Amendment_02_to_LAVI-_Qs As.pdf

ATTACHMENT (2)

AMENDMENT (2) TO SOLICITATION SOL-669-15-000014 LAVI

Part A. Specific changes to SOL-669-15-000014 LAVI is summarized as follows:

1. Changes to Section B

In Section B.4. “BUDGET” Deleted the budget f igure “4,500,000”.

2. Changes to Section C

In Section C.3.2 “DETAILED WORK REQUIREMENTS”, under “Objective 1:

Strengthen horizontal and vertical linkages among actors engaged in similar issues”

Deleted the sentence “USAID anticipates that at least two of the themes will be fully designed, with grant processes initiated for at least one theme, by the end of Year.”

And replaced with “USAID anticipates that at least two of the themes will be fully designed, with grant processes initiated for at least one theme, by the end of Year 1.”

Under “Objective 4: Ensure that learning and methodologies are shared and applied by other development actors”

Deleted the second bullet point reading that “• To provide a platform for dialogue among partners on contentious issues such as issues related to targeted reforms and to develop a common stance;” in its entirety.

In Section C.3.4 “MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES”, under

“Support Project Advisory Council Functioning”

Deleted “the USAID Continuous Learning Advisor (CLA)” and replaced with “the USAID

CLA Advisor”

Deleted “In order to encourage local ownership and high-level strategic oversight of the program,” and replaced with “In order to encourage local ownership and high-level strategic direction of the program,…”.

Deleted “Indicative composition includes three eminent Liberians, including at least one representing grass roots constituencies,…” and replaced with “Indicative composition includes three eminent Liberians, including at least one drawn from grass roots constituencies,…”

3. Changes to Section J

In Section J, the following documents are now attached to the amended solicitation and are listed in Section J.

1. Local Compensation Table- Effective April 19, 2015

2. Branding and Marking Template

3. Analysis of the mapping Studies for Civil Society organization, November 2012

4. Detailed Budget Template

4. Changes to Section L

In Section L.4.2 “Procedures for E-Mail (electronic) Submission of Proposals” (d), Deleted the email address “MonroviaUSAIDSolicita@usaid.gov” and replaced with “liberiaoaa@usaid.gov ; elamin@usaid.gov; and mmwadime@usaid.gov.”

6 In Section L.7 “Instructions for the Preparation of the Branding Implementation Plan and the Marking Plan”

The Branding and Marking Template is attached to the amended solicitation and referenced at Section J.

In Section L.9 deleted the subheading “Environmental Compliance Cost Preparation” and replaced with the subheading “L.9 Reserved”.

5. Changes to Section M

In Section M – “TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA”, the following sentence is added after the phrase “…, with the major criteria in descending order of importance with their associated evaluation weighting.” “Criteria 2 and 3 are considered equally important.

The elements listed under each criteria are not ranked in any order of importance and instead will be evaluated as a whole in determining the evaluation for each evaluation criteria. Please note that USAID will use an adjectival rating system to rate each evaluation criteria. The adjectival rating for each criteria will be: Outstanding / Good / Acceptable / Marginal / Unacceptable.”

“Section M – “TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA”, the subheading “M.1 Evaluation Criteria” is inserted.

In Section M, “4. Past Performance” is changed to read “4. Past Performance (Important)”

Section M- “TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA”, subheading “Section M.2 Cost Proposal Evaluation” is inserted after “4. Past Performance” mailto:liberiaoaa@usaid.gov mailto:elamin@usaid.gov mailto:mmwadime@usaid.gov

“M.2 Cost Proposal Evaluation Cost proposals will be evaluated, but will not be assigned a rating. The evaluation of the Offeror’s cost proposal shall deal with cost realism analysis. This will consist of a review of the cost portion of the Offeror’s proposal to determine if the overall costs proposed are: 1) realistic for the work to be performed; 2) reflect the Offeror understands of the requirements;

and 3) are consistent with the technical proposal.

Evaluation of cost proposals will consider, but not be limited to the following:

1. Cost realism and completeness of cost proposal and supporting documentation.

2. Overall cost control evidenced by the proposal (such as avoidance of excessive salaries, Excessi ve home office staff visits, and other costs in excess of reasonable requirements).

