EPMES_RFP_-_Q A_ _Amend_to_RFP_10.19.2015.pdf

Ethiopia Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Service (EPMES) Activity

RFP No. SOL-663-15-000016

AMENDMENT TO RFP No. SOL-663-15-000016

1. Item number 9 of the solicitation form (standard form 33), delete “5 copies” and replace it with “0 copies”

2. Item number 9 of the solicitation form (standard form 33), delete 1400 LT local time and replace it with 1600 local time.

3. Section C.7, Gender Consideration, (p. 19) delete the word “Task Order” under the second paragraph and replace it with the word “Contract”.

4. Section F.4.a , Performance Standards, (p. 22) delete in its entirety the second bullet

“Qualitative improvements in district government performance measures related to the intermediate Results expected.”.

5. Section F.4.b – Cost Control/Effectiveness delete the second bullet “Relative percentage of program delivered as income/wages directly to beneficiaries” in its entirety.

6. Section F.5, Final Reports (p. 23), is deleted entirely and replace with the following:

“The Final Report will be submitted within 45 calendar days after the completion date of the contract.”

7. Section F.6.2, Activity M&E Plan (p. 25) DUE DATE is deleted entirely and replace with the following:

“DUE DATE: The Contractor will submit a draft activity-level M&E Plan no later than 90 days after the baseline assessment is submitted and approved.”

8. Section F.6.6.ii, Quarterly Financial Reports (p. 26) is deleted in its entirety and replace with the following:

“The Contractor will send quarterly financial reports 30 days after the end of each quarter to the USAID Ethiopia Controller with a copy of the report to COR.”

9. Section F.6.8.i, Final Report – first sentence (p. 26), is deleted entirely and replace with the following:

“Forty (30) days prior to the contract completion date, the Contractor will submit a draft final report to the COR and Program Officer. After review of the draft, the

Contractor will submit a final report prior to the contract completion date.

10. Section F.8.4, Additional Specialized Skills for All Key Personnel (p. 30) delete the work

“that” from the first paragraph. It should read as follows:

“The Key Personnel must demonstrate an ability to effectively interact with local professionals, international donors, host government counterparts, and other implementing partners; effectively work and adapt to changing security, political, or working environments; manage complex contracts or projects; possess relevant performance management experience; and, a history of providing quality technical services in their area of expertise.” It appears something is missing after “contracts or projects that”. Please clarify what is missing, if anything.

11. Section L.6a, Delivery Instructions (p. 73) is deleted entirely and replace with the following:

“The Offeror will submit the proposal only electronically as follows:

(a) Electronically – internet email with attachments compatible with MS WORD, Excel, Adobe Acrobat in MS Windows environment to Mariamawit Girma, Acquisition and

Assistance Specialist at mgirma@usaid.gov and copy to Anthony E. Amerson at aamerson@usaid.gov.

12. Section L.8.2.c.14 (page 84) and K (pp. 85-86) – delete in its entirety.

13. Section M.3.1 – Technical Approach, (p. 88), Objectives: The correct order of EPMES

Objectives is as follows:

Objective 1 – Evaluation Technical Services

Objective 2 – Performance Monitoring Technical Support Services

Objective 3 – Improved Capacity for Learning and Adapting

Objective 4 – Host-country M&E Capacity Strengthening mailto:mgirma@usaid.gov mailto:aamerson@usaid.gov

OFFERORS QUESTIONS and USAID RESPONSES

1. Page 25, Section F.6.2 Activity M&E Plan states: “The Contractor must explain within its proposal how it will measure contract deliverables in the target regions. Innovative approaches and creative technologies to monitor and track the activity progress and achievements are encouraged. At a minimum, all physical infrastructures must be geo-located and tracked using a GIS. After award the Contractor will finalize an M&E Plan and submit to the COR for approval.”

Can you please confirm that a brief discussion of measurement approaches within the technical proposal is sufficient to respond to this requirement?

USAID Response: As stated in the RFP, innovative approaches and creative technologies to monitor and track the activity progress and achievements are encouraged. It will be up to the Offeror, within its proposal, to determine a sufficient response to this requirement.

2. On page 75, Section L.7 requires the proposal to be in Times New Roman 11pt font. Will

USAID consider graphics, tables, charts/graphs, and their respective captions, to be in smaller font as long as it is clearly legible?

USAID Response: It is clearly stated in Section L.7 that using fonts smaller than what has been specified in the RFP is possible if and only if the document is part of the

Annex.

3. Page 75, Section L.7, Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal states: “Not included in the page limitation are the following and should be included as annexes to the technical proposal:

· Table of contents

· Graphs, charts, cover pages, dividers, and

· Attachments…”

Can you please confirm that the table of contents should be located at the beginning of the

Technical Proposal and not in an annex?

USAID Response: The Table of Contents should be located at the beginning of the technical proposal. Consistent with the instruction on page 75, Section L.7 the Table of

Contents will not be included in the page limitation.

4. The RFP contains different references to personnel and skills matrices, indicated below

(underline):

· Page 75, Section L.7 Instructions for preparation of the Technical Proposal, in the list of items that are excluded from the page limit, 3rd bullet: “Attachments (i.e. key personnel resumes, tables summarizing qualifications of proposed personnel, personnel statements of availability, bio data sheets, organizational structure and human resource management matrix, work plan).

