Amendment_01_-_IGA.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Javier O. Castano, Contracting Officer USAID/D.R. Congo

The purpose of this amendment is to:

- Extend the submission date from Friday, October 02, 2105 to Friday, October 09, 2015;

- Add clauses at Section I;

- Edit Sections L and M; and

- Incorporate Questions/Answers and additional Attachments into the RFP.

Specific details are included in the Continuation Sheets.

USAID/DRC - Office of Acquisition and Assistance Embassy of the United States of America - Kinshasa, D.R. Congo

TBD

REQ-660-15-000026

SOL-660-15-000007

1 19

09/22/2015

08/18/2015

Digitally signed by Javier O. Castano DN: cn=Javier O. Castano, o=USAID/DRC, ou=Office of Acquisition & Assistance, email=JCastano@usaid.gov, c=US Date: 2015.09.22 17:20:48 +01'00'

A. Specific Changes:

Cover Sheet

• The RFP closing date and time on the cover sheet of the RFP is hereby changed from “October 02, 2015 – 08:00 AM, Local Time (Kinshasa) ” to read “October 09, 2015 – 17:00 Local Time (Kinshasa)”

Section I

• At Section I.1, add the following FAR clauses:

52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Oct 2014)

52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Oct 2014) Alternate II (Oct 2001)

Section L

• At Section L.6.4 – Sub-factor 1: Management plan and framework, delete the bullet that reads “Results framework / Logical framework”

• At Section L.6.5, add the following phrase: “The draft AMEP must include a Results framework / Logical framework.”

Section M

• At Section M.3.5, delete this section in its entirety and replace it with the following:

“The extent to which the AMEP, including the Results framework / Logical framework, will enable USAID and the contractor to effectively monitor and measure the achievement of results described in the PWS.”

B. Questions and Answers:

General

1. Question: What is the anticipated start date for the program?

Answer: Continue monitoring the USAID Business Forecast for anticipated dates.

2. As the political situation in DRC around elections and/or (s) election of provincial and local leaders and assemblies governors may create confusion, tensions, and even violence, what are USAID’s contingency plans regarding the timing of this procurement process with respect to: a) the proposal due date; and/or b) the actual launch date of the project?

Answer: Updates during the procurement process will be communicated accordingly.

3. Question: Can USAID provide the Year One for the Equitable Access to Education and Learning program to facilitate an improved plan for coordination?

Answer: No

4. Question: Could USAID provide information on the methodology for the impact evaluation;

particularly the selection of the control groups as this may influence the Offeror’s technical approach.

On Page 111 (Award Monitoring and Evaluation Plan), USAID states that “The impact evaluation team (under a separate award) will generate baselines for these interventions while the Contractor will cover the rest of baselines.” Could USAID please clarify what is meant by these interventions and the rest of the baselines?

Answer: The Impact evaluation is planned to focus on set of activities pertaining to the integration of governance in the health sector. While the project is broader, the IE team will generate information and data related to this set of information only. The Offeror still has to organize and propose its own performance, evaluation, monitoring and learning plan. Attachment 6 of this RFP provides further information on the Impact Evaluation.

Section B – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs

5. Questions regarding footnote on page 3:

• In footnote 1 on page 3 of the RFP, USAID indicates that IGA should choose target beneficiaries at the national, provincial, and local executive body level based on “an analysis of political will and opportunities to achieve activity results.” Under Section C.4, Geographic Scope (page 16), USAID indicates that, “Provincial-level beneficiaries should be selected carefully, based on the likelihood of activities for their benefit resulting in improved performance of local service delivery entities.” Considering that elections will likely be held between the time of proposal submission and the project’s start and that election results may affect the political will of various institutions, does USAID intend for offerors to name specific government institutions that the project will target, or would USAID prefer that the offeror identify criteria and a selection methodology to be implemented once the project is awarded?

Answer: Our preference is an explanation of the criteria of selection along with a tentative list of targeted entities and institutions.

• Question: Page 3, Section B. USAID notes in the second footnote that work in the education sector will at first be limited to the national-level, but later USAID notes that IGA is expected to contribute to the education sector at the sub-provincial level. Additionally, most illustrative outputs and results related to the education sector are at the sub-provincial level. Can USAID clarify the expected timeline of engaging with the education sector at the sub-national level given the initial limited focus of working at the national level?

Answer: The offeror is expected to contribute to both national and sub-national levels while avoiding duplication.