3. Amount of proposed fee.”

PART B. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1

1. Do graphics, charts, and tables count in the 30 proposal page limit?

Answer:

Yes, graphics, charts and tables count in the 30 page submission. For more information, please Section L, L.5 (d).

Questions 2

2. Is the results framework included in the 30 page limit?

Answer:

The results framework will form part of the 30 page limit.

Question 3

3. Can offerors supply letters of collaboration from Liberian CSO partners in an annex?

Answer:

Yes, offerors may supply letters of collaboration from Liberian CSO partners in an annex.

Question 4

4. Section B.8 makes reference to fixed fee by deliverables on a proposed CPFF/LOE. Can USAID confirm that this fixed fee under this contract will be issued in accordance with billed LOE, rather than deliverables?

Answer:

In accordance with FAR 16.306(d)(2), The fixed fee will be payable at the expiration of the agreed-upon period, and upon contractor statement that the level of effort specified in the contract has been expended.

Question 5

5. Section H.10, page 47, states the authorized Geocode 935 for procurement, yet Section H.3, page 44, mentions Geocode 937. Can USAID please clarify the applicable Geocode for this solicitation?

Answer:

As specified in the solicitation section H.10, the applicable Geocode is 935.

Question 6

6. On page 104, Environmental Compliance Cost Preparation (3), the RFP notes that for the purposes of this solicitation, offerors should reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal. Should the contractor assume that the Mission intends to approve IEE with categorical exclusions and negative determination with conditions for budgeting purposes, per section H.25?

Answer:

Yes. As a categorical exclusion has been determined for this activity, and since there is no reason to believe there will be any significant effect upon the environment, mitigating, monitoring and evaluation activities are not required.

Question 7

7. In section L.6.2 Part 2, page 98—Proposed Costs/Price (b)1, the solicitation makes reference to specific CLINs. Can USAID please specify the CLINs required on the budget?

The RFP also references an attached Budget Template. Can USAID please provide the budget template offerors should use?

Answer:

The CLINs are shown at the revised summary budget in section B.4 and at the detailed budget template which is herewith attached to the amended solicitation and

Question 8

8. Is the applicant expected to conduct (and cost for) baseline, midterm and endline project assessments?

Answer:

USAID will conduct one external evaluation. Offerors are expected to incorporate other assessments in their Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plans.

Question 9

9. Would USAID prefer to see a summary of the proposed M&E/Learning methodology in the approach section of the body of the proposal or to see the entire plan in the Annex?

Answer:

The M&E/Learning methodology should be substantively summarized in the approach section.

Question 10

10. Section L.5.4 6)(a) i. asks for past performance references for both the prime and its major subcontractor(s), specifying five. Does USAID request five from the prime and five from each major subcontractor, or five total?

USAID requests five past performance information from the prime. USAID also request five (5) past performance information from each major subcontractor whose proposed cost equals 15% or more of the offeror’s/prime’s total proposed cost or any sub-contractor who shall have primary responsibility for implementing one or more of the program components/deliverables or results areas regardless of dollar value.

Question 11

11. On page 15 the RFP states: “USAID anticipates that at least two of the themes will be fully designed, with grant processes initiated for at least one theme, by the end of Year.” Should this read ‘by the end of Year 1’?

Answer:

Yes, the sentence should read ‘by the end of Year 1’.

Question 12

12. Can USAID clarify the title of the CLA advisor in Liberia? On page 19 “USAID Liberia’s Collaborating Learning Adapting (CLA) Advisor” while on page 22 “the USAID Continuous Learning Advisor (CLA)”.

The title is Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) Advisor.

Question 13

13. Will the contractor be required to submit information on training done into TraiNet?

Answer:

Contractors are required to enter all trainings into TraiNet, whether it is in-country, third country or U.S.-based in line with the requirement of ADS 253. USAID Liberia will provide orientation on what falls within the definition of ‘training’.