· Page 77, Section L.7.2.a, Key Personnel - “Offeror must provide as an annex a matrix of all personnel, relevant skills they bring to the implementation of this Statement of

Work, and the percentage of time they will work on this activity.”

· Page 79 Section L.7.3.b, Management Plan – “This section may refer to an annex to the Technical Proposal that contains a matrix of all significant personnel, relevant skills the personnel bring to the performance of this Statement of Work, and the percentage of time they will work on this contract.”

We have the following related questions:

a. Can you please confirm that the four references to tables and matrices underlined above are all one and the same document?

b. Can you please confirm that the matrix should be provided for “significant personnel”

(i.e. key personnel and other significant long-term positions)?

c. If different matrices are required, could you please provide additional clarification regarding the difference between the matrices?

USAID Response: In the proposal Offerors must include two matrices. One matrix will highlight proposed Key Personnel, the relevant skills they bring to the implementation of the Statement of Work, and the percentage of time they will work on this contract.

The second matrix, for the Management Plan, will include ALL SIGNIFICANT

PERSONNEL, relevant skills the personnel bring to the performance of this Statement of Work, and the percentage of time they will work on this contract. The second matrix identifies the draft staffing plan for the contract, including home office staff and consultants.

5. On page 79, Section L.7.2.3b (Management Plan) requires that, in an annex, the offeror “must describe the primary responsibilities of each staff person that will possess significant responsibilities during the contract’s implementation.” Meanwhile, in Section L.7.2.3b.1

(Overall Management Plan), USAID requests that the offeror “must provide and describe [in the technical]… b) organizational structure, including a full staffing plan for the project, with a description of the primary responsibilities of each staff person that will play a major role in the project.”

To avoid duplication, will USAID allow the offeror to detail the primary responsibilities of each staff person that will play a major/significant role in the project to be in the annex only, rather than in both the technical and annex?

USAID Response: Within the Technical Proposal, Offerors must present their proposed Management Plan, including sub-sections, to fulfill the requirements of the

Contract. As stated in the RFP, on page 79, “This section may refer to an annex to the

Technical Proposal that contains a matrix of all significant personnel, relevant skills the personnel bring to the performance of this Statement of Work, and the percentage of time they will work on this contract”.

6. On page 79, Section L.7.2.3b.1 (Overall Management Plan) states that the offeror “must provide and describe [in the technical]… [an] organizational structure, including a full staffing plan for the project.” However, Section L.7 states that the organizational structure is an attachment that should be provided in an annex. Would USAID prefer the organizational chart to be placed in the technical or in an annex?

USAID Response: See response to Question #5.

7. On page 79, In Section L.7.2b.1 (Use of Local Assistance), the RFP states that the technical will describe how “the Offeror plans to use locally-hired, long-term resident advisors, consultants and international consultants. The Offeror will discuss how it will maximize the use

[of] Ethiopian professionals in the leadership and management of this contract.” Section M.3.2 lists illustrative considerations for the Personnel and Management Structure criterion, including a “commitment to using Ethiopian and regional professionals who hold positions in the management and implementation of this project.”

Does USAID require that the offeror discuss plans for using international consultants or regional consultants in the Use of Local Assistance section?

USAID Response: Please reference USAID’s standard definition of Local Assistance and the requirement outlined in the RFP to prepare your response. This information can be found via USAID’s website, www.usaid.gov.

8. On page 80, Section L.7.3 Past Performance, it states: “In the Annexes, Offerors will include a matrix that: (i) lists no more than three (3) current or recent contracts and sub-contracts that are relevant and similar in subject matter, size, statement, and complexity to the Statement of Work above and (ii) lists all contracts with USAID that are currently on-going or that have ended within three years of the date of the issuance of this solicitation. This information should be provided for Offerors as well as for each of the proposed major sub-offerors.”

We have the following related questions:

a. Can you please confirm that the 3 past performance references would be up to 3 for the prime plus up to 3 for each major sub-offeror?

b. The matrix listed in point (ii) requests information on ALL contracts with USAID for the past 3 years. That list would include thousands of contracts which would seem difficult to review. Could you please either:

i. Delete the requirement for the second matrix, or

ii. Limit the number of contracts that should be included, e.g. a maximum of 10?

c. Can you please confirm that (if required) only the prime is required to provide the second matrix?

USAID Response: Please review and follow the instructions in Section L.7.3.

9. Can you please confirm that USAID wishes discussion of past performance to be included in the Technical Proposal as well as in the annexes (in the 3 PPRs/matrices)?

USAID Response: Yes.

10. Page 79, Section L.7.2., last paragraph, Overall Management Plan, can you please confirm that the entire discussion of the Overall Management Plan is supposed to be in an annex rather than in the 30-page Technical Proposal?

USAID Response: See response to Question #5.

11. Page 77, Section L.7.2 Personnel and Management Plan, (a) Key Personnel, states: “The

Offeror should also include, in the annex, resumes, biographical datasheets and letters of commitment for each Key Personnel.