• Question: The footnote in Section B.3 (pg. 3) states: “Work in education will be limited to the national-level at first, because USAID and DFID will already have substantial activities related to education governance underway by the time IGA starts.” However, Section C.4 (pgs. 15-16) states: “USAID and DFID will partner closely in education… This leaves an opening for IGA at the sub-provincial level… IGA may also be well-placed to provide assistance for national level reforms implemented by Ministries other than the MoE.” Could USAID please clarify whether offerors will be expected to engage the education sector at the outset at the national level, sub-provincial level, or both?

• Question: In the footnote on P. 3, it states that “work in education will be limited to the national-level at first, because USAID and DFID will already have substantial activities related to education governance underway by the time IGA starts.” Whereas, on the top of P. 16, it seems to imply that the focus of work with the education sector should be at the sub-provincial level, “This leaves an opening for IGA at the sub-provincial level, where activities …. can be applied to education sub-provinces and schools, in support of the USAID/ DFID joint program.” Please confirm that Offerors should propose work in education at both the national-level and sub-provincial levels.

Answer: Both—assure complementarity.

6. Grants Under Contract (GUC)

• B.3, Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee and Obligated Amount (p. 3) – The budget format does not include

“Grants” nor are “Grants under Contract” discussed in the RFP. However, Section F.5 (c) (p. 35) requires submission of a Grants Manual. Would USAID confirm if grants are to be a part of this program? There is no budget line item for Grants Under Contract in the provided summary budget.

Can USAID please indicate where this should be included? Additionally, if a grants manual is not required, how would the 2% of the Fixed Fee allocation, as outlined in F.5 p. 35 be reassigned?

• Grants under contract are mentioned in multiple places in the RFP (e.g., pages 22, 30, 35, 42, 56, and 57); however, they are not included in the cost chart in Section B.3 (page 3). Can USAID please confirm that grants under contract are allowed under this project?

Answer: GUCs and a GUC manual are not required; however if the approach of the offeror recommends using GUCs, then the GUC manual will be required. If not, the fixed fee allocation table will be reallocated accordingly.

7. Question: Section B.4 (pg. 4) states: “Indirect costs must not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations must be budgeted and billed as direct costs.” We request that USAID provide offerors with the flexibility of entering into cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) or time and materials (T&M) type subcontracts with organizations that do not have NICRAs when the following conditions are met:

• An organization can provide evidence that it has an accounting system capable of administering a CPFF or T&M type subcontract;

• An organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of their indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31;

• The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure a CPFF or T&M subcontract with a local organization is administered properly; and,

• An organization has established indirect cost rates and the use of indirect cost rates is an integral part of their cost accounting standards.

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of FAR Part 31, these contracting mechanisms could serve as tools to build the capacity of local organizations so they can eventually have the financial and administrative capacity to receive direct funding from USAID.

Furthermore, managing direct cost allocation subcontracts may result in higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors and reduce overall cost control due to monthly costs varying significantly depending on the services being provided by the subcontractor. Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers (under T&M subcontracts) may reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases and allow for a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight by the prime contractor.

Answer: The business climate in DRC makes it highly unlikely that local organizations have adequate accounting systems to establish a viable indirect cost rate. Per the RFP, Indirect costs must not be allowed for local organizations. All costs for local organizations must be budgeted and billed as direct costs. Any exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis.

8. Question: Page 113. Section L.7. 4 Subcontracts. Would USAID grant consent for multiplier-based Time and Materials contracts for local subcontractors without a NICRA if they have audited financial statements?

Answer: See above

9. Question: Section B.8 of the RFP (page 5) states, “Upon receipt of COR concurrence and written approval by the CO, the Contractor must submit an invoice for the amount of the associated fee.” When payment of fee is contingent upon receipt of those approvals, the Contractor is at risk of unduly delayed fee payments. Would USAID consider amending the contractual language to include the following statement?

“If the Contractor has not received either commentary or approval on a deliverable from the COR and the CO within 30 days of receipt of said deliverable, the deliverable will be considered approved and the corresponding fee may be invoiced.”

Answer: Any delays in approval should be communicated to the Contracting Officer. Payments will only be made when the deliverable has received final approval.

10. Question: Section B.8 of the RFP (page 5) states, “A percentage of the payment of the fixed fee under this contract is tied to the achievement of the deliverables described in Section F.” However, pages 40–

44 (Section F.5) of the RFP incorporate a fixed fee table of deliverables that total 100% of the fixed fee. Please clarify what percentage of the payment of the fixed fee will be tied to achievement of deliverables.

Answer: The entire fixed fee, which is to be determined, will be paid out as a percentage of deliverables. The table adds up to 100% of the fixed fee. For example, if the fixed fee for the contract is $100,00 and the contractor submits the final annual work plan, which is valued at 1.00% of the fixed fee, the contractor receives $1,000 out of the fixed fee amount when vouchering for the period in which the report was submitted and accepted.