Question 14

14. Sections B.2 (p. 6) and L.2 (p. 89) state that this is a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF)/Level of Effort type contract. However, Section B.8 (p. 8) states that payment of fee is dependent on receipt of deliverables and requests a fee distribution schedule. Would USAID kindly confirm whether it anticipates awarding a CPFF/Term type contract, where the offeror is expected to provide level of effort, or a CPFF/Completion type contract, where the offeror receives a fee based on completion of deliverables?

In line with FAR 16.306(d)(2), The fixed fee will be payable at the expiration of the agreed-upon period, and upon contractor statement that the level of effort specified in the contract has been expended. USAID confirms that it anticipates awarding a CPFF term type contract, where the offeror is expected to provide a level of effort.

Question 15

15. Section B.5, “Indirect Costs” (p. 6), states, “Indirect costs shall not be allowed for organizations that do not have a NICRA. All costs for organizations without a NICRA shall be budgeted and billed as direct costs.” We request that USAID provide offerors with the flexibility of entering into CPFF or Time and Materials (T&M) type subcontracts with organizations when the following conditions are met:

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

b. An organization is committed to undergoing annual audits of its indirect cost rates in accordance with the cost principles of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 31.

c. The prime contractor has the appropriate subcontract management systems in place to ensure proper administration of a CPFF or T&M subcontract.

d. An organization has established indirect cost rates, and the use of those rates is an integral part of its cost accounting standards.

With strong prime contractor oversight and the requirement for organizations to undergo annual audits in accordance with the cost principles of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 31, these contracting mechanisms serve as a tool to build the subcontractors’ capacity.

Furthermore, managing direct-cost allocation subcontracts usually results in higher financial and administrative burden for prime contractors, and reduces overall cost control because monthly costs vary significantly depending on the services the subcontractor provides. Indirect cost rate ceilings (under CPFF subcontracts) and fixed multipliers (under T&M subcontracts) reduce the government’s cost risk of potential indirect cost rate increases, and allow the prime contractor a higher level of cost control and financial and administrative oversight.

Answer:

USAID has no comment on an offerors subcontract choice of instrument. Offerors are expected to ensure that the instrument chosen is appropriate for the goods and services to be provided, and that the proposed subcontractor is responsible for performing under the terms of the subcontract.

Question 16

16. Objective 4 of Section C.3.2, “Detailed Work Requirements,” on page 20 lists its underlying purposes in four bullet points. Would USAID please confirm that it intended the first two bullets, quoted below, to be separate?

a. To provide a platform for dialogue among partners to develop a common stance, and among partners and entities targeted for change objectives on contentious issues related to identified reform initiatives

b. To provide a platform for dialogue among partners on contentious issues such as issues related to targeted reforms and to develop a common stance

The second bullet point is an error, and has been removed in the amended RFP.

Question 17

17. Section C.3.2 (p. 15) states, “USAID anticipates that at least two of the themes will be fully designed, with grant processes initiated for at least one them, by the end of Year.” Would USAID kindly confirm that this refers to Year 1?

Please see response to Question #11.

Question 18

18. Would USAID consider allowing offerors to use established Letters of Credit (through the Department of Health and Human Services) to fund grants under contract in order to streamline and more efficiently finance grant advances?

No.

Question 19

19. Section H.2(c)(1) on page 43 states that annual salary increases for U.S. expatriates shall not total more than 3 percent. This limitation seems to conflict with AIDAR 752.7007, incorporated in H.1 of the contract, which states, “direct compensation of the Contractor’s personnel will be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices.” Would USAID consider changing the percentage to “TBD” and incorporating a rate that is consistent with the contractor’s established policies, procedures, and practices upon award?

Compensation should be in accordance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures and practices and the cost principles of said contract. However, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to review such policies and practices to ensure fairness and reasonableness. The requirement of 3% salary increase is in line with policy directive AAPD 06-07 AIDAR, APPENDIX D: CONTRACT BUDGET, SALARY DETERMINATIONS AND SALARY INCREASES.

Question 20

20. Section H.12 (p. 47) states, “A 6-day workweek shall be authorized only on a case-by-case basis with prior approval from the Contracting Officer.” In order to maximize the time of short- termers while in the field, to more accurately budget the work, and to reduce costs, would USAID consider revising this section to allow for a 6-day workweek for short-term technical assistance?