However, biographical datasheets include salary history and proposed salaries for personnel, which is cost information that should not be referenced in the Technical Proposal. Can you please confirm that biographical datasheets should be included in the Cost Proposal and not in the Technical Proposal?

USAID Response: Include these items as annexes to the technical proposal as per the instructions in Section L.7.2.

12. We have the following questions that could help orient all Offerors as to scale, and to ensure that all are proposing on the same requirements:

a) Can you provide an estimate or assumption of the number of indicators for which the offeror will need to collect baseline data?

b) Can you provide an estimate or assumption of how many of these would require large scale surveys?

c) Can you provide an estimate or assumption of the total number of assessments and special studies that will be required?

USAID Response: The contractor will receive further guidance on the number of indicators to be included for baseline data collection after the award is made.

Offerors can estimate that a total of 5 baseline assessments and special studies will be required by USAID for each year of the award. The final number will be determined by USAID after the award is made.

13. Section C.3: USAID states that performance and impact evaluations will support the achievement of project results as defined in the CDCS. USAID/Ethiopia’s CDCS is set to expire in 2015.

Does USAID expect a realignment of EPMAS objectives and outcomes to reflect any revisions of development objectives, intermediate results, and results framework after the lapse of the current CDCS and approval of the new strategy document?

Can USAID provide advice on how the contractor will be expected to carry out studies and other work that will contribute to development of the strategy document?

USAID Response: This contract is meant to provide technical services to

USAID/Ethiopia across the Mission’s CDCS Development Objectives. Changes in the

CDCS will not impact the objectives of EPMES contract. Sector specific analysis, cross-cutting (youth, gender, environment, etc) analysis, synthesis of secondary data/studies, performance/impact evaluations on selected projects/activities are the expected work of the Contractor for learning in general and for development of the

CDCS.

14. Section C.3: USAID/Ethiopia states that the EPMES Contractor will support IPs and

Mission staff for ongoing use of the Agency’s portfolio management system(s), including

AID Tracker Plus (AT+). Furthermore, USAID states that USAID/Ethiopia is “ One of 8 pilot missions to adapt AT= which will be used for performance monitoring of activities across all sectors, as well as to inform portfolio reviews and annual reporting.” Could

USAID provide more details on whether or not the contractor is expected to collaborate with other pilot Missions using AT+ to provide analyses on the extent to which the management system are effective at analyzing performance?

USAID Response: This Contract does not require the contractor to collaborate with other AT+ pilot missions. The Contractor rather needs to collaborate with

USAID/Ethiopia staff with regard to the management and use of AT+.

15. Section C. Given the impact of intervening variables upon outcomes of project performance and impact, would USAID please provide references to other major donor interventions that have an impact upon outcomes of USAID programs? This might take the form of table.

USAID Response: USAID is unable to provide this information at this time.

16. Section C and Section F: Could USAID please clarify if deliverables are for the base period of performance or the base period ANDthe 3 one-year option periods? What are the numbers of anticipate baseline studies, performance evaluations and impact evaluations to be completed in the 2 year base period vs. the three one-year option periods?

USAID Response: As explained in the RFP, USAID estimates 5 performance evaluations and 2 impact evaluation per year. These are estimates and not exact numbers; the final number of evaluations per year required by USAID/Ethiopia will depends on the needs of the Mission.

17. Section F.8: USAID indicates that “The COP must possess appropriate interpersonal skills to satisfy the requirements of the position.” Would USAID kindly clarify how “ appropriate interpersonal skills” will be assessed and evaluated within the context of the RfP?

USAID Response: When the offeror proposes Key personnel, it is USAID’s understanding that these people have been interviewed/assessed and the offeror proposed them with good understanding of their interpersonal skills. USAID will evaluate the appropriateness of the interpersonal skills of key personnel based upon their CV and other supportive documents, in particular the matrix of all key personnel. USAID may also check and verify the appropriateness of key personnel by contacting their references.

18. The EPMES emphasizes participation of local Implementing Partners:

Is there a percentage of work under this contract that is earmarked for local contractors?

USAID Response: No.

Could USAID clarify if exclusive relationships with local Monitoring and Evaluation

(M&E) partners are allowed?

USAID Response: As long as the envisioned relationship is related to meeting the objectives of this Contract, it is allowed to have an exclusive relationship with local Monitoring and

Evaluation (M&E) partners

Are grants under contract or other methods for contracting with local entities allowed under this award after implementation has started?

USAID Response: Any sub-contracting with local entities planned under EPMES should be demonstrated or presented in the Offeror’s proposal. Sub-contracting after implementation has started is not allowed. Any and all sub-contracting must be in-line with the regulations for such activities as written in ADS 302. Grants under Contract is not authorized under the prospective Contract.

19. Section L.7:

USAID indicates that attachments are not included in the 30 page limit to the technical proposal. Could USAID clarify if there is a page limit imposed on attachments?

Concerning the technical proposal submission requirements, would USAID accept font sizes smaller than 11 point New Times Roman font in tables.

Could USAID clarify if end notes are counted in the technical proposal’s 30 page limit?