Section C – Statement of Objectives

11. Question: Can USAID clarify if there are any differences in level of programming amongst provinces?

For example, in the Kivus, the Equitable Access to Education and Learning Program is expected to perform significantly less and different types of interventions. Are there similar expectations for IGA?

Answer: USAID expect the apparently successful bidder to determine the right level of interventions for each of the targeted provinces and present the result as part of the detailed workplan. While the draft workplan submitted at the proposal phase should be based on the offeror best knowledge of the DRC context in general, in particular in the targeted provinces, and the proposed approach.

12. Question: In many RFPs released by USAID requiring a Performance Work Statement (PWS), the

PWS becomes Section C of the contract. Is it USAID’s intention to replace the existing Section C with the PWS upon contract award?

Answer: Yes

13. Question: Can USAID please provide guidance on the specific expectations of the IGA project as opposed to the forthcoming IHP project in terms of the support provided to the province and local service delivery units to manage public finances (IR1.3) and Sub IR1.6.2, improving the skills of ETD officials in financial management and planning to lead local development processes. These mandates seem to overlap closely with the IHP’s IRS 1.1 Enhanced capacity at all levels of the provincial health system to plan, implement, monitor and supervise services as well as IR1.2 Improved transparency and oversight in health services financing and administration at provincial, health zone, facility and community levels.

Answer: USAID recognizes that overlap could occur only if there is no coordination with these activities; therefore USAID has required close coordination to identify leveraging possibilities and complementarity. The IGA should bring its expertise on governance and PFM.

14. Outputs and Results:

• The IGA RFP refers to “outputs” as well as “results” (e.g., Section C contains “illustrative outputs” and “illustrative results”). Some of the outputs provided (i.e., key legislation “passed,” tax revenues increased by 50%, and increase public awareness) are identical to the illustrative results.

Could USAID please clarify the terminology being used?

• On pages 10 to 14 of the RFP, reference is made to Objectives, Outputs and Results. Could

USAID please confirm that the terms Illustrative Outputs and Illustrative Results should actually be Illustrative Results and Illustrative Indicators, respectively?

Answer: To clarify for the purpose of receiving quality Performance Work Statements, outputs and results should be clearly defined consistent with ADS 200.

15. Question: For budgeting and work-planning purposes, would USAID please provide an estimate as to when they anticipate beginning their new agriculture and economic growth activities?

Answer: Continue monitoring the USAID Business Forecast for public information.

16. Question: Does USAID intend for the offeror’s PWS to be organized and presented according to Sub-factors 1–5 or according to the three Objectives sub-divided into IRs and sub-IRs? If the proposal is to be structured according to sub-factors, please confirm that it is USAID’s expectation that the majority of specific technical activities are to be described under Sub-Factor 2, Opportunities for Integrating IGA’s Governance Interventions?

Answer: USAID expects the PWS to be presented based on the objective as described in the SOO. The sub-factor should be addressed across the PWS in the relevant objective.

17. Question: May the contractor change, edit, add to, or omit the illustrative outputs listed under

Objectives 1–3 in Section C (pages 10–14), or is it USAID’s intention that offerors address each illustrative output as written in the IGA contract?

Answer: The offeror’s approach will determine which output is the most relevant as the outputs are illustrative.

18. Question: Pg 14, the illustrative results for Objective 3 indicate annual targets for increased capacity and awareness. Does USAID assume these targets will be achieved starting in year 1 or 2?

Answer: The offeror should propose a realistic target for each year.

19. Question: Page 15, Section C.4. Would USAID please provide a copy of/link to the Operationalisation de la Reforme des Finances Publiques en Republique Democratique du Congo: Plan d'Actions Prioritaires 2014-2016?

Answer: See Attachment 8

20. Question: On page 15 of the RFP, USAID/DRC references its commitment to obtain national, provincial, and local government input and buy-in for all Mission activities. Could USAID please confirm that such commitments are already in place, or will be in place by the time IGA activities commence?

Answer: A rollout of the CDCS to the provinces has been completed and regular coordination meetings are being held.

21. Questions regarding Geographic Scope with respect to “Decoupage”:

• With the DRC moving forward with further decentralization of government through the creation of

15 new provinces through "Decoupage", does the mission expect IGA's focus on 5 provinces and one commune in Kinshasa to remain the same?

• Pages 16 and 17 of the RFP discuss geographic scope. Could USAID please confirm that it expects IGA to work in all of the former PBG sites within the current and future provinces described here? As the DRC moves forward with further decentralization of government through the creation of 15 new provinces through "Decoupage" and as health and education activities come online, does USAID expect IGA's targets to remain the same over time?