USAID will allow for a six day work week for Short Term technical assistance.

Question 21

21. Section L.5 (III. Executive Summary) on page 93 states, “The Offeror shall also specify the proposed start date and the end date.” Would USAID provide further information on when it anticipates awarding this contract?

Answer USAID expects to award this contract on or about August 2015.

Question 22

22. Section B.5 (p. 5) defines a major subcontractor as one “expected to perform at least 20% or more of the technical effort,” whereas Section L.5.6(a) (p. 96) defines a major subcontractor as one whose “proposed cost equals 15% or more of the Offeror’s total proposed cost.” Would USAID please confirm that the definition included in B.5 is the governing one?

Section B.5 (p.5) and L.5.6(a) (p.96) are correct.

Question 23

23. Section L.5.4 (p. 96), states that offerors shall provide past performance information for itself and each major subcontractor on five (5) of the most recent and relevant awards for efforts similar to the work in the subject proposal. Would USAID please confirm that the prime contractor can provide up to five references and that each major subcontractor can include up to five references?

Please see response to Question #10.

Question 24

24. Section L.6.2(b)(1) (p. 98) refers to an attached Budget Template, which was not received. Would USAID please provide this template?

Answer

The Budget Template is provided as an attachment to the amended solicitation at Section J.

Questions 25

25. The USAID/Liberia Branding and Marking Plan Template, referenced in Section L.7

(p. 102), was not attached to the RFP. Would USAID kindly provide this attachment?

Answer:

The Branding and Marking Plan Template is attached to the amend solicitation and is referenced at Section J..

Question 26

26. Section M does not include cost proposal evaluation information. Would USAID kindly provide this section?

Cost Proposal evaluation information has now been included under section M.

Question 27

27. In Section M.1 (p. 105), USAID requires the offeror to include a risk analysis and monitoring methodology. Does USAID/Liberia have an existing framework that would be preferable for offerors to use?

Offerors are requested to present their preferred framework.

Question 28

28. On page 10, the RfP states: "Liberian CSOs have been reluctant to work with other types of organizational forms such as organized labor and informal trade associations, professional associations, faith communities, public interest and service delivery Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and community-based groups." How does USAID envision the distinction in the context of LAVI between CSOs and ‘public interest and service delivery Non-Governmental Organizations’?

CSO in this context is used as an inclusive term. Public interest and service delivery Non-Governmental Organizations is one type of CSO.

Question 29

29. On page 11, the RfP states: “Approximately 85 percent of CSOs surveyed in a recent national mapping exercise do not receive external sponsorship of any kind.” Could USAID name the organization that conducted the survey and could it share the survey report with us?

Answer:

The reference is: The Analysis of the Mapping Study of Civil Society Organizations in Liberia: The Major Findings, Key issues and Recommendations.

Prepared by Governance Commission and Civil Society Organizations, November 2012. The report is provided and is attached to the amended solicitation and

Question 30

30. On page 14, the RfP mentions the Integrated Health Project (2014 - 2019). Could USAID provide some information about this project as we couldn’t find any information about it?

In line with USAID’s project design guidelines, the Integrated Health Project is comprised of multiple awards supporting the CDCS Results Framework, Development Objective 3: Improved health status of Liberians. The major awards under the Integrated Health Project are: Advancing Community- based Services (PACS), Collaborative Support for Health (CSH), a government to government activity supporting the Ministry of Health, and a government to government activity for water and sanitation interventions.

Question 31

31. On page 15, the RfP refers to the reform of marketplace management. Can USAID clarify what does ‘marketplace management’ refer to, in particular in the Liberian context?

Answer:

Marketplace management refers to local, physical marketplaces, largely dominated by informal sector business people and local trade associations.

Please see response to Question # 55, below.

Question 32

32. Please clarify if USAID anticipates that the grants that LAVI is expected to award under Objective 1 will be awarded to both nonprofit organizations (including CSOs and/or professional associations and/or registered community organizations) and public institutions that are working on a specific policy reform.

Potentially yes, contingent on the thematic issues selected and the strategies defined to address them.