What percentage of the contract costs classify a subcontractor as a “major” subcontractor?

USAID Response: There is no page limit for annexes. It is clearly stated in Section L.7 that using fonts smaller than what has been specified in the RFP is possible if and only if the document is part of the annexes. End notes will be counted as part of the technical proposal’s 30 page limit.

USAID Response: The Offeror is to determine its major or minor sub-contractors depending on the volume of the work performed.

20. Section L.8: Are non-Ethiopian subcontractors without a NICRA able to fully cost-out indirect costs?

USAID Response: Yes, however you need to provide basis of application of your proposed indirect cost rate in your budget narrative. Final Indirect rate will be determined by the Contracting Officer.

21. We would greatly appreciate a list of acronyms.

USAID Response: USAID is unable to provide a list of acronyms at this time. All acronyms used in the EPMES RFP are spelled out in the text.

22. Please clarify the order of Objectives 1 and 2.

In B.4 Budget (RFP p.8), throughout Section C, and in Section L, the objectives are listed as:

Objective 1 – Evaluation Technical Services

Objective 2 – Performance Monitoring Technical Support Services

Objective 3 – Improved Capacity for Learning and Adapting

Objective 4 – Host-country M&E Capacity Strengthening

In Section M.3.1 Criterion 1 – Technical Approach, p. 89, Objectives 1 and 2 are reversed and the objectives are listed as:

Objective 1 – Performance Monitoring Technical Support Services

Objective 2 – Evaluation Technical Services

Objective 3 – Improved Capacity for Learning and Adapting

Objective 4 – Host-country M&E Capacity Strengthening

USAID Response: See Amendment

23. Please clarify the number of evaluations required per year and over the life of the project.

See Section C.5.1 Expected Contract Services (p.12):“USAID/Ethiopia estimates the need for five (5) performance evaluations and per year for the next five years and a total of two

(2) impact evaluations over the next five years.

Is this a total of 25 performance evaluations (5 per year) plus 2 impact evaluations for a total of 27 evaluations for the life of the project?

USAID Response: Please see response to Question #16.

24. Please clarify the number and types of G2G activities expected to need evaluations and types of evaluations.

Section C.5.1.a, p. 13, states: “The Contractor’s evaluations of government-to-government

(G2G) awards may utilize specialized approaches...”

USAID Response: Any G2G evaluation would be included in the total number of evaluations forecasted in the response to Question #16. At this time USAID has no

G2G awards with FY 2014 funds.

25. Please indicate the Technical Office M&E Support contracts in-progress with which the

EPMES implementer will be expected to share information.

See Section C.5.1.a, p. 13: “Information sharing between EPMES and other Technical

Office M&E support contracts is encouraged…”

USAID Response: USAID/Ethiopia currently has M&E-related support contracts in place with Tufts University (AKLDP) and the Kaizen Company (LCD) and American

Institutes for Research (READ-M&E). The EPMES contractor will also share information with organizations that receive new M&E awards from USAID/Ethiopia during the EPMES contract’s period of performance.

26. What assistance will the COR provide, if any, in connecting the EPMES contractor with

“other Technical Office M&E support contracts?”

See Section C.5.1.d, p. 17: “The EPMES contract will operate independently of other new or on-going stand-alone M&E support and assistance mechanisms for local and host-country organizations managed by USAID/Ethiopia Development Objective Teams/Technical

Offices. Information sharing between EPMES and other Technical Office M&E support contracts is encouraged…”

USAID Response: The EPMES COR will work through the CORs of the Mission’s other M&E-related support contracts to connect implementing partners when necessary.

27. Please confirm that technical briefs are an expected outcome under this contract and clarify projected number of technical briefs to be produced.

See Section C.6, p. 18 states, “Number of technical briefs of innovative M&E methods and/or good practices produced and disseminated to other USAID Missions…”

USAID Response: Technical briefs are expected as a product under EPMES. For purposes of proposal development, Offerors may estimate that technical briefs will be required on a quarterly basis, however during award implementation; the EPMES

COR may request them more often.

28. Please clarify nature of EPMES work with the district governments related to expected intermediate results.

See Section F.4.a [Performance Standards], p. 22: “Qualitative improvements in district government performance measures related to the intermediate Results expected.”

USAID Response: See Amendment

29. Please clarify the nature of the technical assistance to be given to GoE entities.

See Section F.4.a [Performance Standards], p. 22: “Quality and effectiveness of Technical

Assistance given to GoE Entities and other partner organizations”

USAID Response: USAID may direct the contractor to provide M&E related capacity building to partner government entities, on a limited basis, such as one-off training workshops or through the organization of learning/knowledge sharing events.

30. Please clarify nature of the interactions with beneficiaries.

See Section F.4.b [Performance Standards], p. 22: “Relative percentage of program delivered as income/wages directly to beneficiaries.”

USAID Response: See Amendment

31. Please provide additional information about the contract deliverables and performance requirements in the following statement on Section F.6.2, p. 25:

“The Contractor must explain within its proposal how it will measure contract deliverables in the target regions… At a minimum, all physical infrastructures must be geo-located and tracked using a GIS.”