• Page 16, USAID provides partial information regarding the number of provinces IGA target provinces according to the new decoupage. Could USAID provide a list of all provinces where the project will be expected to operate?

Answer: The geographic scope of this activity is aligned to the Mission strategy, CDCS. Therefore, to the extent possible, the offeror should cluster its interventions in the following targeted provinces (according to the old 11 province configuration): Kasai Occidental, Kasai Oriental, Katanga, South Kivu, and North Kivu. The geographic targeting under the CDCS will also comprise two economic corridors, where we will concentrate activities to the extent possible. The first is in southern Katanga along the corridor that reaches from Kolwezi to Kasumbalesa, passing through Lubumbashi. The second corridor links Mbuji-Mayi, Kasai Oriental to Kananga, Kasai Occidental and extends along the road connecting Kananga to the Angolan border. The catchment areas around the urban centers and improved roads define the corridors that have increased socio-economic potential and opportunities.

The implementer proposed geographic targeting strategy should reflect newly established provincial boundaries within the DRC (commonly referred to in French as “decoupage”), In January 2015 the Parliament passed the two new laws regarding the redistribution of provincial boundaries within the DRC which increased the number of provinces from 11 to 26, including the city of Kinshasa in accordance with the dispositions of the 2006 Constitution (see map below of the 26 newly created provinces).

As a result of decoupage, the three targeted provinces under DO2 of the CDCS will be split into a total of 9 new provinces as follows:

• Kasai Occidental will be divided into two provinces (Kasai and Kasai Central);

• Kasai Oriental will be divided into three provinces (Kasai Oriental, Lomami, and

Sankuru); and

• Katanga will be divided into four provinces (Haut-Katanga, Lualaba, Haut-Lomami, and

Tanganyika). For the purposes of the CDCS, only three of the four new provinces created by the division of the Katanga province will be included in the DO 2 target geographic area (Tanganyika will be included in the TO3 geographic area).

22. Question: On page 15 of the RFP, there is reference to coordination between USAID implementing partners. Could USAID please provide a map of which implementers are currently operating in which provinces, and also the geographical scope of the upcoming projects (IHAP, IHP, DFID/USAID Education project)?

Answer: The CDCS provides information on the geographic scope of activities.

23. Question: In Section C.4, Geographic Scope (page 16), USAID says that, “Offerors should propose an appropriate number of ETDs and other local government service delivery entities … that allows them to build on results achieved by PBG or other similar activities, while enabling close integration with health, education, and economic growth activities.” Can we assume based on this language (and given the need for IGA to coordinate with the projects named in Section C.1, pages 6–7, the rapidity with which decoupage is rolling out, and the close proximity of local elections to the deadline for proposals) that USAID does not intend the contractor to list ETDs by name, but rather to propose an appropriate number and type of ETDs within the target provinces, and that the specific ETDs in which the IGA will work will be jointly decided by USAID and the contractor after award?

Answer: USAID expects the offeror to share its criteria for selecting the entities, their number and a tentative list.

24. Question: Page 16 states that interventions within the education sector should be at the sub-provincial level. Could USAID please confirm whether they have similar expectations for other sectors as well?

Answer: USAID expects the oferror to propose an approach that encourages complementarity with existing and planned (on forecast business plan website) USAID DRC activities in education, health and economic growth.

25. Question: Page 17 of the RFP states: “IGA must not replace or displace government functions. … it is essential that USAID and its implementers use [new tools] to catalyze better government capacity and avoid displacing the government.” Could USAID please confirm that assisting the GDRC to improve its contracting of non-governmental actors to provide social services (outsourcing) does not constitute displacing the government?

Answer: These activities should support the effort of the GDRC to leverage other resources from the private sector in order to ensure better quality of public services. Historically, Health and Education, for instance have always been outsourced and taken care of by faith-based organizations. However, the GDRC remains in control of rule and norms in that area.

26. Question: On page 18 of the RFP, there is reference to an external impact evaluation. Could USAID please confirm whether costs for this evaluation should be covered by the IGA program, or if the impact evaluation will be covered by a separate project?

Answer: This will be covered separately by another USAID activity.

https://www.usaid.gov/democratic-republic-congo/newsroom/key-documents

Section D – Packaging and Marking

27. Question: Please clarify whether the Branding and Marking Plan is to be submitted with the technical proposal or the cost proposal.

Answer: The plan must be submitted as part of the Technical submission although cost implications of the plan should be captured in the cost proposal.