Question 33

33. If possible, please clarify if USAID envisions that grants under Objective 1 will be grants to one coalition/network that will in turn divide the budget among several member organizations, or if they should be direct grants to several CSOs that coordinate their efforts on the specific policy reform.

Answer:

This will be contingent on the theory of change developed for each thematic window, and the actors to be supported. In most cases, USAID does not foresee a single coalition handling all the sub-grants.

Question 34

34. On pages 22 and 23, the RfP describes grants to public institutions and refers to ADS 302.3.4.13(c): “The total value of GUCs provided to any particular GOL entity under the prime contract will not exceed $300,000 for the duration of the prime contract.” If possible, please, provide more information on the types of assistance that USAID envisions under LAVI’s grants to GOL institutions. For example, will this include salary supplement for GOL officials that engage directly in efforts that contribute to advance policy reforms to be supported by LAVI?

USAID envisions that GUCs provided to GoL institutions, if any, will support activity implementation. GUCs will not cover recurrent costs, or salary supplements.

Question 35

35. In page 31, the RfP states: “All data should be disaggregated by gender, disability, and age, whenever applicable.” Is the definition of disability in line with American with Disabilities Act or some other criteria?

Answer:

Where relevant, implementing partners should use locally relevant definitions of disability, based on beneficiary self-identification.

Question 36

36. Could USAID provide clarification about the level of detail required for the draft M&E Plan (including page length guidance)?

Please refer to Section M. The M&E and Learning approach is integral to the overall success of the activity. Offerors are encouraged to address their methodologies in both the technical approach and the Annex.

Question 37

37. Based on USAID’s assessment, could USAID clarify what is the adequacy of IT/mobile infrastructure for conducting remote data collection (including likely need for local capacity building for use of simple technologies) in Liberia?

Answer:

USAID encourages digitizing data collection as much as possible, as described in ADS

579. There is approximately 80% 2G coverage of population, although the quality of coverage is variable. Please see USAID's mobile coverage map for the Ebola response for a visual representation of geographical coverage. Mobile technology literacy is low, and capacity building will be necessary.

Please follow the link below for geographical coverage:

\http://usaid.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e5f347e0951b416ca4ed bc907458ebe2&webmap=f99d0e71954a4001b9627537a6b7ecb5

Question 38

38. What is the level of funding (as a % of the overall contract value or as an upper ceiling) that USAID envisions to be spent under LAVI for M&E?

Ensuring that learning and methodologies are developed and applied by other development actors is one of the core program objectives. Adequate investment in M&E and learning is also necessary for other results to be achieved. USAID anticipates a minimum of 15-20%, but offerors are requested to propose what they think is most appropriate.

Question 39

39. Can USAID please provide an estimated start date for this project?

Please see answer to question number 21

Question 40

40. H3. Source and Nationality Requirements states geographic code 937 as the authorized source for procurement unless otherwise specified. H.10 Authorized Geographic code states code 935 for procurement of goods and services. Please confirm the geographic code is 935.

Please see answer to question number 5 http://usaid.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicInformation/index.html?appid=931e3931d4b449208f23d58d1df42c80 http://usaid.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e5f347e0951b416ca4edbc907458ebe2&webmap=f99d0e71954a4001b9627537a6b7ecb5 http://usaid.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e5f347e0951b416ca4edbc907458ebe2&webmap=f99d0e71954a4001b9627537a6b7ecb5

Question 41

41. Please confirm whether Section L-9, Environmental Compliance Cost Preparation is applicable to this RFP.

See response to Question number6.

Question 42

42. Can USAID please provide a local compensation plan?

Answer:

The local compensation plan table is provided as an attachment to the solicitation and referenced at Section J.

Question 43

43. Section L 5 Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Proposal states that the technical proposal will include a section D Past Performance. However, USAID later indicates that Past Performance References should be included in Annex F. Can USAID please clarify whether a separate past performance section should be included within the 30 page limit for the Technical Proposal?

Answer:

A summary of past performance should be included in the 30 page limit for the Technical Proposal. The more detailed past performance references should be in Annex F.

Question 44

44. Section L.5.4. includes more than one list of items that should be included in the past performance references. Can USAID please clarify which items should be included in the past performance references?