USAID Response: For the purposes of the EPMES contract, “targeted regions” may be defined as any geographic region of Ethiopia where interventions are being implemented with USAID funds. “Physical infrastructures” may be defined as any infrastructure constructed or improved using USAID funds.

32. Please clarify the nature and number of the required baseline assessments referred to in

Section F.6.2, p. 25, as follows:

“DUE DATE: The Contractor will submit a draft activity-level M&E Plan no later than 60 days after the baseline assessment is submitted and approved.”

USAID Response: See Amendment

33. Please clarify the years of supervisory experience required for DCOP candidates.

Section F.8.2, p.29, states: “Possesses at least eight (6) years of supervisory experience.”

USAID Response: USAID requires that the DCOP for EPMES has at a minimum eight

(8) years of supervisory experience.

34. Please clarify the DCOP Experience Requirement which includes “possesses at least three

(3) years of Monitoring and Evaluation Experience”. Since this position is to support the

COP and targeted as administrative, should this requirement be applied to the COP instead?

See Section L.72, p. 78.

USAID Response: USAID requires that the DCOP for EPMES has at a minimum three years of M&E experience.

35. In the following passage in Section F.8.4, p. 30, it appears information is missing after the words manage complex contracts or projects that ….Please clarify:

“The Key Personnel must demonstrate an ability to effectively interact with local professionals, international donors, host government counterparts, and other implementing partners; effectively work and adapt to changing security, political, or working environments; manage complex contracts or projects that; possess relevant performance management experience; and, a history of providing quality technical services in their area of expertise.” It appears something is missing after “contracts or projects that”. Please clarify what is missing, if anything.

USAID Response: See Amendment

36. For document flow, please confirm that the table of contents, graphs, charts, cover pages, and dividers do not need to be included as annexes as stipulated in Section L.7, p. 75.

“Not included in the page limitation are the following and should be included as annexes to the technical proposal:

Table of contents, Graphs, charts, cover pages, dividers, and

Attachments (i.e. key personnel resumes, tables summarizing qualifications of proposed personnel, personnel statements of availability, bio data sheets, organizational structure and human resource management matrix, work plan).”

USAID Response: The Table of Contents should be located at the beginning of the technical proposal. Consistent with the instruction on page 75, Section L.7 the Table of

Contents will not be included in the page limitation. Section L.7. clearly states what should be included as an annex.

37. Please clarify the requirements in the cost proposal for Environmental Mitigation and

Monitoring—both required cost information about and technical approach for achieving environmental management and compliance and providing environmental management expertise.

See Section L.8.2.c.14, page 84: “Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring – The Offeror should reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring.”

And pp. 84-85: “(k) Offerors to the RFP must include as part of their cost proposal their approach to achieving environmental compliance and management, to include:

1. The respondent’s approach to developing and implementing an IEE or EA or environmental review process for a grant fund and/or an EMMP or M&M Plan.

2. The respondent’s approach to providing necessary environmental management expertise, Including examples of past experience of environmental management of similar activities.

3. The Offerors must provide an illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities. For the purposes of this solicitation, Offerors should reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal.”

USAID Response: See Amendment

38. Please clarify the difference between sub criteria and sub factors. Will sub factors be weighted in the evaluation process and please provide the point scale for sub factors if so.

See Sections M.3, p. 88, and M.3.2.b, p. 92.

USAID Response: Sub-criteria pertain to the technical evaluation of the proposal. Sub-factors pertain to cost evaluation of the proposal. The cost evaluation of the proposal has no points attached. Cost is assessed for reasonableness.

39. Will USAID accept a font size smaller than 11 pitch, Times New Roman for text in text boxes, charts, tables, and graphics?

USAID Response: Please see responses to Questions #2 and 19.

40. Please confirm that bio/biographical data sheets only need to be provided in the cost proposal.

Section L.6a, p.74 states that the technical proposal must not make any reference to cost data so that the technical evaluation may be made strictly on the basis of technical merits.

However, section L.7 (page 75) asks that bio data sheets be attached to the technical proposal. Section L.8.2 (page 82) states that as part of the cost proposal, biographical data sheets are required for all key personnel and professional positions expected to perform on the contract.

USAID Response: Include these items as annexes to the technical proposal as per the instructions in Section L.7.2.

41. Please clarify if past performance information should be presented using a matrix or the contractor performance report form.

Section L.7.3 (page 80) states that the technical proposal must include a past performance matrix and it lists the information that should be provided in the matrix. Attachment II of the RFP provides the contractor performance report form.

USAID Response: RFP Attachment II, Contractor Performance Report should be completely filled out and submitted. Information from this report can be utilized by the Offeror to complete the matrix in Section L.7.3.

42. Section L.7.3 (p. 80) asks for three (3) past performance references. Is it acceptable to provide 3 past performance references for major subcontractors in addition to the three for the prime offeror, or are bidders limited to three (3) in total?

USAID Response: Please review and follow the instructions in Section L.7.3.

43. Section C.5.1, the Statement of Work (pp. 12 and 14) and Section L.7.1 (p. 76) both list

Evaluation Technical Services as Objective 1, and Performance Monitoring Technical

Support Services as Objective 2. Section M3.1. (p. 89) lists them in the reverse order.