28. Question: Page 22 of the RFP states the following: "Given IGA’s focus on building the capacity of

Congolese actors, the logos of GDRC and Congolese civil society counterparts will be used in connection with USAID’s to the maximum extent possible." With the potential of engaging many civil society organizations (CSOs) during the period of Performance, a project logo will unify the efforts of our CSO counterparts and consistently identify all relevant work and materials produced under the scope of work of this activity. In the absence of a project logo, local partners would incur additional/substantial costs to create distinct marketing products and campaigns for each new partner CSO. For the Branding Implementation and Marking Plan, will USAID therefore allow the development of a project logo for this activity?

Answer: A project-specific logo is not allowed.

Section E – Inspection and Acceptance

29. Question: Section E.3, Contractor Performance Evaluation (page 23) of the RFP lists, “periodic impact assessments and evaluation” as a part of the periodic performance reviews conducted by the COR to measure/assess contractor performance. However, impact assessments will be conducted by a third party and quality, timeliness, and effectiveness will be outside the control of the contractor. Would USAID consider removing this as mechanism to monitor progress?

Answer: The third party will conduct an Impact Evaluation, which differs from the role of the COR. In addition, this Impact Evaluation will only cover a specific set of interventions and does not preclude the contractor to fulfill its responsibility in terms of performance management and monitoring of this specific activity. Please read RFP attachment 7 for more information on the IE.

Section F – Deliveries or Performance

30. Question: For the M&E Manager position, would USAID consider lowering the 15 years of work experience plus a bachelor’s degree that can be substituted for a master’s degree to 10 years plus a bachelor’s degree?

31. Question: Regarding Key Personnel requirements found in Section F.4. on pages 24-27, can USAID please confirm that it is acceptable to substitute a Juris Doctor degree for a Master’s degree?

Answer: A graduate degree beyond a Bachelor’s degree would be considered in lieu of a Masters. For example, a J.D. or Ph.D. would count.

32. Question: Section F.4, p. 24: USAID states that “…the quality, commitment, and capabilities of all staff in this activity are the most important factors within our manageable interests to ensure successful activity implementation.” These conflicts with the technical evaluation criteria listed in Section M.3 on page 120. Please clarify the level of importance assigned to key personnel in the evaluation of our proposal. –

Answer: The key personnel will be evaluated in accordance with M.3.3.

33. Question: In the Key Personnel Section (Section F.4 – page 25-27), the role of the Financial and

Compliance Manager is not clear. The second sentence of the position description (on page 26) implies that this is an internal financial management role, a position designed to ensure the project is managed in a fiscally responsible manner. However the following sentence, “The individual must participate and engage in technical meetings and maintain positive relationships with GDRC officials, partners, and implementing partners” implies that this is a technical advisor position, designed to support the program activities with beneficiaries in the government financial management sector. We suggest that these two functions need to be separated into different positions. The internal project financial manager would require a different skill set (e.g. knowledge and experience with USAID financial project management, accounting standards, knowledge of the contractor financial policies and procedures) than those for a technical advisor for local government financial management (e.g.

experience with financial management in local governments, experience advising and building capacity, experience assessing performance or training gaps and developing financial management capacity building and training programs). Could USAID please clarify the role and duties of the Financial and Compliance Manager?

Answer: This is not meant to be a technical advisor position. However, the expectation is that this individual will be involved in operations management of the project, which may involve direct communication with GDRC officials, partners, and implementing partners.

34. Question: In Section F.5, Reports and Deliverables (page 34) and in the list of deliverables (pages 40–

44), USAID references a Business Continuity and Sustainability Plan, and Scenario Planning. Can USAID please clarify what is this deliverable is? See the same section under the table of deliverable;

clarification is provided for each of the deliverable

Answer: This is a reference to the sustainability plan that is expected in the annual work plan. The contractor will be requested to submit this sustainability plan annually as an annex to the workplan to demonstrate actions and strategies to be taken by the partner to ensure beneficiaries’ ownership of the activity approach, and ensure sustainability of results.

35. Question: The implementers log frame will be highly influenced by the evaluation methodology and schedule. Could USAID provide some guidance on the timing for the external evaluation; particularly the data collection given the contractual requirements including the Log frame with scenario planning which is due 60 days after Award? (Pg. 28)

Answer: Further updates will be provided to the apparently successful offeror.

36. Question: On page 27 of the RFP, in the section on Educational Requirements for the Monitoring and Evaluation Manager, there is an asterisk at the end of the paragraph. Could USAID please confirm that this is a typographical error, or if there is a reference note missing?

Answer: This is a reference to the table on page 25 indicating that the education requirement may be substituted as indicated in the narrative.