Please include all the items that are mentioned in Section L.5.4

Question 45

45. Section M Technical Evaluation Criteria does not include percentage and/or point values for each evaluation criteria. Can USAID please clarify what point/percentage criteria will be used in the evaluation of offers?

Answer:

The technical evaluation factors are ranked in order of importance with criteria 1 considered more important than criteria 2, and so on. Criteria 2 and 3 are considered equally important. The elements listed under each criteria are not ranked in any order of importance and instead will be evaluated as a whole in determining the evaluation for each evaluation criteria. Please note that USAID will use an adjectival rating system to rate each evaluation factor. The adjectival rating for each criteria will be: Outstanding / Good / Acceptable / Marginal / Unacceptable. The definitions for the adjectival ratings are:

OUTSTANDING. The proposal exceeds the fullest expectations of the Government.

The offeror has convincingly demonstrated that the evaluation requirements have been analyzed, evaluated, and should result in an outstanding, effective, efficient, and economical performance under the contract. An assigned rating within "outstanding" indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor), the proposal demonstrates an “outstanding” understanding of the factor, contains essentially no weaknesses, and exceeds the fullest expectations of the Government.

VERY GOOD. The proposal demonstrates a level of effort that fully meets the evaluation’s requirements and that this effort has produced, or could produce, results which should prove to be substantially beneficial to the project. The proposal may or may not have any weaknesses. Fulfilling the definition of "very good" indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor), the proposal demonstrates a level of effort that fully meets the evaluation’s requirements and that this effort has produced, or could produce, results which should prove to be substantially beneficial to the project.

GOOD. The proposal meets the requirements. The proposal may contain weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses that are correctable but no deficiencies. An assigned rating of “good” indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor), the proposal demonstrates a “good” understanding of the factor. If any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses are noted, they should not seriously affect the offeror's performance.

MARGINAL. The proposal demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirements and approach and marginally meets the minimum evaluation standard.

The proposal contains weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses and may contain deficiencies. If deficiencies exist, they may be correctable. A rating of "marginal" indicates that, in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor), the proposal marginally meets the standard for minimal but acceptable performance. The offeror may complete the assigned tasks; however, there is at least a moderate risk that the offeror will not be successful.

UNACCEPTABLE. The proposal fails to meet a minimum requirement or contains a major deficiency or major deficiencies. The proposal is incomplete, vague, incompatible, incomprehensible, or incorrect as to be unacceptable. The evaluator feels that the deficiency or deficiencies is/are uncorrectable without a major revision of the proposal. The assignment of a rating within the bounds of "unacceptable" indicates that in terms of the specific factor (or subfactor) the proposal fails to meet performance or capability standards. The specific factor to be evaluated contains deficiencies.

Question 46

46. Does USAID envision that LAVI will provide support to the same organizations that were supported by the CSML program, and in particular, to the six organizations that provided capacity development services during CSML?

Answer:

Organizations will be selected for support based on the extent to which this support will contribute to the achievement of Objectives. It is anticipated that there will be continuity of support to some organizations supported by CSML, although this is not pre-determined by USAID.

Question 47

47. The RFP mentions a plug figure for grants of $4.5M on page 6, but page 23 notes that grants should comprise 25% of the total contract price. Can USAID please confirm which option offerors should use?

Offerors may use 25% of the total contract price as the estimate.

Question 48

48. For personnel qualifications, may additional years of experience substitute for an advanced degree, thereby opening the positions to a greater number of Liberian candidates?

Answer:

USAID encourages an advanced degree for all key personnel. We also encourage qualified Liberian candidates. Recognizing the reality of a lack of opportunities for master’s degrees, we would consider relevant bachelor’s degrees combined with five

(5) additional years of progressively responsible relevant professional experience. A successful candidate with a bachelor’s degree should have five (5) years of progressive professional experience (in addition to the stated requirements) to make up for the lack of an advanced degree.

Question 49

49. Page 25, Section C.5 states that "up to three key personnel may be international staff."

Would USAID kindly consider allowing one of the three international staff to be non- Key Personnel, if a suitable CCN candidate is identified as a Key Personnel?