Which order does USAID prefer?

USAID Response: See USAID’s response to Question #22.

44. The RFP states that the USAID Ethiopia Mission is one pilot country for AIDTracker Plus

(AT+). Approximately how far is the AT+ completed in its development at the Mission and would the awardee be expected to provide any services related to improving AT+ for the

Mission? For example, has GIS and GPS capacity already been incorporated into AT+ at the

Mission?

USAID Response: System improvements to AT+ are not envisioned as part of the SOW of the EPMES contractor at this time.

45. Have any baseline data for the performance indicators in the Mission PMP been collected to date by the implementing partners or by USAID staff? If so, can you specify which indicators have baseline data?

USAID Response: See responses to Questions #12 and #16.

46. Can USAID offer an approximate/expected number of baseline data collections, and special studies/assessments (on pp. 13-14) under Objective 1 that will be required over the five years of the EPMES contract to inform the staffing and costing proposed?

USAID Response: Please see responses to Questions #12 and #16.

47. Overall, can USAID provide some estimate of how the overall contract effort/resources is expected to be utilized across the four objectives to inform the staffing and costing proposed?

USAID Response: Each objective of EPMES is considered by USAID to be equally important. The LOE for each objective will be based on Mission needs.

48. Section F.6.2 states “The Contractor must explain within its proposal how it will measure contract deliverables in the target regions. Innovative approaches and creative technologies to monitor and track the activity progress and achievements are encouraged. At a minimum, all physical infrastructures must be geo-located and tracked using a GIS.” Please clarify

USAID’s intention in referring to “contract deliverables in the target regions” and “physical infrastructure”. Does this refer to M&E data that the EPMES contractor might be tasked with collecting under the contract or something else?

USAID Response: See USAID’s response to Question #31.

49. In Section F.6.2 also, please specify which USAID Standard Foreign Assistance indicators apply under this contract, given that the purpose of the contract is not program implementation (for example, are there certain cross-cutting indicators that the EPMES contractor will be responsible for tracking?).

USAID Response: The EPMES contractor will receive further guidance from the

USAID COR as to what (if any) Standard Indicators may apply to this contract after the award is made while the activity M&E Plan is under development.

50. In terms of the requirements and position responsibilities for key personnel described in

Section F.8, is USAID open to alternative staffing structures that more efficiently meet the requirements listed by distributing certain responsibilities to less costly team members (who would also be designated as key personnel)?

USAID Response: Please follow the instructions in the RFP pertaining to Key

Personnel.

51. Based on our review of Section C and 22 CFR 216, it appears that work under this contract is not subject to the requirements of Section 216.3 and thus no contract resources need to be programmed for the purposes of environmental review or compliance. Please confirm that this is correct or clarify what aspects of environmental review and compliance should be incorporated in the response to the solicitation.

USAID Response: Under Objective 2: Performance Monitoring Technical Support

Services of the EPMES contract, the contractor may be called upon to assist

USAID/Ethiopia with the logistics of environmental compliance site visits to monitor the Mission’s activities and the compliance of those activities with CFR 216. Budgeting for EPMES would support the logistics of monitoring site visits on behalf of the

Mission’s programming across sectors. The EPMES activity itself has applied for a

Categorical Exclusion.

52. Could USAID indicate how the performance monitoring and evaluation support will be allocated across the 6 technical offices in the Mission, in light of the anticipated

TRANSFORM M&E award and to help estimate the sector specific expertise that will be required under EPMES?

USAID Response: The Mission’s technical offices are funded at different levels based on U.S. appropriations that vary by fiscal year. Currently, the Mission’s most heavily funded office is HAPN, followed by (in descending order), ALT, EG&T, BES and DG.

The Mission’s budgetary information is available to the public on the internet.

53. Will the Mission allow contractors to submit additional annexes as deemed appropriate to demonstrate capabilities of the team/components of the Technical Approach?

USAID Response: Contractors are not forbidden from submitting additional Annexes, although the Mission makes no guarantee additional Annexes will be reviewed or considered.

54. Given that the proposed role and responsibilities of the Deputy Chief of Party position are entirely administrative, would the Mission consider removing the preferred qualification of

“experience serving as Principal/Lead Investigator/Team Leader on USAID-funded evaluation(s) preferred” and requirement for “strong technical knowledge performance monitoring and evaluation”? Serving in these roles and possessing this knowledge would require much more than the three (3) years of M&E experience prescribed in the RFP, and hence, would make for a technical background, as opposed to the management background needed to conduct the outlined responsibilities.

USAID Response: The description of the DCOP position for EPMES remains the same as was posted in the original solicitation on September 24, 2015.

55. In Section L.7.2, on page 78, the list of illustrative responsibilities of the Deputy Chief of

Party includes the “management of all financial and administrative aspects of the project, including procurement, grants…” Could the Mission please clarify if it anticipates that the

Contractor will need to issue and administer grants? If so, could the Mission provide more information on the nature of the anticipated grants?