37. Question: On page 30 of the RFP (table), the AMEP schedule is that a draft must be submitted 30 days after the Annual Work Plan is approved by the COR; however, on page 34 the Annual Work Plan calls for a logframe which will be tied to activities/indicators/results and outcomes. Does USAID have a particular format for the logframe as it will inform both the WP and the AMEP? Could USAID please confirm that it is looking for Indicators, Targets, Results and Outcomes in the Work Plan?

Answer: Yes we confirm that these are needed and that there is a standard template for the logframe that can be used.

38. On page 34 and again on page 111, a draft annual work plan is expected as part of the proposal documents.

On page 34, the Draft Annual Work Plan is also composed of the following annexes:

a) Local Capacity Development Work Plan

b) Gender Analysis and Gender Implementation Strategy in Year One

c) Conflict Sensitivity Analysis and Implementation Strategy

d) Updates to Business Continuity and Sustainability Plan and Scenario Planning

e) Management Plan

On page 111, the “offeror must provide a draft five-year work plan as well as a more detailed draft Year 1 work plan in accordance with the requirements in Section F5 [listed above]”

Can USAID please confirm that they expect to see the five annexes listed above as part of the draft work plan submission in the proposal documents?

Answer: No, the full annexes are not required.

39. Question: On page 34 of the RFP, the work plan is supposed to incorporate/coordinate with IHA and PROFIT CONGO. For the purposes of submitting the draft work plan with the proposal, can USAID please share any documents from PROFIT CONGO so as to better prepare the document? Also, can USAID please confirm whether IHA will have a health impact evaluation in its AMEP, rather than IGA? Further, since improved delivery of health services is not an IGA result, beyond the joint work planning described in the RFP how will USAID ensure collaboration with other implementing partners and donor-funded programs in the design and deployment of the impact assessment?

Answer: It is expected that IGA will undertake similar type of intervention to PROFITCONGO, therefore USAID strongly suggest coordination to avoid duplication.

40. Question: Regarding the Indicator Tracking Sheets (page 36), is there a format that USAID has in mind and is able to share with the potential bidders?

Answer: This deliverable is the result of the AMEP and the COR will share the template with the apparently successful offeror. The table should include indicator, baseline, targets, deviance and comments as described in the section F.

41. Question: On pages 36 and 37 of the RFP, reference is made to deliverables. Could USAID please confirm that deliverables i.-ix on which the Contractor must report annually are required performance indicators?

Answer: They are illustrative.

42. Question: On page 37 of the RFP, the implementer is expected to host (and coordinate with USAID/DRC personnel) the Annual Coordination Meeting in November of each year. This will be included in the IGA budget as well. IGA is also expected to host at least one Quarterly Coordination Meeting which will occur two months after each quarter. Can USAID please confirm that the November quarterly meeting is in addition to the Annual Meeting? Also, can USAID please confirm that for the purposes of planning the quarterly meetings would be held in November, February, May, and August in each year?

43. Questions regarding annual coordination meetings:

• Section F.5(k), p.37: USAID requires the contractor to coordinate and pay for annual coordination meetings with USAID management in attendance. Can USAID please indicate the estimated number of representatives that it anticipates sending to these meetings?

• Section F.5(k), p.38: USAID requires the contractor to coordinate and pay for one quarterly coordination meeting per year with USAID management in attendance. Can USAID please indicate the estimated number of representatives that it anticipates sending to these meetings?

Answer: Approximately 30. The contractor will only be requested to pay for the venue and provide logistic support. No travel costs will be involved.

44. Question: Pages 40-44, Section F. Would USAID confirm whether the fixed fee schedule percentages provided are for illustrative purposes only and whether Offerors can reallocate the percentages?

Answer: Reallocation of percentages from the table may be proposed and will be considered.

Section H - Special Contract Requirements http://www.banquemondiale.org/projects/P145747?lang=fr

45. Question: Are Grants under Contract allowed under this Solicitation, and if so, will Section H of the Solicitation be updated accordingly?

Answer: Yes but they are not required. This is based on the proposed approach.

46. Question: Can the Offeror provide Grants under Contracts (GUCs) to Government of DRC entities under this project?

47. Question: Would USAID consider providing a plug figure for Grants-Under-Contract?

Answer: No. Use of GUCs is based on the offeror’s proposed approach.

48. Question: Are USAID-funded programs exempt from VAT in DRC?

Answer: The DGI (the tax authority) has issued a letter granting VAT payment exemption to USAID partners. The list of partners is updated every year to add new partners and delete those whose contracts or cooperative agreements have ended.

49. Question: Can USAID please confirm that CCNs are paid in USD in DRC? The 2014 LCP plan states that “Salaries to be paid with U.S. dollars to be deposited directly into employee foreign exchange accounts in local banks.”