Answer:

USAID does not require key personnel to be international staff. Offerors may propose one of the three international staff to be non-Key Personnel.

Question 50

50. Would it be possible for USAID to inform bidders of an approximate award date for the LAVI contract?

Please see answer to question number 21.

Question 51

51. Section B.2 and L.2 indicate that the Government contemplates awarding a CPFF/Level of Effort contract resulting from this solicitation. Section B.8, however, indicates that the fee will be based on completion of the deliverables described in Section F. Further, Section B.8 referenced FAR 16.306(d) which covers both Completion (under Paragraph [1]) and Term (under Paragraph [2]). Could USAID please clarify which type of award is anticipated and revise the solicitation accordingly (Sections B.2, B.8, and L.2)?

Please see answer to question number 4 and 14.

Question 52

52. Can USAID provide the current Local Compensation Plan (LCP)?

Please see answer to question number 42.

Question 53

53. C.3.4 Management and Administrative Services (1) Award Amount Thresholds * Non-Governmental Organizations: The total value of an individual grant to a U.S.

NGO must not exceed $100,000. This limitation does not apply to grant awards to non-U.S. NGOs. Please clarify the intention of the above referenced section of the

RFP –

a. Is it intended to limit partnership opportunities at the proposal stage – e.g. US

NGOs can only subcontract for a total of $100,000 to a prime awardee at the proposal stage?

b. Is it intended to ensure that the subgrant portion of the project (e.g. during the implementation phase) is directed mainly at Liberian organizations?

c. Other intention?

Per page 23 of the RFP, this clause is in compliance with ADS 302.3.4.13 (c). The limitation applies to GUCs, not to sub-contracting relationships.

Question 54

54. Page 15: Can USAID please specify by the end of which year it would like at least two themes to be fully designed?

Please see response to Question # number 1.

Question 55

55. Page 15: Is USAID referring to the national marketplace or to decisions about locating and provisioning Liberian markets involved at the petty commerce level in proposing marketplace management as a theme? Does it mean the management of the business regulatory and enabling environment, the informal economy, or other marketplaces?

Answer:

Marketplace management is an illustrative example. USAID is not proposing it as a theme. Please see response to Question #31, above.

Question 56

56. Page 17: Illustrative activities of objective 1 include selecting themes for the grant fund, commission scoping exercises, and consultations to ensure that there is a full understanding of the political economy surrounding each theme. This seems to imply that the political economy study would only be commissioned after the themes are selected, yet, other sections imply that the political economy study should be one of the bases for the selection of the themes, and therefore develop prior to the selection of themes. Can USAID please clarify this point?

Offerors are encouraged to propose their methodology, which USAID anticipates will be iterative.

Question 57

57. Questions Regarding the Advisory Council on P. 22

• The RFP notes that the “contractor will hold two strategic review sessions each year, one following the submission of the annual progress report and one following submission of the annual work plan.” At page 34, the RFP states that the Advisory Council (AC) should meet quarterly. Since no other meeting requirements are stated, is it assumed that the AC will meet at least quarterly to review periodic reports and/or address specific issues and could meet more frequently if deemed necessary

Answer:

The AC is anticipated to meet at least quarterly. Two of the four quarterly meetings will address the annual progress report and the work plan. The AC could meet more frequently.

Question

• The RFP says members will elect a chair and that the COR will serve as Secretary to the AC. If members elect the Chair, then the implication is that the Secretary reports to the elected chair. Is that what USAID intends?

The Secretary will provide organizational and logistical support to the AC.

Question

• The RFP says AC members will elect a chair but that “Final decision-making will remain with USAID.” What is the role of the elected Chair? Does the chair set the agenda or does

USAID?

Answer:

The Chair sets the agenda in consultation with USAID, and USAID concurs.

Question

• The RFP states that the AC is being created: “…to encourage local ownership and high-level strategic oversight of the program…” Does USAID intend to give the AC responsibility for LAVI “strategic oversight” or does it intend for the AC to provide strategic advice?

Answer:

USAID intends for the AC to provide guidance on overall strategic direction.

Question

• It is stated that the Advisory Council will review periodic reports - can USAID confirm that it does not include the Contractor’s quarterly reports?