USAID Response: This is dependent on the contractor’s approach to fulfilling the objectives of the EPMES contract. USAID does not require that the EPMES contractor issue or administer sub-grants or sub-contracts as part of the EPMES award. Any sub-contracts issued under EPMES must be in compliance with USAID regulations as written in ADS 302 and 303.

56. Page 13 of the RFP references the sharing of all datasets. Can USAID confirm that this refers only to raw quantitative data rather than all qualitative transcripts; and does not include any personally identifiable information?

USAID Response: Upon request, the contractor will submit to USAID quantitative data sets and qualitative transcripts created in the execution of a USAID-funded evaluation, study, survey, assessment, etc. The contractor will submit this information to USAID in machine-readable format, scrubbed of all PII. Please see ADS 579 for more information.

57. Could the Mission please provide more information, such as the anticipated timing or sectors, on the estimated two (2) impact evaluations?

USAID Response: Two impact evaluations are estimated to be required during the period of performance of this contract – but this number is notional at this time. No additional or more specific information is currently available as to the nature of the two notional impact evaluations.

58. To help inform budgeting, please clarify if USAID anticipates the two impact evaluations to entail a nationally representative sample or a sample specific to certain regions or districts?

USAID Response: See USAID’s response to Question #57.

59. Page 13 of the RFP says that “there will also be instances where the EPMES Contractor will be asked to support the Mission to collect baseline data for certain indicators.” Could the

Mission please clarify what this “support” entails? Will the Contractor be expected to collect and/or analyze baseline data?

USAID Response: Yes. See also USAID’s response to Questions #12 and #60.

60. Page 15 of the RFP says that the Contractor will “support data collection of cross-cutting indicators.” Could the Mission please clarify which types of support is expected under this contract (large scale data collection, planning, analysis, and/or other)?

USAID Response: Support is anticipated but not limited to the following; data collection (from a limited number of USAID-funded activities), data analysis and reporting writing, data entry, field site visit logistics – planning and execution.

61. Page 13 of the RFP references evaluations of government-to-government (G2G) awards.

Could USAID please provide additional information regarding these G2G awards?

USAID Response: See response to Question #24.

62. On page 84 and pages 85-86, the RFP requires an “approach to developing and implementing an IEE or EA or environmental review process for a grant fund and/or an

EMMP or M&E Plan,” as well as corresponding expertise and budget information. Per

USAID’s Environmental Compliance Procedures (22 CFR 216), the activities described in this Scope of Work (i.e. technical assistance, training, education, analyses, studies, workshops, meetings, and document and information transfers) are identified for Categorical

Exclusions. Can USAID please confirm that Offerors do not need to address instruction #14 on page 84 or instruction K on pages 85-86?

USAID Response: See response to Question #37.

63. Page 15 of the RFP references crowd-sourcing. Could the Mission please clarify whether they are referring to SMS data collection, social media analysis, or something else?

USAID Response: USAID welcomes proposals from Offerors as to how they define and how they would implement methods of data collection like crowd-sourcing.

64. On page 80, the Past Performance instructions request a matrix that lists three (3) relevant and similar contracts and all on-going or recent contracts with USAID. Does USAID require that Offerors include all on-going or recent contracts or can Offerors select a representative number of projects to include?

USAID Response: Please review and follow the instructions in Section L.7.3.

On page 80, the Past Performance instructions request a “list in an annex…three (3) past performance references.” Can you please clarify if USAID would like this information included within the above-referenced matrix or if Offerors should include it separately using the RFP’s Attachment II?

USAID Response: See USAID’s response to Question #41.

65. In the SOW and Technical Proposal Instructions, the RFP refers to “Evaluation Technical

Services” as Objective 1 and “Performance Monitoring Technical Support Services” as

Objective 2. However, the Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria (Section M.3.1) states that Objective 1 is “Performance Monitoring Technical Support Services” and Objective 2 is

“Evaluation Technical Services.” Can USAID please confirm that it would like Offerors to use the delineation provided in the Evaluation Criteria?

USAID Response: See USAID’s response to Question #22.

66. Page 77 of the RFP requests “a matrix of all personnel, relevant skills they bring to the implementation of this Statement of Work, and the percentage of time they will work on this activity.” Then, page 79 says the Management Plan section “may refer to an annex to the

Technical Proposal that contains a matrix of all significant personnel, relevant skills the personnel bring to the performance of this Statement of Work, and the percentage of time they will work on this contract.” Can USAID please confirm that these instructions are referring to the same matrix, and it is to only include “significant personnel”?

USAID Response: Please see response to Question #4.

67. To allow offerors to comply with Page 14 (b)(9) which requires “data transfer procedures and define methods of storing and verifying data” can USAID provide either access to

AIDtracker plus or provide additional technical specifications on the AIDtracker. This would include but not be limited the type of program, guidance on API, security protocols that would need to be followed. Without this information offerors would not be able to provide a robust solution.

USAID Response: The contractor will receive access to AT+ after the award is made. A robust solution to potential issues of data transfer and verification are not required to be submitted as part of the EPMES proposal.

68. On page 12, C.3 USAID mentions six technical offices. Can USAID either provide a list of active awards by each office or at the minimum provide an indication of which office will need more M&E resources over the life of the award.

USAID Response: See USAID’s response to Question #52.

69. On page 13 (2), the solicitation states “the database is to be made available to USAID/

Ethiopia and US Government counterparts”. It’s not clear how this database would be used. In order for the contractor to meet objective 1(a), it will need full control of the database to assign consultants to projects. Please clarify how this task will complement c.5.1(a). Also please clarify who are US Government counterparts.

USAID Response: Such a database would be provided to GOE and USG interagency counterparts (i.e., Departments of State, Treasury, Agriculture, Defense, etc.) in read-only format, with only USAID and the contractor retaining Administrator rights. The existence of a database comprised of consultants with M&E expertise will allow USAID to meet its performance monitoring and evaluation objectives in accordance with

Agency policy.

70. Does USAID/E have an in-house comprehensive PMP data base that supplements

AIDTracker+ and which needs to be better maintained and/or rebuilt, or does USAID want a new system created from scratch?

USAID Response: Currently, the AT+ system serves as the Mission’s performance management database. There is no separate database for USAID/Ethiopia’s performance management data at this time and it is not envisioned that a new performance management database will be created under the EPMES award.

71. Does USAID have a GIS in-house or need one built to their parameters?

USAID Response: Under the EPMES contract, it is envisioned that the contractor will provide basic GIS support to USAID/Ethiopia, such as the collection of GIS data and

GPS coordinates, cleaning of such data and the creation of multi-layered maps relevant to USAID programming. USAID/Ethiopia will have in-house GIS analytical capabilities.

72. Who are the GOE’s key USAID counterparts/stakeholders on priority projects and general

M&E issues? How is the relationship going…what issues to they have with USAID?

USAID Response: USAID engages with a range of GOE partners in a number of different GOE Ministries, including but not limited to MOFED, MOH, MOA, ATA, MOE, MOWIE, MOWCYA, etc.

73. How does USAID develop context indicators – limited in-house capacity or use local research organizations on contract?

USAID Response: USAID welcomes proposals from Offerors as to how they will support USAID to develop context indicators when needed.

74. Will USAID do needs assessments on M&E capacities in-house or expect the IP to do so?

USAID Response: USAID will call upon the EPMES contractor to perform needs assessments when determined necessary by the Mission. The EPMES contactor will be informed in advance of USAID’s intent to begin a needs assessment.

75. Is USAID currently using any scorecards of capacity assessment or would USAID want the IP to provide/use such?

USAID Response: Please refer to the Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) tool.

76. C.5.1 Expected Contract Service (a) Evaluation Technical Services (Objective 1)

Can the government please provide an overview of the number of site visits required per project within each of the 7 program areas? Are we meant to conduct site visits weekly, bi-monthly, monthly, quarterly, or annually?

USAID Response: The number of site visits on which USAID will require logistical support on the part of the contractor will be determined on a quarterly basis in collaboration with the EPMES contractor, the COR and the

Mission’s technical offices.

77. C.5.1 Expected Contract Service (a) Evaluation Technical Services (Objective 1)

Can the government tell us how many beneficiaries there will be for each project within each of the 7 program areas do we need to engage?

USAID Response: USAID is unable to provide this information. Please see responses to

Questions #12 and #16 for more information on the number of evaluations and assessments estimated under this contract.

78. C.5.1 Expected Contract Service (a) Evaluation Technical Services (Objective 1)

Can the government please identify and define the types of M&E activities required per site visit at each of the projects within each of the 7 program areas?

USAID Response: Examples of M&E activities at each site visit may include but are not limited to; review of partners’ internal records/reports, DQA, follow-up assessment of an organization’s specific M&E-related skills or capabilities.

79. C.5.1 Expected Contract Service (a) Evaluation Technical Services (Objective 1)

Does the government require an overview of the service provider’s quality assurance and quality control plans for data collection and analysis?

USAID Response: Not required at this time.

80. C.5.1 Expected Contract Service (a) Evaluation Technical Services (Objective 1)

Does the government intend for the service provider to design all M&E data collection protocols and methodologies?

USAID Response: Not all. USAID does expect that the contractor will perform some design of M&E data collection protocols and methodologies, as directed by USAID.

81. C.5.1 Expected Contract Service (a) Evaluation Technical Services (Objective 1)

Can the government tell us if there are any special precautions they would want us to take when engaging with the beneficiaries during site visits?

USAID Response: This question can be answered after the award is made, and would be determined by the location of individual site visits.

82. C.5.1 Expected Contract Service (a) Evaluation Technical Services (Objective 1)

Will the government provide the scope and method of qualitative data collection (i.e. How many actual beneficiaries does the customer want us to survey/interview/include in focus groups, and what method of analysis do they want us to use – Most Significant Change

Method, Ink Spot Method, etc?) per site?

USAID Response: The Offeror (or its designated and USAID-approved consultant) will propose the scope after consultative meetings with the EPMES and other cognizant USAID COR(s).

83. C.5.1 Expected Contract Service (a) Evaluation Technical Services (Objective 1)

Can the government please specify the desired statistical confidence rate in sample sizes

(95%, 90%, 80% < 80%)?

USAID Response: USAID…