Answer: Yes, CCNs are paid in USD.

50. Questions regarding Local Compensation Plan:

• Will USAID please provide a copy of the most recent LCP?

• Would USAID please provide Offerors with a copy of the current Local Compensation Plan for the Democratic Republic of Congo?

• Question: Page 55 of the DRC IGA RfP (Section b) refers to a Mission Local Compensation Plan.

We have a copy of the June 2014 version. Is there a more recent version? If so, can you share it with us?

Answer: Due to the sensitive nature of the Local Compensation Plan (LCP), we ask that anyone interested please email KinshasaOAA@usaid.gov directly for a copy. Please reference this solicitation number and amendment in your request.

51. Questions regarding Geographic Code:

• On Page 51 H3 the RFP states “The authorized source for procurement is Geographic Code 935 unless otherwise specified in the schedule of the contract.” On page 52 H7, the authorized geographic code is stated as 937. To achieve greater efficiency we request USAID to consider changing the authorized geographic code to 935.

• Question: Given the logistical challenges of operating in DRC, would USAID consider changing the Authorized Geographic Code to 935?

• Question: Section H.3, p. 51: USAID states in section H.3(a) that the geographic code is 935 while

Section H.7 on p.52 states that the geographic code is 937. Can USAID please clarify?

Answer: The geographic code for this procurement is 937.

52. Question: Section H.11, p.54: Would USAID approves a six-day work week for short-term assignments in country and during start-up?

Answer: On certain occasions, a six-day work week must be authorized only on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from the CO.

mailto:KinshasaOAA@usaid.gov

53. Question: Section H.12(b)(1) of the RFP (page 55) states, “No individual’s salary or wage, without approval of the Cognizant Contracting Officer, may exceed the employee’s current salary or wage, or the highest rate of annual salary or wage received during any full year of the immediately preceding three (3) years.” Section L.7.4 (page 112) states, “USAID will only permit increases in salary from a previous salary to a maximum of 5%.” Could USAID please clarify these statements? Does acceptance of the initial proposal budget constitute approval by the Cognizant Contracting Officer of an initial project salary of no more than 5% above an employee’s previous salary?

Answer: All awards are subject to audit to verify rates. This being said, bio-data sheets shall include salary history.

54. U.S Staff vs. Contractor Employees

• On P. 56, 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?

• Page 56 of the RFP, section H.12(f), states that for U.S. staff there is an annual salary increase cap at 3%; however, USAID then states that Contractor Employees may follow their own established policies. Please clarify that a Contractor is permitted to follow its own established policies and procedures on annual salary increases.

Answer: Contracting Officer approval is required for increases greater than the stated amount if the Contractor’s policies allow for increases greater than the stated threshold.

55. Section H.12 (f) “Annual Salary Increases” (pg. 56), states that offerors can provide an annual salary increase of “not more than three (3) percent” for U.S. staff and “not more than five (5) percent” to TCN and CCN staff. However, AIDAR 752.7007 Personnel Compensation (July 2007), incorporated in Section H.34 of the RFP, states that compensation will be in accordance with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices. Because the established policies of offerors often fall outside the limitations described by the RFP, can USAID please confirm that offerors may propose salary increases in accordance with their policies?

Answer: Any increase above the stated limit requires Contracting Officer approval.

56. Question: Section H.12(f), Annual salary increases of the RFP (page 56) states, “One annual salary increase … may be granted after the employee’s completion of each twelve months of satisfactory services under the contract.” Would USAID allow salary increases to occur in conjunction with the Offeror’s fiscal year rather than the project year, in accordance with the Offeror’s policies?

57. Question: On P. 66, Section H.30, “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, the Offeror’s 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: No, vehicles are allowed for official business only.

Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

58. PBG Final Report:

• Section J.1 “Key Documents” (pg. 86) references the PBG Final Report. However, the link provided is to the DEC homepage and the PBG Final Report does not seem to be available. Could

USAID please provide an active link to the PBG Final Report or include it as an attachment to the

RFP?

• Page 86 of the RFP mentions the PBG Final Report. Could USAID please make the PBG Final

Report available to offerors?

• Question: Could USAID make available to all offerors the details of the two public-private partnerships that were deemed as successes on the PBG program?

Answer: See Attachment 9

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders

59. Question: The solicitation includes references to the small business subcontracting plan; however, the

FAR clause 52.219-9 is not listed. Please confirm that the small business subcontracting plan is not required for this proposal.

Answer: This is required. See Section A of this document for added clauses.

60. Question: May offerors include contractor performance information for subcontractors that may not reach 20% of the budget but that are expected to play a significant role on the proposal?