The Advisory Council will review Contractor progress reports.

Question

• Can USAID please confirm that the Offerors are not expected to name the members of the AC in their proposals and that the members of the AC will only be designated after the award?

Answer:

Members of the Advisory Council will be designated after the award.

Question

• Among the three Liberians to be appointed to the Project Advisory Council, does USAID anticipate that any will be representative of business, labor, or government at some level?

Page 22 of the RFP states: “Liberian Members will serve in their individual capacities except for those representing USAID or another donor”.

Question 58

58. Page 23: Does USAID expect Partner Government Entities to undergo PFM RAF Stage 2 assessments before receiving grant funds? If yes, will LAVI carry out these assessments?

Answer:

Some partner government entities may require PFMRAF assessments. If so, USAID will carry out the assessment.

Question 59

59. Page 43: Provision H(1) of the RFP states that salary administration should be in accordance with the contractors established policies. Provision H(2)c(2) says that raises are limited to an annual raise not to exceed 3%. These provisions appear to be in conflict. Our policy is to administer a yearly raise pool, tied to the annual performance rating, of 1-6%.

How would USAID envision these two provisions to be resolved?

Please see answer to question number 19.

Question 60

60. Page 91: Can USAID please confirm that the email to use for final submission is MonroviaUSAIDSolicita@usaid.gov?

Answer:

USAID confirms that the correct email address is liberiaoaa@usaid.gov , elamin@usaid.gov and mmwadime@usaid.gov .

Question 61

61. Page 92, (c): Can USAID please confirm that the personnel statements of availability mentioned on page 92 can be part of the personnel letters of commitment mentioned on page 93 (Annex A)?

Personnel statements of availability is used interchangeably with personnel letters of commitment in the RFP.

Question 62

62. Page 93: For Annex E, does USAID require a one-page biography and skill sets for each STTA person named or STTA biographies and skill sets combined onto one page?

Answer:

Please provide a one page biography and skill set summary for each STTA person.

mailto:MonroviaUSAIDSolicita@usaid.gov mailto:liberiaoaa@usaid.gov mailto:elamin@usaid.gov mailto:mmwadime@usaid.gov

Question 63

63. Page 94: Can USAID please clarify whether the learning agenda outlining the most critical knowledge gaps should be included as part of the technical narrative, or as an attachment?

The learning agenda should be included as part of the technical narrative.

Question 64

64. Page 96: Can USAID please confirm that offerors may submit five past performance references for the prime and five for each subcontractor and not five total?

Please see answer to question number 10.

Question 65

65. Page 98: USAID indicated that it would like Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet on Form AID 1420-17 to be completed for all proposed staff. Would USAID like these to be attached to the cost proposal?

Answer:

USAID confirms that Contractor Employee Biographical Data Sheet on Form AID 1420-17 be attached to the cost proposal.

Question 66

66. Page 98: The RFP references an attached budget template; however no budget template was attached to the solicitation. Could USAID kindly confirm that contractors may use their own template as long as it aligns with the requirements of the RFP?

Answer:

Please see answer to question number 7. USAID confirms that Contractors may use their own template as long as they align with the requirement of the RFP and attached budget template.

Question 67

67. Page 102: The RFP references the USAID/Liberia BIP and Marking Plan template in attachment J, however no attachment was included in the solicitation. Could USAID kindly provide offerors with the BIP and marking plan template?

Answer Please see answer to question 25.

Question 68

68. On page 23, the RFP mentions that individual grants to US NGOs must not exceed $100,000. Is there any limit to the amount of funding that can be sub-contracted to US

Small Business or US based non-profit?

There is no limit to the amount of funding that can be sub-contracted to a US Small Business or US based non-profit.

Question 69

69. Are there any conflict of interest restrictions that would prevent the winner from also holding another contract issued by the Mission? If so, is it possible to establish a firewall that addresses any potential conflict of interest issues?

Answer:

No conflict of interest issues are contemplated with this RFP.

Question 70

70. Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement?

USAID confirms that this is a new requirement.

Part A. Specific changes to SOL-669-15-000014 LAVI is summarized as follows: