formal (public or religious) school.”

a. Could USAID clarify the age range of children and youth that should be supported? For example, DRC’s centres de rattrapage scolaire generally serve children aged 9-14, while its centres d’alphabetisation generally serve youth aged 15-24.

Answer: This contract does not have age restrictions of 6-13 year old or the official school age of children who should be in grades 1-6. This contract targets children, adolescents and youth who are in primary schools (ages 6- 16) and eligible for alternative/accelerated learning program (9-22) to provide a basic education opportunity and students are not restricted to the assumed traditional primary school children age of 6-13 year olds. The Offeror is free to propose an approach that has the greatest likelihood to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract.

b. Could USAID confirm that achieving this result requires both support for increased access as well as support for improved quality (curriculum development, materials, and teacher training), in coordination with relevant donors?

Answer: The Offeror is free to propose an approach that has the greatest likelihood to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror should propose the types of interventions that will enable the Offeror to achieve the desired results and deliverables of the RFP based on evidence with sufficient justification.

70. Could USAID confirm that Offerors should budget only for a one-year “lite but effective” pilot for math instruction in at least one sub-province (as described under Result 2.1, and materials under Result 2.2)? We are correct in assuming that we should not budget for expansion of the pilot (should it prove effective)?

Answer: Offerors should propose timing for the pilot based on their approach to achieve the results as well as to be able to assess the approach. The Offeror does not need to budget for the expansion of the pilot under this RFP.

71. Under Result 2.3 (page 22), the RFP states that “The Contractor must work with communities to pilot and test non-monetary performance incentive systems for formal and non-formal education structures…” Could USAID clarify for Offerors whether this means that: a) Offerors should not include scholarships as part of their proposal; b) Offerors may use them only as attendance (not performance) incentives; or c) Offerors may use scholarships but must also include non-monetary performance incentives?

Answer: The Offeror is free to propose an approach that has the greatest likelihood to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract. The Offeror may propose options for performance incentives that enable the Offeror to achieve the desired results and deliverables of the RFP.

72. With respect to Result 3.2 (“School leadership and management strengthened”), could USAID confirm that all activities under this result will focus on school-based actors? Does “supervision” refer to supervision within the school or to actors from outside schools who supervise school activities?

Answer: School leadership and management is not restricted to only school level leadership personnel and the Offeror is free to propose an approach that has the greatest likelihood to achieve the results and deliverables of the Contract.

73. With respect to Result 3.3, could USAID and DFID clarify the distinction between activities covered by this contract and activities covered by a separate mechanism? The RFP specifies that this contract will only cover “local level activities.” Does that mean only school-level activities? The RFP specifies that the separate mechanism will cover “some sub-province level activities.” Should this contract cover other sub-provincial level activities? If so, could USAID and DFID delineate the differences?

Answer: It is anticipated that this Contract will work at the school and education sub-province levels and will be better suited to implement activities under Result 3.3 than the Governance and Accountability implementing partner. The Contractor will be required to work in close coordination and collaboration with the Governance and Accountability implementing partner to ensure that information is available to inform activities.

74. Could USAID provide any information about the rationale for split implementation of Result 3.3? Specifically, what conditions, challenges or other considerations led to the joint implementation of activities between DFID and USAID? Will any special systems or processes be established to capture M&E across implementers?

Answer: It is anticipated that this Contract will work at the school and education sub-province levels and will be better suited to implement activities under Result 3.3 than the Governance and Accountability implementing partner. The Contractor will be required to work in close coordination and collaboration with the Governance and Accountability implementing partner to ensure that information is available to inform activities. USAID and DFID believe that it is better to have one joint program that is focused on common results to help the MEPSP to achieve the objectives outlined in the PIE and National Education Strategy and has such have planned and agreed a joint Education Program. The Program will have approximately four implementing partners working to achieve the objectives of the joint program. Partners will be required to participate and host quarterly coordination and planning meetings, annual reviews of the program, joint meetings with the GDRC, and will be required to coordinate on M&E. A third party implementer (one of the four implementing partners mentioned above) will be charged with coordinating and working with partners to ensure that appropriate data is being collected, data collection is not duplicated between partners, and measure key deliverables and indicators of the program. This will not be the implementer of this RFP nor the Governance and Transparency implementing partner. All partners under the program will be required to coordinate and provide data to third party M&E partner(s).

75. Can USAID also provide information about the distinction between work under Result 3.5 and this project’s work with “MEPSP representatives (inspectors, and sub-province, education province, and provincial education officials)” under Result 2.1?

Answer: National Policy work related to education access, quality, early grade reading and policy areas directly related to the results and deliverables of this RFP would fall under the purview of the successful Offeror of this RFP with close coordination with the third-party implementing partner for the Governance and Accountability implementing partner.

76. Assuming the project is awarded by May 2015, could USAID clarify what will be the procedure for coordination between the third-party implementer of the baseline EGRA, EGMA, and SSME and the awardee of this contact? In particular, will the awardee be able collaborate on the decision of the school and/or sub-province sampling strategy for the baseline data collection?

Answer: The Baseline EGRA, EGMA, and SSME data collection will mostly likely occur in April 2015 prior to the anticipated award date of this Contract.

77. Under Sections B.3 (page 8) and L.8 (page 126), the RFP stipulates that $12,250,000 should be allocated to Grants under Contract (GUC). Could USAID provide further guidance as to whether this amount is proposed as an exact GUC allocation or whether offerors may consider allocating additional project funds to the GUC line item to support proposed activities?

Answer: This is a fixed amount and may not be changed by the Offeror.

78. What role should literacy play in non-formal programs (i.e., ALP) within the SOW? For example, how do USAID/DFID view the use of national and French languages within these programs, including vocational programs and programs designed to transition learners into formal schooling?

Answer: The Offeror is free to…