Answer: There is no language in the RFP precluding the offeror from including this information.

61. Questions regarding formatting of document submissions:

• On page 104 of the RFP, USAID requires the proposal documents be submitted as PDF and MS

Word documents. Instructions on page 105 refer to submitting the technical proposal as PDF only.

Can USAID please confirm that only one version (i.e., PDF) for each document is necessary?

Additionally, can USAID please confirm that a Microsoft Office version of a document is not necessary if a PDF version of the document is submitted?

• Question: Page 105, Section L.5.C. notes that the technical and cost proposals (aside from the cost spreadsheets) should be in PDF format while page 104, Section L.5.B. notes that all files are to be in PDF and Word formats (aside from the cost spreadsheets). Can USAID confirm that – aside from the cost spreadsheets -- PDF versions only are required?

• Will USAID allow us to send files only in a PDF format for both the technical and cost volumes, with no required MS Word documents?

Answer: Technical proposals may be submitted as PDFs, although word versions are encouraged.

Spreadsheets for cost proposals must be unlocked.

62. Question: Section L.6, Instructions for Preparing Technical Proposal (page 107) lists Award

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP) as a section of the technical proposal and a Draft AMEP as an annex to the technical proposal. However, the instruction for “5. Award Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP)” provides detailed instructions on the AMEP requirements. Please confirm that offerors may include all AMEP information in the Draft AMEP Annex and that a section in the technical proposal is not required.

Answer: The technical proposal should reference the draft AMEP as appropriate.

63. Question: In Section L.6 (page 107), the RFP states that the Executive Summary should “summarize the key elements of the Offeror’s technical approach, management plan, and AMEP,” indicating that the technical approach is separate from the management plan and AMEP. However, the following five factors are listed after the Technical Approach heading on pages 108–111: PWS, contractor’s performance information, personnel, management plan and AMEP. Please clarify what information should be summarized in the Executive Summary.

Answer: Only the key elements of the Offeror’s technical approach, management plan, and AMEP will be presented in the Executive summary

64. Question: Section L.6 of the RFP (page 107) instructs offerors to organize technical proposals in the following order:

Executive Summary Performance Work Statement Key Personnel Program Management Plan Award Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP)

Section M.3 (page 120) lists the following technical proposal sections to be evaluated:

Performance Work Statement (PWS) Contractor Performance Information Key Personnel Program Management Plan Award Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP)

Can USAID please confirm that a narrative on Contractor Performance should be included as part of the 35-page technical proposal narrative.

Answer: Performance information may be included as an annex.

65. Question: On page 107 of the RFP, there is reference to an annex for “resumes, references, and tables that summarize qualifications for proposed personnel.” Can USAID please confirm that this annex references proposed key personnel only?

Answer: These annexes should include professional staff as well.

66. Question: Please confirm that offerors may include additional information in the personnel annex to address proposed non-key personnel candidates’ qualifications and roles and responsibilities.

Answer: Yes, USAID expects to receive professional staff bios and resumes.

67. Question: Pg 107, Section L.6.b, states that the organizational chart is not included in the 35 page count of the technical proposal. Can USAID confirm that you prefer the organizational chart as an annex?

Answer: Yes, USAID requested that charts and tables be included as annexes.

68. Question: Would USAID consider adding the Executive Summary to the list of sections that do not count against the 35-page limit?

69. Question: Page 107 states that page limit excludes “tables and charts” – what parameters can USAID give for what constitutes a table/chart?

Answer: This refers to any tables and/or charts.

70. Subcontracting reports:

• Page 107, Section L.6, notes that SF-294 Subcontracting Reports should be included in an annex.

Given the exhaustive number of reports that this may include, may Offerors limit the reports to be included to the past three (3) years?

• Page 110, L.6.2.d.3.B indicates that Offerors should “provide a copy of any similarly recent subcontracting reports if they were not submitted to eSRS”. In lieu of submitting all recent subcontracting reports not submitted to eSRS -- which may be quite numerous -- may Offerors submit five (5) or ten (10) of their most recent SF294s?

Answer: Offerors may limit reporting to five (5) of the most recent reports.

71. Question: Page 108, Section L6: Instruction for Preparing Technical Proposal, 1. Performance Work

Statement. The instructions under Sub-Factor 3: Suitability for impact evaluation directs the offeror to include a set of interventions to which an external impact evaluation will be applied and that these interventions must reflect offeror understanding of the activity’s objectives and involve the integration of governance in the health sector. Pg. 121, Section M.3 Technical Evaluation Criteria‘s 3rd bullet point echoes these instructions. However, Section C.5.